Brethren Reformation

A goal for me would be to discuss the Bible with fellow Christians more often than anything else. Truly, my eyes are apt to glaze over when it comes to discussing the latest in sports or other interests fueled by C19H28O. Call me boring or stodgy: I could not care less. I want to discuss Christ, how He saved us, and how we become glorified with him.

Last Thursday, a fulfilling contribution to that goal was made after we finished our evening Bible study early at 7:45pm. It was hot and sticky, and we were pouring with sweat since the air conditioning was out of commission. I especially wanted a few minutes to meet and talk with a first-time visitor who had come, and figured that the heat would quickly drive her away. This was a middle-aged single lady we did not know, who found us via a Google search. To my delight, over two hours later, several of us finished an engaging conversation with her on a variety of biblical subjects.

Among the subjects she broached was the concept of the Covenants and Dispensationalism. Of her own study, she had already come to the same conclusion that many of us have come to: dispensationalism is bereft of redeeming value, other than to illustrate that we aren’t sacrificing animals anymore, and perhaps a couple of other salient points (which don’t require “systematic dispensationalism” to understand anyway.)

Our visitor was saved as an adult, and her church experience was rather limited. Given the church she mentioned, it is clear she was indoctrinated with a typical dispensational and mushy-election view. Of her own study, however, she realized that the Bible was teaching what is called the “Doctrines of Grace”, and that such teaching was incompatible with systematic dispensationalism.

I cannot count the frustrating hours I have conversed on this subject with pastors who act as if you are heretically destroying an inviolable doctrine when you suggest that dispensationalism is found wanting. But in spite of that, I never cease to be amazed when I run into Christians who have studied to know the Word of God, and have been brought to the understanding that systematic dispensationalism is fundamentally contrived, biblically conflicting, and ultimately destructive to the Doctrines of Grace. Personally, I am convinced that dispensationalism is a kind of “fertilizer”, which promoted the germination of apostasy and lukewarmness we see in today’s Church.

The most encouraging thing in our discussion last Thursday was that our visitor was clearly had a desire to see Christ in every passage of the Bible, and at the center of everything in her theology.

In order to get the study of God (which is “theology”) right, the issue of the covenant-fulfilling work of Christ must be paramount. Systematic dispensationalism dilutes the covenant work of Christ, not by its facts but by its logic. It develops a mutually exclusive ideology that fractures the relationship of Law and Grace, and then establishes its own flavor of replacement theology by unbiblically separating the Church from Israel. In the end, a proper and fluidic understanding of the three cardinal works of God – justification, sanctification and glorification — are eroded.

All of the Bible is permeated with the truth of Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the Old Testament covenants in every respect as they relate to regeneration, election, atonement, grace and preservation. During the discussion with our visitor, we briefly commented on how Christians seem to fall into an incongruent view that the Old Testament is “law” and the New Testament is “grace”, instead of the New Testament being the record of how the Law was graciously fulfilled by Christ, and how we live in that fulfillment. The Law, which is nothing less and nothing more than God’s righteous standard of holiness and blamelessness, is the single measure for any soul that might argue for a place in the Kingdom of God. The connecting thread between the Testaments is faith, demanding a biblical view that teaches us that we can only meet the standard of God’s persistent Law through the persistent & overcoming blood of Christ. Heaven and earth have not passed away yet, so neither has one stroke of the Law. The standard persists, and no one meets the standard unless he is washed in the blood of the Lamb. That is precisely what we mean when we refer to Christ as our “substitute”.The Law still must be met, and He fulfills the Law for us. When they imbibe systematic dispensationalism, people-in-the-pew are cursed with a mental block preventing them from understanding the harmonious relationship of Law and Grace in salvation. They will, more often than not, suggest that the Old Testament saints were saved in a wholly different manner than New Testament saints.

So that has been on my mind since last Thursday. I enjoy conversations with Christians who can sit for a couple of hours from time-to-time and engage about Christ’s work in saving us. These are conversations that matter. On the Day of Christ, millions of Christians will disdain and pity the hours they spent doing anything but studying God. I thank God for, and appreciate, our visitor and her tenacious love for the Word.

Alexander Mack’s departure from the Reformed Church of Germany was a little late in terms of the Reformation-proper, but when the time came to make decisions for the Truth, he apparantly did not wrangle with his conscience for very long. The light shone brightly for and through Mack, illuminating some things in the Reformed Church that did not square with the Bible itself.

We note that Alexander Mack was born in 1679 and died in 1735 at the age of 55. At the age of 26, he drew his line in the sand, spending the next 29 years sorting through the issues of the day, shepherding his family, and pastoring other Christians into a more conforming model of the New Testament church. He was willing to repudiate some of the most sacred and established teachings of Reformed Church authority, not the least of which was paedobaptism.

Alexander Mack was not a part of the birth of Anabaptistm, but lived during the maturing of Anabaptist orthopraxy 180 years after the radical Anabaptist movement began. The reason this is important is because reformation – i.e., the Church’s sanctification, which is part-and-parcel of our individual Romans 12:2 transformation — is a continuing process among us, generation after generation, while we are yet corruptible on this earth. I believe that each group (sometimes we call them “denominations”) of true Christians represent a unique part of Christ’s body, operating under His headship. From time to time, as we remain corruptible, the body becomes infected, and we writhe over the resulting pain and turmoil. But Christ is building His Church — not “our” church — and activities of purification must take place from time to time to be rid of those infections. This is Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 11:16 where he says, “there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (ESV).

The late Kenneth I. Morse wrote a concise summary of the events surrounding Alexander Mack’s departure from the Reformed Church in Germany. I quote from it briefly, for the purpose of drawing attention to certain elements of Mack’s experience in the mid-18th century, which I think parallel certain events today (emphasis added):

“Born in Schriesheim in the Palatinate, Mack was baptized on July 27, 1679, by Ludgwig Agricola, pastor of the local Reformed Church, and christened Alexander in honor of his uncle Alexander Fillbrun. … On Jan. 18, 1701, he married Anna Margarethe Kling, from a prominent Schriesheim family. … About 1705, they became devoted followers of Ernst Christoph Hochmann von Hochenau, a Radical Pietist and noted Separatist. Mack began holding illegal Bible study and prayer services in his home.

They held service in Mack’s home, preached in the streets, and distributed literature to the village citizens. The success of this mission, with its joyful contagiousness, caused the Reformed Church council, or consistory, at Heidelberg to petition the government to stop “this evil before it spreads further.”

Consistory, by definition, refers to council of the assembly; they are that special group of representatives in whom the trust of the congregation is vested for truthful, proper and godly leadership. Most churches have a consistory: we call them Elders, Council members, Official Board members, Standing Committee members, etc.

Sometimes the consistory drifts into error, and ends up misleading the people.

Mack’s activities were in conflict with the erroneous teaching of the consistory, causing them to appeal to their various documents & judicial process (not the Bible) in order to put a stop to them. In those days, the Reformed Church linked arms with the State for prosecuting violations of church law. But the government was not the reason there were problems in the Reformed Church. Pay special attention to Mack’s activities, which were called “evil” by the Reformed Church’s “standing committee”:

• Bible studies in the home
• Prayer services in the home
• Preaching in the street
• Distributing literature

.
And, of course, the preeminent illegal activity, even violently despised a century earlier by John Calvin himself, was the practice of “believer’s baptism”.

Where in the Bible can any of the activities listed above ever be constrained and rejected as “illegal” or contrary to “gospel order” when practiced by any Christian? In fact, no Christian, or group of Christians, can be rightly censured for studying the Bible in any setting outside of the church worship service. We know this by Luke’s record of the Bereans who were commended for checking the Apostle Paul’s doctrine against the scripture daily, to see if it was accurate (Acts 7:11). In that exemplary case, we are not talking about a church who was validating a young, non-apostolic preacher like Timothy or Titus. Rather, the Berean church was examining the teaching of a genuine Apostle to see if his teaching was true. The group of Bereans searched the scriptures daily, and Acts 17:12 indicates that they believed in large quantity. Predictably, right on the heels of this belief, came the Judaizers — the legalists of the day – who descended upon the church districts to censure Paul and his teaching (Acts 17:13).

When Christians are not permitted by the church to obediently do the things Christians are called to do, it is time to leave that church. When church leaders equate the authority of the church with the authority of Christ and His Word, it is time to leave that church. When church leaders stubbornly advocate heresy or corruption in the church, such as the Church of the Brethren’s incessant, milquetoast handling of homosexuality, it is time to leave that church. Alexander Mack knew when it was time to leave, and we remain grateful to this day for his faithfulness, boldness and sacrifice.

God is a jealous God, and it is an awful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God, especially when His jealousy is aroused. Those who would dare to sidle up to God, thinking equality with Him is a thing to be grasped, and brazenly defend their error in the Church are in dangerous territory. It is wise not to hang around them for very long.

The Resolved Conference is now underway. You can click Live Stream to register for free and connect to the video feed.

Note: The live music portions of the conference cannot be streamed because it will violate copyright restrictions. (Imagine that: Christian worship restricted by man’s law and the systems of monetary income. I wonder if this qualifies a robbing God? But I digress….)

The conference is in California on Pacific Time (PT). The speakers and schedule are as follows:

Friday, June 12
8pm PT/11pm ET – Rick Holland

Saturday, June 13
11am PT / 2 pm ET – Steve Lawson
6pm PT/ 9pm ET – C.J. Mahaney

Sunday, June 14
11am / 2pm ET- Steve Lawson
5pm PT / 8pm ET – John MacArthur
7pm PT / 10pm ET – John Piper

Monday, June 15
9am PT / 12pm ET – Rick Holland
11am PT / 2pm ET- John MacArthur
5pm PT / 8pm ET – C.J. Mahaney
7pm PT / 10pm ET- John Piper

Last Sunday night, I was blessed to hear a sermon on the subject of “discernment”, preached at the Bear Creek Old German Baptist Brethren church. The minister deluged us with scripture, presenting a thorough exposition of God’s desire that we be a discerning people, as well showing us that God equips us to be what He wants us to be. In our flesh, the minister pointed out, we are inclined to “do to become”, but in the power of the Holy Spirt we are transformed so that we “become in order to do”. This transformation is central to understanding the Apostle John’s declaration that have been given the right, or power, to become sons of God (John 1:12).

Now I cannot transcribe that sermon here, so it might be hard to fully articulate the connection I am about to make; suffice it to say, the subject alone — discernment — should speak for itself.

Recently, the media once again pulled back the curtains to reveal another scandal where the outward appearance of a “good” couple has belied the truth of the matter. Jon and Kate Gosselin of the popular “Jon & Kate plus Eight” television show are entangled in what appears to be some measure of adultery on both sides. The family-oriented television show is now stained with the sordid details of their private lives, photographs and all. One thing is sure: this predicament didn’t just happen overnight.

Back in February and March of this year, the BMH Editor Blog highlighted two Grace Brethren churches (here and here) who used their worship services to highlight the popular television couple. The Gateway Grace Community Church in Parkesburg, PA hosted Kate Gosselin, and the Elk Creek Church in West Grove, PA hosted both Jon & Kate. These events were billed as a way of connecting with the community.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that the Gosselins were used to draw a crowd. And it is also fair to say, once again, that pastors have ended up embarrassing Jesus Christ and His Church.

Notably, the Elk Creek church’s presentation with the Gosselins was during the month of March. According to the Us Magazine article quoted by FoxNews,

“as Kate celebrated last March with her kids at the Ace of Cakes’ kitchen, Jon was photographed on a booze and drug-filled trip to Park City, Utah with 23-year-old Deanna Hummel, the local school-teacher alleged to be his mistress.”

On March 30, the pastor of the Elk Creek Church was supposedly going to interview the Gosselins and “ask them about the role of their faith and how that plays out in their lifestyle.” So within a week or two of his alleged trespass, Jon Gosselin was center stage, yet uncaught and unrepentant, in a Grace Brethren worship service.

These are poster-churches for the FGBC. So I ask, “where is the discernment?” Over the past couple of years, we have seen Grace Brethren Churches dabble in the heresy of Brian McLaren, the humanism of Bono, other various histrionics, and now the moral fakery of Jon & Kate Gosselin. I can only imagine the rebuff of the pastor if someone would have suggested that the church cancel the Jon & Kate event and replace it with a simple sermon about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Churches all over this country have stepped into the quicksand of moral pragmatism; i.e., we defer to the notion that there is a basic goodness in all persons, and we just need to “connect” with people and culture, affirming them where they are right now in life. Pastors are making it easy to assume that all views, opinions, and insights matter, and that God sort of overlooks all our “messed up” behavior. We are one-degree from instilling, by inference, the false hope and heresy of universal restoration. If churches stay on this path, it will become impossible to retain any audience that will tolerate the subjects of hell and repentance. Bono certainly doesn’t believe in hell (read “Bono in Conversation“) and yet he was allowed to command the attention of another Grace Brethren church on the subject of poverty and AIDS.

If we have the power to become sons of God, why do we need Bono or Jon & Kate?

Discernment is on the way out, and that’s because we have ceased (or all-but-ceased) to transform according to Romans 12:2. We want to conform to what the world wants and thinks it can achieve on its own. We believe in a “charmed christianity”, where we say the right words and presto: God works a “miracle”. We feign a certain attitude and shazaam: everything turns out all right in this world.

I am afraid that pastors have very little time left to rectify this grievous condition. We need God’s mind in our discernment, and we need to act on what we discern.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Blip.tv video.

Thanks to Jeff Moore for finding this.

Alexander Mack, the early Brethren leader who modeled the query-and-answer method of church counsel in his own writings, wrote this in 1715:

“As soon, however, as this spirit – that is, the spirit of dissension – becomes master of those who do not know it, the person is slowly but surely separated inwardly from peace and love toward his fellow members. He takes offense, now against this, then against that, and gradually loses the true power of faith.”

Mack continues,

“If the person…listens to the false and deceitful spirit which disguises itself as an angel of light, he will be made to think himself so clever and wise that he sees with keen eyes all of the faults of his fellow members, is repelled and offended by them, and afterwards begins to censure them as well as the entire congregation.”

So there you have it, straight from one who was at the beginning of Brethren history and who stood against aberrant presbyterian hierarchy.

The fruit of this person is observed when he censures those who question whether he is dissenting from the Gospel. To censure means “to officially reprimand”, and it commonly involves silencing anyone who would disagree with the de facto authority. When the congregation begins to examine a situation through the lens of biblical Truth, they begin to see inconsistencies in this person’s teaching, and inconsistencies between his rules and the Bible itself. So, as a matter of ideological survival, he is ultimately driven to censure the entire body and bring them into conformity with his own ideal.

Sometimes a group of men act as one man through a committee, censuring an entire congregation all at once. They advance their cause by virtue of a collective spirit of dissension. The sinful root of this dissension is a desire for authority & structural conformity, over and against mutual submission & spiritual transformation. Because of our corruptibility, men prefer their own mind, instead of the mind of Christ, and become deceived. As Mack says, he “takes offense, now against this, then against that, and gradually loses the true power of faith.” Men in the leadership of the Church, who collectively do not live by faith alone, are a powerful force against the Church.

Observe that church leaders cannot stand on the Word of God alone when the Word of God liberates them from the bondage they prefer. Men who rest in a rule-based prescription for living cannot stand on the Word of God alone because the Word is the sanctifying Truth of Christ. The Truth sets us free; if the Son should make us free, we shall be free indeed. This freedom utterly nullifies the rules of men, and calls men to live by virtue of a changed heart. Men who prefer rules cannot stand on Scripture alone.

Such men who dissent from the Word of God eventually establish an aberrant presbyterian authority to which they remarkably get “elected” and belong, and from which they actively reinforce their position. When these men see others not conforming to the rules they conform to, they find fault. This fault-finding mission tends to co-opt Matthew 18 as a weapon, grossly disjoined from its context, and the censuring process commences in full force.

Alexander Mack wisely observes that this leads to ”censuring”, no doubt manifested in giving ultimatums. While the presbytery will always say with a straight face, “We have no other creed than the New Testament”, you can be certain that there must be another creed in which a) they trust, and b) derive their power to dissent.

The matter is most serious, but the matter is fairly simple. Those who can truly lay aside everything except the Bible as their sole authority can rejoice that they trust in Scripture alone. But those who cannot lay aside everything except the Bible are, by definition, active evangelists of another gospel.

Can you identify another authority in your church which leaders attempt to place alongside the Holy Bible? If there is some co-authority like that, then the Bible is no longer holy, or “set apart”. But we know that the Bible is, in fact, holy, right? Therefore, anything placed alongside it as an authoritative source on holy living must be another gospel. We are called to preach the Word, in season and out of season. We are not permitted to preach creeds as co-authorities to the Bible. You know it is a creed when men appeal to it as an authority for defining a common faith. We ought not make judicial appeals to the Mormon’s Doctrine & Covenants; we ought not make judicial appeals to the Westminster Confession; we ought not to make judicial appeals to the Minutes of the Annual Meeting. Those are written and established creeds, among others, which distill a perspective on various beliefs, doctrines, and behaviors of people in a certain church, and we can be sure that all of them contain error.

In the words of the Apostle Paul, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9).

—–

Note: In the above article, “presbyterian” is the adjective form of the word, not the noun form as in the “Presbyterian denomination”. The word “aberrant” means “to wander or to go astray from”. Therefore, “aberrant presbyterian” means that those in authority over the church have gone astray. As Mack says, they have listened to a “false and deceitful spirit”. Thus, it is no surprise that they preach another gospel.

I read an interesting book this past weekend about “The Iams Company”, written by its former CEO, Clayton L. Mathile. Mr. Mathile rose from humble beginnings in northeastern Ohio, pursued what appeared to be a fairly ineffective college experience, and became one of our nation’s billionaires through hard work, learning from mistakes, fair play, and sound management.

My sense is that Mr. Mathile is a mildly religious man (he states that he converted to Catholicism before he married) but this book is by no means a confession of faith. It is a narrative about the fruit of his earthly works as an entrepreneur.

Clearly, he is a wise man in terms of this world. In fact, he reminds me of Jesus’ statement in Luke 16:8, “For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light” (NIV.) In Mr. Mathile we observe the prototypical American visionary of his industry, a self-starter not unlike Thomas Edison or Bill Gates. These kinds of people, and their marketing managers, do not like their message, their brand or their product meddled with, no matter how well-meaning the meddler may be.

While reading the book, my jaw fairly dropped as I read about Iams’ first sales meeting at which their key managers, distributors and some plant employees were attendees. In the parlance of Christ’s parables, Mr. Mathile is the “master” who put his servants in charge of his affairs. In this case, Mr. Mathile had put his servants in charge of presenting the “gospel” of Iams. Note the following excerpts of the event in Mr. Mathile’s own words, concerning the first “evangelistic” meeting organized by his servants:

“In front of my amazed eyes, presenters disintegrated into buffoons and ruffians. To illustrate the importance of pest control, our quality assurance manager paraded on stage wearing mouse ears and calling himself ‘Dr. Death.’ … When [a] distributors took the stage…I almost fell out of my seat. He came out barefoot and started an emotional speech about the need to be open and honest with each other and to share all your secrets.

I was livid that he would take it upon himself to decide how the brand should be positioned. … To my acute embarrassment, I felt that our most important representative…had substantially changed and no longer reflected an appropriate image for The Iams Company.

I faced him head-on. ‘The number one issue that has to be resolved is this: What are you going to do to repair damage to The Iams Company’s reputation in your marketplace?’

Shortly thereafter [executives] flew out to inform the distributor that we’d decided not to renew his distribution agreement.”

(The preceding is distilled from pages 180-183 in the book.)

Human nature — not intellectual or management prowess — took over for a while among Iams’s product evangelists. It was erosive, counter-productive, and not even close to what the master had envisioned for his own brand and product. Buffoonery was easily identified by the man whose proprietary message was being convoluted. According to Mathile, it took five years to repair the damage, most of which was among the very people they were trying to evangelize in the first place: the customer. In fact, Mathile uses the concept of “forgiveness” when describing the recovery from the erosion precipitated by the buffoons: “It was five full years before our former customers forgave Iams.”

This story is so similar to what many of us have tried to say is going on throughout evangelical churches in virtually any city in our country. The Master’s Gospel is regularly convoluted by tactic and buffoonery, executed according to human reason instead of spiritual directive, and producing acute embarrassment in the Master Himself. In many cases, if not most, it’s not even His message anymore.

As I have expressed before, this is the telltale characteristc of Laodicea, a church so full of itself that it doesn’t even know that their Master is outside of His own church knocking at the door (Rev. 3:17, 20). In fact, Laodicea is evidently so unhitched from the mission of the Master that He declares His intention to spit it out of His mouth (Rev. 3:16.) The Laodicean leaders of today are the pastors who have taken upon themsleves to decide how the message of Jesus Christ should be “positioned”.

All of this wishful wantoness about changeable methods is exactly what is not permitted by people of this world when it comes to their own evangelium. The result is simple: get the message right or you get fired. No one in this world is surprised by that standard.

But when it comes to the Church, who is going to fire a guy that is attracting and keeping people in their seats, even if he is crossing lines that should not be crossed? Who cares if his methodological licenteousness dilutes the Truth-brand, or convolutes the Gospel message? Who even knows for sure? But make no mistake: that is a more dangerous position to be in (for the pastor & the church) than Clay Mathile’s business associates who were terminated for inventing methods which changed his message and eroded his brand’s value. The ultimate problem is that less and less Christians have any heavenly-mindedness (”what danger?”), and they seem genuinely surprised (offended, even) at the suggestion that changing the method always has a direct effect on the veracity of the message. The more “human-minded” (”carnal” would be a good word) the method, the more the gospel message will be eroded. This is prototypically Laodicean; you have to be blind not to see this.

Mr. Mathile spit out the people who had convoluted the reputation and message of his brand. Too many pastors and Christians today are no more aware of their methodological infraction than Mathile’s servants were. They thought their methods were practical, pragmatic, and effective.  They contrived and blessed their own methods, just as churches are doing! Pride of methodological ownership — when you are not the owner of the message – is a deceptive and beguiling thing. This, too, is paralleled in the Laodicean church: they thought their own, internal resources were absolutely effective & sufficient (Rev. 3:17).  But Jesus had no use for them or their methods, which He knew were ultimately ineffective & insufficient (Rev. 3:15-16).

The most sobering thing about “the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light” is the context of Luke 16. Jesus was taking on the shepherds of Israel and conducting a forensic review of them, in parable form. Jesus Christ, much more than Clay Mathile, despises the malignment of His Word by His servants, and He will hold His servants accountable.

Malignment of God’s Word through human method is a line one should dare not cross, and if he has crossed it he must repent (Rev. 3:19.) Jesus knows if and when that line has been crossed, even if we deny it, or present some rational justification for it. Jesus knows, and this is why Paul was so meticulous and somber in his instruction to Titus and Timothy (see Titus 2; 1 Tim 6; 2 Tim. 3 & 4.)

When Jesus was posed with questions, He gave answers that perplexed the scribes and pharisees. I recently read a number of questions, one of which has the potential for perplexity – considering its Brethren context.

The question reads, “Can we unite on the scriptural truth that the church should never be elevated to a place of equality with Jesus Christ? (Col 2:6-10; Eph 1:22-23)”

To answer in the negative denies the veracity of a sister’s head covering, according to 1 Cor. 11:6-10. To answer yes is to affirm it.

So the question is very good: “Can we unite on the scriptural truth?”  Indeed, the biblicists will be able to; the legalists will not.

I am finishing an out-of-print book by Jim Bakker written in 1998 called, “Prosperity and the Coming Apocalypse“. Much of the book is more or less testimonial, and I wish to give Mr. Bakker the benefit of the doubt in terms of his desire to repudiate much of his past. Words mean something, and his words, at least back then, are very clear about the false gospel and sin of his pre-prison life.

One particular chapter, regarding “Y2K”, rewound my brain back to 1999. I remember Y2K well, working then as a Systems Software Engineer. Bakker’s chapter on the subject was not particularly sensational, but echoed most of the same suppositions other religious mouths (that would include a significant number of preachers, evangelists, Christian radio broadcasters, etc.) were saying at the time. I recall a conservative Bible conference my wife and I attended in Orlando where a man in the audience wanted to advertise his preparedness plans to the attendees; the host would not allow it, and the man was visibly upset. Homeschooling magazines were selling scores of ads for all manner of survival plans and tools. Churches across the country held Y2K preparedness seminars. If you expressed opposition to these people or their preparedness activities, they could get downright angry.

Such a reaction by Christians was the result of a volatile mixture of fear and ignorance. There was nothing in the unknown of Y2K that was potentially devastating, such that anyone should have been hording water and food. Getting pastors to articulate restraint on the matter was like talking to a brick wall. Because the media noise was so loud, pastors were obligated to provide some sort of therapeutic response lest they be deemed ignorant and irrelevant by the masses. In fact, Y2K  preparedness itself proved to be a method by which some churches increased their attendance. Arguably, the loudest Christian voice in the Y2K preparedness hysteria was that of postmillennialist Gary North, whose theonomy obviously went out the window.

There wasn’t an IT department at the time who was wringing their hands over the possibility that their systems might blow up. Not a single telecommunications carrier doubted that their little boxes at the bottom of the ocean would continue to work. NASA was not concerned about their satellites malfunctioning and crashing into the earth. Fixing the BIOS on IBM and Apple computers was a trivial exercise that any trained monkey could have done. Mainframes required updates at their source, thus fixing thousands of terminals at once. ATM machines were fixed as part of routine maintenance. Even the fare boxes used to accept bus passes had microprocessors replaced that did not need to be replaced: I know because I had to replace them at the transit company where I worked. Even though the chips did not even contain a “year” function, the manufacturer forced us into replacing the chips anyway on the basis of Y2K, or else they would not support the equipment.

What ultimately took place in the late 1990’s was a management and media spin that extorted billions of dollars from corporate budgets and the taxpayer. My boss and I were not believed when we insisted to his manager that there would be no Y2K problem. We were forced to work all night on New Year’s Eve – just in case - while nothing went wrong. As I recall, his obligatory Y2K budget bought the crab legs we ate that night.

Today, judging by the websites of some very large churches, I think the reactionary gears have kicked in again. Now the latest reaction/distraction is to “Swine Flu”. Even though the Centers for Disease Control says plainly, “At the current time, CDC believes that this virus has the same properties in terms of spread as seasonal flu viruses”, churches have posted special web pages proclaiming their contingency plans for the impending pandemic. Is something other than common sense required here? Like: don’t take your kid to church if he has a fever or is puking; wash your hands; cover your mouth when you cough; and don’t drink the backwash in someone else’s Dr. Pepper.

Do churches need to act responsibly? Yes, of course. Is there something wrong with a church addressing a possible pandemic? No, of course not.

My point is that Christians should not react out of their own ignorance or be motivated by collective uncertainty; Christians should be especially cautious about being distracted by those who propose to orchestrate our protection from something so unwieldy as a crisis of technology, ecology, economy, or epidemiology. I think that the church (perhaps as a result of the so-called feminization of the church) is too-often caught up in some chronic fear fueled by dependence on conventional wisdom. Today, I still work in the IT world and my clients are mostly doctors. I have asked some of them about swine flu, and not one of them had any remarkable concerns about it. The gastro doctors are more concerned about HIV; the ENT docs are more concerned about mononucleosis and streptococcus. The pediatricians wish the news media would just dry up and blow away, because of the overload of fearful parents who think that Zeke might have swine flu especially since his symptoms are so … flu-like. Nonetheless, just like Y2K, some Christians get angry when you say that they are over-reacting to Swine Flu.

There is plenty of evidence over the past century that Christians are all-too-easily spun-up in a reactionary way when it comes to threatening issues. And what kind of issues? A technological fiasco? An unstable economy? A new kind of flu? Our way of life is so saturated with comfortable living, drugs for every symptom, and rules for every activity that we have no concept of what it means to live, to be healed, and to be liberated. We are anxious about anything and almost everything, except the certain judgment which Paul says awaits us (2 Cor. 5:10.) We are making sure of the salvation of our planet, our machines, our dollars and our bodies every day, while procrastinating the surety of our calling & election to some date in the ethereal future where we assume we will get a passing grade by default.

Boiled down, we have no concept of actually trusting God and living in His bountiful provision. We have become coping Christians moving from therapy to therapy, as if existence and meaning in this life is all there is. We have come to value the pleasure of  the perishable over the glory of the imperishable.

When issues that threaten our security arise, there are always people who cry out, “I have an answer to this problem!” or “Salvation from this is over here!” Our predilection for preserving what is carnal is the reason Jesus found it necessary to say in Matthew 24:4, “Watch out that no one deceives you.” It is why He also said in Mark 8:36, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” When we talk about salvation from Y2K or Climate Change or the economy or Swine Flu, we are talking about paltry issues that are no less subject to God’s sovereignty than the orbits of the universe.

Fearful behavior stands in contrast to the statements made by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:5-6, Ephesians 4:14 and Romans 8:15. We are of the light, not of darkness; there is a fundamental difference in what we see , and in what we know because of what we now see. We should not be infantile in our maturity, being blown around by winds of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.

As God’s children, we have not been given a spirit that makes us a slave again to fear.