“And here is my final point…”
During our evening service last night, I ran out time and was unable to bring the final point of my sermon to the congregation that had gathered in St Columba’s Church of Scotland, here in Bridge of Don. As a result, I promised that I would post my final point on this blog, so here it is, and it relates to the issue of knowing when the moment has come, in the purposes of God, to move on and to serve the Gospel elsewhere.
In last night’s sermon I was expounding Acts chapter 14 verses 1-7, where the character and method, as well as the experience, of Paul and Barnabas as faith-sharers are revealed. Here’s a brief précis.
Firstly, they were determined, fearless, but also loving faith-sharers. Secondly, they ‘spoke’ about Christ, and did so effectively, with real and lasting fruit – many believed. Thirdly, opposition to their faith-sharing was united – recently we have similarly seen the religious (liberal elements of the Kirk) and the irreligious (the media) unite in opposition against Church of Scotland evangelicals. But the response of Paul and Barnabas was to spend ‘considerable time there’, in spite of the gathering violence and hostility.
In the challenging times in which we now find ourselves, the lesson we must take from this is to resist the temptation to pack our bags and escape at the first hint of a fight. Paul and Barnabas stayed in Iconium as long as they possible could, and we must stay where we are as long as we can.
And so here is my final point, and it concerns the response of Paul and Barnabas to the increasingly hostile environment in which they now found themselves.
Paul and Barnabas did not minister in foolish ignorance of the threat surrounding them. They were sensible and realistic men. They knew that a plot was afoot, and they did not fail to read the signs. When the time came to leave Iconium, they left.
As Church of Scotland evangelicals, we, too, must read the signs of our denomination carefully and not be naive. The so-called breadth of the church is not static and fixed. It is a moving and expanding thing, and it is moving in the direction of throwing off restraint and scriptural discipline. We must take note of that. Just as Paul and Barnabas did not remain where they were, no matter what, we must also be sensitive to the mood in the church. A day may come in the not far distant future when we decide that we can no longer minister effectively and with freedom in this denomination, and that the time to move on to whatever God calls us to next has now arrived.
This will call for discernment and judgement, not to mention patience, but conflict is time-consuming and energy-draining. No one can attend to the business of the Kingdom of God and the work of creating healthy, evangelistic congregations whilst a great deal of our time and effort is take up with managing our response to conflict.
There is a wise balance to be found between defending the health of our denomination whilst at the same time leading our congregations in worship and mission. If the denomination is capable of being corrected, then we must do what we can to correct it. If it remains insistent on doing precisely what it wants, then the moment must come when we read the signs and go elsewhere, where, like Paul and Barnabas, we will continue to preach the good news to those willing to hear it and live under its authority.
Soli Deo Gloria
Louis
You made a comment on a earlier post that ‘the notion of a broad church had become a curse upon us’. I see you addressed this issue again last Sunday evening. Therein lies a huge problem. For decades Kirk evangelicals have given credence, both directly and indirectly, to an ill defined notion of ‘Church’. We are now undoubtedly paying a heavy price for that error. I suggest that consequently we very quickly need to formulate a (workable) ecclesiology that is actually consistent with our theology. Reviewing the divine history of the early apostolic church may indeed be a good starting point!
Blessings
That is a good point, Colin, and at the risk of seeming like a conspiracy theorist, I think the shape of the church needs to be resistant to the secular pressures that may well be placed upon it more and more.
For instance, congregations do well out of the gift aid scheme whereby church treasurers reclaim tax paid by church members and attenders. We are now obliged to present our accounts annually as well as a report on the past year of congregational activity to the Office of the Scottish Charities Register (OSCR). We are asked to list the ‘trustees’, who are, of course, the elders.
In the future, will congregations continue to be able to reclaim tax if there are no women elders listed, or if the Kirk Session will not ordain to the eldership someone in a same sex relationship, or cohabiting, or if the Congregational Board refuses to hire the church hall out to a new age or pagan religious group?
A review of the ecclesiology of the church of the apostolic age would mean revisiting the notion of smaller groups/churches, meeting in privately-owned buildings, not having its hands tied by any central church institution with regard to meeting places simply because that institution owned the title deeds, and free to associate or disassociate with other groups. This would allow congregations to distance themselves from others when serious doctrinal disagreement arose, without the threat of great tearings apart such as those now faced in the CoS.
Much could be said and this is a fertile vein of thought to plunder.
Louis
Is that what the Congregational church already do?
I thought that much of the central ownership and management of assets was a very recent thing.
In theory central ownership allows the church to maintain property better and allows new manses to be bought by a central body then “rented” back until the mortgage is paid. It can also protect individual ministers from being blackmailed by their congregation and threatened with losing their house.
The downside you describe but maybe the best response is to have a clear statement in place answering potential issues rather than backing off just in case.
Do the Baptists not follow that approach too?