Motivation—A Deeper Look

Part 1 — Guilt or Grace?

Part 2 — Correction or Inspiration?

Introduction to Part 1

In Christianity, motivation is everything! If this statement is an example of hyperbole (an overstatement to make a point), it is only slightly so. God is not nearly as interested in our actions as he is in the motivation behind these actions. Of course, actions (obedience) are in no way optional, but they mean little to God unless they spring from our hearts. We can do the deeds of a servant without having the heart of a servant, but if we have the heart of a servant, we will do the deeds of a servant.

In a broad sense, our primary motivation in the spiritual realm tends to fall into one of two categories: guilt or grace. Which has been your dominant motivation? What has been our most dominant motivation as a movement? Good questions, don’t you think? Some important principles regarding this subject have been dawning on me recently, principles that I believe have huge implications for who we are as a movement. The motivational principles we have used are tied inseparably to our philosophy of preaching and teaching. Without understanding these issues, we will not be able to make the deeper changes that I am convinced God is calling us to make. Although I don’t claim to have all of the answers to our problems, I do believe that the material in this article is some of the most significant I have written in a long time. I simply ask you to read it carefully and prayerfully, and for doing this I thank you in advance.

Do We Have a Philosophy of Preaching and Teaching?

This is a good place to begin, for many who preach may not be aware that they even have a philosophy of preaching.[1] This is a subject hardly discussed among us, at least as far as my experience dictates. Perhaps we don’t think we need a philosophy, since we claim only to follow the Bible. However, the Bible is a big book, consisting of 66 books, 1,189 chapters and about 31,273 verses. Just saying that we preach the Bible doesn’t prove much. The choices that we make about what to preach from the Bible, the approach we use in preaching it and the manner in which we deliver the message all have to do with our philosophy of preaching. Rest assured that all who preach regularly have a philosophy, whether we realize that we have one or not. Without definition and understanding, our philosophy may not serve us effectively, or worse, it may actually hurt us and those to whom we preach.

For example, a wrong philosophy of preaching and teaching can lead us to slant our interpretations of Scriptures. Our goal is exegesis, which means to give a correct interpretation of a text – to “read out” of it exactly what God put into it. A wrong philosophy often leads us to practice eisegesis – to “read into” the text our own ideas. Picture this church service setting: the young minister is preaching from a text and making a point that reflects his philosophy of preaching, but it doesn’t reflect the actual meaning of the text. He is guilty of eisegesis, without being aware of it. The newer Christians in the audience are awestruck, as they think to themselves, “Wow, I didn’t see that point in the text; our preacher is really a smart guy who can dig out the deeper truths of the Bible!” The older Christians in the audience keep looking down at their Bibles after the preacher has moved on to his next point, and they are thinking, “Here we go again. Our minister is trying to make his point with a text that doesn’t make his point. Will our preachers ever learn enough about the Bible to teach it accurately instead of using it to bolster their preconceived ideas?” For a variety of reasons, leaders have been experiencing a lowered trust level from those whom we lead, and how we have handled the Bible is one of those reasons.

Since we admittedly don’t have much of a defined philosophy, what can be known about it? Perhaps not too much, but one thing can be said – it is largely a performance-based philosophy. This much seems certain. Being performance based, it is by definition also human based. As a mainline Church of Christ minister said on a panel recently, both their group and ours have substituted the message of our particular movement for the message of Christ. In their group, the message has been correct doctrine; in ours, it has been correct results (growth). Thus, we have preached too much about man and too little about God. As I have stated previously in other settings, I think our preaching overall has been such that we have erred in a way similar to the Galatians, in preaching a different gospel. This is a strong charge, and not a popular one with everyone, but I believe it is correct. Our preaching and teaching is a serious matter to our God, and unless we understand the philosophy behind it, we are in danger of continuing to preach an incomplete gospel or even a distorted gospel. Make no mistake about it, we as a movement definitely have a philosophy of preaching. But from whence did it come? This leads us to the next question.

How Did Our Philosophy Develop?

Let me say at the outset that certain biblical subjects are more difficult to grasp than others, being more complex. For example, a built-in tension exists between the foreknowledge of God and the free moral agency of man. It is challenging for us finite humans to understand how God can know the end from the beginning about everything, including our individual lives, and not somehow short circuit our personal choices. But both ends of that spectrum are clearly affirmed in Scripture. Similarly, a tension between God’s grace and man’s obedience can be felt as we study these subjects. Obedience is not an optional matter for people of faith. Many blessings from God (his grace) are stated in conditional terms: if…then; if not…then not. If we obey, then God will bless us. If we do not obey, he will not bless us. Yet, we are ultimately blessed because of God’s grace, not because of our works. Harmonizing both ends of this spectrum is not always easy. (My best efforts to do so are found in my exposition, Romans: the Heart Set Free. My harmonization of these two elements satisfies me, and perhaps it will you.) My point here is that the tension inherent in our philosophy of preaching is somewhat understandable, but unless understood and addressed correctly, it may well result in unbiblical preaching.

In order to understand our philosophy of preaching, a historical perspective is essential. In delving into our historical and theological roots, my purpose is not to be negatively critical, but simply to help us learn from our history. Otherwise, we will repeat the bad elements of it, along with the good (and there is much good). When we talk about the bad elements of our movement, it should be noted that not every church or every leader is guilty of the same thing, and when guilty, not guilty to the same degree. A lack of discernment regarding this observation leads to overreactions, such as those observed among us in 2003. However, in looking at our movement as a whole, certain things may be observed to be absolutely true.

Every person is a product of his or her environment, in good and bad ways. We either imitate (consciously or unconsciously) what we have been around or we react against it. The same may be said of all movements, for they either bear the stamp of what spawned them or they rebel against it. The concept of dialectical progression articulated by Georg Hegel, a nineteenth-century philosopher, seems more right than wrong when applied to movements historically. His view is often described in terms of this reactionary pattern: thesis – antithesis – synthesis, with the synthesis becoming the new thesis as the process continues. The stronger the reaction (“antithesis”) against the status quo (“thesis”), the more the movement becomes defined by its differences with its source. In the case of our current movement, we have been defined in many ways by our reactions. We have seen ourselves as a radical group, standing against the tide of lukewarm, compromised religion. Of course, there is great value in this, but also the potential for over-reacting to what we are in the process of rejecting.

Most notably, we have been a reactionary group against what we have termed the “Mainline Church of Christ,” with many of the reactions dating back to campus ministry days, commonly called the “Crossroads Era.” By the way, what I say here about the mainline church is not intended to pass judgment on that group today, for I am not too conversant with where they now stand on many issues. My observations trace back to what I experienced and observed personally during the period under consideration (1960s to 1980s). In that period, campus ministers established campus ministries under the umbrella of existing Churches of Christ and fought many battles trying to work with those whose traditional mindsets often did not allow anything resembling peaceful co-existence. This is not to say that campus ministers did not make many mistakes themselves that led to their own sins and set up the potential for future overreactions in developing their later ministries. They had zeal without experience in dealing with the circumstances they faced. In retrospect, I think the young campus ministers and older mainline leaders were about equally at fault in the tensions and divisions that came about during those days. However, I place the greater responsibility on the older leaders, who reacted against the younger ones instead of patiently continuing to try to help them. Jesus had a couple of young leaders who wanted to burn down a city, but he kept working with them until they matured. Almost all young leaders are going to make mistakes of misapplied zeal, and older leaders are going to have to be like Jesus to help them mature. But regardless of blame, the scenario was set for overreactions on the part of younger campus ministers.

The reactions in this case were sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle. One of the more obvious was the emphasis on numerical growth in comparison to a group with little growth. I have heard many sermons preached among us, especially in the early days, in which growth statistics from the mainline Churches of Christ were quoted to show how poorly they were doing evangelistically. Because these churches persecuted the fledgling campus ministry movement, the reaction was something like: “We will show you!” The continued (though now only occasional) usage of these same statistics through two decades demonstrates the strength of the reaction. Certainly we ought to focus on converting people and growing numerically, but for biblical reasons instead of reactionary ones.

Due to the makeup of many of those churches, other reactions occurred that are more subtle, and for that reason, potentially more harmful. A lack of trust for people in two basic categories can be traced back to that earlier setting, for somewhat understandable reasons. First, the average members of those groups were viewed as being lukewarm. Thus, they could not be relied on to help carry out the mission of evangelism in any serious way, and in fact often resisted the efforts of those in the campus ministry who were evangelizing in ways that were new and threatening to them. The problem is that some who began their career as young leaders in those situations still have a residual lack of trust for members in our churches, however subtle the suspicions may be. Suffice it to say that Romans 15:14 has been preached more than practiced by some of us. It reads: “I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another.”

Second, leaders of those traditional churches were not to be trusted, for they quite often represented the opposition as persecutors. In those churches, elders were unquestionably the leaders in control, and for this reason they were to be trusted least. The carryover into our movement in terms of mistrusting elders cannot be denied. The highly influential role of elders in the NT church has not yet been duplicated in our movement, although some progress has been made in recent years. The current clamor in the wake of Henry Kriete’s letter has produced more change in the role of the elder than the Bible produced in prior years – to our shame.

Leadership style in our movement is another phenomenon that has been influenced significantly by those campus ministry days. In planting a new church or working in youth groups, including campus ministries, the leader is the “go to” person by design. As disciples age, they must be treated in age-appropriate ways, which should include leaders developing leadership groups instead of remaining one-man, top-down leaders. We have been extremely slow to learn this needed lesson, as the Golden Rule Leadership book emphasizes repeatedly. Without rehashing the point, the campus ministry era influenced our leadership style in ways that simply must be changed if we are to move forward effectively, especially in older, larger churches.

Tying together the previous three principles – focus on numerical growth, lack of trust and leadership style – the definition of the role of the evangelist was thus strongly influenced. To make sure that members (who are at least subtly mistrusted) will evangelize, the controlling type of leader feels that he must preach strongly and often on the need for evangelism or else the average person will not evangelize. Hence, the “push” mentality was built into the system from the beginning. Never mind that you cannot find this kind of motivation for evangelism in the New Testament, those basic assumptions unquestionably drove the preaching approach and biblical diet offered by the “forceful” leader. They were the foundation for his philosophy of preaching. Over shorter periods of time, this type of motivation for evangelism has produced some pretty impressive results. Over longer periods, the effectiveness in producing growth and spiritual health has waned in predictable ways. Our older, larger churches have slowed in growth, not because they are either older or larger, but because something has been amiss in our motivational approaches. Wrong motivation affects people much like taking drugs affects them – it takes a stronger and stronger “hit” to get the same results, until you reach a point when the same results can no longer be achieved, no matter how strong the “hit.”

The motivation in the Bible is primarily relational in nature: love for God and love for one another in the kingdom. Outreach to non-disciples appears to have been based on a natural approach of sharing with friends and family what was truly good news to the disciples. Evangelism seems to have been more of a by-product than the result of specific, repeated emphasis in preaching and teaching. It seems that the principles of John 13:34-35 really worked, as those in the world were attracted by the love they saw among the disciples. Happy Christians are good advertisement! Many of our Christians are not too happy, precisely because of the preaching and teaching they receive – an applied pressure to do what new Christians usually do naturally. An elder’s wife made this comment several years back: “In our basic conversion studies with people, we stress that they are becoming a part of a loving family; shortly after baptism, they wake up feeling that they are in an army with very strong marching orders.” This prevailing emphasis must be based on one of three assumptions regarding the NT record: either the early church leaders preached as we do, although this is not found in the record; or our needs are very different from those of first century Christians; or we have figured out something that they did not. A fair amount of arrogance would be required to adopt any of these assumptions.

Another reaction to the mainline church also influenced our philosophy of preaching, namely the use of strong confrontational approaches in both individual and congregational settings. The mainline church was admittedly not very direct in confronting sins, thus falling short of “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). In reaction, some leaders among us evidently felt that almost any talk of a serious spiritual nature, private or public, had to be capped off with strong challenges to insure that remorse and repentance were produced. The common “good point, bad point” approach used in discipleship groups found many other applications in private and public settings. The end result was that disciples were sometimes treated in ways that no thinking parent would treat his or her own children. We are all in need of much encouragement, and when encouragement is replaced or diluted significantly by challenges, spiritual insecurity is going to be produced. As much as challenge may be needed at times, Jesus’ admonition in Revelation 3:19 (“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline”) is hardly intended to be the main ingredient in a diet of love. (Make sure you understand the context of Jesus’ words in this text.) Thankfully, God’s kindness is his favorite way of leading us to repentance (Romans 2:4), and we would do well to imitate him in our approach with others.

Our philosophy of preaching has been influenced more by our roots than we might imagine, and unless we understand our history, we are not likely to change. Once understood, we are in a position to replace bad philosophy with good philosophy. What is good philosophy? This leads to the next question.

What Should Be Our Philosophy?

I recently had a very thought-provoking conversation with an old friend who has a good Bible background and a very spiritual mindset. Although not a member of our movement, he knew some things about us and had visited our services a couple of times. He asked me a probing question, something to the effect of how much we really believe in grace. His query caused me to do some serious thinking and to develop perhaps a new insight, or at least a new way of looking at an old subject. I told him that we have always preached some on the topic of grace. I have personally been invited to many churches, including some of our larger ones like Chicago, Los Angeles and Dallas, to teach and preach on the subject of grace, principally through the book of Romans (my favorite book in the Bible). I have never had anyone in our movement object to anything I preached about grace. We believe in the subject of grace – but this is not the end of the matter.

My insight was this: while we have been receptive to preaching on grace, it has been one subject among many, rather than the foundation out of which all other subjects are preached. Herein lies our weakness and failure. Grace must be (or become) the window through which we view all other biblical subjects. It must color how we preach everything. I just finished reading Tom Jones’ excellent new book, Strong in the Grace, and he stated the same principle this way: “The theme of this book is that the gospel of God’s grace is the trunk of the tree and that any effort to restore God’s work in the world must begin with the greatest emphasis on this grace – the only hope of freedom from sin and fellowship with God.”[2] He goes on to say that all other biblical subjects are limbs in that trunk, but that they receive their strength and meaning from the trunk itself.

We know how to preach about needed effects well, but we don’t have a good grasp on how to bring about those effects. We are too focused on results, not causes. For example, what would you do for a church (or person) that has really lost much of its faith? Our inclination would be to select a text like Hebrews 11:6: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Then we might focus on the need to get faith, or else God will not be pleased with us. But is this how faith is produced – by demanding it? I think not. In fact this approach may diminish the little faith the weak person has, and cause him to lose yet more hope for himself. The answer would lie in preaching lessons that give him faith – not demand it. All of the results we are trying to produce can only come when we understand how to affect people’s hearts and make them want to change and to help them see how great their God is who is going to help them change. It’s all about God, not about man. We don’t simply need sermons calling for more evangelism; we need sermons about developing the heart of our God toward those who have no relationship with their heavenly Father. If we get his heart, we will do his bidding. It’s all about Christ, not about us, and knowing Christ in a growing, exciting way changes us. About the only motivation that works for me anymore is trying to get into the heart of God, to imitate his Son. Show me Jesus and call me to follow him by imitating his heart, and I have a much better chance of doing the works he did.

Some people might feel that singling out any teaching of the Bible as the most fundamental is questionable. After all, God revealed it all and inspired men to write it down. Why should one teaching be exalted over any other, since it is all God’s Word? That’s a fair question, but one not difficult to answer. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus spoke about the more important matters of the law, namely “justice, mercy and faithfulness.” The other matters that he mentioned were not unimportant, but they certainly were not as important. The subject of grace is inseparably connected to what Jesus called the greatest commandment in the Law. In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (For additional reading regarding the centrality of certain teachings, see the article by Jeff Chacon, “An Aid To Discerning the Scriptures,” on the website www.douglasjacoby.com.)

Loving God with our whole being is the most fundamental teaching in Scripture – Old or New Testament. How can we rise to such a lofty challenge? John helps us understand this question, as he writes in 1 John 4:19, “We love because he first loved us.” Understanding the depth of his love for us becomes the key to our loving him and loving others with our whole being. Simply stated, we can never become what God calls us to be without understanding and emotionally accepting his unbelievable love for us individually. Is this not the sentiment that lays behind Paul’s intense prayer in Ephesians 3:16-19? “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.”

I am by no means talking about anything that resembles “grace only” or “cheap grace.” Quite the contrary. Grace, properly understood and applied, motivates us to work harder than we ever would through any other means. Paul provides us with proof of this principle in his own life, as he wrote: “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10). Certainly other motivations can be found in Scripture, and they all have their place, but they must be subservient to this one. For example, Proverbs 1:7 tells us that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,” but it should not be the end of it, for loving him with our heart, soul, mind and strength is the aim of it all. And we love because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). If “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13), then our view of God must be weighted toward his grace, and not toward his judgment.

It boils down to having the right focus, but also to our attitudes in delivering lessons with this focus. I remember an anecdote about a church seeking a pulpit minister. They had two prospective ministers “try out” on two successive weeks. One was hired and the other wasn’t. The preacher who wasn’t hired called the chairman of the search committee and asked why he had not been hired. The chairman informed him that both he and the other applicant had preached on the subject of hell, but the one who was hired seemed far more engaged in pleading with them not to go, rather than just issuing a warning about the dangers of going.

This little story (assumedly fiction) reminds me of something that actually happened to me when I first started preaching. After delivering a strong, challenging sermon, an older church member said to me, “Well, Preacher, you left us bleeding today!” He actually meant that as a compliment, but his comment struck a dissonant chord with me. I did leave them bleeding by exposing their sins but giving little help with healing and overcoming those sins. In those days, I came to be known as something of a “hatchet man,” whose invitations to speak at conferences usually meant being assigned subjects like sin and repentance. Of course, we must speak clearly and forcefully on those subjects, but the approach we take when doing so is the real issue. In looking back at my early preaching (and some not-so-early preaching), I am not proud of my approach. During my last few months in Boston, I preached a lesson about God’s love, in which I recalled how John the apostle changed from a “son of thunder” to the great apostle of love. After that sermon, one dear sister told me that my years in Boston demonstrated a similar change in me. Considering that I was in my mid-forties when I came to Boston, this change was much later in coming than it should have been.

My wife, Theresa, has an approach to giving corrections in counseling or discipling that demonstrates the right principle. It is based on the approach that Paul took in writing most of his letters. He almost always started out very positive and encouraging, moved next to the corrections needed, and ended up once again being positive and encouraging. Theresa calls this approach her “love sandwich.” She expresses lots of love, gives any correction needed, and closes with expressions of much love and faith in the person’s desire and ability to make changes. She is one of the most lovingly patient people I have ever known, and her record of helping scores of women grow and change is truly exemplary.

What has been said about grace and sin does not mean that preaching on sin is unimportant. It is essential. Recently I was teaching and preaching in another church, doing some staff training and teaching the whole congregation as well. After a couple of days, the local evangelist told me that he had been somewhat apprehensive and even suspicious about how I would deal with the sins in the church that needed to be addressed. However, after he heard me, he said that he felt like a wimp by comparison! I preached about sin strongly and hopefully was used by God as an instrument to convict many and to help them change. The manner in which I preached is the issue. I repeatedly expressed my love for them, and I wept as I pleaded with the church to repent. I tried to help them see God’s love for them as the foundation for change. I want my philosophy to have God at the center – but as a loving Father.

We have seen God too much as a Judge and Master (which he is), and not enough as a Friend and Father. Many of us seem to feel that his love toward us is conditional upon our performance. Hence, he turns away from us in disdain when we are doing poorly spiritually, but turns back to embrace us once we are doing better. The opposite is much more accurate. When we are at our worst, he is most focused on loving us and helping us. Any parent among us knows that this is how we are with our own children. When they are doing well, we can go about our business, but when they are doing poorly, we can’t keep our minds and hearts off of them. Their pain becomes our pain, and we are driven to do all that we can to help them. Why are we this way? Because we are made in the image of God, the ultimate and perfect Parent. He seeks us out most when we are doing our worst, not vice versa.

God hates sin in our lives. Why? Because it hurts us. His concern is the same as any parent for his child – he wants us to live joyous, fulfilled lives, and sin interferes with that. Our view of God is hugely important. Our understanding of his view of us is hugely important. Our understanding of his view of the church is all tied up in this – he feels toward the church collectively what he feels toward his children individually. His desire is for a close personal relationship with us, not a business relationship. He is most interested in us, not in our performance. Our value to him is based on our being in a relationship with him, being his child. As a father and grandfather, I understand this principle pretty well. New babies are of great value to their parents and grandparents. Why? Certainly not because of their performance. About all that their performance yields is sounds and smells! They are valued so highly because they are a part of us – our offspring. God values us so highly because we are a part of him —his offspring, made in his image.

But is not God the Master and Judge? Of course, but that is a subject among subjects, not the foundation for our view of him. Think of it this way. We fathers wear many “hats” within our families. To my children, I have been a disciplinarian, a teacher, and an administrator, among other things. When I am dead and gone, what do I want them to remember most about me? That’s pretty simple to answer, don’t you think? I want them to remember me as a father who loved them with all of my heart, and would have died for them. Surely they needed me to serve them with those other “hats” on at times, but what they most needed to see and feel was my father’s heart. Surely God wants us to see him in much the same way – not primarily as Master, Judge or Lawgiver – but as Father! In John 13:13, he said: “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.” Even here, as Master, what had he just done? Acted as a servant and washed his own disciples’ feet. The greatest of all really is the servant of all. Even his definition of master is different from ours. But the clincher is found in John 15:15: “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” This passage contains lessons about team leadership, as well as lessons about the nature of the relationship that God wants with us.

Other biblical analogies have much to teach us about these matters. The marriage relationship between God and his people is a good one. Biblically, Christians are married to Christ (Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:31-32). As a happily married husband of nearly 40 years, I think I have a fair grasp on what this analogy is designed to teach. When I arise in the morning, I don’t start thinking, “I hope Theresa does all the things for me that I think she should for a change,” and then mentally start going down some check-list of her duties. I just want to see her, to be with her, to talk with her. She is my delight, and as the song by Joshua Kadison says, “she will always be beautiful in my eyes.” I am not thinking about her serving me; I’m thinking about her loving me. Of course, because she does love me she will do many things to serve me, and I her, but neither of us is focused on the doing. We are focused on the being – being in love! Do you think Jesus is a different kind of husband than me? Frankly, he is much more focused on serving you than on you serving him. We are so conditioned to feel good when we perform well and badly when we do not – which is understandable, to a point. But as disciples, this condition often translates to us feeling saved when we perform well and lost when we do not. Obviously, I feel badly when my relationship with my wife goes awry, but I don’t feel unmarried!

Probably the most used biblical analogy portraying our relationship with God is that of a Father with his children. Again, since I have two grown children whom I love dearly (along with their awesome mates), I understand the analogy. When I go to visit them, I am not thinking of all that they ought to do for me. I am much more focused on what I want to do for them, because I love them so much. I just want to see them, to be with them, to laugh and to love. Now, in the course of our time together, they will do many things to serve me, because we love each other deeply. The emphasis, however, is never on doing, but on being. They don’t sit around wondering if they measure up to my expectations, for they do not have to earn my approval. They already have it – in spades! Do you see the point? When you are in love, duty becomes desire. This is how God feels about serving you. Is it how you feel about serving him?

The power of our service must be in the relationship, not in the tasks themselves. According to Jesus, God is mostly concerned about us knowing and loving him: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). If we have this kind of relationship, serving him will be a joy. Now this is good news. But it gets even better. He provides the power to do the serving that he calls us to do. In fact, he does in us and through us what we could never do ourselves. As Paul put it in Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Here he contrasts the life focused on relationship in Christ with a life focused on performance. The former he calls a life of faith, a life empowered by God though the cross. Note that the “self-life” is crucified (and not just our sins), making available Christ’s life in us. No wonder Paul could say “when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10). His work ethic was staggering, but only because he had learned the difference between working in God’s power and his own.

Men are too full of themselves and their accomplishments. We entered a relationship with Christ simply by trusting his blood as we were lowered beneath the waters of baptism. We maintain this relationship by that same trust, the surrendered faith that really believes that he must be the power in us to accomplish his will in us. This is why he gives us the Holy Spirit when we are baptized (Acts 2:38) – to do in us and with us and through us the things that we could never do on our own. This is what Paul was getting at in Philippians 2:12-13, when he wrote: “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” Make no mistake about it, God doesn’t need you, for as Acts 17:25 says, “he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.” No, he doesn’t need you; but, amazingly, he wants you. And that is the marvel of it all!

Conclusion

Do we have a philosophy of preaching? Unquestionably. What is yours? Is it focused primarily on man and the requirements for his performance, or primarily on God and his love as the foundation for any and all responses as a disciple? The consequences of what and how we preach are eternal. Let’s examine and re-examine our preaching and the philosophy that lies behind it. By God’s grace, many things have already changed in our movement. But the greater changes needed are, in my opinion, the ones addressed in this article. We have normally equated change with outward, organizational changes. However, the need of the hour is for inward changes in the hearts of individual disciples. Such changes come from preaching and teaching the message of Christ with his love as the foundation. Let this become the window through which we view all biblical subjects and the channel through which we deliver all of our messages. When we do, our philosophy will be perfectly aligned with God’s.

—Gordon Ferguson (May 2004)

Part 2 — Correction or Inspiration?

March 2005

Several months ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Motivation: Guilt or Grace?” In that article, I made the case that our primary spiritual motivation as disciples should be grounded in grace and not guilt. However, I certainly do not believe that grace and guilt are mutually exclusive. A conviction of our guilt before God is the beginning point to desiring and accepting God’s grace. The order in which Paul made his case in Romans demonstrates this fact, for the first three chapters led up to his treatment of grace by affirming that the best of us is a mess. Then consider what Jesus had to say in John 16:7-8: “But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.” Reading through the sermons in Acts will substantiate the fact that the early preachers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to follow this approach of establishing guilt before proceeding to grace. As the writer of Proverbs put it, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7).

Having said that, we must also say that the fear of the Lord was never intended to be the “end” of knowledge. After we become Christians, we should be more and more motivated by grace than by guilt. In Him, “Christ’s love compels us” (2 Corinthians 5:14) to the extent that “perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment” (1 John 4:18). Properly understood and applied, grace motivates us for the long haul to do more than we ever would under a primary motivation of guilt. Paul himself is the best example of the truth of this principle. In 1 Corinthians 15:10, he had this to say: “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them–yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.”

The title of this article, “Motivation Revisited: Correction or Inspiration,” is closely related to that of the previous article, for correction has more to do with guilt than grace, and inspiration has more to do with grace than guilt. Before proceeding, we first must ask if lessons and sermons should have corrective elements in them. The answer is “yes,” for much of the New Testament is corrective in nature. But mark this well: correction alone will not inspire, and therefore, will not provide the ultimate motivation. Again, it is a matter of emphasis, isn’t it? Let me share with you an illustration that will hopefully make the point in a decisive way.

Someone recently told me that he was tired of hearing “agenda driven” preaching. Obviously, any attempt to select a subject or text for teaching has some purpose, or agenda, behind it. However, I understood what the person was saying. In our common approach to preaching, we have tried to figure out what we thought the majority of disciples in our church or ministry group needed, and then designed a sermon to address those perceived needs (as we saw them). Most often, those sermons were topical in nature. For example, if we believed the people needed to be more committed, our three lesson points might be: more committed in evangelism; more committed in giving financially, and more giving in attendance at all church activities. As each point was made, a verse would likely be read, quoted or referred to, but most of the sermon time would be focused on illustrations and correction. Sometimes such an approach is the right one, but a steady diet of it will lead to spiritual indigestion, malnutrition – or worse!

Shortly after I heard the criticism regarding agenda driven preaching, I heard a sermon preached that was actually expository in nature. However, the lesson could still be deemed an agenda driven one. The passage had a blend of corrective and inspirational elements, but the points of the sermon definitely focused on the former type. While the text provided wonderful opportunities to stress the inspirational elements, the speaker passed over them by simply reading or referring to them as he emphasized the more corrective elements. It was not a balanced presentation in that sense, but was a rather clear example of using a text to accomplish one’s own agenda of addressing perceived needs rather than simply letting the emphases of the text guide the points being made. This tendency among our preachers and teachers is so common that we may not even realize we are doing it.

It must also be noted that this problem is not limited to those who teach and preach in public settings. It is a tendency most disciples may have in studying with non-Christians and in discipling other Christians. We have been trained to correct, and many of us have become enamored with correction – minister and ordinary member alike. In view of this past emphasis in our training, the ministry staff of the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ are looking for ways to retrain our members. One thing we have done recently is to develop a new study series for helping people to become disciples. Here are a few of the explanatory questions and answers made in its introduction that show its design is to chart a new and different course in leading people to Christ: (This entire introduction and the study series can be seen on the phoenixvalleychurch.org web site.)

Why are we replacing the old study series? Primarily because the old series was too focused on man’s performance and not nearly enough on God’s grace as our primary motivation for serving him. Although thousands of people became Christians through the use of the old series, for which we are thankful, the new series will provide a much better motivational foundation to help keep people on a better track once they become Christians.
What is this series of studies all about? In a word, love, since the two greatest commands in the Bible are focused on love for God and love for our neighbors (Matthew 22:36-40). The titles of the four lessons are:

God’s Love For Us
Our Love For God
A Mutual Love (a two-part study about entering a saved relationship with God)
In Love Forever With God and His Children

How should I view my role in teaching the studies? Your role is not only to convey biblical truths in a study setting, but to build close spiritual relationships with those in the studies. Perhaps Paul said it best in 1 Thessalonians 2:8: “We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us.” Building relationships is more about listening than about lecturing or refuting, as James made clear in James 1:19: “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.” Let’s love people, serve people, teach people, and win people to Christ. Then they will truly be our friends – friends of the “forever” variety! Now that is GOOD NEWS!

NOTE: After developing the Good News Series in 2004 and using it for several years, we revised the original First Principles Series in 2007, which we call Studies On Salvation (SOS). Many of our members were more familiar with the original series, and with a few needed revisions, we offered the SOS series, which now gives our members a choice. Disciples in other places have used our Good News Series effectively, and some have noted that has been especially helpful with those being restored. Both series can be found on our church web site (phoenixvalleychurch.org).

We need more inspiration to seek God initially and to serve God after conversion, and we need certain types of inspiration more than others. In the past, much of our inspiration has been of one particular type: a focus on our evangelistic goals and accomplishments. While we don’t want to eliminate this approach, if done in a way that exalts God and not ourselves, we need to be more inspired by God’s love and grace. But you may be wondering how that is best done? Let me assure you that it is not rocket science! God gave us families for many reasons, one of the most important being to teach us about his love for us and his view of us. How are our children best motivated overall – with correction or inspiration? Most of us as parents have come to the conclusion that inspiration ought to outweigh correction by a good deal – agreed? If we agree, why would we think that God’s kids need something different? (If you don’t agree, God help your kids!)

What are the most basic ways that we seek to inspire our own children? Perhaps with these four concepts: one, “I love you;” two, “I believe in you;” three, “I need you” (relationship); and four, “I’m proud of you.” How do we pass on these simple, but extremely profound, components of inspiration to God’s children? By clearly conveying that God loves you, he believes in you and in what you will become, he desperately wants a love relationship with you, and he is proud of you. Perhaps you have a difficult time believing that last point – that God is proud of you. We are just too aware of our sins to really believe that he is proud of us. Yet we as parents are proud of our children, regardless of their failures. Why? For at least two good reasons: one, because they are a part of us – made in our image; and two, because we treasure our children’s love for us, their good intentions in spite of their shortcomings. Is God different than we as parents? Is he not proud of us in spite of our failures, and appreciative of our good intentions?

I once posed this question to a group of ministry brothers: “The way to heaven is paved with good intentions – true or false?” Most of them answered “false” in a quick reflex reaction. They had heard the old adage that asserts the opposite: “The way to hell is paved with good intentions.” While this old adage is not from the Bible, perhaps in one sense it is true. Certainly there are intentions that are not blessed by God. The man who intends to deal with his purity someday, but never makes a decision to go after it or the one who intends to seek the kingdom first someday after he gets his finances in order are just two examples. But in another sense, I believe that the way to heaven is paved with good intentions. Who of us lives up to our best intentions? I believe that the fact that we have good spiritual intentions means a lot to God. Our desire is to do what is right, even when we fail miserably to live up to those intentions, and God knows and appreciates what we want to do. Our hearts mean more to him than our actions. If we appreciate our children’s hearts for us and their desire to please us, rest assured that God feels similarly, but to a much greater extent. He is a far better and more loving Parent than we have ever dreamed of being. Not only must we stress these ways that God feels about people; we must in God’s stead model the same toward his children. We must say to one another in the name of Christ: “I love you;” “I believe in you” (what you will be, not simply can be); “I need your friendship and love;” and “I’m proud of you.” People need an abundant dose of encouragement, and leaders have too often been too limited in prescribing it.

About a year before moving from Boston, I made a statement in a congregational setting that had more impact than I would have imagined. I told the Boston church that in my heart they were pure gold, and then gave the reasons for that feeling. Afterwards a brother who had been in the church for years came up to me with tears in his eyes to thank me for that statement. He went on to say that the impression he had been left with about the church was quite different – that they seldom measured up to expectations (assumedly those of both leaders and God). I’ve repeated this little story in sermons in different churches, and almost without exception, I spot people in the audience with tears in their eyes. (Why do you think that happens?) How does it make me feel to see their tears? Mostly ashamed – ashamed that I as a leader, and that we as a group of leaders, did not make people feel more loved, appreciated, needed, respected and a source of spiritual pride to their fathers in the faith. God, please forgive us for being poor spiritual fathers and mothers to your beloved children! And God, please bless and enable us not to simply be content with convicting and correcting, but to provide a clear and consistent expression of your love and our love to your children in copious amounts!

[1] See Douglas Jacoby’s article, The Workman Approved: Preaching and Preachers at www.DouglasJacoby.com. His article and mine are quite complementary in addressing similar needs from two somewhat different vantage points.

[2] Thomas A. Jones, Strong in the Grace (Billerica, MA: Discipleship Publications International, 2004) 17.

Give Yourselves First to the Lord

INTRODUCTION:

1.   Today we want to have somewhat of an in-depth study on the subject of giving financial to God’s work.

2.   Our special contribution opportunity is coming up soon, and this seems a very good time to study a very important subject.

3.   Frankly, the subject may be a sensitive one for a number of us.

4.   Our sensitivity may be due to what we have observed on TV about money raisers (televangelists); it may be due to what we have heard about possible inappropriate uses of money within our own movement; it may be due to a lack of biblical understanding of the subject; or it may be due to something amiss in our heart that needs changing.  (As is often stated, our heart strings and purse strings seem very connected!)

5.   While giving may be a sensitive subject to some of us, when we see what God’s Word has to say about it, we can rest assured that it is not a sensitive subject to God! 

6.   More is said about giving than about a whole host of other important topics, and while this lesson cannot be an exhaustive study, we will attempt to cover some of the key concepts in the Bible.

BODY:

I.      Tithing in the Old Testament

A.   Tithing (giving a tenth of one’s income) was a very important part of the Mosiac system in the OT – dating from about 1500 BC.

1.   Leviticus 27:30-32.

2.   Note the reason for the tithe in Numbers 18:20-21 – to support the priesthood (and we have a similar need to support ministry staff today).

3.   A careful study of tithing under the Law of Moses will show that the basic tithe was the base amount of their giving, but that additional specified offerings raised their giving level beyond that figure.

B.   The practice of tithing was much older than Moses’ Law, being apparently a part of God’s plan from the beginning.

1.   In Genesis 14:17-20, we see that the father of the faithful, Abraham, paid tithes from the spoils of battle.

2.   In Genesis 28:20-22, we find the Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes, vowing to pay tithes of everything that he received from the hand of God.

C.   Therefore, although we are not under the Mosaic system, we can see that tithing has long been a part of God’s plan.

1.   It was a subject that God took very seriously – read Malachi 3:8-12 carefully.

2.   One way to look at how the concept could have application even to our day is to reason that since the New Covenant under which we live is a far superior covenant (as the whole book of Hebrews argues), then we certainly would not want to give less than any good Jew in the OT.

3.   However, while giving 1/10^th of our income might be a good starting place, it may not be the right ending place, for the Bible has much more to say about the subject.

II.    Giving To Meet Needs In the Book of Acts

A.   Look at Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:32-35.

1.   Note the context of these two passages:  thousands of disciples were baptized from every nation on earth, and needed to stay in Jerusalem in order to be grounded in their new faith before returning to their own lands to spread the good news.

a.    Our needs today are similar in this respect:  supporting ministry staff to take care of present needs in our congregation, and in the future, spreading out to other parts of Phoenix and to Arizona.

b.    The support and training of ministry staff is always going to be a very important reason for our giving (though certainly not the only one).

B.   However, meeting needs must go far beyond the training of staff.

1.   It is focused on meeting evangelistic needs is a number of ways.

2.   It is also aimed at meeting the physical and emotional needs of those of our own number, and additionally at meeting these same needs of the poor and less fortunate than ourselves outside the church.

C.   Giving to meet various sorts of needs is common in the New Testament, and therefore is a very valid consideration – but the NT has much more to say about our giving.

III.   Giving As a Demonstration of Spirituality

A.   2 Corinthians 8 & 9 provide some of the best in-depth teaching about the connection between giving and spirituality to be found in the whole Bible.

B.   Giving money is an extension of first giving ourselves to God (2 Corinthians 8:1-5). 

1.   Note also that the people gave themselves to the leaders (verse 5) – this requires both an appreciation and trust of our leaders.

2.   Recently, the subject of restricted giving to specified areas came up in our church, and the Board of Directors has formulated a policy to guide us in that matter.

a.    Restricted giving means that we as individual givers would designate exactly where and how our contribution would be used.

b.    The essence of the policy of the Board is that our regular weekly contributions will go into our general operations budget.

c.    However, special contributions beyond our regular giving may on occasion be directed toward specified areas, based on the criteria in this policy and under the approval and oversight of the elders.

d.    The upcoming special contribution is an example of our opportunity to choose between several works and to direct our contributions into those specific areas.

3.   Biblically, leaders of the church determined the exact distribution of the contributions.

a.    Read Acts 4:34-5:2.

b.    Also in Acts 11:29-30 we read:  “The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. [30] This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.”

c.    Paul’s reassurance about how the funds would be administered is the same assurance that we offer you as leaders:  “We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. [21] For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men” (2 Corinthians 8:20-21).

C.   Giving is an act of grace on our part, and therefore giving is called a grace (2 Corinthians 8:6-7).

D.   Our giving tests the sincerity of our love and shows our imitation of Christ (2 Corinthians 8:8-9).

E.    Our willingness and desire to give is more important than the amount we actually give (2 Corinthians 8:10-12).

F.    Equality in giving means that as a family, we each do our part to the best of our ability (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

G.   Our giving determines the amount and types of blessings that God is able to give us (2 Corinthians 9:6-15).

1.   Giving sparingly limits God’s blessings in your life, and giving generously increases his blessings in your life (verse 6).  (Note the Malachi 3:8-12 passage that we looked at earlier on this point.)

2.   Giving is a spiritual decision, and giving must be done cheerfully (verse 7).

3.   Giving generously enables God to bless us both financially and spiritually (verses 8-11).

4.   Our giving results in more and more people, inside and outside the church, giving overflowing praise to God (verses 9-15).

IV.The Ultimate Goal of Giving Is Stewardship and Sacrifice

A.   Stewardship is our safeguard again materialism and greed (Luke 14:25-33).

1.   In verse 33, the NASV translates it “all of your possessions.”

2.   It shows us the concept of everything belonging to God, with us being only managers of what God has given us.

3.   The “sharecropper” concept is exactly what the NT teaches us about the way that we view and use money. 

a.    The sharecropper lives on another’s land and farms it, taking for himself only what is required to live and sustain his life. 

b.    Obviously, such an arrangement would never allow for materialism and possessiveness.

c.    It is vital to understand that our view of use and money is not just a nice ideal to shoot for – the text does say “cannot be my disciple.”

4.   This approach makes some important lessons very obvious:

a.    Giving a tenth may or may not approach what a disciple ought to be doing.

(1)Giving $20 of a weekly income of $200 would likely be quite a sacrifice and might well represent the concept of stewardship.

(2)Giving $200 of a weekly income of $2,000 would not necessarily constitute a sacrifice or good stewardship, and could indicate that we have already fallen prey to a materialistic lifestyle.

b.    Our lifestyles should be legitimate and reasonable, rather than giving out of our abundance and then spending the rest on our luxuries.

(1)Many of us have some soul-searching to do, and some radical changing in both our attitudes and our lifestyles may be God’s call to us right now.

(2)One word of warning at this point:  deal with yourself, and fight the temptation to be the judge of everyone else – envy and jealousy can strike quickly and seriously in this area if we become judges of one another!

B.   Sacrifice in giving is determined not by how much we give, but by how much we haveleft after we give.

1.   Mark 12:41-44 – this one is full of lessons for us.

a.    One such lesson is that the widow gave her money to God and was commended for doing so, yet from a human perspective, the money was going into a corrupt Jewish system.

b.    Study the passage and meditate about this and other lessons.

2.   Where have you drawn the line in your giving?  What are you not willing to do?

CONCLUSION:

1.   Review – giving that pleases God begins with the tithe principle, progresses to meeting needs, is a demonstration of our spirituality, and must conform to Jesus’ teaching about discipleship.

2.   We have the opportunity to grow in the grace of giving, to accomplish more than ever before, and to become increasingly sacrificial and thus more like Jesus.

3.   May God help all of us to be disciples in the fullest sense of the word, especially as it relates to our giving. 

4.   Let’s give in a way that allows the church to be strengthened, the world to be evangelized, the poor to be helped, and our God to be glorified!

—Gordon Ferguson (April 2005)

Do You Want to Get Well?

Introduction

This article is a written form of a spoken message delivered on March 28, 2004 to the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ.  As with the previous sermon, “What Do We Now Believe?,” I wanted our members to be able to study out this material in more depth, and the written format will again allow that possibility.  As mentioned in that previous article, I am taking the liberty to edit my own material by adding some things that were not included in the oral presentation of the lesson, and perhaps leave out a few other items.  The question reflected in the title comes from Jesus’ question of the invalid recorded in John 5:1-9.  Often this man is seen as not wanting to get well badly enough to put forth his best effort, and hence Jesus’ question of him.  Perhaps that is true, but the point that stands out to me is that no matter what our condition, Jesus wants to help and stands ready to help.  He did heal the man after all, didn’t he?

However, the question Jesus asked nearly two thousand years ago resounds in our age as well.  Especially is it appropriate when we may not be doing great spiritually.  Note that the question is not “Do you want to be well,” but “Do you want to get well.”   One thing that can be said for the guy mentioned in John 5:  he gets a “P” for perseverance—he didn’t give up, and ended up with the blessing.  Although my points will not revolve around that idea, it is a classic principle that those who hang in long enough usually find the higher ground spiritually that they are looking for.  But let’s talk about the need and the path of getting well (which includes persevering).

What Is It To Be Well?

Physically, after an illness, it is great when we wake up one morning and feel so differently!  Even after a good night’s sleep, it is wonderful to awake rested and then enjoy a brisk prayer walk (especially on the cool mornings we have been having recently).  It just feels good – really good.  Spiritually, feeling well is directly connected with being full of the Holy Spirit.  A good indicator of our wellness quotient is Galatians 5:22-23, which reads:  “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”  For me, the first three of these are the best indicators – love, joy, peace.  In fact, just the definition of love found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 pretty well does it in my case.  Do these words describe your present spiritual attitudes and actions?

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

Peter’s comments in 1 Peter 4:8 may be the acid test of our spiritual wellness, as he states:  “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”  Grace and forgiveness of our fellow humans, and fellow Christians, are inseparably connected to our spiritual health.  When I’m well, I just feel God’s love and in turn, I feel love for about everyone.  And when I’m not well, critical, unloving thoughts lie near the surface of my heart.  How about you?

What Is It To Not Be Well?

To begin with, lots of gradations are possible—both physically and spiritually.  For example, we can be physically under the weather only slightly, being tired, listless, or having a headache.  Obviously, these are not good ways to feel, but the problem is not serious enough to put us in bed. Moving into the more serious physical maladies, we can be debilitated with a virus or similar illness to the point that we simply cannot even get out of bed.  At the end of that spectrum, our physical condition may be terminal.  However, at the outset of a terminal illness, we may not even know that we have the disease. 

Spiritual illnesses can be found in much the same gradations.  On the milder end of the possibilities, we can be having a down day, a poor week, or a bad month.  (Actually, I’ve had some bad years!)  Although we are not at our best, we are not in terrible shape and are still relatively functional.  However, if we remain in this state too long and don’t seriously attempt to change it, being listless and unmotivated can lead to being seen by God as “lukewarm” or “having lost one’s first love” (Revelation 2 & 3).  We may keep going through the motions outwardly, but inwardly the situation is more serious than we may imagine.  We can move across the line and become terminal, unless urgent intervention ensues.  We can only wonder how many times God has found a way to intervene, and to nurse us back to spiritual health. 

How do you know if you are really not well?  If being well means that we are characterized by the fruit of the Spirit, being unwell would be the opposite – being characterized by the acts of the sinful nature.  Listen carefully to Paul’s words in Galatians 5:19-21:

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Relational challenges that are not being resolved, sinful behavior, being negative about ourselves, others and life in general are a dead giveaway that we are unhealthy spiritually.

What Will It Take To Get Well? 

If our problem is fairly minor, it may be simply a matter of conditioning – getting back into condition.  If we make sure that we are praying consistently, reading our Bibles and spiritual books regularly, we will improve our condition, perhaps quickly.  Additionally, getting time with other Christians to bare our hearts is another essential part of getting back into a healthy spiritual state.  I have heard so many comments from disciples about how they did so much better with a regularly scheduled discipling partner and discipling time. During the last year as our ministry structure was being re-evaluated, many stopped having discipling times. We must remember that we are the one whom made that choice.  It is unreasonable to criticize the structural control being exerted in our lives and then decry the lack of structure being provided.  What this boils down to is simply this:  take responsibility for yourself and get the help you need from others.  “One another” responsibilities come from God anyway, not from leaders.  I recall at times being absolutely shocked at the difference in myself after one time of unloading my heart and burdens with someone else.  Let’s not allow Satan to keep us from availing ourselves of all the resources that God provides for our healthiness. 

If our spiritual malady is more serious, more serious measures will be needed to offset it.  Perhaps a time of fasting and prayer, a spiritual getaway; obtaining some in-depth counseling, or working out relational challenges are other ingredients in our prescription for getting well.  But what if our condition is potentially terminal?  We must pull out all of the stops and get help—fast!  The longer you wait to get treatment, the more the disease progresses, just like cancer.

I know that the events of last year took a toll on just about all of us, and it has taken some time to get healthy again.  Some of us are still not healthy.  It’s like having an accident or surgery – time to recover is needed, but also needed is the right treatment to heal and to heal correctly.  As a leader, I have tried to be wise about this process (compared to the way I think some other leaders may have approached it).  Some have tried to short-circuit the healing process and said, in effect, “We’ve all been hurt and will all be hurt again.  Just get over it.”  (Try that approach on your wife after hurting her!)  Of course we all have to get over it, but ascertaining the process of proper healing is the issue at hand.  When told to move on before they are healed, some in response have said, “Wait, I can’t walk yet, much less run!”  I understand that response, for time is needed to heal from big emotional hits, as well as taking the proper approach for, well, healthy healing. 

What causes us to remain stuck and unable to move forward?  Bottom line, a situation that violates our sense of fairness, justice and righteousness to the point that our foundation of faith is seriously damaged – and relational blows are the most damaging of all.  When all of the “systemic sins” of our movement were forced out into the light almost overnight, some were appalled that their own idealistic views were not really accurate.  Others, already quite in touch with our movement sins, said “I told you so,” and their frustrations, anger and bitterness leapt out of their hearts and mouths.  It was a trying time to all of us, and a time from which some have yet to recover.

Could the Damage Have Been Lessened?

Looking back on what happened in the past year brings much to my mind—what did happen, what could have happened and what I think should have happened.  However, I understand that hindsight is always much closer to 20/20, which hopefully keeps me from being overly critical.  With that in mind, I do have some observations about what might have been done to reduce the amount of collateral damage in the upheaval of 2003.  We have to try and learn all that we can from past mistakes, for history has a way of repeating itself.  Let me begin by saying that I don’t think an upheaval could have been avoided.  I believe it was needed and brought about by God – a case of divine discipline right in our face (and hopefully it made it down to our hearts!). 

I have heard some leaders say that our movement was already making changes (that part’s true), and would have gone on to make all other needed changes.  Personally, I don’t come even close to buying into that brand of thinking, which to me seems unrealistically optimistic.  The biggest changes needed were and are in the realm of how we view, treat and motivate people, and we still have much to unlearn and learn in this area.  Our sins were serious and deep-rooted, and it took a direct hit from God to force the depth and breadth of changes needed.  We haven’t yet implemented all of them, but on the other hand, we have made tremendous progress in a short time.  In fact, I am aware of only one other movement in recent history that has made the amount of changes that we have in such a short period of time.  To those who remain impatient (and critical) with the changes that have been made, I would simply encourage them to make a list of what has already changed.  That should give you hope for the future, and increase your patience! 

But if we had it all to do over again, what could have been done differently to reduce the collateral damage (in war terminology, the “friendly fire”)?  Since the Kriete letter pretty much lit the fuse, let’s start there.  To begin with, I think the letter could have (should have) been written in a less incendiary manner.  I think that God stirred Henry up to write it, but I wish it had been written in a way that forced us to face the issues and deal with them, howbeit in a more discerning manner.  In the minds of many, all leaders were judged guilty of all that any leader did anywhere, and all churches or ministry groups were judged guilty of all that any group had done.  Good intentions, benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, grace and forgiveness were forgotten principles in far too many cases.  The letter started both a holy revolution and an unholy revolution at the same time. 

But rest assured that I think something drastic had to be done to force change.  One mature leader in Boston put it something like this:  “God used the approach of kindness in trying to get leaders to repent through the writing of the book, Golden Rule Leadership.”  When leaders in high places were resistant to that approach, God sent Henry.”  (As one of the co-authors of the book, with my accompanying biases, I agree with his analysis!)  As I have often said in the past year, in our movement we have done many right things in many wrong ways.  I think Henry’s letter falls in that category—a right thing done in a wrong way.  Once Henry’s letter was made public, I wished that a second letter would have followed pretty quickly, urging people to continue to push (even demand) change, but in ways that were more godly.  We can’t run the clock back now, but we all have to learn from our hindsight experiences, for “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Another thing that could have reduced collateral damage in 2003 was the right kind of apologies from leaders.  What is the right kind of apology?  One, it is specific.  By the way, much of what I say about apologies are lessons I have learned (often the hard way!) in my marriage and family.  Saying to my wife, “I’m sorry I messed up yesterday” just doesn’t get it done!  She wants to know the specifics of what I am apologizing for—at least all of them that I see.  The clamor last year about whether a given leader “got it” or not is reflective of this point.  Some leaders apparently were afraid if they said too much, people would become even more critical.  Humility is the only judge needed of that concept!  When other leaders were painfully specific, people’s minds were relieved that leaders did in fact “get it” and thus were less likely to repeat the same sins.  I understand the lack of trust when leaders were unwilling to apologize specifically.  Frankly, I share it.

Two, apologies should have been humble and heartfelt.  Again, when I say “I’m sorry” to Theresa in a terse, begrudging manner, even after being specific, it doesn’t free her up.  She wants me to feel the right kind of pain at having caused her pain by my sin.  Bottom line, she expects true humility from me, and since God settles for no less, her expectations are totally reasonable and righteous.  Our people expected humble responses from us, and so did God.  Leaders who were specific and humble fared much, much better than those who were not.

Three (and this is often overlooked), appropriate apologies should have been made by the appropriate people.  In the Boston church leaders’ apology letter, a very important sentence read thus:  “The higher the level of leadership, the greater the responsibility.”  Higher-level leaders were the ones who made policies and were most influential in determining what we would do and how we would do it.  To me, one of the saddest parts of the collateral damage during our upheaval was in how younger leaders were viewed and treated.  Little discernment was practiced on this point, and those least responsible were judged to be about as guilty as those who were in reality most responsible.  The end result was that many highly promising young leaders resigned and will likely never return to ministry staff leadership again.  They did not deserve the harsh judgment and treatment they received. 

I commend Steve Johnson, former World Sector Leader, for understanding this principle and taking responsibility for what went on under his direction.  He also recognized that his apology had to be made on as broad a scale as his realm of influence had been felt.  Apologies in more private settings are great, but if not as broadly directed as the influence wielded, those hurt are left unsatisfied and perhaps unhealed.  Regarding young leaders in the NYC church, he wrote the following in his public apology letter: 

They were trying to do as they were taught and still often would be conflicted between what I said and what they saw going on in the church. It was my mistake to put so many of you under such young leadership. Blame me, not them. They did work hard for you. I don’t know how to deal with the pain I feel for having hurt such young hearts or for having placed all of you in a position where you felt so disregarded and disrespected. It was all my fault. I am so sorry.       

If leaders with greater influence had taken this approach early on, much of the negative impact on young leaders might have been avoided and we as a movement would have been better off for it.  If all leaders had quickly followed all three of these principles of righteous apologies, the damage would have been reduced significantly.

What Will It Take To Get Unstuck?

Well, enough of looking at what might have been.  Let’s learn the lessons from what could or should have been, and then get on with being healed.  While I understand why some people are still stuck, my concern is that at some point if we don’t begin walking, we may never walk again – we may lose the ability to bounce back.  When we experience major emotional hits, such as the death of a loved one or a divorce, it takes time to heal.  It often takes a year to start coming out of the fog.  I have been patient with those who were still in the fog after the events of 2003, but now I am becoming more and more alarmed when their healing process is making no progress.  Perhaps the most apt analogy I can use to describe the condition of those who can’t seem to get past the past is that they have spiritual hypothermia.  A person with physical hypothermia has experienced a shock to his system to the point that his system starts shutting down.  His shock is exposure to cold that is beyond his body’s ability to cope.  For example, think of someone who fell through the ice of a frozen lake in the wilderness.  Assume that he crawled out of the lake and started walking toward his car two miles away.  After the icy shock subsides, his body begins to shut down and he starts to feel warm, and then he feels very sleepy.  Thinking that the walking has warmed up his body, he has a strong desire to sit down and rest or even take a quick nap.  If he gives in to that desire, he will be found as a frozen clump sometime later.  What he has mistaken as warmth is his physical system shutting down.  He must force himself to keep going until he is able to find real warmth in a protected environment. 

We can reach a similar point spiritually, in that we can be stuck to the point that we all but lose our ability to bounce back.  Unless we keep moving, we will die, and our moving has to be in harmony with God’s directions.  If I could choose only one passage to describe this direction, it would unquestionably be 1 Peter 2:18-3:9.  Earlier in this lesson I said that our being stuck spiritually results from experiencing a situation that violates our sense of fairness, justice and righteousness to the point that our foundation of faith is seriously damaged.  This passage in 1 Peter is shocking to our sensibilities in several respects, but it describes how Jesus dealt with such situations.  Read these words carefully:

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. [19] For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. [20] But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. [21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.  [22] “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”  [23] When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:18-23).

My sensibilities are shocked immediately by reading the word “slaves.”  The very idea that one human would own another human is repugnant.  Yet, it was reality in the first century, and God insisted on his people responding righteously in what would appear to be ungodly situations.  Slaves were to be submissive and respectful—always, and to every slave master, whether gentle and kind, or harsh and overbearing.  Why?  Not because of who the master was but because of who they were.  Better yet, because of whose they were!  They were children of the King, and the King had already shown the way of the cross to them.  Just what is the way of the cross?  Doing what is right and righteous no matter how badly and unfairly you are being treated.  Isn’t that part and parcel of what following Jesus is all about in the first place?  The first decision to make in becoming a true Christian is the hardest one of all:  “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).  This step is not optional.  We cannot be saved without taking it and then continuing to take it all of our lives.

Note the wording in 1 Peter 3, as the “way of the cross” principle is applied in other situations.  “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives” (verse 1).  What is “the same way” but the way of the cross just described?  Read verses 1-6 to see what the response of the wife to her husband is to be, regardless of his treatment of her.  My sensibilities are in shock once more!  “Husbands, in the same way…” (verse 7).  Again, the way of the cross is applied to the husband’s treatment of his wife – regardless of what her treatment of him might be.  Peter just won’t let up in applying this principle!  But the most challenging application of all is yet to come.  Our sensibilities are going to be hit, and hit hard, one last time.

In verses 8-9, we read:  “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. [9] Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.”  The word “finally” shows that Peter is making his final application of the principle, and this time it is to the church as a whole.  Verse 8 describes life in the kingdom the way it should be.  But verse 9 describes life in the kingdom the way it shouldn’t be and yet sometimes is.  The way of the cross is most difficult when those we love most and think should love us most do not treat us lovingly.  Yet, God calls us to imitate Jesus and refuse to repay evil with evil and insult with insult.  Our love must respond to a lack of love in the same way that Jesus responded to ill treatment, even when from the hands of brothers and sisters in Christ.

One of the most challenging books I have read in the past year is all about this subject.  It is entitled Exquisite Agony and is written by Gene Edwards (author also of The Tale of Three Kings).  I cannot take the space to quote the excerpts I read in the oral presentation of this lesson, but you would do well to read it, for it helps the principles of 1 Peter 2 & 3 come alive.  The book is brief and can be quickly read, but it will convict you mightily if you read it with an open heart.  Essentially, the writer avows that all crucifixions are from God, and unless we accept our ill treatment at the hands of men as being ultimately from God, we will not get well.  Without that acceptance, we will have suffered only mistreatment and not crucifixion, and will be damaged as a result.  Many are stuck right here.  They blame men for their suffering and do not surrender to God as the author of their suffering.  Jesus deserved nothing of his crucifixion, for it was ill intentioned treatment at the hands of his own people.  They hated him and they killed him, and that was the cause of his death – or so it would seem.  What does God say about all of that?  Just this:  “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10).

Think through the principle suggested in the following verses carefully. 

We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. [11] For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body (2 Corinthians 4:10-11). 

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church (Colossians 1:24). 

If Jesus drew the world to himself through suffering unjustly in a godly, almost “other worldly” manner, can we do it in a different way?  Any of us can respond reasonably well to just treatment—there is no test involved in that.  But who of us can respond righteously to unrighteous treatment (even from our brothers)?  The simple answer:  only those of us determined to go the way of the cross.  The challenging answer:  only those of us determined to be Christians (which demands that we go the way of the cross)!

Edwards dedicates a later chapter in this book to Jesus’ reactions after his resurrection.  With tongue in cheek, he describes the bitter responses that might have been forthcoming from Jesus, but shows that a true resurrection following a true crucifixion (one accepted as from God) leaves no bitterness at all.  Resurrections make everything new, especially the past.  The author goes on to mention that so many of us in the aftermath of our crucifixion cannot leave the past behind, and insist on recounting the details of our ill treatment.  When we won’t let it go, the reason is clear.  We have not accepted our crucifixion as from God.  Period.  Therefore, we have been damaged and not healed; hurt and not helped; crippled and not strengthened.  Listen to God’s words on this matter:  “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.  Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. Make level paths for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed” (Hebrews 12:11-13).

In preaching about the resurrection recently in the NE Region, I recalled these words of an old hymn:  “Must Jesus bear the cross alone and all the world go free?  No, there’s a cross for everyone, and there’s a cross for me.”  Do you believe this, and will you embrace yours?  Peter rebuked Jesus for saying that he was going to take the way of the cross (Mark 8:31-38).  Jesus then rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” and saying in Mark 8:33 that Peter did “not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”  What were the “things of men?”  Answer:  a cross-less Christianity.  Is that what you are after?  If you refuse to endure your crosses as being from the hand of God, you are in essence requesting a cross-less Christianity.  The sad ending to that request is that Christianity without crosses – Jesus and ours – is no Christianity at all.

Conclusion

Spiritually, how healthy are you right now?  If unhealthy, do you want to get well?  As with the invalid of John 5, Jesus stands ready to help.  But he will not help us in a way contrary to the cross – in fact, he simply cannot.  The spiritual laws of the universe do not allow other solutions than those from God.  Please, let’s all get well, and let’s surrender to the cure that Jesus provides!  If I had the past year to do over, I would have responded more wisely and more righteously in a number of situations.  However, I don’t have the opportunity to relive last year.  I do have the opportunity to repent, learn from my mistakes and begin anew by the grace of God – and so do you.  Let’s do it now and let’s do it together.  Our future individually and as a church is as bright as the promises of God.  May he heal us all, and may we bring him more glory in the future than we ever did or even dreamed of doing in the past!

—Gordon Ferguson (May 2004)

Appreciating Our History

NOTE:  This article was written back in 2002, prior to the startling changes in what we have called in ICOC.  In some ways, therefore, it is somewhat dated.  However, the biblical and practical lessons found in it are worth sharing in our present day.  In some ways, they may be even more significant.  See what you think!

As members of the International Churches of Christ, we are well aware of our emphasis on the brief development of our history as a movement.  We remember all about the Gempel’s living room on that fateful night in June of 1979.  The details of those first church plantings in Chicago and New York City, followed by the first foreign planting in London, and then the first planting in a foreign language in Paris are all a part of our memory treasures.  We could go on and on, recalling the glories of such historic plantings as those in Johannesburg, Cairo, and Moscow.  We do glory in our history, because we are convinced that God was the one writing history by using our feeble but heroic human efforts to accomplish his divine purposes.  Who could ever forget the Jubilee celebration at the completion of the six year plan as those 170 flags were proudly borne high, each representing a nation in which a church was now established!

In our emphasis on our history, we are imitating our Jewish forefathers.  Anyone even vaguely acquainted with the Bible is aware of their appreciation of God’s hand in their lives as a movement.  The sermons recorded in Acts are clear examples of this consistent historical emphasis.  Stephen’s audience in Acts 7 may have hated the latter part of his sermon, but they were all ears during the earlier part as he traced their history through renown leaders such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Solomon.  The Jews loved recounting their past, for it demonstrated their tie with God above all other nations of the earth.  Our love for the history of God’s modern day movement is but an extension of what his people have always reveled in.  Indeed, God has done great things among us!

It is important to note that every part of sacred history has been glorious, but the glory of each has not been the same.  Certainly in the Old Testament both high points and low points were all included, and to some extent, all appreciated.  The low points taught lessons, which led to higher ground as God blessed repentance.  2 Corinthians 3:7-11 says that the old covenant was glorious, but not nearly as glorious as the new covenant of Jesus Christ.  The fact that the later was more glorious should not be used to dismiss the glory and appreciation of the former.  Whenever God uses his people to accomplish his purposes, it is cause for rejoicing.  The accomplishments of our children when they are in elementary school may not compare to their accomplishments in college, but they are precious memories to us nonetheless.

The Israelite movement of God was absolutely essential as a foundation for the new Israel, the church of God.  Praise God for the faithful who awaited the coming of the Messiah and his greater kingdom.  We thrill as we read of Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, Mary and Joseph, who were graced with seeing God enter the world wrapped in the human flesh of a crying child, Simeon and Anna, whose presence graced the temple and whose prayers of thanksgiving were laced with prophecies about this child who would rule the nations.  While it is quite true that most of Israel did not later accept the crucified Christ, they had been pursuing a law of righteousness which should have led them to him (Romans 9:31-32).  A significant minority did follow the OT prophesies right into the church, beginning with the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost, and continuing with daily conversions in those first days in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41-47).

We often see that early beginning in Jerusalem as one of the most glorious pieces in the history of the first century church, but in some ways it had its limitations.  For one thing, the church was filled with racial bigots for a number of years.  It took God using a pretty nominal Jew, Peter, who could only be convinced that Gentiles were worthy of salvation through the rebuke of a series of visions.  Even then, he later struggled with the application of those divinely revealed truths (Galatians 2:11-21).  Toward the end of the New Testament revelation, the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem were amazingly still attached to their Judaic history (Acts 21).  Until the destruction of the outward aspects of Judaism in 70 AD at the hands of the Roman army, the intermingling of the less glorious with the more glorious was still a reality.  As the writer of Hebrews stated, the old glory that was “obsolete and aging” was soon to disappear (Hebrews 8:13), which it did at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

What are we saying in all of this?  Simply that in spite of the weaknesses in that early church, we still rejoice in all of its glorious history, for it all was the work of Almighty God, from start to finish.  What needs to be said further is that we have a very similar lesson to learn regarding our modern day movement.  At best, we are failing to recognize and appreciate some of our own history, and at worst, we are guilty of the sins of ingratitude and arrogance.  Let’s begin this line of thought by looking at a very relevant but often overlooked passage in Romans 11:11-20.

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.  17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.

By the time Paul wrote Romans, the church was becoming more and more Gentile in composition.  The Gentiles were failing to see either themselves or the Jews in a realistic light, out of their own pride.  Paul shows them that their inclusion in the kingdom was designed to provoke the Jews to jealousy in hopes of causing them to reconsider their own decisions about Jesus as Messiah.  He further tells the Gentiles that they actually stood on the foundation of the Jewish religion, and that they stood on the basis of faith, not on their own merits.  Instead of being arrogant and critical, they should have been appreciative of their Jewish heritage. 

What is the application to us?  Actually, there are several.  Our movement has a history that goes far back before 1979 in Boston.  We are built upon the foundation of what we now call the mainline Church of Christ, or by the more descriptive term, the Restoration Movement.  The early days of this group were actually pretty glorious.  Ministers from many different denominations banded together with the lofty intent of rejecting creeds in favor of following the Bible only.  Surely we would all agree that this was, and remains, a noble goal.  Many stories could be recounted from the 1800’s that are impressive and thrilling.  Thousands of people were baptized at the preaching of men who were sold out for their cause, to the point that some of them actually gave their lives for it as martyrs.  One of the best known leaders, Alexander Campbell, developed the convictions that led to his leaving both the Presbyterian church and later the Baptist church, and through this process, he became the leading religious debater of his age, widely known and respected in and out of his movement. 

Whatever else may be said about this period, it clearly had its glory and formed the foundation for what we enjoy today.  Even in the mid-20^th century, the churches of Christ were said to be the fastest growing indigenous religious group in America.  Although legalism eventually choked out the growth of many congregations, and thus led many of them to a position of being fairly non-evangelistic, lukewarm, and doctrinally compromised, we grew up as a movement out of that root system.  Virtually every doctrinal argument I used in my book, Prepared to Answer, I learned in that particular group.  I appreciate all that I learned, although I did struggle with the persecution I received at the hands of some in that group.  However, Paul had received more persecution from the Jews in his day than any of us in our day have received from our persecutors, and we have to keep that in mind.  We must be diligent about keeping our hearts humble and appreciative. 

Actually, the reason for writing this article is not primarily to help us be less critical and more grateful toward the mainline Church of Christ (although I hope it accomplishes that too).  We have another part of our historical root system that is in many ways more important to us as a movement than the mainline background.  Of course, I refer to the Campus Ministry segment of our history, which we often call the Crossroads movement.  I think that this era was glorious in many, many ways, and yet the comments I sometimes hear regarding it vary from dismissive to derogatory.  The claim that we have had a revisionist history regarding the Crossroads days is unquestionably true.  The contribution of that era is larger than many among us admit, and the overall lack of gratitude toward it, combined with what seems to be purposeful avoidance of even discussing that period (by some), is very hurtful to those who came from that background.  We simply must address this issue in an upfront manner and rectify our shortcomings regarding it.

Sadly, the end of that period was brought about by the sin of the Crossroads pulpit minister, which led to his dismissal by the elders.  (Let me add the note that he and his family have done well in the years that followed, and I still consider them to be special friends to whom I owe much.)  This unfortunate turn of events led to the demise of the influence of the Crossroads church, and subsequently, of those most closely associated with it.  At the same time, the Boston church was growing in influence, and in a good way, Kip and the elders exerted a noble effort to unify the then current movement by bringing key leaders into Boston for more training and to unify the key leaders into one movement from their various sources.  Certainly the movement tracing back to Boston days is the more glorious, but the campus ministry movement blazed some trails without which none of us would be what we now are.  Period.  Anything bordering on disdain toward that era on the part of any of us who sit upon that foundation is nothing short of sinful, and I strongly encourage repentance on the parts of those who need it.

I have plenty of sins of which to repent, but being critical of the Crossroads days is not one of them.  I first visited the Crossroads church in 1981, and my life was radically changed as a result of that one week visit and the later trips to speak on the Florida Evangelism Seminar.  How that group was spawned out of the tradition-bound mainline Church of Christ of that day still amazes and thrills me.  We may have taken things further in many ways (and we have, by God’s grace), but their coming out of their labyrinth is, in my considered opinion, about as remarkable as what we have done since. My purpose is not to create some kind of prideful competitive comparison, but only to cause us to look back at all segments of our history in a way that is both realistic and spiritual.

I glory in the many positive qualities and achievements of the mainline Church of Christ, although my frustration with its shortcomings led to my leaving it, burning bridges in a way that necessarily left scars in my soul.  I cannot defend everything I did in that process, by the way.  I am grateful to be where I am, and during those many years since I came into our present movement, I have never wished to be back in that old root system.  But I appreciate my history as I searched for that more excellent way.  Similarly, I glory in the many positive contributions of the Campus Ministry Movement, for without it, we would certainly not be where we are today.  Yes, they did some things wrong, but they did far more right than wrong, and my prediction is that we will actually reinstate some of their practices that we have typically deemed wrong in the past.  I am grateful that we have all been delivered from that “church within a church” setting that was the case with many former campus ministry congregations, but I do not make light of all that we learned from it, especially the campus ministry part of it, which was not significantly different from what we do today – unless it be noted that their growth in campus baptisms often eclipsed our present growth on most campuses.

As to the specific contributions of the Campus Ministry Movement, many could be noted with but little thought, even by an “outsider” such as me.  The insistence of total commitment as an essential component of repentance preceding baptism was a novel idea and sorely needed.  The viewing the Bible as a standard for the attitudes and behavior of Christians, instead of simply being an idealistic standard, was likewise so needed.  This mindset led to the kind of straightforward authoritative preaching that was all but absent from the pulpits of traditional churches.  Discipleship in both its vertical aspect (commitment to Christ) and horizontal aspect (close, open spiritual relationships) was admirably stressed.  The later focus on “discipleship partners” at all levels rather than the “prayer partner” arrangement of those days initially looked far better in theory than the practice has ended up, because of the tendency of over/under relationships to be mishandled.  The emphasis on relational evangelism, with ample practical teaching about how to develop such relationships, stood out like a beacon for those not thus trained in other settings.  Last, but certainly not least, an impressively large percentage of elders and evangelists in the most influential leadership roles in the movement today trace their roots back to Crossroads or to campus ministries led by those who were trained at Crossroads.

One mistake I often make in generalizing about the Campus Ministry Movement is failing to distinguish between the different commitment levels of churches who had campus ministries.  The “church within a church” weakness often noted was generally true, in that the demands of discipleship were not equally applied to members of all ages.  However, some churches were much more even handed in calling for and expecting such commitment from its membership, with congregations like Crossroads and San Diego (Poway) being among this number.  The amount of persecution each received is a pretty good testimony to that fact.  The handling of said persecution by such churches paved the way for responding to later persecution after 1979, for many lessons were learned (positively and negatively).  I do not believe that the commitment levels in congregations like these was where it should have been overall, but it should be noted that they were light years ahead of others within the more traditional Churches of Christ.  I appreciate their determination and advances as they strove to emerge out of the denominational darkness from whence they came.  They came further in many ways from their root system than we have since, for philosophically and practically, they had further to go.  I would not want to return to where the better Campus Ministry churches were, to be sure, but I am both amazed and grateful for the progress that has enabled us to build upon their earlier foundation.  

I pray that those who read these thoughts are both challenged and helped by them.  I am concerned that our present slowdown of growth in the movement is directly related to the sins that are in our camp, one of which is described herein.  God blesses righteousness and blocks unrighteousness; he exalts the humble and resists the proud; he rewards the spiritual and confuses the worldly.  Let’s be willing to examine our hearts individually and collectively as we seek to become more like the God who loves us.  Let’s absolutely and unequivocally appreciate our history, but let’s not leave out any of it.  The presence of the more glorious cannot be allowed to invalidate the less glorious, for both are glorious before God, and the greater would not be present without the lesser.

—Gordon Ferguson (2002)