The Abolitionist Society of Fort Worth

In Vitro Fertilization is Sin: A Discourse

10/21/2016

We have, as a culture, abstracted SEX from REPRODUCTION. This results in a perverted view of sex and a perverted view of children. As a further result, both sex and children have become multi-billion dollar consumer industries with large interest groups, large consumer pools, and even larger numbers of indifferent and disinterested people.

IVF stands for In Vitro Fertilization; Latin for ‘Fertilization in the glass.’ The first successful birth of a child conceived through IVF happened in 1978. IVF is a wicked and dehumanizing process that will always end in the death of children. IVF ought to be abolished.

The number of IVF cycles for the year 2012 (according to Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology) is about 165,172. In 2011, 154,412. In 2010, 146,693. It is common for anywhere from 10 to 30 eggs to be harvested and fertilized and thus 10 to 30 children to be created in each cycle.

After 5 or 6 days of growing and maturing in the solution in which they were created, the 10 to 30 children reach the blastocyst stage and pass under the careful eye of the embryologist who looks at several factors, such as cell mass and wall continuity to determine which children will be given a chance to continue living and which will be either discarded, frozen, or sold for experiments.

Out of the many it is common practice to pick only two for implantation into the uterus. The survival (or implantation) rate for these children who are thrown like dice into the womb of their mother is less than 40%

Projecting the average growth of 5% each year, our nation will permit 191,207 cycles of IVF treatment. Each of these cycles will on average involve the creation of 20 children. Optimistically, 2 out of these 20 children might be chosen for implantation and might survive.

When you stretch the math out you come up with a best-case scenario of roughly 3,441,730 children being killed each year as a direct result of the practice of IVF.
Even granting the possibility that the number of IVF cycles done each year did not change from 2012-2015, we would still come up with a best-case scenario of 2,973,096 children dead as a direct result of the practice of IVF.

Where are our priorities?

Roughly 1.2 million-1.5 million children are killed each year in the United States through the practice of surgical abortion?

Which method is killing more children?
Which method is more palatable to the culture?
About which method are Christians more apathetic?

If you can be persuaded of anything here, let it be that Abortion and IVF are absolutely of the same evil tree and that we will not remove one branch without removing the other.

Although we have discussed that IVF is responsible for as many if not many more deaths as surgical abortion, but there are a multitude of other problems which make IVF intolerable.

IVF goes directly against Gods sovereignty over the womb and usurps His role as the giver of not just life but of children, which He says are a blessing.

IVF dehumanizes children in a multitude of ways. They are trafficked wrongfully and without consent. They are often times held captive, frozen in cryo-freezers. They are often sold as lab rats to be used in embryonic stem cell research. They are most often discarded as nothing more than medical waste. Furthermore, even the embryos that are chosen for implantation were dehumanized as they were looked over through the embryologists microscope just as a buyer looks over livestock, jewelry, or some other piece of property or equity, like a plantation owner might inspect his slave for defect or undesirability.

IVF is a direct denial of the IMAGO DEI and THE INCARNATION. Our Lord, the word made flesh, entered the world as an embryo, as one of the least of these. To our shame, IVF is a summary explanation to how WE THE PEOPLE have ‘done for the least of these.’

IVF helps to perpetuate the consumer mentality towards children (as in HAVING CHILDREN IS MY RIGHT) and the self-idolatry that we see in the practice of abortion (as in KILLING MY CHILDREN IS MY RIGHT).

IVF detracts from the God given institution of adoption which he has historically used to bless barren couples with children, but because the selfishness of many to perpetuate their own name, genes, traits, etc. they rebel against GOD and misuse the means with which He has blessed them. The average cost of IVF in the United States is $12,700, enough money to adopt two orphans. Instead of adopting two orphans, people who procure IVF decided to create twenty more.

Most Christians that I have had a chance to discuss this with at any length (excluding abolitionists) have said something to the effect of ‘you can’t equate abortion to IVF, they are completely different things done by completely different people for completely different reasons’. To this, I would say that ‘you should readily admit that stabbing a child to death is not the exact same as starving a child to death, but that they should both be treated and punished as murder.’

Another excuse that I hear often is that ‘IVF isn’t inherently evil, but rather is in need of regulation.’ This objection will likely be held by many within mainstream Christianity. People have illustrated various scenarios in which only one child would be created at a time, and only one child would be implanted at a time. Obviously this would still result in the same 40% implantation rate, meaning that 60% of the time the single child that is placed into his or her mother’s womb will die. But what if, with the advances in science, that failure rate was to be dramatically reduced? What if in time it could be ensured that 99.9% of the children conceived through IVF and inserted into their mother’s wombs would successfully implant, grow, and be born? Would it be justifiable then, even with all of the other problems that I mentioned aside? MOST CERTAINLY NOT. I do not want to live in an unjust society which will tolerate the dehumanizing destruction of one child so that 999 may be.

What is the right way?

The right way is obviously to trust God, always. He has a plan and purpose. If He blesses you with two biological children, then praise Him. If He blesses you with twenty biological children, then praise Him. If He does not bless you with any children, then praise Him. Trust God to grow or not to grow your family. Do not attempt to stop Him from blessing you with children and do not attempt to force His hand at blessing you with children. Both are indicative of a wrong view of children.

Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.

All of the aforementioned indictments are important to mention when discussing IVF out in the culture or outside of an IVF clinic, but it is important to note that the uncontrollable risk of death that is incurred by the embryo alone is why IVF must be abolished. IVF is probably wrong for a thousand more reasons than what I listed here, but it seems evident to me that if we do not clarify in our speech that IVF is an inherently murderous practice that we will not be effectively communicating the truth to our communities.

We can at no point justify taking such a risk, at the expense of an embryo, who is both ‘a man and a brother.’

-Jered Ragon, Abolitionist

0 Comments

Come-Outersim By William Goodell

1/13/2016

0 Comments

COME-OUTERISM.

THE DUTY OF SECESSION FROM A CORRUPT CHURCH.

BY WILLIAM GOODELL.

NEW YORK:
AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
142 NASSAU STREET.
1845.

     James G. Birney has proved that the “American Church is the Bulwark of American Slavery," and Stephen S. Foster that "the American church and clergy are a Brotherhood of Thieves." Having thus shown the American church to be corrupt, we present our friends with another link in the chain of argument, from the hand of William Goodell of Utica, being his well-known Essay on the "Duty of Secession from a Corrupt Church."
     The American Anti-Slavery Society is frequently charged with being opposed to all church organizations. The charge has been again and again both denied and refuted. Those who care to know our views in regard to the churches of the country and the course we urge our members to adopt, will find them clearly defined in the following pages. Though we differ on other points, on this Mr. Goodell and ourselves are entirely agreed.

     The very head and front of our offending
     Hath this extent — no more. W. P.

DUTY OF SECESSION

FROM

A CORRUPT CHURCH.

     ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.’ — Rev. xviii. 4.

     Our Protestant commentators tell us that by the ‘Babylon' of the Apocalypse, we are to understand a CORRUPT CHURCH, and that the proclamation which John heard in heaven — 'Come out of her, my people’ is to be regarded as a divine admonition to all faithful Christians, warning them to secede from such a church, as from the Anti-Christ, doomed to perdition, at the brightness of the Savior's appearing. It is true they suppose, that the corrupt church, particularly intended, is the church of Rome; but it is nevertheless equally true that their construction of the passage involves and is founded upon the principle, that whenever and wherever a church, (however distinguished, once, by the divine presence and favor) becomes corrupt and apostate, it is the duty of all true Christians connected with it, to secede from it, because it has thus apostatized, and is become corrupt. It has never been doubted that the church of Rome was once a true church, and the reason always given for coming out of her is her apostacy and corruption.
     Nor is it pretended that the Romish church is the only corrupt, apostate, anti-Christian church that the world has yet seen, and that is now to be found. The Greek church has commonly been considered by Protestants to be essentially on the same foundation with the Romish. And both in Old England and New England, the founders of our present churches and denominational arrangements have repeatedly gone through the process of ‘gathering churches out of churches’ (Cotton Mathers' prediction concerning the churches in New England.), on the same principle. The Puritans derived their name from their efforts to secure, in this way, a pure church. And if it be true, as it doubtless is, that secessions have often been made on lighter grounds than the alleged apostacy, and anti-Christian character of the church seceded from, that fact only places in a still stronger light the universal recognition, by Protestants, of the duty of seceding from an anti-Christian church. Indeed, to deny that duty would be equivalent to renouncing the Protestant faith, and would require our return to the Romish communion.
Our commentators, moreover, do not commonly construe the Babylon of the Revelations to mean exclusively the Romish church, nor do they confine the application of the command, in the text, to the Protestant reformers, nor to the duty of seceding from the Romish communion. Thomas Scott says, expressly:

'This summons concerns all persons in every age; they who believe in Christ, and worship God in the spirit, should separate from so corrupt a Church, AND FROM ALL OTHERS THAT COPY HER EXAMPLE of idolatry, persecution, CRUELTY and TYRANNY, and avoid being partakers of her sins, even if they have renounced her communion, or else they may expect to be involved in her plagues’.

In describing, still further, the anti-Christian practices, on account of which the Romish church, and all others that copy her example,' should be renounced, and separated from as corrupt and anti-Christian, the same writer adds:

‘Not only slaves, but the souls of men, are mentioned as articles of commerce, which is the most infamous pf ail traffics that the demon of avarice ever devised, but by no means the most uncommon. The sale of indulgences, dispensations, absolutions, masses and bulls, hath greatly enriched the clergy and their dependants, to the deceiving and destroying the souls of millions, and thus by feigned words they made merchandize of them ', nor has the management of Church preferments and many other things, been any better than trafficking in human souls; and it would be gratifying if we could say that this merchandize has been peculiar to the ROMISH anti-Christ.'

Again, in his ‘Practical Observations; on the chapter, the same commentator says:

'Too often INJUSTICE, OPPRESSION, fraud. avarice or excessive indulgence are connected with extensive commerce, and to number the persons of men with beasts, sheep and horses, as the stock of a farm, or with bales of goods, as the cargo of a ship, is, no doubt, a most detestable and unchristian practice, fit only for Babylon the Great.’

And, after alluding again to those who ‘traded in the souls of men,' in the way of ecclesiastical traffic in cures and benefices, he adds:

'How fervently should we then pray that God would raise up reformers, who may contend as firmly, as perseveringly, and as successfully, against this vile merchandize, as some honorable and philanthropical persons have against the accursed slave trade. For, when Christ shall come again, to drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple, he will have much to do with other places besides Rome’

Again:

'But the vengeance of Heaven is coming upon Rome, not for gestures, garbs and ceremonies, though multiplied, ridiculous, and of bad consequence in themselves, but for idolatry, ambition, OPPRESSION, CRUELTY to the people of God, imposture, AVARICE, LICENTIOUSNESS and spiritual TYRANNY. These are the sins, which have reached to the heavens, the iniquities which God remembers, and the evils FOR WHICH we must STAND ALOOF from her communion, and that of ALL OTHERS THAT RESEMBLE HER, or we shall be involved in their destruction.'

     Thus we have Scott's authority for identifying the abominations of a pro-slavery Protestant church with those of the church of Rome — for applying the warning voice of the text to the former as well as to the latter — for insisting that cruelty, tyranny, injustice, oppression, the trafficking in the ‘souls of men,' the numbering of the persons of men with beasts, sheep and horses — with bales of goods — are preeminently among the iniquities, a participation in which makes a church (however once favored and spiritual) an anti- Christian church — 'the evils for which we must stand aloof from her communion, and that of all others that resemble her, or we shall be involved in their destruction.'
     It was a flagrant outrage upon self-evident and fundamental morality on the part of the Romish church, that arrested the attention of Luther, and convinced him that such a church could not be the true church of Christ That sale of indulgences to commit crime was nothing different, in character, from the tacit consent of the American churches in general, and with few exceptions, that those to whom they extend religious fellowship, and with whom they voluntarily sustain ecclesiastical relations, may continue to practice abominations equal to any conceived or provided for by the customers of John Tetzel: and this is true, whether commercial, political, ecclesiastical or social advantages constitute the purchase money pocketed by the churches. The common complaint, that the agitation of the subject disturbs and endangers the churches, and hazards their peace, sufficiently attests this.
     But are our commentators right in teaching the duty of secession from a corrupt and anti-Christian church — a church guilty of cruelty, tyranny, oppression, avarice, injustice — a church that trafficks in slaves, in bodies and soul of men — a church that consents to, or tolerates, or licences such abominations among its allies and supporters? And were the Protestant Reformers right, in acting upon this same principle of secession from such a corrupt church?
In maintaining the affirmative of this question, we shall endeavor, first to explain, and then prove and illustrate, the duty of secession from an apostate church.

I. FALLACIOUS CREDENTIALS.

     The discussion before us requires a clear understanding of what is meant by a corrupt, or apostate, or anti-Christian church. In order to this, it may be well to notice a few things, very commonly relied upon as evidences or credentials of a sound Christian church, which, on reflection, will be found to be no evidences at all; being common to true churches and to many of those that have apostatized.

1. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS.

     Many persons seem to take it for granted, that their church must be a true church, because it was founded by the authority of God, and by wise and good men, or because it consisted of good men, at the time of its organization or at some past period of its history — because it was founded on the true model, was enriched with divine influences, was abundantly favored with effusions of the Holy Spirit, and was remarkably instrumental in the conversion of sinner and the spread of the true religion.
Many of the descendants or successors of the Puritans seem to reason in this way. So do many of the followers John Wesley. At least, they evidently feel thus, if they would not adventure to frame an argument upon the assumption. On the same principle, other sects boast the apostolical succession of their ministers and bishops. The Romanists, by the same rule, prove their church to be the true church, and all seceders from it to be schismatics. And the Pharisees could defend themselves in the same way, again the scathing denunciations of the Messiah, who reproved them for their oppressions, by boasting, ‘We have Abraham for our father!'
     This method of proving a church to be a true church of God, will never become plausible until it is made to appear that men, whose forefathers or predecessors were righteous, were always righteous themselves, or that God will accept men for the righteousness of their progenitors or precedessors, whatever their own characters may be. But it is a method which will probably continue in use, so long as anything else besides the exhibition of present good fruits and of sound Christian character shall be made a test either of church membership, or of the character of an assembly or church.

2. RITUALS — OBSERVANCES.

     Either with or without a reference to the historical documents of their sect, many persons seem to claim a Christian character for their respective churches, on account of their present adherence to a scriptural church polity — regular organization — regular ordained pastors— exact and scrupulous observance of positive institutions — rites— ceremonies — ordinances — baptisms — sacrifices — fasts — feasts — sabbaths — meetings — prayers — worship.
     One sect is founded and supported on the simple ground of its supposed scriptural accuracy in respect to water baptism — another on the ground of its supposed observance of the precise day originally designated as the Sabbath — an- other on the ground of its rejecting outward rites and observances altogether. Partizans of these and other religions sects not unfrequently manifest their reliance on these circumstances, in estimating the Christian character of their church or sect. Tell them wherein their church or sect has openly violated the fundamental principles of a sound Christian morality — trampled upon the crushed poor, or neglected to plead faithfully in their behalf— alas! they know it all — they confess it all — they lament it all. They are even loud, perhaps, in their complaints of these delinquencies; they have been so, for many years, and they see no prospect of a change for the better. But they cannot think of seceding from their sect or church. Oh! no! That would be the sin of ‘schism.' Why so? Because they think their church is, after all, a true Christian church, and they thus judge, because their definition of a church of Christ obliges them to give the Christian name to all the churches that they regard as having been scripturally constituted and regularly organized and governed, and who maintain in their purity and integrity the scriptural observances and rituals of religion.
     If this sort of credentials can prove a church to be a true church, then the Pharisees, in Christ's time, and their fathers in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah, could have readily proved themselves to constitute the true church of God. The first and fifty-eight chapters of Isaiah, and the seventh of Jeremiah, will show in what estimation God regards credentials of this sort, when separated from a practical regard for the oppressed and the crushed.

3. AN ORTHODOX CREED.

     But when, in addition to their historical and ritual credentials, the members of a church can point to their correct orthodox creed, they often seem to think that the evidence is complete, and that no dereliction of duty towards the oppressed can prove that such a church is not a true church of Christ.
     A profession of correct Christian principles is a very good thing, but it is only a profession, after all, and professions without practice will avail nothing to prove Christian character, either in an individual or in a church. The creed of a church is its profession — and if it be a correct creed, it is a profession of sound principles — nothing more. These principles or 'doctrines' are 'according to godliness.' — They furnish the grounds, the reasons, the motives for a correct Christian practice. If truely loved and obeyed, a correct Christian practice and a sound Christian character will be the result. An intelligent profession of these principles amounts to an intelligent promise to perform all the duties of religion; and therefore a church covenant is appended to the church creed. But what if the promise is habitually and constantly broken, at vital points, instead of being performed? Will the promise avail instead of the performance? If so (but not otherwise) a correct orthodox creed may prove the Christian character of a church that neglects and refuses to plead for the Lord's poor! Till then, it will be true that the orthodox creed of such a delinquent church will be its condemnation, instead of its security. It will be the sure evidence of its guilt It will testify that (unless the creed were stupidly adopted, without a consideration even of its meaning) the church has sinned and is sinning against its known and recognized principles of duty, and must therefore be doubly condemned. The orthodox Pharisees, on this account, were more pointedly condemned by the Savior than the heretical Sadducees, who made lower professions. The grossly heretical churches of our own day, that do not plead for the oppressed, have sinned against less light, and probably contracted less guilt, and become less intolerably odious and offensive in God's sight, than many of the churches that rely on the evangelical creeds to screen them from censure on account of their practical derelictions. They do less dishonor to God, to Christ, to Christian principles — to the very principles ID the distinctive profession of which they glory; and on the loving reception of which human salvation depends. When God rises to judgment, the churches that ‘hold the truth in unrighteousness' must drink a double portion, and drain the cup of trembling to the last dregs. Far be thy feet, Christian reader, from the threshold of such churches then! In that day it will be seen that the positive institutions of Christianity and the revelations of a sound Christian faith, in their integrity and purity, were talents put into the hands of the churches, to be improved; and that if buried and disregarded, they will prove swift witnesses against them.

4. MISSIONARY ZEAL — EFFORTS TO CONVERT SOULS — RELIGIOUS EXCITEMENTS.

     These are often regarded as the sure signs that a church is, of course, a true Christian church, and no exhibitions of its inhumane CRUELTY and its CONTEMPT or fundamental MORALITY will reverse the decision! All this betrays an utter ignorance or forgetfulness of true religion itself— of the things wherein it essentially consists. This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous.' The ‘pure religion' of James — of the ‘golden rule' — of the two great commandments on which ‘hang all the law and the prophets,' seems to have no place even in the conceptions of those who rely on such tests.
     Equally regardless are such men of the facts of the world's history and of its present spiritual condition. The Pharisees could compass sea and land to make one proselyte. In their devotions, they were sufficiently vociferous and earnest, breaking out, as by irrepressible impulse, at the very corners of the streets. They were by no means the cold-hearted, stiff, dull, phlegmatic formalists that some men picture them to be. Paul regarded himself as having been exceedingly mad, absolutely insane, with the prevalent enthusiasm of the sect, before his conversion. The same spirit composed the atmosphere of the Romish church, at the very period when its spiritual despotism and its manifold corruptions were engendered and ripened into giant maturity. The present mummeries and superstitions of that church are but the skeletons, the shells, the monuments of its ancient enthusiasm, fanaticism, mysticism and rhapsody. (See 'Spiritual Despotism’ by the author of 'Natural History of Enthusiasm'— a work in which the rise of the Papal power is traced with a graphic pencil, and shown to have grown up, along with its absurd and blasphemous pretensions and dogmas, out of the rank soil of a spurious; religious excitement, in which reason and common sense were outraged, and the practical duties of life set aside, as unworthy the attention of the spiritually minded and devout.) To galvanize this skeleton into its former life and activity, to revive again and to restore the departed spirit of its now unmeaning rituals — the spirit of the most soul-stirring and wide-spreading enthusiasm the world oversaw — appears to be the object of Dr. Pusey, and the writers of the ' Oxford tracts.' And not a few of the most zealous among the English clergy, of the ‘evangelical ' stamp, the patrons of 'revivals,' have been captivated by them, and drawn away to ‘wander after the beast, whose deadly wound ' is likely to be ' healed ' by the process. If modern travellers may be credited, something of the spirit invoked by the Puseyists has been conjured up, in Popish countries, not infrequently, within the last century.
     At Naples, in Sicily, in various parts of Italy, in Portugal, and in South America, there have been repeated religious excitements, among the Romanists, in our own day, the description of which casts into the shade — so far as excitement and intense emotion are concerned — the religious excitements of our own country. Whole cities have spontaneously thrown aside their secular avocations, for a succession of days, and in some cases for weeks, it is said. The population, en masse, have eagerly thronged the streets in procession, moved by alternate terrors and transports — sometimes wringing their hands in agony, dashing themselves headlong upon the pavements or into the mire, and imploring the intercession of the 'Blessed Virgin’ for the forgiveness of their sins. Then receiving absolution from their priests with frantic gestures and clamorous exultations. But did these Romish 'revivals ' bring forth the fruits of righteousness? Ah! that is the question by which Protestant as well as Romish revivals should be tested. What should be thought of revivals conducted by itinerating evangelists, who carry on, likewise, a traffic in men, women and children, during their revivals? Such things have been witnessed, and a prominent minister lately preached, in Baltimore, with a pair of handcuffs in his pocket, which, immediately after the sermon, he put upon a female slave, on ship board, to be transported to the South. And we have, all over the country, 'revivals' conducted by preachers who will not plead for the enslaved — nor listen to such a plea — nor suffer their church doors to be opened for one — by preachers in close fellowship and brotherly intercourse with the slave-buying preachers of the South (The editors of our northern religious newspapers, for the most part, are just as ready to record, in tones of gratulation, the revivals in the slave States, as any other; though they cannot be ignorant that the preachers are commonly slaveholders, and that the mass of the converts continue to be either slaveholders or slaves!), and making up a common purse with them, to send the gospel to the heathen ! What shall we think of such efforts to convert sinners and to evangelize the world? Can such 'missionary exertions and revival efforts, with the excitements growing out of them, prove that a church, though devoid of humanity, and trampling decent morality and common honesty under foot, is a true Christian church? If so, why may we not join with the clergy of Rio Janeiro and of Naples, in promoting revivals, and with the Jesuits in carrying the gospel to China? No revivalists have got up greater excitements. No Missionaries have been more enterprising, or have numbered a greater company of Converts. There is a philosophy that counts it a sign of a sickly state of religion to make nice metaphysical distinctions between true religion and false. The healthiest state of religion, it teaches, is that in which men are religious, without knowing why or wherefore — without understanding or inquiring wherein true religion consists. If this be sound philosophy, and if ignorance be, therefore, the mother of devotion, all we need is zeal and excitement, and we may venture to harmonize with all who exhibit quantum sufficit those qualities, without stopping to dissect, to analyze, to scrutinize either their character or their fruits. But if religion be a 'reasonable service' — if God invites us to ‘consider oar ways' — to ' know what manner of spirit we are of — to ‘examine' ourselves — to ‘try the spirits whether they be of God' — to 'beware of false prophets' — to 'take heed and beware of men' ; — then the philosophy of unconscious, unknowing, undiscriminating, impulsive, mystic, unexplainable religious excitement should be tossed to the breeze or into the moonbeams; and manly reflection, and logical scrutiny, and homely common sense should be welcomed into the field of experimental religion, as well as of everyday business and demonstrative science. The missionary and revival claims of churches in league with oppressors will be understood and adjusted then.
     Are we censorious, severe, profane or hostile towards revivals of pure religion, because we thus speak? Turn over the voluminous writings of our own distinguished American theologians, on this vei7 subject. Examine what Edwards, and Bellamy, and Smalley, and Hopkins, and Emmons have written concerning religious revivals and conversions, and upon the necessity of discriminating between true false and the true. You shall there see, in substance, all we have here written, and much more, that we have not room to write. You shall learn from those unimpeachable witnesses, the abundant occasion there has been, in this country, to enter into discussions and discriminations of this sort. You shall be instructed that religious excitements are, (of themselves, and aside from the good fruits they produce,) no evidences in favor of either an individual or a church, being common to all the religions of the known world, the false as well as the true, the Romish as well as the Protestant, the Pagan as well as the Christian — that they are as common on the banks of the Ganges as on the Connecticut or the Hudson — that nothing short of practical good fruits and holy living can furnish any evidences of truly gracious affections, and that where love to God and man, and a filial discharge of the relative duties of life, are not exhibited, all religious emotions, and excitements, and transports, are worthless and vain. (To this very point, the closing part— the climax of ‘Edwards on the Affections’ is devoted, and the absurdity of the too prevalent notion to the contrary is shown up with the cool, latent, solemn, weighty irony for which the gigantic author is so remarkable. 'Edwards on the Revival’ contains much to the same purpose.)
     An almost incredible amount of labor, (and by the ablest and most honored ministers of the country,) has been expended to expose the worthlessness of ‘revivals' that do not bring forth the fruits of righteousness. And yet, after all, the’ well substantiated and unrebutted charge against a large' portion of the ‘American churches,' that they are the very ‘bulwarks of American slavery,' with all its abominations and its blood, is gravely met, forsooth, with the plea that \these churches must not be charged with apostacy, because they are blessed with ‘revivals.'!

5. CONVERSIONS — PIOUS MEMBERS AND MINISTERS.

     It will be pleaded, nevertheless, that there are, to some extent, true revivals of religion in the churches that stand aloof from the cause of the enslaved — at any rate, that some instances of true conversion take place in their midst, and that among their members and ministers they enroll many persons of undisputed piety, including a large portion of the active friends of the enslaved. How, then, it will be asked, can we come to the conclusion that they are not to be regarded as true churches of Christ? And how can we be called upon to abandon the churches which Christ has not abandoned, and whom be still visits with the converting and reviving influences of his Spirit? Answer, — Zecharias and Elizabeth, and many others of their day, were pious persons, and were converted, of course, in the bosom of the Jewish church. But the Jewish church, at that time, was, nevertheless, apostate, and as such, was doomed to be cast off speedily, and overthrown. And the multitude of converts, afterwards, under the preaching of John the Baptist, of Jesus Christ, and of their disciples, and even on the day of Pentecost, did not prove the Jewish church to be in a sound state, nor avert the catastrophe that followed. The great majority, including the leading and governing influences and officials, were corrupt, and, instead of repenting, filled up the measure of their iniquities, in the midst of these conversions and "revivals. And so the Jewish Church, as such, was broken off for its unbelief. The Romish church, in her worst state, could boast her truly pious members and ministers. True conversions, of course, took place in her bosom. Who doubts the piety of Thomas a Kempis, and Fenelon, and Massillon, and Rourdaloue — men whose writings are still read for edification and instruction by the best Protestant Christians? Luther and the reformers were converted while members of the Romish church. Was that circumstance a good reason why they should not repudiate and abandon her, as anti-christian? By this rule, the Protestant Reformation could never have taken place. For none would abandon the Romish church for her anti-christian character, before they were themselves converted, but as soon as they there converted, the rule we have under consideration would require them to regard the church wherein they were converted a true church, because of their conversion, and therefore it would be schismatic to secede.
     It is commonly held that the true church was comprised for the most part within the Romish communion, until the time of the Reformation, when it ‘came out’ in accordance with the admonition of our text. Had they listened to the objection under review, they would, nevertheless, have remained. And when the Protestant secession took place, it was not on the principle that no true Christians were left behind, or that conversions there had utterly ceased to take place; but it was on the principle that the church, as such, the church as a body, the church as governed, was anti-Christian and corrupt.
     The truth is, the converting grace and power of the Holy Spirit are not limited wholly to the churches and the communities that Jesus Christ regards as truly Christian — nor to the instrumentalities that true churches embody and wield in his service. God converted Abraham amidst the idolatrous worshippers in Ur of the Chaldees; but that did not prove the idolaters true worshippers, nor nullify the call to Abraham to come out from among them, and be separate. He converted Cornelius, and ' in every nation, he that fears God, and works righteousness, is accepted of him.' Mahomedans and Hindoos, when converted at all, are converted before they secede from their anti-christian, ecclesiastical connections, but this does not prove that those connections are sacred, and divinely appointed. In short, the objection assumes a principle which would prove that the wide world itself is the Christian church, for it cannot be doubted that conversions sometimes take place in the world and without the employment of any direct instrumentalities by an organized church.
     We conclude, then, that neither historical credentials, nor ritual observances, nor orthodox creeds, nor missionary zeal, nor religious excitements, nor real conversions, nor a minority of truly pious members and ministers, nor all of these combined, can prove a church, as a whole, to be a true Christian, church.

II. DEFINITION OF A CORRUPT CHURCH.

     What then do we mean by a corrupt church?
     A church is not to he renounced as corrupt and anti-christian, merely because its members are not absolutely faultless — nor merely because it may contain some corrupt and wicked members, whose hypocrisy is undetected by their associates — nor because its faith and practice may be, in some measure, and in minor particulars, defective and faulty.'
     But a church becomes manifestly corrupt and anti-christian, whenever a majority of its members, or its leading and governing members, and officers, and influences, become so. A Christian church is an assembly or congregation of ‘faithful men’ An anti-christian church is an assembly or congregation of unfaithful men. The character of an assembly or church is nothing distinct from the character of the members of which it is composed, and the influence which, as a body, it exerts.
     A professed Temperance Society ceases to be really such; when its members, or a majority of them, cease to be temperance men, and to exert, individually, and as a body, an influence in favor of true temperance. And so a professed Christian church ceases to be truly Christian, when its members, or a majority of them, cease to be so, and when, at vital points, they fail, either individually or collectively, to exert an influence in favor of righteousness, humanity and truth.
     A church may prove itself corrupt and anti-christian, by its course, in either of the following particulars, viz:
     By its renunciation of any of the fundamental truths of the Christian religion:
     By trampling on humanity, or disregarding its essential claims:
     By habitually violating the precepts of a sound Christian morality:
     By becoming carnally minded, and covetous, instead of spiritually minded and benevolent:
     By an absence of the spirit of Christ — or by ceasing to do his work — the work for which Christian churches were founded:
     By despotic usurpations — and lording it over God's heritage:
     By willfully retaining ungodly and wicked men in their communion and fellowship: for ‘a little leaven leaven the whole lump.' (I Cor. v. 6 — 13.) The church becomes responsible for, and is infected with the iniquity which it sanctions by its fellowship with the transgressor.

III. SECESSION A REASONABLE AND INDISPENSABLE DUTY.

     What good reason can anyone give for retaining a connection with a corrupt church — an anti-christian church — such a church as has been described? For what purpose should you remain? What obligation do you thus discharge? What divine precept do you thus obey? What heaven-appointed relation do you honor? It cannot be the relation between Christians and the church of Christ, for an anti-christian church is not his.
     What is there to cling to, in remaining with such a church? Do you thereby fasten yourselves to the throne of the Eternal — to the great principles that form the pillars of the universe? Do you thereby cling to God, to Christ, to the Holy Comforter, the Reprover of Sin, the Revealer of Righteousness and Judgment to come? On the other hand, do you not weaken, if not sever, the cords that bind you to these, to the kingdom of heaven, by cherishing connections of so opposite and hostile a character? Ponder, carefully, a few of the reasons why you should secede from such an apostate church.

IT IS A SHAM CHURCH — A DECEPTION.

     Its credentials are fallacious, its claims are not valid. It relies on its historical documents, its parchments, its rituals, its creeds, its professions, its partizan zeal, its proselyting activity, its periodical or occasional excitements. It claims to be true, because there are true men who have not yet deserted it ! It claims to be Christ's church, because its iniquities have not yet wholly intercepted and quenched the overflowing streams of divine mercy, and driven away the Divine Spirit from all of its members, and from the entire human race! This is the full inventory of its fair claims. Here its appeal rests. Farther than this, it cannot honestly go. As for performing its abundant promises, as for preaching deliverance to the captives, executing judgment for the oppressed, pleading the cause of the poor, delivering the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, remembering them that are in bonds as bound with them, showing the people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sin, coming up to the help of the Lord against the giant crimes of the age, cleansing her own garments from the clotted gore of human victims —this This is a work that she cannot pretend to have performed, to have commenced, to have desired, to have contemplated, at all! How worthless, then, are her claims! Such a church professes to be what it is not. It is a counterfeit, an imposition, a deceit, a sham. What right can any man have to cling to a deception, to say by his connection with it that he considers it a veritable reality, a thing of worth, and deserving veneration and confidence? Reader! If you believe such a church to be Christ's church, you are deceived, and do dishonor the Savior, and the institutions he has founded. If you believe no such thing, and yet maintain a connection with it, you certify to an untruth, for your connection with it says to everybody that you consider it a true church.

CONNECTION WITH SUCH A CHURCH MUST BE SINFUL.

     You cannot maintain a connection with a corrupt church without becoming partaker of her sins, and receiving of her plagues. So says the voice from heaven, which John heard, In Patmos. And conscience, and reason, and common sense testify to the same thing. In all human affairs, the principle now insisted upon is practically recognized.

GUILT OF ACCESSORIES.

     All communities hold persons responsible for the crimes to which they are accessory, by giving countenance and support to the principals, or actual offenders. If a person merely looks on and sees the commission of a crime, but does nothing to prevent it, if he conceals it, or still associates with the wrong doers, thereby giving them the currency and support of his influence in society, and thus enabling them to continue and extend their injuries in the community, all men will hold such an individual responsible for the crimes of his associates ; and, in most cases, the civil law itself will deal with him as severely as with the principal transgressors themselves.
     If an organized society or association of any description commits a criminal act — if, for example, it authorizes the murder of one of its own members, or of any other person, whom it may deem an enemy or offender — if the murder be accordingly committed by the officers or committees of the society, or by volunteer executors of its will — an intelligent and right-minded community will hold each and every member of that society responsible for the crime, if they knew of it either before or after its commission, and did not do all in their power to prevent it, or to bring the criminals to justice. And, in case the society, as such, or its leading members, seek to shelter the criminals, or justify or apologize for the crime, or refuse to repent of its commission, the persons who still continue to remain members of such a society, will always be held more or less culpable or guilty, whatever protestations of their own personal innocence they may make. This weight of responsibility will rest on them, so long as they live, unless they withdraw their fellowship and support from the society or association that committed the crime, or sheltered the criminals. God has so framed the human mind, that men must, and will, of necessity, throw the blame of a society's criminal acts upon the individual that continues to give the society his support. And God himself has abundantly revealed (as in the text) his own fixed and settled determination to do the same thing. On the same principle, the punishment of national sins falls upon the individuals, however humble their station, of whom the guilty nation is composed.
     Suppose now, that, instead of the crime of murder, a society commits the crime of enslaving or imbruting their fellow-men, or of countenancing its members, or others, in that practice, what reason can be given why the same principle should not be applied? And suppose that society should call itself a church, a Christian church — a Presbyterian church — a Methodist church — a Baptist church — a Congregational church — can anybody tell why the same rule should not apply to the associated body, and to the members of whom it is composed? Will the sacredness of church institutions release them from the operation of those great moral laws by which God governs the universe? Such a thought would savor of blasphemy! It would contradict the express declarations of God. It is specially and emphatically in respect to a corrupt church that God says, ' Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.' Of all the societies that ever existed among men, a professed Christian church is the association to whom the universal principle of holding the members responsible for the acts of the body, should be most faithfully applied. — For the nature of the organization, and of the objects it was designed to promote, gives prominence to individual accountability, and repudiates the doctrine of subjecting the conscience of the individual, or of the few, to the control of the many. The very business of this organized society, is to teach and exemplify human duty, and when it becomes itself a transgressor, and betrays its high trust, a ten-fold weight of obligation rests on the individual member to withdraw the support of his connection with the apostate body.
     A church, like every other associated body, is nothing distinct from the individuals of whom it is composed. And their individuality is not to be destroyed or merged in the 'corporation.' To deny the duty of secession from a corrupt body, is to deny and reverse these self-evident axioms. It is to make the man the creature of the association. It is to nullify the command, ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' It is, moreover, to deny, in effect, that accountability or guilt can pertain to associated action, for if these do not pertain to the individuals of whom the body is composed, they can exist nowhere, at all.

SECESSION IS REQUIRED BY COMMON HONESTY.

     It cannot be consistent with honesty to remain connected with a corrupt and anti-christian church, especially with a church that will not protest against the dishonest robberies and thefts of slavery — a church that maintains fraternal fellowship with the robbers, which is 'a companion of thieves, and a partaker with adulterers.' If there be any dishonesty in slavery, there is dishonesty in the churches that sustain it, and there is dishonesty in those individuals by whom such dishonest churches are knowingly sustained. To deny this, is to deny that men can he ‘partakers in other men's sins.' And it must he doubly dishonest to remain connected with such a church, when convinced that the church is anti-christian, apostate, corrupt. For such a church, as already noticed, is itself a deception, a counterfeit, a sham. And he that knowingly gives his countenance and endorsement to a deception, a sham, becomes himself a deceiver. He leads others, so far as his influence extends, to rely upon that which he is persuaded, in his own mind, is unworthy of confidence — to rely upon that upon which he is unwilling him- self to rely — a plain breach of the command, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'
   Suppose you should join with some of your neighbors in establishing a bank, the business of which, you suppose, is to supply the community with a sound circulating medium, a truly trust-worthy currency, that may be depended on, a currency of intrinsic value, and, in reality, what it professes or purports to be. But, after a while, you discover that the main business carried on by the company or the directors, is to manufacture and put in circulation a spurious or counterfeit currency, of no real value, but which the people around you, relying on the reputation and standing of the company and its members, (including such men as yourself,) are ready enough to receive, and render an equivalent for, and pass from one to another. Some of them part with all they have to obtain it; they hoard it, and think themselves independent for life, while you know or suspect that they will find themselves bankrupt, whenever a scrutinizing eye, that of a creditor, perhaps, comes to be fastened upon it.
    What would people think of you, if, with a full persuasion of all this, you should continue your connection with such a company? And what would you think of yourself? Would you ever suspect yourself of being an honest man? Or could you satisfy your own conscience, or vindicate your course to your neighbors, by merely declaiming against counterfeit money, and scolding, perhaps, at the directors, for making and passing it? Or could you satisfy yourself or your neighbors, by pleading that the company was regularly organized — that its officers were duly elected and commissioned — that the forms and etiquette suitable, or authoritatively prescribed for such companies, had been scrupulously observed — that they had been very active, zealous, indefatigable, in prosecuting their business, and in multiplying to the greatest possible extent, the specimens of their workmanship, acid in filling every nook and corner of the land or of the world with then? Would you maintain that, after all its delinquencies, it was, nevertheless, a true and trust*- worthy banking company, on the whole, because of these things, or because, in addition to them all, it had for a long time, in years past, very faithfully circulated a sound currency, and because, even now, a certain proportion of genuine and good money was to be found among its issues?
Would your remonstrance against the spurious emissions satisfy your own conscience, or your injured neighbors, so long as you continued your connection with the company, supported its cashier and clerks by your payments, met with the company at its festivals, enjoyed its warm fires and its sumptuous fare, pocketed your portion of the dividends, and discountenanced, by your example, the efforts of those who would leave the charter of the company taken away, for its malpractices, and the community warned against its deceptions?
     The cases, to be sure, are not parallel, in all things, for parables,' (as the old divines tell us,) ‘do not run upon all Fours’ — they do not, and cannot agree in all the minor traits of the picture. The finite cannot fully explain the infinite, nor things temporal shadow forth, perfectly, the things unseen and eternal. The loss of an estate, by counterfeit money, is a small matter, compared with the loss of the soul, by receiving, as trustworthy, a counterfeit and worthless religion. The man that makes and passes counterfeit money commits a small crime, and inflicts a light injury, in the comparison with him who gives currency to a spurious religion. A sham church is as much more mischievous and abominable than a sham bank, as the bankruptcy of the soul for eternity, is worse than pecuniary insolvency for life.
     The difference between time and eternity, between gold and heaven, between dollars and holiness, is the measure of the different degrees of criminality between the adherent and supporter of a sham bank, and the adherent and supporter of a sham church. No wonder, then, that God says, 'Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.'

COMMON HUMANITY REQUIRES IT.

     If the keepers of alight-house, on the sea-coast, instead of maintaining a true light, should hold out a false light, calculated to deceive the mariner, and make him think himself on a remote and safe point of the coast, when, in fact, he was about running on a reef of rocks, all mankind would cry out against the inhumanity of the person who should continue to lend the keepers of that light-house his support, while he knew perfectly well the mischiefs they were doing.
     But the church is set to be the light-house of the world, and a false church is a false light-house, and lures men to destruction. The man that knowingly supports such a church, is equally guilty with those whose character and teachings make it a false church. Nay, he is, oftentimes, more guilty than they, because he sins against more light.
     The pro-slavery members and ministers of a pro-slavery church may really think it to be a true Christian church. But abolitionists belonging to such churches know better, or ought to know better, and cannot well plead ignorance in extenuation of their conduct, in supporting such false and mischievous moral lights. If the light that is in them be darkness, how great is that darkness!

DUTY TO THE UNREGENERATE.

     Men who know not, experimentally, the truth and reality of religion, have a claim on us for truthfulness and fidelity in all our exhibitions of the religion we profess. Those exhibitions are most impressive that are made by our example. When they see us maintain a visible connection with a church, they have a right to infer that we regard it a true Christian church, and that the example there exhibited is, in our view, and in the main, and notwithstanding our complaints of some defects, a fair Christian example, a specimen of Christian conduct, an exemplification of the religion of Jesus Christ. But if the church is radically corrupt and apostate, then we hold up to them a false specimen of the Christian religion. If they rely on our truthfulness and fidelity, they will be led into fatal mistakes in respect to the nature of that religion. If they are disgusted with it, on account of its injustice and despotism, their rejection of it will be likely to involve their rejection of Christianity altogether, believing (as they must needs do, if they credit our testimony,) that injustice, pride and despotism are not inconsistent with the Christian religion. But if injustice, pride and despotism, be their besetting sins, and if they are intent on finding a religion that will allow them in the practice of these vices, then our testimony will embolden them to trust in the religion of a pro-slavery church, (and the more especially if we profess to be the earnest friends of the enslaved,) — but such a religion being a false religion, and not the religion of Jesus Christ, will do them no good, but bind them more firmly in the delusions of the grand deceiver of souls.

DUTY TO OUR FAMILIES.

     Some abolitionists cannot bear to think of disconnecting themselves with the pro-slavery churches to which they belong, because, as they say, they want to take their families to some religious meeting on the Sabbath, and they know of no other place of public worship where they could attend. But the first question to settle is, whether slavery be a self-evident and aggravated sin, utterly inconsistent with the Christian religion, and whether an earnest advocacy of the claims of the oppressed be essential to the character of a true Christian, IF THIS BE THE TRUTH, THEN AN INCORRIGIBLE PRO-SLAVERY OR NEUTRAL CHURCH IS AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And to educate your family in such a church, is to educate them in a false religion, which they must renounce before they can be saved; and the renunciation of which, as already observed, with the renunciation of the Bible itself! If you would do all in your power to shut up your children to the horrible alternative of either embracing a false religion, or else rejecting religion altogether, the most effectual way of securing the result will be, while you profess to abhor and loathe slavery, to educate them in a pro-slavery church to which you lend the sanction of your own membership and support.
     Would you educate your children in the Romish church, or teach them to worship in a Mahomedan mosque, because you could get access to no other place of public worship?
     You know you would not. And there are professed Protestant Christian churches in this country, whose errors are such, in your view, that you probably would not educate your families in their places of worship. But can they be more odious in God’s sight, or more dangerous to your children, than those professedly evangelical and orthodox churches, where the Lord Jesus Christ himself,(in the persons of his crushed poor, ‘ the least of his brethren,') is scornfully thrust into a corner, or out of doors, and where not a lisp must be uttered in his behalf?

DUTY TO THE CHURCHES — TO CHURCH MEMBERS.

     We are bound to deal truthfully and honestly with the members of the churches with which we have connected ourselves. If we think them true Christians, and the churches true churches, then we ought to walk lovingly with them, and not pester them incessantly with ' doubtful disputations ' concerning minor points in which we do not happen to be precisely agreed. Let them go their own way, and we will go ours, in respect to such things. But if the points on which we differ are manifestly vital points, in which the very pith and essence of true religion are, in our view, plainly involved, and if their course be exactly opposite to ours, it follows clearly that either they or we are fundamentally wrong, and that, on one side or the other, there must be a radical change, or else there can be no foundation left, upon which we can truthfully and honestly walk together, in the mutual recognition of each other as Christians. A solemn re-examination of their ground, must then become the duty of both parties. If, after such a review on our part, we still find ourselves unable either to change our opinions, or to conceive that the point at issue is otherwise than fundamental to true religion, then we are bound in common honesty and common humanity to acquaint our associates with the convictions to which we have arrived. And if they cannot be persuaded to review and to change their position, we are bound, as faithful men, to shape our conduct in accordance with the principles we profess, and separate ourselves from them.

COVENANT OBLIGATIONS.

     Nothing short of this is demanded by the covenant obligations into which we enter, on joining ourselves to a church. — We then solemnly promise to watch over and admonish each other in love. If we see the members of the church astray, and that too on points essential in our view to human salvation, and do not warn them of their danger, their blood and our own broken vows will settle, together, upon our guilty heads. And no mere lip-service will suffice to the discharge of this duty, if our actions do not agree with our words; which they cannot, if we continue to sustain church relations with those whom we regard as having proved themselves by their practice to be deficient in the vital elements of sound Christian character, and whom we cannot reclaim.

OUR SINCERITY — INTEGRITY — AND USEFULNESS.

     How can we secure the respect and the confidence of our neighbors, (whether church members or others) unless our faithfulness be exhibited, when the proper occasion presents itself, in the manner that has been described? We profess to believe, for example, that human rights are inalienable and self- evident — that chattel slavery is the most palpable and deadly violation of those rights — that its victims have a claim upon the prayers and exhortations of all men, especially of all Christians — that Christian character is, in fact, defined and moulded by the advocacy of their claims. Yet we continue by our church relations to certify, to endorse, as it were, the Christian character of those who notoriously neglect, and even contemn and deprecate the performance of that heaven-imposed duty! Here our acts are in direct contradiction to our words. And which will our neighbors believe? If our remonstrances and arguments and scripture quotations were beginning to make church members tremble and inquire, our fraternal recognition of them as Christians, at the communion table, and in other associated religious action, takes back again all we had said. Their consciences are relieved. They conclude we are insincere or mistaken, for they know we are inconsistent, and they are more and more disgusted with our apparent pertinacity and stubbornness in pressing upon them sentiments by which we ourselves will not practically abide, and which our actions show that we do not regard vital to Christianity, after all! Is it strange that, under such circumstances, a number of abolitionists, retaining church connections year after year with churches whom their professed principles should lead them to discard as anti-christian; have been dealt with by those same churches, and suspended and excluded, {not for their abolitionism — Oh! no! this is always disclaimed,) but for their disturbing the peace of the church, and annoying the members perpetually with their notions which they evidently hold as notions, merely, and not as principles, upon which their own lives are to be squared, and their ecclesiastical relations determined?
     Abolitionists are evidently losing the public confidence, on account of their inconsistency in this respect, and especially are they losing their influence with the members of the churches to which they belong. Just as their reputation and influence were destroyed at one time by their adhesion to the political parties (All political parties in this country must sustain slavery; since all voters and office-holders, either by implied or express oath, agree to sustain the United States Constitution; and that is a pre-slavery instrument Abolitionists, therefore, should have nothing to do with any political party. — Note By The Editor.) that sustain slavery, so do they now suffer, in the same way, from their support of the churches that are equally sub-servient to the same wicked system.
     Abolitionists who have seceded from their old political parties on account of their pro-slavery character, and yet cling to churches and ecclesiastical bodies of the same character, bring their sincerity, even in their political efforts, into suspicion, and diminish their strength, even in that favorite department of their activity.

DUTY TO THE SLAVE.

     We cannot discharge our duty to the slave, while connected with a pro-slavery church, any more than we can while connected with a pro-slavery party in politics. The churches can no more be neutral than the political parties. And the churches not enlisted on the behalf of the enslaved, are as truly the props of the slave power, as any political party in the land, indeed, such churches furnish, to a great extent, the moral atmosphere in which the political vices of the country vegetate. (The legislature of the State of New York excused themselves from recommending the constitutional extension of the elective franchise to the colored people, because as they alleged, the Christian churches did not give them an equal place in their houses of worship, and seminaries of religious learning!) And the morals of the State can hardly be expected to be in advance of the Church. To support a pro-slavery church is to place our feet upon the necks of the crushed poor — and upon their mighty Avenger and our own Judge, who has declared that he will constitute them his representatives at the last day, and treat us according to our treatment of them. Of course, we must abandon such churches, if we would not ‘partake of their sins, and receive of their plagues.'

THE HONOR OF GOD — OF CHRIST — OF RELIGION — OF THE CHURCH.

     All these require that Christians should secede from a corrupt church. Such a church professes to be a true Christian church — to exemplify true religion — to follow Jesus Christ — to do the will of our great Father in heaven. But all these professions are hollow and vain. Most manifestly is this the case with those churches that sympathize with oppressors, that will not plead for the oppressed — nor testify against a system of man-stealing, of theft, of forced concubinage, of impurity, of cruelty, of compulsory heathenism, of tyranny, and of blood. To endorse the pretensions of such churches, as true churches of Christ, is to dishonor, wrongfully, the institution of the Christian Church — is to belie the nature of true and undefiled religion — it is virtually to blaspheme Christ — it is to insult the God of purity, the Avenger of the oppressed. To gay that these churches are his churches — that their religion is his religion — that their character is his character — is to say the very worst thing of him that can possibly be said. But to retain membership in these churches is to say that we do regard them as his churches. And to say that they are his churches is virtually to say that they bear in a good measure his moral image, and that the character' they habitually exhibit is recognized by us as a reflection of his own!
     Many who would deem it a sin and a disgrace to support a pro-slavery party in politics, or to vote for any pro-slavery man as a candidate for civil office, will nevertheless support a pro- slavery church, a pro-slavery religious sect, and pro-slavery teachers of religion; thus plainly declaring, by their acts, that they consider a political party a more sacred and holy thing than a church — that while they cannot endure the spirit of slavery in the former, they can very well tolerate it in the latter — that a man whose moral character does not qualify him to be a constable or a path-master, may nevertheless be a member, or even minister of a Christian church ! What a practical insult to Christian institutions— to church and ministry — have we here! Can it be that such persons honor the church and ministry of Jesus Christ? One is almost tempted to suspect that they sympathize with those who would bring those divine institutions into contempt certain it is, that this is the natural tendency of their course. Nor will it remove the difficulty to plead that men may be entitled to a place in the Christian Church, yet nevertheless lack the information and clearness of vision requisite to the proper discharge of a civil office. Our teachers of religion, at least, should know as much, on great ethical questions, as our legislators, and magistrates, and constables. And besides, the question of supporting the old political parties and their candidates, is a moral question, and not a question of intellectual qualification, at all. The friends of freedom require of them no test but that which the nation itself has, long ago, declared to be self-evident, and made the foundation of the government. From President down to path-master, the candidates all acknowledge the ‘self-evident truth.' No a man of them is so stupid as not to know the difference between a man and a brute. And all the friends of freedom ask of them is to ACT in conformity with this knowledge.
     Let them only do this — let them but 'remember them that are in bonds as bound with them,' and the ‘independent nominations ' of abolitionists would be instantly abandoned. It is a MORAL disqualification, and NOTHING ELSE, that deprives them of anti-slavery votes. And yet this same moral disqualification is made no obstacle to the introduction of these same men into the Christian ministry and the Christian church! Very evidently, no community that permanently insists on a higher MORAL TEST in political life than in ecclesiastical life, will loner retain any affectionate reverence for the latter. The moral test must rise as high, at least, in religion, as in politics, in the Church, as in the political party. Otherwise, the moral test in political life cannot be maintained, and will be abandoned in despair. There can be no possible alternative, unless it be the utter DISGRACE and ABANDONMENT of church institutions, altogether. The problem whether an embodied political morality could long survive an embodied religion, is one which we need not now stop to discuss. Those who think l could, must already have arrived at the conclusion that churches are of little or no value — a conclusion that it will be impossible for those to avoid, who think to secure liberty by political action without their aid. Our ‘liberty party' men may very honestly and very properly disclaim the anti-church doctrines that another class of abolitionists propagate. (This is intended by the writer as a reflection on those who are commonly known as ‘Garrison Abolitionists.' But he overshoots the mark. That body have never maintained, as abolitionists, any ‘anti- church doctrines,’ other or different from those set forth by the writer himself in this tract; which they now and here republish as one of the best expositions of their views. If individuals have taught any other doctrines, the “class" he refers to, is not responsible, since it has never endorsed them. — Note by the Editor.) But they ought to know that no such disclaimers, however earnest and sincere, can do away the anti-church tendencies of an at- tempt (should it be made) to save a corrupt and sinking State without the aid of a purified and true church — a tendency from which their own minds could not long escape, though they may be insensible of it, now.

CHRISTIAN USEFULNESS

     Requires that Christians should secede from corrupt churches. In such churches they are fettered and crippled, and prevented from doing the good they might do, as individuals, if connected with no church at all. But Christian churches were designed to enable Christians to do more good, by a connection with them, than they could do while standing alone. So long as true Christians remain connected with corrupt churches, they not only diminish their power, and curtail their opportunities of doing good, but all the good they do accomplish, and all the good fruits they exhibit, are made subservient to the honor and credit of a corrupt church, and are used up so to speak, in their service, instead of going to the support of a true church; just as Romanism has been strengthened by the adhesion of pious members, and as the Colonization Society, for a long time, deceived and sponged up, and turned into its own impure channel, all the anti-slavery feeling of the free States. In the same way, there are now scores and hundreds of pro-slavery churches, with pastors and officers of the same stamp, sitting like an incubus upon the poor slaves, and upon the cause of Christian freedom, that derive their main strength, or much, at least, of it, from the support of the professed friends of the enslaved. In multiplied instances, churches of that stamp (leaving pecuniary support out of the account) keep up a creditable appearance of being Christian churches, merely because there are abolitionists enough connected with them to carry on their prayer-meetings, conferences. Sabbath schools, Bible classes, and monthly concerts for them, while the majority, or the officials, content themselves, chiefly, with an attendance on the Sabbath day exercises; and with a magisterial supervision that shuts out the claims of the enslaved, erects the negro pew, forbids the use of the house for an anti-slavery meeting, refuses to read a notice, and snarls, perhaps, at the mention of the oppressed in a prayer.

TEMPTATIONS — APOSTACY

     'Evil communications corrupt good manners' in a meeting- house, and in a church, as well as everywhere else. ‘Lead us not into temptation,' is a prayer that requires of the petitioner that he runs not wantonly into temptation, nor remain there, without necessity and without warrant How shall a Christian and a friend of freedom secure himself from the seductions that must beset him in a corrupt church — in a pro-slavery church? What necessity is laid on him to encounter this temptation? Or where is his warrant for so doing? What right has he to expect the divine protection while disregarding the injunction — Come out of her, my people. In what way can such a person be preserved from temptation and from apostacy, but by being induced to comply with this command?
     If he continues to protest against slavery as a heinous sin, and against the support of it by the church, as inconsistent with her Christian character — and if (the church still retaining its position) he nevertheless continues his connection with it, and thus endorses its Christian character, then his acts contradict his professions, and he makes shipwreck of his fidelity in this way. The only alternative left him (short of secession) is the more common one of relaxing, modifying or suspending his testimony against slavery, defending his continued connection with the church by seeking out apologies for the church itself, and thus bringing his principles down to the low standard of his practice. Scores of prominent ministers, and thousands of active church members, once zealous in the cause of Christian freedom, have in this way, and for the sake of peace and quiet with their religious associates, and of maintaining a reputable standing among them, (and under the delusion of making themselves useful by this means,) relaxed their exertions in the cause of the oppressed, till their voices are no longer heard in their behalf, and they cease to identify themselves with their former fellow-laborers in the cause. This well known power of pro-slavery churches and ministers to neutralize first, and then silence, their anti-slavery members, constitutes altogether the most formidable obstacles with which the anti-slavery cause has ever had to contend, and the prolific parent of apostacy, in its varied forms. The recreancy of professed abolitionists in their political relations, may be chiefly charged to the delinquencies of the churches and ministry by whom their political ethics have been shaped; and little must that man know of human nature, or of human history, who should expect the purification of the State, without the purification of the Church.
     As this power of a pro*slavery church and ministry is most effectual against freedom, so we know it is the power most relied upon by the conservators of oppression, both at the North and at the South. Such churches and ministers calculate, with certainty, upon the ultimate dereliction of the abolitionists whom they can retain in their connection. Hence their confident boasts and predictions, that ‘the excitement' will speedily subside. And hence, too, their sensitive outcry against any, attempts at secession, on the part of those whom they stigmatize as ‘fanatics,' incendiaries,' and ‘disorganizers,' and whom they ought to have excommunicated as such, long ago, if they were sincere, and probably would have done, but for their encouraging prospects of success and progress in curing them of their sympathy for the enslaved. The Christian church was designed as an asylum into which men of integrity might run, in order to secure themselves from the evil communications and temptations that almost overwhelm them elsewhere. But when churches become the most effective tempters to transgression, it is high time for the people of God to ‘come out of them, lest they partake of their sins, and receive of their plagues.'

PERVERSION AND MISCHIEF.

     And this suggests the general remark, that Christians Ate bound to secede from corrupt and apostate churches, because instead of answering the original ends of their institution and organization, they become, by their perverted use, the most effective of all possible or conceivable instrumentalities for destroying the cause of righteousness they were designed to promote, and for promoting the cause of unrighteousness they were intended to destroy. Universal church history may be cited as presenting one extended commentary on this remarks and those who shall come after us will read and perceive, in the records of our own age and nation, one of the most striking illustrations of the same truth. Common sense teaches us the absurdity of sustaining arrangements and wielding instruments that produce results directly opposite to those which they were intended to subserve, and which their supporters design to promote. To this, likewise, the sacred Scriptures agree. The salt that has lost its savor is to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. The well-arranged and highly cultivated vineyard, that instead of producing grapes, brought forth wild grapes, was to be trampled down and laid waste. (Isa. ch. v.) Of churches, as well as of individuals, it may be demanded — ‘If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness?' And the candlestick that cannot be made to diffuse useful light, is to be removed out of its place. To cling to a corrupt and perverted church organization is to sacrifice the end to the means. It is to idolize the instrument, instead of using it, nay, after it has become an instrument of evil instead of good. This is the essence of superstition, and the very way in which the worst superstitions are engendered, introduced and perpetuated.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE

     The duty of secession from a corrupt church is the same thing, in essence, as the duty of maintaining gospel doctrine in a true church. In both cases, the pith of the matter is the separation of the good from the evil, and the evil from the good — that the faithful may be preserved from corruption, and that the apostates may be rebuked, and, if possible, reclaimed. In both cases, the duty devolves on each and every member of the church, and is not confined to majorities or to those in official stations. IT WAS AS COMPETENT IN LUTHER TO EXCOMMUNICATE THE POPE AND THE ROMISH CHURCH, AS IT WAS IN THE POPE AND THE ROMISH CHURCH TO EXCOMMUNICATE LUTHER.

DEFINITION AND OBJECT OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH

    Secession from an anti-christian church is demanded by the very definition, as well as by the object of a true church. ‘A church of Christ is an assembly of believers' — ‘a congregation of faithful men.' All, therefore, who honor and prize the Christian church, are bound to secede from a congregation of practical unbelievers — of unfaithful men. To do otherwise is to sin against the organization itself It is disorganization of the worst kind. It mixes good men with bad men in the church Just as they are mixed in the world, and thus it practically denies the distinction between the church and the world. Equally clear is it that no Christian can have a right to support a church, or remain connected with it, if the church does not promote the object for which Christian churches were originally founded. Christian churches were organized to separate God's people from a wicked world — to embody their Christian example — to secure their mutual watch-care over each other — -to maintain wholesome discipline — to act as a reformatory body —to instruct the ignorant — to rebuke and reclaim the transgressor. To support churches that fail to do these things, and that do the very reverse of them all — (churches that knowingly admit and retain the wicked within their enclosures, that exhibit an ungodly example, that strengthen the hands of the wicked, that oppose reformatory efforts, that stifle instructive discussion, that apologize for flagrant transgression) — to support such churches, we affirm, is to oppose the high and holy objects tot which Jesus Christ instituted a church on earth.

CHURCH OR NO CHURCH.

     In a word) the reasons for seceding from a corrupt and un-godly church are the same with the reasons for joining and supporting a true Christian church. For the one is the opposite of the other. No man can belong to, and support a true church and ministry, while he belongs to and supports an anti- christian church and ministry. All the time he retains a membership in a corrupt church, he neglects, of course, the duty of joining himself to, and supporting, and being supported by, a true Christian church. He does that which, if every other Christian should do, there would be no Christian church (as an organized visible body) on the earth, and there would be no organized churches, except corrupt, anti-christian churches, to be used for the conversion of the world. Whether the final triumphs of Christianity are to be achieved under such auspices, let those judge who have learned that ‘out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.'

IV. HOW THE DUTY SHOULD BE DISCHARGED.

     The duty of secession from a corrupt church implies, of course, that all proper and scriptural measures for its reformation have been kindly and faithfully, but unsuccessfully employed. Such a work as secession is not to be undertaken without counting the cost, nor without seeking counsel of God) in humble reliance upon the divine aid. No selfish at partizan feelings should be admitted or indulged. The too common practice of breaking up church relations in a pet, in a spirit of personal contention, with angry altercation and expressions of resentment, cannot be too pointedly condemned. Whenever churches are divided in this way, the seceders, though they may have the right on their side, (and though the deserted church may be never so corrupt,) can accomplish little or nothing in favor of the objects they would promote. Their bad temper and wrong conduct will be observed and perhaps magnified, and the moral effect of their testimony will be neutralized, if not destroyed. And when the excitement shall have subsided, they will discover, perhaps themselves, that they have acted passionately and rashly, and not in the spirit of Christ. Intelligent Christian principle, and a deliberate, conscientious, holy, disinterested regard to God's glory and the good of mankind, having had little, comparatively, to do with their movements, do not now come to their aid, to sustain them in their new and trying position. They are thus exposed to the dangers of seduction and compromise; and, under given circumstances, will be likely to recede from their ground, and join affinity, either in church relations, or by associated religious effort, with the same corrupt churches from whom they have come out, or with some others of a similar description. Thus the cause of church reformation will be retarded, on the whole, instead of promoted, by their secession. On this subject, we cannot now treat as fully as its importance demands, but we may be certain that the true spirit of Christian reformation is evermore the spirit of holy love, of consecration, of humility, of prayer, and of a sound mind.
     As a matter of form, it should be added that, whatever efforts may have been previously made to enlighten and reform a relapsed church, the final measure of secession should not ordinarily, if ever, be taken, without distinctly stating to the church in some formal way, by letter or otherwise, the grievances of which the parties complain, and stating also that unless those grievances are redressed, by a return of the church to the path of Christian duty, a division or secession must, of necessity take place. If this communication produces no salutary effect, the way will then be open for going forward in the work of secession, and of organizing a new church. This measure will cut off occasion for saying that the secession was irregularly made, and that it was a breach of the covenant obligations into which Christians enter, when uniting themselves to a church.

V. OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS.

     1.‘Schism! schism!! schism!!!' What! ‘Schism' to come out of Babylon? If it be schismatic to be separated from the churches of Jesus Christ, then it is ‘schismatic ' to remain in an anti-christian church — not schismatic to come out from it.

     2. ‘But we are too few and too feeble.' In whom then, is your strength, your life? Is it in yourselves, or is it hid with Christ, in God? You had better not enter into or hold any church relations, until you learn that the strength of the church is in Jesus Christ — not in herself, nor in the number and reputable standing of her members. * Where two or three are met together, in my name,' says the Savior, * there am I in the midst of them.' And he says this with special reference to church organization and church action. [See Matthew xviii.1] If the real Christians belonging to a church are * too few and too feeble ' to constitute a church by themselves, how much more strength do they gain, in addition, by their connection with those who are not the people of God, and who oppose, instead of cherishing their aims? You would not, (would you?) maintain ecclesiastical connections with Belial, on account of the pecuniary strength he might afford you?

     3. 'But what if I cannot find "two or three” to come out of Babylon with me? Must I come alone?' Yes, certainly, if you would not ‘partake of her sins and receive of her plagues.' At Constantinople, at Rome, at Mecca, you would not ask whether you ought to stand alone, or stand with the enemies of the cross of Christ would you? Why, then, ask the same question in the State of New York, or in New England, or in Ohio?

     4. ‘But we are conscious of a low tone of spirituality among ourselves, and do not feel competent to the task of organizing a new church.' No wonder your spirituality is at a low ebb, and that you are chilled, almost to death, by the icebergs that embrace you. How are you to get warmth in such company? The slaves, it is sometimes said, are not yet prepared for freedom. But is slavery the school in which to prepare them? God commands you, to come out from among them, and be separate,' and he will receive you.' This plain command you disobey, and excuse your disobedience by pleadingr that you have little spiritual life. Disobedience is not the way to gain spiritual vigor. The way to gain more spiritual strength is to exercise what you have. Then shall ye know, if ye follow on, to know the Lord. Ye are not straitened in him. Ye are straitened in your own selves. To obey is better than sacrifice. Let not obedience be deferred, because the fire on the altar burns dimly.

     5. 'But by separating from the church with which we are connected, we shall lose our influence with the members, and can then do them no good.' How much good are you doing them, now? What progress have they made under your influence, during the past year? for the last five years? Is it you that are exerting an influence upon them or is it they that are exerting the influence upon you. The probability is, that you have lost your influence upon them, already, by your inconsistency, in maintaining a connection with a church that your professed principles require you to regard as anti-christian; and that no measure, except secession, on your part can give you any hold upon their con- sciences, or make* them believe that you are sincere, and in earnest. The case must be so, if you have continued your connection with them for many months after the righteous cause they contemn had been fairly presented, or offered to be presented before them, and they had turned a deaf ear, or rejected the claim. If your duty in this respect has not yet been discharged, you should lose no time in discharging it, and not make the neglect of one duty your excuse for neglecting another. The claims of the slave have been distinctly before the nation for ten years. And the justice of the claim was declared 'self-evident' by the same nation, nearly sixty-seven years ago. It is the simple question whether a man should be made a chattel — a brute — and such a question need not perplex a Christian church, many weeks.

     6. 'Our secession would weaken and discourage those who, in the main, hold our views, but who cannot, at present, be persuaded to abandon their church.' Answer. — They ought not be weakened and discouraged in a course of wrong-doing. Your example of obedience may encourage them to the dis- charge of the same duly. What if Luther had remained in a corrupt church, until he could have persuaded all whom he considered true Christians, to come out with him? and until he could thus persuade them without setting himself the example! (Will any suggest that the principles of Christian union are violated by leaving a corrupt church? Those principles, certainly, cannot require us to cling to such churches, nor to the corrupt portion of them. Such a union would be anti-christian union. And as to the sound portion of such churches, we cannot be bound to hold anti-christian connections, in order to remain with the seceders from such church will establish new ones on the principle of receiving all Christians, they will be guilty of no schism, and it will be no fault of theirs, if some of their brethren consent to a separation from, rather than quit a corrupt church, to go with them.)

     7. ‘But secession, as a means of reformation, is without precedent Even Luther did not secede, till he was first thrust out of the church.' Perhaps the church of England, the Puritans and other Dissenters, might furnish us with a precedent for secession, not to claim higher authorities, which our objector might be inclined to dispute. (What was it but secession when the Apostles organized new churches among the Hebrews and the Gentiles? Whenever the members of an old church organize a new one, are they not accounted seceders? But the Jewish church was a national church, from which the ancient prophets could not secede, as they might have done under the New Testament economy persons from its communion? What occasion or what meaning could there be in the command to ‘come out’ from a corrupt church, if we were to remain till we are thrust out?) But if the practice were without precedent, it would not be without command. The text is explicit — 'Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.' Suppose nobody had ever furnished us with a ‘precedent,' by complying with the divine injunction, would that blot it out, or excuse our neglect of it?

     8. ‘But we must wait till we are excommunicated for our faithful discharge of duty, before we secede.' Who says so? Does God say it, in the text, or anywhere else? And what is the philosophy of the maxim? How can we faithfully discharge our duty, while our actions contradict our professions, and while we give our support to an anti-christian church? And suppose Satan should adopt the more cunning policy of not casting us out of his Babylon, at all? Must we remain there, and give it our sanction, until the mighty Angel from heaven takes it into his hand, and plunges it like a mill-stone into the sea, to be found no more at all? Shall we not be in danger of sinking with it, and of remaining in it, whether Satan ever gets ready to thrust us out of it, or no? What Bays the text? And what warrant have we for deferring to obey the divine mandate, until Satan chooses to give the signal for us to obey? Or will it be said that a church does not give evidence of being anti-christian until it excludes all pious

     9. ‘But if the persons whom you call upon to secede from a corrupt church, be admitted to be Godly and righteous person, now, notwithstanding their present connections, (and to such only is the exhortation addressed,) how can it be made to appear that their quitting the church is necessary to their escaping the divine judgments? If they are Christians already, is not that sufficient? Will secession change their character? Will it make them more than Christians? Or will the Judge of all the earth destroy the righteous with the wicked?'
     Imagine to yourself the righteous Lot, addressing this same plea to the angel that was urging his speedy flight from Sodom? What would you say to such an argument? Would it not occur to you that ‘the righteous are scarcely saved? That persevering obedience to the divine commands is the only condition of their salvation? That in such obedience, the salvation of the Bible essentially consists?
     But be it so, that good men may live and die in the bosom of a corrupt church, and escape final perdition, at last — what then? They may possibly do thus, because they are not aware of the corruption of the church, or because their duty to come out of it, has not been distinctly presented to them. If their ignorance be their excuse, can you make the same plea? Or are you content to do wrong, to support a counterfeit church, and thus destroy souls, so long as you can be persuaded that you are safe, yourself? Is this the religion that can preserve you amid the seductions of a corrupt church? Beware! It is a hazardous experiment, at best, and remember that severe chastisements and lamentable privations, short of final banishment, may punish your derelictions of duty.

     10. 'But we make a wide distinction between Christian fellowship and church connection. We do not extend Christian fellowship to corrupt churches, or to the corrupt portion of them. Our connection with these is merely nominal — it is a nonentity.'
     But the church of the living God, to which you ought to be- long, is no ‘nonentity' — no counterfeit — no sham. And a vital connection with such a church and its members is not ‘merely nominal.' What right, or what good reason can you have for maintaining a nominal connection with a nonentity' — a sham? A ‘nonentity,' too, that claims to be a true church of Jesus Christ? That is recognized, and honored, and confided in, as such, because, perhaps, of your 'nominal' connection with it? Of all shams, church shams are the worst, and from their sure doom, how shall their supporters be divorced?
To say that you maintain a connection ‘nominally,’ is to say that you maintain that connection ’by name, or in name only.’ (‘Nominally. By name, or in name only.’ — Webster's Dictionary.) It is to say that you profess to maintain a connection which you do not maintain really! What right have you to make such a hollow profession? After all, are you quite certain that a connection is merely ‘nominal'? When Paul urged the Corinthian church to put away from themselves that wicked person, (I Cor. v.) he demanded, 'Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?' What if the Corinthians bad argued that the connection was a merely nominal one?

     11. 'But is not the kingdom of heaven likened unto leaven hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened? Yes, truly. And this parable was designed to illustrate the power of truth on the heart, or the power and progress of the gospel, or of a true church (remaining such) in converting the world. And mark! the leaven must be wholesome leaven, not saturated with poison! The figure is never used in the Bible to show that Christians must remain in a corrupt, anti-christian church, in order to restore it, nor has church history yet recorded the successful experiment. The old leaven of iniquity is always to be purged out of the church (1 Cor. v. 7.) — the very doctrine for which we contend.

     12. 'But the tares and the wheat must be permitted to grow together until the harvest' Where? In the church? Or in the world? Christ's own exposition of the parable (Mat. xiii. 38,) informs us explicitly that the field in which the tares and the wheat are allowed to ‘grow together' is ‘The world’ Nothing of the kind is said about the church. And those who apply to the church what Christ says of the world, very evidently take it for granted that there should be no distinction made between the church and the world; and no more church discipline maintained in the one than in the other! Disorganization follows, of course.

     13. ‘But we cannot see into men's hearts' — ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged.' (Mat vii. 1.) This text, as Scott justly observes, cannot forbid the exclusion from the church of such members as disgrace their profession — nor forbid Christians to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly. In the same chapter, Christ bids us, ‘Beware of false prophets,' and because we cannot see directly into men's hearts, bids us know ' the tree by its fruits.' Censorious and rash judgments alone are condemned. Some judgment of men's character, we cannot but form and express.

     14. ‘Does it not savor of Phariseeism to secede from churches, and call them corrupt? 'No. Not if the evidence of their corruption is plain and palpable — no more than it does to refuse the admission of openly wicked men into the church, in the first place — no more than it does to gather churches out of the world, in any case’, (unless all are permitted to join that church, who desire it.)

GENERAL REMARK.

     Of each and every one of these objections, and of many more, like them, it may be observed that, if valid, at all, they are equally so against secessions from all corrupt churches (the Romish, for example,) as well as from corrupt Protestant churches, in America. They likewise forbid all excommunications of unworthy members. They equally forbid all tests of church membership, particularly those predicated on evidences of Christian character. They involve principles which, if carried out, would disband all the church organizations in the world, except those (such as national churches for example,) that claim or welcome the entire community, good and bad indiscriminately, as their members. Above all, they are objections against the discharge of a plainly revealed Christian duty.
      It will be understood that we advocate secession from anti- christian churches, with the view of organizing Christian churches in their stead. Of this work, we intend to treat in our next number. (With regard to the formation of new churches, abolitionists, as such have nothing to do. Their duty is performed, and their responsibility ends, when they have persuaded a man to disconnect himself from a pro-slavery body. His conduct after that, in relation to church organizations, must be left to himself and his own convictions. — Note by The Editor.)

0 Comments

Orthodoxy without Orthopraxy is Dead.

11/17/2015

0 Comments

The first century world was dominated by the Roman Empire. All military personnel, merchants, and cultural exchange went through the capitol, Rome.

As a natural outcome, Rome was a host to public displays of exchanges in philosophy. These events were more or less a pastime for spectators who witnessed men debate each other on the efficacy of various worldviews and opinions on topics. Much like at the Areopagus in Greece, the crowd would consider amongst themselves the validity of each position based on the skill and eloquence of its defender. They would weigh each worldview against the backdrop of the world stage and dismiss or accept each one based on their level of entertainment, logical acceptability, or social significance.

Christianity was fairly new on the scene and the Assembly at Rome were uncertain as to whether their worldview would be accepted in the court of established opinions and public debate. They were worried that Christianity would not find worth as currency in the cultural exchange. This worry and uncertainty amongst the believers in Rome is what compels Paul to write his letter to them, especially discussing in the first chapter:

'14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”'

Here Paul is identifying Christian propositions as being efficacious for competition in the arena of ideas, and is nothing of which to be ashamed in that regard. Starting in verse eighteen of chapter one and continuing through another fifteen chapters, Paul makes a short logical proof of the human condition and its relationship to the Gospel of God.

While his letter to the Romans was naturally important for them to develop and understand the philosophical propositions of Christianity which obliterated the precepts of contradicting worldviews, exposing those lofty opinions to be absurd foolishness, it was the consistency of the behavior of the Christian converts that drove the whole point home. Six-tenths of one percent of the population of Rome were professing Christians at the beginning of the first century.

This 0.6% of the people of Rome answered the Scriptural commands to:
‘Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.’ (Isaiah 1:16-17),
amongst others. Thus they actively opposed the legally sanctioned child-sacrifice of their day (in addition to abolishing the oppressive gladiator games), which included active abortion guilds, outright infanticide, and the abandonment of newborns on public trash dumps to die of exposure. These Christians, in a consistent acting out of their faith, set up the world’s first hospitals and orphanages, while simultaneously spreading the Gospel, in direct obedience to the Great Commission. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (1982), it is estimated that by A.D. 100 (less than a century after establishing themselves) there were one million Christians in the Roman Empire out of a population of 181 million. This minority, by simply viewing their propositional convictions as inspiration for their actions, affected great change in their culture.

Modern Christians are mostly Christian in proposition only. They attend some religious service once a week, they outsource their responsibility to love God to some sophist clergyman, they outsource their responsibility to love their neighbor to parachurch ministries, and other than this, they look like the world in their appearance. They idolize football, they idolize theology, they idolize their income and investments. They destroy their children through birth control and through In Vitro Fertilization. They neglect their neighbor, whether it is the homeless, or the addict, or the orphan, or the pre-born subject to a holocaust of unparalleled proportion.

It is no wonder that Christians who desire to strut their worldview into the great debates in the cultural exchange of ideas in an ever globalizing backdrop of the world stage are not very efficacious. The hypocrisy of modern Christendom, Churchianity, is a far cry from its prescribed Scriptural description. Modern Christianity is saltless and dim and dead. It loves its orators and syndicated radio, but it hates its neighbor and rejects its God. May Christians repent of their proclivities and take up their mission and bear their cross. May they rise up to do exploits, cast mountains into seas, tread serpents and turn the world upside down before they are cast out and trampled under foot, or spewed out of the mouth of the living God. May they discover repentance, revival, reformation and revolution before they receive damnation and 'depart from me, I never knew you.'

0 Comments

Abolitionism is a Call to Personal Holiness

8/25/2015

0 Comments

It is likely that Christians will sin. That is not to say that Christians will have to sin, cannot help but to sin, or that sin is a necessary evil and part of the plan. However, we can admit that sin is still something that we can unfortunately expect. As ugly as sin is, this is not the worst thing that can happen. This is not even the most controversial thing I expect to say here.

The worst thing that could happen is that a Christian discovered in their sin refuses to be held accountable to the brothers and sisters around them trying to build each other up to obedient love and acts of righteousness. The most important thing for a Christian to desire is to remain in fellowship with the family into which Christ has adopted them. They should desire this more than they desire their sin and especially more than they desire to nurse the shame accompanying their exposed sin.

'But Michael, that's more controversial than that other thing you said. Christians should preeminently desire to remain in fellowship with God.'

I agree completely, but there is a very easy and very common mistake Christians make by imagining that they can get away with giving passive, internal well-wishing towards God without expressing a practical walk with Him, entailing anything other than a profession of faith. One of the reasons God has given us a salty and bright family is so that we can practice accountability with one another and fellowship together. These are natural, outward fruits that represent our accountability and fellowship with the living, but invisible God. This same principle applies in the fact that our love of God manifests itself in loving our neighbor.

It is important that we submit ourselves to like-minded believers, and the believers that we submit ourselves to represent our view of sin. For instance, if we regularly fellowship with believers who do not view abortion apathy as sin, even if we ourselves are not apathetic about abortion, then we do not view abortion apathy as sin. Either that, or we are hypocrites who are not taking our role in keeping Christians accountable very seriously, which is also sin.

Abolitionism is about personal holiness. This is what separates Abolitionism from Churchianity and Prolife-ism. Churchianity is dead religion professing faithful, internal well-wishing to God but neglecting justice, hating mercy, and having very little accountability found amongst its ranks. Prolife-ism is a house divided, fighting evil with evil, and compromising Biblical principle for the sake of confused relevance. Notice that, nine times out of ten, any rejection or abandonment of Abolitionism is out of conflict with the call to be personally holy. Whether the source of the conflict is a desire to skirt the injunction to love one's neighbor, as we see in most of Churchianity, or whether we see an intentional disregard for Immediatism, in favor of maintaining unjust laws, as we see in Prolife-ism.

Abolitionism requires that you have Society with other abolitionists who want for you conviction of sin leading you to repentance, leading you to sanctification, leading you to personal holiness. Even if that is hard, and your pride swells against it, and you are overcome with shame that tempts you to deflection, leading to you projection, leading you to dis-fellowship from them, leading you to poison wells against those who love you.

Brothers and sisters, do not reject correction or spurn discipline. Learn to be comfortable with the idea of being on the receiving end of the Ministry of Reconciliation. Do not let sin keep you from assembling together, but rather let assembling together keep you from sin. Love those people that God has granted to you in addition to your salvation, and love them more than you hate your potential shame. Let them sharpen you in order to increase your own worth and effectiveness in this fight.

I write this because I love you all. I love you all because God loves me. Anyway, here's Wonderwall.

-Stoicjackal

0 Comments

Covet Not The Pulpit

4/21/2015

1 Comment

These particular ideas have formed in my mind as a result of my numerous engagements with pastors discussing the principles of abolitionism as well as a more recent reevaluation of my goals and strategies. To God be the glory for any truth that I have been able to take away from nearly a year and a half of meeting with the evangelical pastors in my home area of Fort Worth.

As abolitionists of human abortion we have in our focus the primary task of awakening the bride and body of our Lord and King Jesus, that is His church. Let’s consider that to be understood as the “general goal” of all abolitionists who are engaging a particular local fellowship with the ideology of abolitionism. But in addition to this general goal there is also a more “specific goal” that I think many abolitionists likewise share in common. This specific goal is seen as the vehicle, mechanism, or strategy by which the abolitionist supposes that the local congregation might be moved towards adopting the ideology and practices of abolitionism(the general goal). Unfortunately many abolitionists come from a “christian” background meaning that they have spent some substantial amount of time in an institutional, prepackaged, insincere, and self serving religious walk of life. Some simply grew up “in church” but did not come to faith until much later. Others had a conversion experience but upon finding new life in Christ were suddenly chained to an oppressive religious system that desalinates believers both young and old. No matter the circumstances surrounding our exposure to the impure and defiled religion of our day, it is more than safe to say that our practices and beliefs have been conditioned by it. This conditioning tends to dramatically effect the specific goal that we seek to accomplish on our way to awakening the church.

Many abolitionists have met with their own and other local pastors or elders with the desire to gain their approval of abolitionism in hopes of eventually having permission to give a presentation of abolitionism to the congregation. This is the specific goal held by what seems to be the majority of abolitionists. To be allowed to give a lecture before a group of people who gather each week to sit on pews and hear lectures. I happen to have accomplished this specific goal. I will not soon forget my disbelief when the pastor of the fellowship that I am referring to not only “agreed” (a phrase that I had grown accustomed to hearing) but also asked me to present abolitionism in front of the congregation the following Sunday. I climbed the steps having prayed that Gods Spirit would stir in my tongue and in their hearts and I told them that we must repent. I told them that we had not loved God and that we had not loved our neighbor. I told them that we were luke warm and that we hadn’t done for the least among us. I told them that if we didn’t stop passing by on the other side of the road that God would hold us accountable. After I had aired my convictions and descended from the platform I was met with something that I had seen many times before. I was met with what most pastors are met with after each sermon that they deliver, a passive approval of the “message” and a short “encouraging” word. The thing that I only vaguely understood at that time but have become more certain of now is that the evangelical community has been conditioned to behave in this manner. Consider the highlight of the evangelical church service, the sermon. It is typically some variant of a three point lecture with as many wholesome and lighthearted jokes or (depending on your denominational flavor) fists pounding on the pulpit. Though there are often times many biblical truths put on display and many passages read from scripture there is almost always little to no practical application of the truths that are shared. It is almost as if by design that the speaker and the audience have completely separated the truths that they are considering from their actual lives. It is as if the point of this academic pursuit is to come to a mental assent to certain truths in the same way that information might be memorized but never truly contemplated. I know this game because I played it for 24 years. I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. Many pastors talk a good talk. Many of them say true things. My point is that there are a great many pastors teaching the word but a small almost invisible minority of them who are concerned with doing the word. Why then would we, who are most privileged to have been freed from a bondage to vain academic pursuits and brought into a true walk of faith through Jesus Christ, seek to utilize the mediums and methods that have so many that are still in bondage comfortably tricked into believing that their religious experience is in any way pushing the darkness back? Why would we not seek another way? Why wouldn’t we seek a way that is consistent with the problem that we face?

I would like to persuade you of another way.

The situation that is upon us is far more urgent than any that I can recall from my studies of world history. I’m afraid that it is more urgent than the protestant reformation, more urgent than the abolition of the slave trade, and even more urgent than the extermination of the Jewish people at the hand of the National Socialist Party. I’m afraid that it is much more urgent than any of us realize. With a situation of such great urgency you might expect that our communication ought to be commensurate. I’ve heard it said by a brother that “if the building is on fire then you ought not whisper about it. Go in and yell The Building Is On Fire!” I have spent months navigating the bureaucracy of a single church just to get a meeting with a pastor only to have him tell me that he would have to pray about whether or not they should involve themselves and that he would get back with me in a couple of months. In that time countless thousands of children were murdered. I believe that when we plead for meetings, consult our schedules, and patiently wait on pastors to incline their ears to the faint screams of our preborn neighbors we betray the intensity of our message. That is why I propose that our action be both direct and not lacking in urgency.

Almost every fellowship of believers has its “gatekeepers.” Some fellowships have a single pastor, and others have one hundred various leaders, board members, and committees. The thing that I have found that they most have in common is an embargo on information. Where you might expect that the unity of the body of Christ and the confidence that He is working, diligently washing us with His word, might prompt believers to openly discuss, argue, and debate such issues as they might differ, quite the opposite is true. The majority of fellowships are closed for discussion. Everything that is said and done in the times at which they meet together is all pre-approved and carefully choreographed. Kindly allow for some insignificant variation from the reality that I have described. Surely the pastor has the liberty to be led where “the spirit” doth guide him, but it seems that the spirit has been relegated to speak through him alone. These men view themselves as the gatekeepers to the pin which holds the flock, but unfortunately they are the type who wouldn’t even let the Good Shepard in. The way in which we engage a particular fellowship of believers must not be dependent on the approval of some arbitrarily(and in many cases self appointed) gatekeepers. That is why I propose that our action be an appeal to the body as a whole with our without the well wishes of the gatekeeper.

Upon considering the views of many abolitionists towards outward exhortation of church fellowships, as well as the perception of many of the movements critics, I am forced to believe that there is a certain aspect of our approach that lends itself to the idea that we are there not to stir our brothers and sisters up to love and good works but rather to protest and to punish. When we insist on meeting with the gatekeepers and explaining to them their biblical obligations, many of which they are already aware of, and they do not repent of their indifference towards child sacrifice, we then see the necessity of reaching out to the larger body of believers. Unfortunately, because we have already had unsuccessful contact with the pastor it seems as though we are there at that point to punish him and the congregation for their unresponsiveness. I am in no way insinuating that church exhortation has ever been carried out with this spirit, but rather pointing out that when we insist on this initial approach we run a higher risk of this almost willful misunderstanding. When we reach out to the body from outside without any conditions or qualifications we help to eliminate this misconception. That is why I propose that our action be an appeal to the body as a whole first without any prior contact.

The majority of the work that we do as abolitionists is aimed at awakening the bride of Jesus Christ to the sufferings of so many children in her midst. We engage in this work on street corners, market places, high schools, sporting events, concerts, and festivals. Everywhere we go we are seeking to engage Christians on the necessity of loving their preborn neighbor, and everywhere we go they misunderstand (not entirely on accident) the message that we are broadcasting. This condition is quite prevalent. They believe that we are there to tell the world that abortion is wrong. However, we are there to tell the church to treat abortion as if it is wrong. If they understood the message that abortion apathy is sin then they would either repent of their apathy or they would turn against us. They would not voice a passive support or agreement. That is why I propose that the our action be unmistakably clear as to who we are calling to repentance.

I propose that we engage the apathetic church fellowships in our communities from the sidewalks outside of their buildings during the times at which they gather. I propose that we do this without first seeking a meeting. I propose that we do this with or without the approval of the leadership. I propose that we do this in a spirit of brotherly love and exhortation. I propose that we do it now.

Jered

1 Comment

Indirect and Direct ACTION

3/26/2015

0 Comments

It seems that there are a myriad of different efforts among the small community of active abortion opponents. Often times,
abolitionists are accused of having a limited set of methods and being unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of methods employed by other christians who are trying to oppose abortion. Just the other day I read an email from a pastor in which he stated that “AHA” views anyone apathetic if they aren’t doing exactly what “AHA” does. Is this assessment true?

When I look at the different autonomous local abolitionist societies across the world, I find that there are actually quite a few different tactics employed as well as different ideas on how, when, and where to employ them. But even with all of the differences between abolitionist societies and among individual abolitionists themselves, I must admit a few common principles that are universal to our methods. The first principle is that we seek to engage this world in not only a ministry of agitation but also that of assistance. The second principle which I would like to highlight is that we participate in direct action. The reason that I would like to highlight this difference is that I really believe it to be one of the largest gaps in between the strategy of abolitionists and that of our evangelical brothers and sisters. For the past forty plus years most of the action that evangelicals have taken has been indirect action. The chief way that we see this indirect mentality made manifest is the “crisis pregnancy center” or “pregnancy resource center.” Just as evangelicals tend to view the church building as the primary vehicle of evangelizing the world around them they likewise view the “CPC” as the primary vehicle for opposing the evil of abortion.

These are both forms of indirect action and are not in keeping with the commands of our Lord who said “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. GO therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Where Jesus has said GO we evangelicals have said STAY. I cannot speak for each individual but it is my supposition that we have done this because it insulates us from the bad weather and bad wishes of the community. We have chosen to be “called” to that which makes us most comfortable. No person in their right mind would respond to the systematic slaughter of defenseless preborn children by setting up a storefront and advertising free sonograms and diapers. I am not meaning to poke fun but it really seems that there is an utter denial of the severity of the problem itself inherent in these tactics. I would ask all those who are persistent in advocating for this type of indirect action if they would take the same approach if it were their own children scheduled to be put to death. In fact, I have asked that question. It is troubling that some would answer yes. Such is the desire to justify the peace that we have all made with child sacrifice.

I am well aware that there are exceptions to this epidemic. I am well aware that there are those who operate within the visible evangelical church in America who are evangelistic in the community as well as in their day to day lives. I have also seen evangelicals venture out beyond the walls of the church building and the storefront of the CPC to try and be a voice for the voiceless preborn children slated to die. But, these individuals are certainly the exception and not the rule. When you look at the tactics enlisted by the majority of organized evangelicals they too have a common vein. They are event driven, lest they have the appearance of fanaticism; and hidden out of sight, lest they offend the general public. How can the leaven work it’s way through the lump unless the dough is kneaded? How can there be crops without first plowing the ground? How can there be progress without a struggle? How can we claim to love these people if we do not GO to them? The solution to the evils of this and every age is the Gospel of God, and the solution must be directly applied to the problem.

Let me take a moment to clarify our understanding of the problem. The problem is not the abortion clinic. The problem is not the government. The problem is not planned parenthood. The problem is a fundamentally sick and diseased culture and, more specifically, and desalinated and dim church. I am not advocating that we cease to visit the abortion clinics and plead with women to not murder their children, quite the opposite. I am advocating as an abolitionist that we directly apply the solution to the whole problem. Any time that we leave the comfort of our homes and fellowship halls(or any other place where it feels safe and comfortable to speak the name of Jesus or to express dissent about the current holocaust) and engage the community around us with the truth we are using methods of direct action. Any time that we avoid conflict and discomfort, any time that we compromise or shy away from confrontation we are employing methods of indirect action. Let me leave you with a promise as well as an encouragement. Christ said that the gates of hell would not and will not prevail against His body, the church. The imagery of gates seems to be fitting as gates are something to be stormed rather than something that must be defended against. We as followers of Jesus, ambassadors of Christ, members of His Kingdom must be on the offensive like light pushing back darkness and salt confronting corruption.

Jered

0 Comments

Jesus is Lord

3/10/2015

0 Comments

Thoughts on how we should relate to Jesus and his church.

by Brookes H. Baker

Author's Preface
These words are put in print with the hope that some who know Jesus will come to better understand the forces at work in their lives, and thus more effectively serve him.

I have trusted Jesus, and to the best of my ability I have written what has been given to me. May it be a useful instrument in the kingdom.

Brookes H. Baker
Fort Worth, Texas
December, 1990

THIS IS JESUS' WORLD

Who is Jesus? Jesus is God.

Jesus has absolute authority over all of creation because he is the creator. The way he chooses to use his authority to run this world is something we need to understand. To do this we need a starting place, which is the Bible, the written word of God.

Now, back to the first question, "Who is Jesus?" In the first chapter of John's gospel Jesus is identified, but we have to play some word games to track it down:

"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (verse 14)

It looks like "The word" is the son of God, and he is a man because he is "made flesh", but what is his name?

"--grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (verse 17)

Here is a clue. Verse 14 says the Word is full of grace and truth, then Verse 17 says that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Maybe Jesus is the Word.

"The next day John saw Jesus coming to him and said, 'Behold the lamb of God.'" (verse 27)

Well, that does not exactly say "the son of God", but it is close. If we continue reading we discover that John the Baptist keeps on talking about Jesus after Verse 27, and eventually says:

"--this is the son of God." (verse 34)this is the son of God." (verse 34)this is the son of God." (verse 34)this is the son of God." (verse 34)

It took a while, but we finally got it. Jesus is all of the following:

The Word
The son of God
The source of grace and truth
The lamb of God

The one identification we really need to carry forward the thought of his being the creator is "the Word". Now we go back to the beginning of the chapter.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Verse 1)

This takes care of identifying Jesus as God. He is the Word, the Word is God, so Jesus is God. What about his being the creator?

"All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made."(Verse 3)

If Jesus made everything, then he is the creator, right?

It is easy for some to believe that the creator has authority over his creation, but it may not be so obvious to others. To be certain on this fundamental matter, we ask the question, "What did Jesus do to show that he has authority over his creation?" Here are a few of the answers:

Mark 4:37 through 41 tells of his calming a storm when his disciples were afraid the boat they were in was about to sink. He chastised the disciples for their little faith. Maybe they should have calmed the storm in his name, or at least not have been so worried. Anyway, he stopped the storm as soon as he woke up.

In Matthew 14:22 through 33, Jesus walked to the disciples' boat across the rough water. Peter asked if he could walk on the water too. Jesus invited him out, and he was able to do it until he took his thoughts off Jesus and began thinking about the wind and waves. Jesus was definitely in charge there.

In John 11:41 through 44, Jesus commanded his friend, Lazarus, to come forth from the tomb, and he did. He had been dead several days. Just before Jesus did this, he mentioned in a prayer that he was raising Lazarus so those standing by would know that his Father has sent him. Nobody ever had that kind of authority before.

In Matthew 8:5 through 13, a Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant. When Jesus started to go to his house, the man said, "No need!" He recognized Jesus' authority because he was a man familiar with authority. Jesus called it faith. The servant was healed long-distance. We can say with confidence that Jesus has demonstrated that he has authority over his creation.

JESUS HAS A PROGRAM

How does Jesus manage this world of his, and how do we fit in? He has priorities for us. First things first. When it was time for him to return to heaven, he gave his disciples their marching orders, which apply to us as well.

"All authority is given to me in heaven and in earth. You go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you; and understand this: I am with you always, even to the end of the earth." (Matthew 28:18b - 20)

He said he had the authority, he commanded them to get the job done, and he said he would be with them. This "I am with you" means that he will personally be there to use his authority as needed to help them get the job done. HE DID NOT DELEGATE HIS AUTHORITY TO ANYONE. It is obvious that the "you" here is not just this group of men, but all believers down through the ages. He is still with us.

This is the program: redeeming the lost. Jesus loves the people he has created. He died for them, and he is doing what it takes, through his disciples, to get the word out so the rest can be saved.

It is not quite that simple, however. Not all the world is eager to receive this message. Satan is around to oppose Jesus' program. There is a cosmic struggle going on for the lives of men, women, boys and girls.

There are some things we need to understand about how Jesus is handling this situation, which can get pretty complex. Jesus has his redemptive program going in conflict with Satan, and at the same time he is maintaining authority over the whole universe as creator. It is important for us to understand how Jesus handles all of this because:

1. We live in this world and must relate to it.
2. Jesus' handling of the world's more general functions must be distinguished from his dealings with his special people.
3. Each of us who are Christians are expected to perform specific roles in the plan of redemption. In some way, each of us is sent to the lost.
4. Each of us can function in Jesus' power because he himself is with us with all authority.

JESUS HAS A WORLD PLAN

The overall situation includes Jesus' management of all of his creation, including this world where Satan is working. From our perspective this may seem impossible, but we should not worry - any more than the disciples should have worried about their storm. Jesus has the authority; he has a strategy; he has it under control.

The strategy is this: Jesus has chosen three major authority structures, or sets of relationships, for the organization of all human affairs. These structures are able to exist and function because he has chosen to delegate authority to the people who make them work. The structures are government, home and master-servant relationships. He allows those persons given such authority to take initiative in carrying out their responsibilities. Those who use these opportunities Jesus' way have the most success. Those who abuse their authority are less successful and are held accountable to Jesus.

Contributing to the effectiveness of these structures is a fundamental characteristic of human life: diversity. Jesus, the creator, has not chosen to make us alike. Some of us are stronger, smarter, more skilled and more gifted than most. Similarly, some are less. Some are young; some are old. Some are male; some are female. Diversity is there not only in human life, but in all of nature and all forms of life. The mix is always changing. It boggles the mind, and has escaped the full understanding of the best thinkers for many centuries. Jesus may have chosen this strategy because he knew he would have no real competition from Satan or man when it comes to managing things this complex. Only Jesus can handle it. Besides, there are probably other good reasons known only to Jesus for making things as complex as they are.

Masters – Servants
Because of diversity among us, some people become masters of others. This is expressed most commonly in modern society in the employer-employee relationship. It was expressed in former times in the owner-slave relationship. Jesus, as creator and ruler, expects us to accept the necessity of this authority structure, though not all the abuses to which evil men may put it. An employee (or slave) may rightly rebel against the abuses of a particular master or even against a particular system which is being systematically abused. He might do this without rejecting the principle that some persons should submit to the authority of others within the economic and social system.

Government
Also because of diversity, some individuals, groups and coalitions rise to power in society and exercise the authority of government. For the great majority of the history of organized society, the strong have simply ruled the weak. In some cases, the more shrewd have ruled both the strong and the weak. In relatively modern times, beginning perhaps with Athens, ideas have become a more significant component in government. Now we have democracies, socialism and communism mixed with the despots and priests inherited from former eras. We as mortals will probably never be given insight into why Jesus allows governmental authorities to conduct themselves the way they do. We can have confidence, however, that they are held responsible.

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48b)

Jesus expects us to accept the necessity of governmental authority. This does not imply that all government actions are good, or even that the philosophies upon which they are founded are right. All it means is that the governed as well as those who govern should recognize that Jesus has installed government as part of his plan. Each of us who know Jesus should do our best with government as we find it. This may include changing it, should that happen to be one's calling.

Home
The last of the authority structures Jesus has installed to serve both the good and the evil is the home. Here Jesus deals with the diversities of gender and age. In the home the father and mother have authority over the children. The husband also has authority over the wife. People try all possible variations from this theme, but nothing else works as well. It is difficult enough for people to live together in harmony with all the wisdom they can get from God, much less without respecting his principles in the home.

It is almost impossible to prepare even a little comment on these three authority structures without facing the obvious fact that they are a mixed bag. Even as their origin in the authority of Jesus is mentioned, it is necessary to point out that in each case they do not necessarily work the way they ought. This is because they are used by all of mankind, not just those who do as they ought under God. Nevertheless, within these three authority structures human life has survived better than it would without them. Human society must continue this way, at least partially bearing the burden of the cosmic conflict for the souls of men, and subject to the authority of Jesus as creator.

It should hastily be added that these authority structures, though they may appear to be thoroughly flawed, are appropriate for their intended purpose. They are to provide a framework within which Jesus can redeem his lost sheep. They are general enough for Satan to use too for his destructive purposes. We are fortunate indeed that these three structures are not all our creator has given us in this world.

In the New Testament, there are several passages to which reference can be made for support of the idea that Jesus has established these three human institutions, and that his people are to live within their constraints. Some are as follows:

Ephesians 5:22 - 6:9      1 Peter 2:11 - 3:7
Colossians 3:18 – 22     Mark 12:17
Matthew 19:4 – 6           Philemon 6

JESUS HAS A SPECIAL PEOPLE

Jesus is in the process of redeeming as many of his precious creatures as will come to him. The whole history of mankind from Adam to Jesus until the end of time is the story of God's redeeming love. Part of his redemptive plan is to work through the testimony of his people, who are collectively called the church. Church means "the called out ones". Christians are called to join with God in the redemptive process.

The church and its members are only one group in a crowded field. Jesus, his Spirit and his legions of angels support the Christians. Satan and his hordes of demons are also on the field of battle. Another group, whose effectiveness is often overlooked, is that large number of people who are committed servants of Satan.

The people of Jesus are undoubtedly the most unique grouping on the face of the earth. The single factor which binds the church together is the common relationship of its members with Jesus. He is the head and his people are each individually members of his body. This relationship transcends all the diverse factors in creation to bring us together in unity. Differences of age, gender, intelligence, race and skill are all bonded together by the lordship of Jesus.

The constraints of economic servitude (masters-servants), nationality (governments) and family are spiritually superseded in Jesus, though they are usually carefully respected in the church. When Jesus returns, the order of this world will be overthrown. Until then, it is to be maintained.

This grouping called the church, less than two millennia old, is a relatively new thing on the earth. It is unlike business, government or family because it is a different kind of gathering for a different purpose. It respects those other authority structures because they are part of Jesus' program, but the church is different.

"You are a chosen family, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired unto himself that you might celebrate the manifestation of his divine power as he has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9)unto himself that you might celebrate the manifestation of his divine power as he has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9)

We should not be surprised to discover that the authority structure of the church is not like all the others. Jesus has created the church for a different purpose, so he has made it differently. In the cases of masters, governments and the home, the character of the person in authority is not categorically determined. It may be a good or an evil person, or one torn between the two powers. Satan is allowed to work in the world.

In contrast to the authorities on the world, the only position of authority in the church is held by Jesus. Satan, his demons and his people have no place, so the organizational plan is simpler.on the world, the only position of authority in the church is held by Jesus. Satan, his demons and his people have no place, so the organizational plan is simpler.

We will discuss how Jesus reveals his will to his "chosen family" shortly. Right now let’s think about delegation of authority in general for a moment.

Suppose you are a building manager in a cold northern city. On arrival at your building one winter morning, you discover that the heater is not on. You meet the maintenance man emerging from the heater room with a worried look. He tells you the blower motor is burned out. "Come with me and we will have a new one down here in ten minutes", you say. He did not make the decision about getting the new motor because you were there. If you had been out of town, it may have been appropriate for him to buy a new motor, but not with you there. You knew there was a spare in a crate upstairs.

If Jesus is within each of us, and if he is present in our meetings, there is no need for guessing what the boss wants done. Remember, he said:in our meetings, there is no need for guessing what the boss wants done. Remember, he said:

"I am with you, even to the end of the ages." (Matt. 28:20)

JESUS IS HEAD OF HIS CHURCH

Jesus has chosen to be the head of his church himself. He has delegated his authority to no one. Every member must know Jesus personally to become part of his body, and every member takes orders directly from him.

Christians often use the term "lord" with little understanding. It means master, owner and sovereign. It does not leave room for another to command. Jesus clearly claimed this kind of lordship in the lives of his people when he said:

"Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)Lord and do not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

This shows us how Jesus expects to relate to his people. He speaks to each of us personally, and he expects each of us to obey.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:27)

Fortunately there is a bit more detail given in the New Testament about what it means for Jesus to be head of the church. There are twelve passages in the New Testament which identify Jesus as the head. Five are quotations from Psalm 118:22, which says that the stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner. (Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:7) These refer to Jesus' fulfilling the prophecies concerning the messiah. The remaining seven uses are by Paul, and four apply directly to the church. In each of the four, Paul refers to Jesus as head of the church, and in two he explicitly describes how Jesus functions as the head. These two passages are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

Ephesians 4:15 and 16: "--but speaking the truth in love, we should grow unto him who is everything, who is the head, Christ, from whom all the body being assembled and connected together, he being the connection between every joint according to the working of each member by means of the measure of each part separately, constructing the growth of the body itself into a temple of love."

These two verses seem to say five things about what it means for Jesus to be head of the body:

1. He assembles us together. That is, he chooses which part goes in a particular place in relation to other parts.
2. He connects the parts together, he himself being the connecting material. He does this connecting of members uniquely in each case based on the specific functions or gifts of the members involved.
3. He gives the gifts for functioning to each member.to each member.
4. He builds these members together into a temple - a beautiful whole structure properly constructed according to his master plan.
5. It is all done in love - his love for us the members, our love for one another, our love for him and our common love for the lost of the world he would bring into the completed temple.

Colossians 2:19: "-- and not holding fast the head from whom all the body by means of the ligaments and the bonding provided, and being connected together, the growth of God increases."head from whom all the body by means of the ligaments and the bonding provided, and being connected together, the growth of God increases."

The grammar may be rough for us in English, but nevertheless this verse seems to say three things about what it means for Jesus to be head of the body:

1. He connects members together by means of ligaments, or connecting tissue.
2. He provides the bonding or binding. This may be construed as the function of an adhesive or as a wrapping or binding. The idea of adhesive seems to fit better here.
3. The result of this connection is the growth of the body.

These two passages each have two points which are similar, namely that Jesus provides the connection between members, and that he is therefore responsible for the growth of the body. The Colossians verse adds one item not found in Ephesians, that Jesus provides the bond. This word, "sundesmon" in Greek, is used elsewhere to refer to the bond of love (Ephesians 4:3) and the bond of perfect unity in the church (Colossians 3:4).

Together these two passages give us some idea of what it means for Jesus to be head of the church. It is a picture of his intimate, personal involvement in every functional detail of interrelationships, as well as in the functioning of every member. Jesus has the master plan of the operation too. Thanks to his personal involvement, the body grows to completion in love. What a picture of first-class leadership!

No other planner, organizer or director is needed, because Jesus is in the midst of his people doing what needs to be done. What his people need is to learn to walk with him, listen to his voice, and be led by his Spirit. Failure to develop a personal walk with him cannot be glossed over by participating in religion.

Get a vision of the church of Jesus from his written word. It is HIS church! He is in it. He is in his people who are there. His power and authority are there. His vision of reaching a lost and dying world is there. His love is there. Jesus works in his church, and Satan cannot stop him.

"And Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go you therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you. And look, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.'" (Matthew 28:18-20)

Put this vision into practice through the struggles in your own heart and life. Then you will see the church with our own eyes. You will be a part of it. The kingdom of heaven starts with Jesus in control of your heart and mine. Then, when we gather at the direct personal command of our lord, we are the church.

On the other hand, Satan is adept at counterfeiting the church. He has been quite successful.

NOT AS THE WORLD

It would seem reasonable to expect the church with Jesus at the head to be different from the rest of the world. Really different. The Old Testament prophets were different from false prophets because they were always right. False prophets were sometimes right, but sometimes wrong. God's men never missed. Should the church have that kind of presence of God that keeps it on track? Common sense says yes, if Jesus is at the head.

The history of the church since Jesus came in the flesh is a confusing story, and Satan is the author of confusion. On one hand there are records of the miraculous working of the power of God to redeem the lost. There are the great Wesleyan revivals, the modern breakthrough of the Gospel in Korea, the reformation of the sixteenth century, and many more.

On the other hand, there are blights on the history of the church. The slaughters of the crusades and the inquisition. One has but to read Fox's Book of Martyrs to realize that the atrocities committed in the name of Jesus are awesome. Then there is the matter of the proliferation of denominations, sects and cults. Christians and so-called Christians are so divided they have become a joke to the world and a reproach to Jesus' name.

Even those cults which deny the lordship of Jesus are free to take his name with some success because the public conception of "Christian" is so clouded. Examples: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Christian Science.

Somehow, Christians have laid hold of some fundamental truths as individuals, but have also missed others which should characterize their lives as a community. This is not because God has hidden his truth from us. It is because we have not preferred to listen to our Lord Jesus and obey him.

The problem is that the Christian community has been sold a false concept. We have been told by Satan's disciples that Jesus delegates his authority in the church. Then they insert themselves to corrupt it. The church has been infiltrated by the enemy. This lie is answered by the word of Jesus himself.

Consider Mark 10:42 through 45 for instruction from Jesus. (Parallel passages are Matthew 20:25-28 and Luke 22:24-30.) The brothers James and John followed the normal human tendency to desire prestige, honor and power for themselves. They wanted to gain positions of delegated authority under Jesus, just as they saw people around them in religion with high levels of delegated authority, as in government. They were willing to pay the price, they said, to take advantage of what they obviously saw as a remarkable opportunity. Jesus told them that such positions were not his to give.

When the remaining ten disciples heard of this exchange, they were moved with indignation against the two brothers. Why were they angry? Because they did not want anyone to get ahead of them! All the disciples acted in ways to show their expectation of transferring the delegated authority concept from the world's institutions to the community of Jesus. They also acted vainly and created factions in accordance with Satan's strategy. Fortunately, Jesus was there to stop the movement in its tracks for the moment.

"You know that those who are recognized to rule the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever wishes to become great among you, he shall be your servant. And whoever wishes to be first, he shall be bond-servant of all. For also the son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-45)

Stepping through this passage carefully, several points can be found:

1. Positional authority is commonly exercised by people who hold power in government.
2. This kind of positional authority is not to exist among Jesus' followers.
3. Among Jesus' followers, the great shall serve, and the greatest shall be the lowest servants.the great shall serve, and the greatest shall be the lowest servants.
4. For example, Jesus the master came to serve.

Here we have a turning point. Jesus says "No" to one way and "Yes" to another for his community. The new way he points to is certainly different, and not as comfortable as the old. We, like the disciples, may not immediately understand how it works, but what choice do we have but to try? Jesus has firmly cut off the idea of running the church like a business.

To some, this may seem to be a dilemma with no good resolution. It is not a dilemma. There is a good resolution, it is just not familiar. The real issue is not the validity of Jesus' teaching; the issue is whether or not we will be obedient to Jesus and learn from him.

Unfortunately, too many, even the great majority of Christians have taught, been taught, or have quietly acquiesced to the lie that somebody besides Jesus must run the church. The "great ones" among Christians are often called pastors, deacons, bishops, elders and presbyters - all hiding behind New Testament names. The names are there in the New Testament, it is true. But the job of running the church belongs to Jesus, and he explicitly has not given it to anyone. Those names properly describe the roles of servants, not masters.

There are few Christian leaders who are true to their Lord and refuse to accept the role of positional authority in their churches. These few usually do not last long.

Congregations expect their leaders to take the responsibility for finding out what God wants done, then assume the authority to get it done. Unfortunately, competent people can frequently put on a pretty good show. The dynamics of success modeled by larger congregations usually lead even small congregations to miss the key idea of Jesus' lordship that opens to them the real power of God.

Take courage now, brothers and sisters in Jesus. Jesus would not ask us to do something without giving us the tools to do it. With his help, we can understand what he wants done, and we can do it.

Let us look at this new way. Jesus said to look to him as the example.to him as the example.

HOW DID JESUS SERVE?

Why did people so readily follow Jesus? Why did they try so hard to get him to be their king? Look at some of the obvious reasons:

1. He healed people.
2. He fed people.
3. He answered questions with wisdom.
4. He was their champion to denounce the deadly religion of the day.
5. He had a bearing of authority.
6. Everything he did or said was good.
7. He loved people and they knew it.

In summary, he was by far the best man around. They were right about that. Later on he even died for them, though they would not understand that for a while yet.

Check over this list, and maybe add a few points of your own. Now go back over it and see what Jesus did that can be called "service". At least the first three or four qualify, and we really ought to add his death on the cross for us. Jesus knew something most of the rest of us have missed, though it was never really hidden. He became great by serving.

"If there be therefore any consolation is Christ, if any comfort in love, if any fellowship in the Spirit, if any tender mercies or compassions, make full my joy that you be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind, doing nothing through faction or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting the other better than himself, not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you to the things of others.

"Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus who existing in the form of God counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yes, the death of the cross. Wherefore God highly exalted him, giving him a name above every name, --" (Philippians 2:1-9)

The key words here are "emptied" and "exalted". Emptied is "kenosis" in Greek, and means "poured out." Exalted is "plerosis" in Greek, and means "filled up." Our brother Paul exhorts us here to let this mind be in us which was in Jesus. He calls on us to empty ourselves, that is, to give ourselves for others as Jesus did.

Jesus' father saw what he did and counted him worthy to be filled above everyone else. Jesus brings us to this same Father, and has shown us how to please him. We can be confident that this way will work if we will commit ourselves to it in obedience and faith.

HOW SHALL WE SERVE?

There are two kinds of authority. The kind we are accustomed to seeing in masters, governments and homes may be called "positional", for want of a better term. Those who hold this authority may be either good or bad, because the human institutions to which Jesus has delegated the authority serve all of mankind. The authority flows from the position.

There is another kind of authority. It flows from a person's ability to serve. Consider this hypothetical situation. My neighbor grows tulips in flower beds around his house. Unknown to me, he has studied tulips all his adult life, and has written books on tulips. These books have been translated into many languages. He is recognized around the world as an authority on tulips. One day while we happen to be casually visiting, I mention how beautiful his tulips are, and I ask if he would tell me how it is done. He obligingly tells me how to prepare the soil, which bulbs to get, etc. I do what he says, and soon my yard is graced with the beauty of tulips.

Now look at what happened. I sensed his ability and voluntarily chose to receive him as my authority. I obeyed him. Simultaneously, he responded to my need with his wealth of ability, and he served me. He was both servant and authority at the same time. Call this "functional" authority. It flows from a person's ability and willingness to serve. It is put into effect by being voluntarily received by another.

With these definitions in mind, we may relieve some of the confusion as to how leaders may serve in the Christian community. Those New Testament terms, elder, presbyter, bishop, rule and office are there, and they do mean something. What they mean is that some people yield themselves effectively to Jesus. They empty themselves and let him be their master. Jesus then begins to fill them: he gives them gifts. First and foremost he fills them with his Holy Spirit. Then he gives gifts which enable them to serve others, such as preaching, teaching, healing, evangelism, administrations, helps and prophecy. Now these people have something really worthwhile to give, so Jesus opens the way for them to serve their brothers and sisters, and to proclaim Jesus to the lost.

In addition to the special gifts, Jesus guides his people into maturity, deeper faith and fuller love. Those who use their gifts and mature into useful servants come to be relied upon by others for the service they so willingly give. They become functional leaders. Christians need to see that there is no hint of positional authority in this kind of service.

Every Christian brother or sister who finds himself or herself to be gifted from God should be most careful to avoid the temptation of misusing the gift as an excuse to claim a position of authority. Every gathering of the body of Christ should instantly reject any conduct of its leadership which hints toward a claim of positional authority. The Christian community should be carefully instructed from God's Word that Jesus is lord - that he alone is head of the church.

THE STORY OF PETER

The disciple of Jesus called Peter is a most interesting brother. He was an outspoken, strong-willed man. He was an impetuous and lovable person. Jesus chose him and loved him as a special friend. Simon, called Peter, is a major character in the New Testament. Because he was so outspoken and so much is written about him, we can find in the record concerning him a developing understanding of Jesus' new way of managing authority in the church.

In the sixteenth chapter of Matthew there are two remarkable conversations between Jesus and Simon. In verses 13 through 20, Simon confesses Jesus to be the Christ, and Jesus gives him the name "Petros", or rock. Jesus then says that on this "petra", massive rock, he will build his church. Simon, here renamed Peter, obviously had done something right. The view of many is that he rightly identified Jesus as the messiah, and that such a confession of the messiah would be the rock upon which the church would be built. In the following verses Jesus also says something about the keys of the kingdom, and about binding and loosing. There is to be some authority given to Peter, though the details are not developed here.

The next passage, verses 21 through 23, tell of Peter's audacity in rebuking Jesus for foretelling his death and resurrection. Jesus responded by saying to Peter,

"Get you behind me, Satan - you are an offense to me --" (Verse 23)

Here it is just as obvious that Peter had done something wrong. At this point in his life, he did not have everything figured out just right. He had not yet been given the keys mentioned earlier, and he was not binding anything with the authority of God.

In John 13, verses 1 through 17, Jesus brings Peter and the other disciples a step closer to the maturity he had for them. He washed their feet, and in doing so dramatically demonstrated to them the same fundamental lesson taught in Mark 10:42-45 previously discussed, that they are to be servants.

People typically wore open sandals in those days, and they usually walked wherever they went. The weather was hot and dry as it is now in that region. Feet got hot and dirty. Upon entering a home, a person usually left his sandals at the door, and frequently washed his feet to keep from tracking dirt into the house and for personal comfort. Sometimes a host or his slave would wash a guest's feet.

It has been said that only a slave could be commanded to wash feet. It has also been said that the disciple of a teacher such as Jesus could be commanded to do any service for his teacher except wash feet. Foot washing, therefore, had become something of a symbol of servitude.

When Jesus approached Peter to wash his feet, Peter said, "You shall never wash my feet!" What do you suppose was bothering Peter? Perhaps he felt that it was improper for the person in the position of lord to take such a role of servitude.

Jesus responded with, "If I wash you not, you have no part with me." Considering the consequences, this was a very important washing! Peter got the message. He also had learned not to argue with Jesus. He said, "Lord, not my feet only, but my hands and my head." Peter may not have understood why his lord chose to serve him, but he accepted it.his lord chose to serve him, but he accepted it.

Finally, Jesus explained what he had done and why.

"Know you what I have done to you? You call me master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then your Lord and master have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, the servant is not greater than his Lord, neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them." (John 13:12b-17)

The key points of Jesus' teaching here are as follows:

1. He is truly Lord and master. He claims the position of highest authority among them.
2. He has given the example of how they are to serve one another.
3. To refuse to thus humble themselves to one another is to improperly exalt themselves above their Lord.
4. To learn and do as instructed is a blessing.

It is probable that this event opened the minds of Peter and the others to understand their roles as servants. Certainly they could never again aspire to have any position of authority in the kingdom of Jesus. From this day on, the basin and towel probably came to be the most used equipment around their homes and meeting places. Jesus had effectively confronted their involvement with vanity and pride. He had given them a vehicle for expressing the loving spirit which came to characterize their community.

Lest anyone think that this teaching was only symbolic, and was not actually practiced among Christians, please refer to 1 Timothy 5:10. A widow was not to be enrolled for support by the church unless, among other things, she had washed the saints’ feet.

Did impetuous, bold Peter, the natural leader of men, rise to a position of authority in the church? No, he did not, because he had learned not to allow such a thing to happen. He did, however, find opportunity to be of great service to his brothers and sisters. He exercised functional authority because of his service, and was recognized as an elder of the church. He taught that other leaders in the body of Christ should also be servants.

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness to the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:1-3)

Note that Peter carefully uses the word "among" twice. The elders are among the others, not over them. The flock of God is among the elders, not under them. The elders are not lords. Jesus is Lord.

Peter got the idea. Jesus is Lord functionally in the church. We are all his servants, and servants of one another. There is no place in the body of Christ for one who presumes to usurp the lordship of Jesus.

THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM

Jesus said to Peter,

"I will give you the keys of the heavenly kingdom, ---"(Matt. 16:19a)

Now we are working on the subject of authority here, and these words do bear on the subject somewhat. They deal more directly, however, with a special moment between Jesus and Peter. Peter had just confessed openly that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus responded by telling him that he was blessed in two ways. First, the insight behind his statement had been given to him directly by the Father.

Second, when Jesus says the words quoted above he appears to be continuing the line of thought with a statement of how he intends to use Peter as the first public proclaimer that Jesus is the Christ. This Peter did when he led over 2,000 to trust in Jesus at Pentecost, and then 5,000 when he preached at the temple a little later as recorded in the second and third chapters of Acts. We might say that Peter opened the gates of heaven to the assembly of believers which we now call the church.

There was some functional authority and privilege associated with this special, one-time event, but it was very specifically limited as shown in the words of Jesus which immediately follow:

"and if you forbid something on earth it will be what is already forbidden in heaven, and if you permit something on earth it will be what is already permitted in heaven." (Matt. 16:19b)

You will probably note that the wording here is not exactly as found in most translations, and there is a reason. The Greek participle near the end of each of these two parallel clauses is in the perfect tense. English has no perfect tense, so it takes several words to clarify the meaning (shown bold above). The perfect tense signifies completed action with a continuing result, the emphasis being on the result. The result in this case is that the servant gets in line with the master's will.

A little later in Matthew 18:18, Jesus said the same thing to the other disciples, using the same parallel clauses with perfect participles. In Acts 8 and 9, Philip and Paul began to proclaim Jesus publicly in accordance with these instructions.

Jesus was not giving Peter or anyone else a position of authority with these words. Exactly the opposite! He is putting Peter and the disciples under his authority. He is telling them that they will have the opportunity of service on earth, but they will do it under his authority as sovereign in heaven. When we serve Jesus, we too are under his sovereignty in like manner.

To receive Jesus as lord means we trust his death on the cross to pay for our sins, and we love him for what he has done. It means something more also. It means we are expected to obey him every day in every way. What we do on earth WILL be what is permitted by the king in heaven.

Praise, love and worship are one side of the "Lord Jesus" coin. The other side is obedience. Jesus expects obedience.

"Why do you call me Lord, Lord, but do not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

Most of us have a deep distrust of the situation when someone expects us to do what he says. It is a threat to our personal freedom, and frequently a sign of bondage. So we need to look carefully at this. Jesus said it; he is someone special. Many of us believe that he can be trusted to love us. Furthermore, he did not tell us to obey someone else, just him.

Here is the bondage Jesus would lay on us:bondage Jesus would lay on us:

"Come to me all you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

Many of us who have experienced the pain and sorrows of life have gladly traded them for the role of a servant of Jesus.

Peter had the one-time privilege of opening the gates of the kingdom to all those who would believe, but he had to become a servant to do it. If we would be useful in the kingdom, we too must be personal servants of Jesus. The assembly of believers is built on the servant kind of faith that Peter had.

ARE WE ABANDONED?

Several years ago I suggested to a successful pastor friend that his style of planning and implementing programs was too much his own initiative, and should rely more on the personal direction of Jesus in the hearts of the people in the assembly. He told me in no uncertain terms that if he did not direct his church, nothing would get done. Furthermore, he would appreciate my not raising this kind of issue, since it was important to maintain unity within the body. He went on to become an outstanding denominational leader.

Has Jesus really abandoned us to this extent? Is he helpless to get anything done in our lives and our communities unless people with leadership ability initiate programs for him? Certainly not! He does not use men as his agents to manage his communities. He does it himself by means of his spirit within us.

"I will ask my Father and he will give another comforter - the Spirit of truth. He will be with you forever. --- he is in you. I will not abandon you as orphans. I will come to you." John 14:16, 17b-18

This "another comforter" is another of the same kind, that is, the same kind as Jesus. "Comforter" is paraclete, or advocate, one who stands beside you to help you or plead your cause. He stands in for Jesus in a very personal sense, as the final sentence of the above quotation indicates. Furthermore, he has all the authority and resources of Jesus.

"I have much more to tell you, but you are not able to bear it just now. When the time comes, the Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth. He will not speak of himself, but what he hears he will speak, and what things he receives he will deliver to you. That will honor me, his taking from me and delivering to you. Everything my Father has is mine, so the source I speak of is sufficient for the Spirit to take from me and deliver to you." John 16:12-15

So, we are not abandoned! Jesus has made full provision for each of us to have all the personal help we need as well as all his resources. When we gather as his assembly, we really have no need for a human pastor to give us the direction of the Kingdom. We need only to pay attention to the direction we already have from the Spirit of truth who is already is us.

My friend may have been correct, that nothing would get done in that particular situation unless he did it. But he was an expert at doing it wrong. He went on to lead a whole state convention of churches in doing it wrong because he did it wrong so well.

If he had really been a servant of God, he would have led those people individually and as a group to follow the Son of God instead of his own man-made programs. Perhaps nothing could get done without that man's leadership, not because Jesus had abandoned his people, but because his people had been led to abandon Jesus and follow someone else.

Now this brings up a disturbing question. Why are people so easily led astray? Apparently, being a Christian has somehow become such a superficial thing that it doesn't even involve knowing Jesus well enough to notice when he is not the leader.

Individual Christians and whole assemblies need to take the initiative in coming to know Jesus. This is where truly spirit-led servants ought to take their initiative - in pointing people to Jesus.

Here are a few things Jesus said which make it clear that he expects to be in personal contact with us:

"I am the good shepherd, and I know my own and my own know me." John 10:14

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

"And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:20b

It may take some time and effort on the part of each of us to find an effective way of making this relationship work. It may take more initiative than we want to put into it. Nevertheless, we should not fool ourselves or let Satan trick us into thinking that we are doing what is right when we take the initiative from our lord and do our own thing.

Neither should we be deceived into thinking that just because someone who calls himself God's man says something, it really comes from God. We should check that out with Jesus too. Following the wrong leader is a total cop-out for a Christian. It is just a way of avoiding the effort and personal responsibility involved in really coming to Jesus. It may even be a way of avoiding ever facing the need of being saved in the first place.

There is a joy in being in the presence of Jesus! Those who have ever been there know it. Occasionally, when we get away from him for a little while, we only want to come back. With Jesus is the only really good place to be. If you don't know Jesus on a functional basis, don't fake it. Get to know him.

DYNAMICS OF THE FELLOWSHIP

Jesus says he is going to lead each one of us as we just noted in John 10. How he does it for you will certainly be different in some ways from how he does it for me. He moves in each of our hearts, and we are different people.

So, what happens when we need to agree on his leading? Not just two of us, but dozens or hundreds of us. How can we agree on what our leader wants in a particular situation when he is not physically here? We have no physical evidence of his leading, such as a telephone call or an e-mail.

We can discount those who conjure up visions and signs at every turn, because, as Jesus said;

"God is spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24

This calls for faith. Jesus has made provision for this need. If we will pay attention to him and receive instruction from him, he will take care of us. When he said, "My sheep hear my voice", sheep is plural.

So how does he do it? He speaks through people, as we would expect. But he has his own way of choosing his spokesmen. He looks on their hearts.on their hearts.

These people are called prophets. Prophets speak for God, not just concerning the future, but also concerning the past and present. Jesus gives this gift by means of his Spirit, the same way he gives other gifts.

In any particular situation, Jesus chooses the most appropriate person. The group involved needs to discern who is speaking for Jesus. Some with the gift of prophecy come to be known among the body of believers as they continue to serve the group for a time. Then the gift may fade away in those who are better known, and be given anew to some other brothers or sisters. At any given time, it would be impossible to predict exactly whom Jesus might choose to speak his will to the body. He holds the choice every moment of time, without exception.

In every gathering of believers, there are people of differing spiritual condition. Some are close to Jesus, walking in the fullness of his spirit. Some know him well, but are not walking close to him at that particular hour. Third, there are those who have fallen away from him to the extent that they are not responsive to the leading of his spirit. If Satan has his way, some of his followers will be there too as the fourth category.

The dynamics of the situation require the identification of Jesus' spokesman from among this diverse collection. To do this, each of the God's people needs to be aware of his role in the process, and to prepare himself to participate as follows:

1. Discern one's own condition as one of the above categories, as best one can. Pray about it.
2. Yield one's self to the Holy Spirit to be used as he chooses, for prophecy or discernment.
3. Expect the prophet to speak, and pray for him or her to be strengthened.
4. Prepare to resist Satan.

No one, other than Jesus, is in a position to control such a meeting. Whomever he chooses should be free to speak. Prophets and discerners should be led by the Spirit, and Satan's spokesmen should be confronted or ignored, depending on their strength. Jesus will provide someone to perform each of these functions according to the power of his Spirit living in the hearts of his people. From this kind of meeting, the revealed word of the lord will emerge. We can depend on him.

Those of us who have experienced this kind of meeting can bear witness that the Holy Spirit moves among his people to reveal the Father's will. Suppose, for example, that thirty or so Christians are discussing the question of how to provide for the poor among themselves. After prayer for direction, several alternative plans are discussed, each having certain aspects which are needed. Then someone proposes another alternative which seems to fit the situation. There is a pause, as everyone realizes that this is best, and that the Spirit has spoken through the sister who suggested it. The meeting continues in a spirit of peace and love.

Due to the variable nature of human kind, and the fact that each of us is sometimes weak, no one person can always be the prophet or discerner. Jesus, however, can always choose perfectly the roles of each participant. He may even choose to speak through the little child, right there before your eyes, as he said; human kind, and the fact that each of us is sometimes weak, no one person can always be the prophet or discerner. Jesus, however, can always choose perfectly the roles of each participant. He may even choose to speak through the little child, right there before your eyes, as he said;

"--- and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6b

WHO WERE THE NICOLAITANS?

Jesus spoke to the church at Ephesus:

"I know your work and your toil and patience, and that you cannot bear evil men, and did try them that call themselves apostles and are not, and did find them false."

"And this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." Revelation 2:2 & 6

The church at Pergamos also had a problem with Nicolaitans.

"--- so have you some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner. Repent therefore, or else I come to you quickly, and I will make war with them with the sword of my mouth." Revelation 2:15-16

The Ephesian Christians were commended for rejecting those who falsely claimed to be apostles. These impostors were probably the Nicolaitans, whose works Jesus hates. The people at Pergamos had not dealt with them so effectively, so Jesus threatened to personally intervene. Those Nicolaitans were dangerous, evil people. This was war!

History tells us little about them. All we have is contained in these two passages from The Apocalypse. What did they teach or practice that was so terrible? We can only follow the clues given here: their name and the associated text.

The name consists of the combination of two Greek words plus a suffix: niko-lait-ans. The first part is a derivative from the verb "nikao" which means to conquer, overcome or vanquish. The second part is a derivative from the noun "laos", which means people, a crowd or the population. "Nicolaitans" therefore probably means something like "those who make subjects of the Nicolaitans" therefore probably means something like "those who make subjects of the people".

A word familiar to us in English which comes from the same root is laity, which came into usage shortly after New Testament times to distinguish "common people" from the "clergy". Laity and clergy are not used in the New Testament at all.

Nicolaitans were new on the scene at the very end of the New Testament era. The Apocalypse of John was given and recorded approximately during the years of 90 to 95 AD. It is the last writing to find its way into the Bible.

Apparently, some servants of Satan had developed a new strategy for becoming leaders in the churches. It failed at Ephesus, but they were trying it again at Pergamos. They seem to have audaciously claimed authority over those churches as apostles of Jesus. Satan's purpose in them was to destroy the true body of Christ and replace it with a counterfeit. He was bold!

We do not know all that happened in those early Christian churches, but we know a little. The Ephesians recognized the counterfeits and rejected them. At Pergamos, they were not discerned as false (nor were the teachers of the doctrine of Balaam). The Pergamos Christians really needed discernment. Jesus said he would make war against those misled church members at Pergamos unless they repented. The sword of Jesus' mouth is his word.

Lest the significance of this be lost, we must be very specific. For about two thousand years these false "church leaders" have been claiming that God works only through them. For example, in about 110 to 117 AD, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote the following in letters to churches in other cities in an attempt to consolidate the power of the bishop:following in letters to churches in other cities in an attempt to consolidate the power of the bishop:

"---it is fitting that you agree with the will of the bishop, ---" it is fitting that you agree with the will of the bishop, ---"

Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:1

"---do nothing apart from the bishop ---" Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1do nothing apart from the bishop ---" Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1

"Let no one do any of the things decreed for the church without the bishop." Ignatius to the Smyrneans 8:1

We are talking here about a strategy of Satan that has been entrenched in institutional religion since the very beginning of the Christian era. It is a concept and practice which continues to be used for profit, power and security by those who are seduced to become Satan's servants. It will probably die only when Satan is finally defeated.

Satan has had two thousand years to improve his methods. Have we Christians learned to be sharper in stopping him, or have we become more gullible to his deception?

TODAY'S NICOLAITANS

Christian congregations today are typically controlled by the authority of leaders who claim to be in positions delegated to them by Jesus. The New Testament does not support such claims.

Please be patient now while we reiterate a point. This is an important point! Those who claim that Jesus has delegated them some position of authority turn to various passages in the New Testament for support, such as Jesus' words to Peter in Matthew 16, which we have discussed. There are numerous other passages which use titles such as "overseer", or mention "---those in authority over you---". All of these may be misinterpreted to imply delegation of positional authority. None state it clearly.

Jesus' statement in Mark 10 which we have also considered is clear. He does not delegate positional authority within his community.

It is mandatory upon us, if we are to interpret the New Testament or any literature properly, that we interpret the vague in terms of the clear.

Correct interpretation therefore leaves us with only one alternative for interpreting any implication of authority among the community of believers other than the authority of Jesus. It must be functional authority, or none at all.

Can one find a "church" today where the pastor, bishop, priest, elders, deacons or presbyters do not claim positions of authority? Do they not claim those positions as ones sent from God - "apostles" (as though that meant something mysterious other than "missionary"). Most of today's so-called “churches” really are not the body of Christ, but religious, man-made institutions flawed by this systemic error. Satan began selling this idea in the first century, and many "churches" have wallowed in it ever since. Jesus has been at war with those “churches” down through the ages.

Perhaps this view of things will shed some light on why the power of our Lord Jesus is so seldom found in "churches". When his position of authority is taken by others, even well-meaning people find themselves thoroughly deceived and working against the Holy Spirit. They are counterfeits.

Some true Christians who are cast into these positions by the demands of institutional religion become uncomfortable with their false and powerless positions, and they quit. Others hang on to the income, power, or security. They have been seduced and have become servants of Satan. Still others may try to work within the system because they believe that God can bring good out of it anyway, and there is no other viable alternative way to serve God. These may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.

A discerning disciple of Jesus might now begin to understand why even spirit-filled churches quickly and systematically become cold as the true servants of God are replaced by Nicolaitans. The horrors of history which have consequently been carried out by "churches" and "Christians" in the name of Jesus should be no great surprise.

"--- yes, the hour comes that whoever kills you shall think that he offers service to God." John 16:2b

It has certainly been true that throughout Christian history, churches have been among the worst tormentors of Jesus' people. If you doubt this, perhaps you should read Fox's Book of Martyrs. Something has obviously been off-base for a long time. This "Nicolaitan" idea may finally get to the heart of it.

Most people are startled by the boldness of these ideas: that most present day "churches" fit the pattern of false religious institutions run by the modern Nicolaitans. These ideas are no more bold than the false apostle's claims to delegated positions of authority.

You may say, "It does not appear that way to me!" You may be perfectly correct, because you may be in one of those unusual gatherings where Jesus is really in control. On the other hand, you may be blind to what is really going on. Why not check out your church, just to be sure?

TAKE THE TEST

Obviously, Jesus has not gone away because the enemy has found some success. Jesus' strategy is to keep on working in the hearts of his own. It seems clear, however, that our Lord Jesus would have our eyes opened to this deception, and it seems likely that he would have many of us join him in the war against it. Certainly no honest believer should knowingly accept the false authority structure in the "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9, 3:9)

Each Christian should test his or her own involvements against the sword that comes from the mouth of Jesus - the New Testament. Every honest church leader should most carefully examine his or her own relationship to Jesus and role in the church. A serious Christian would do well to meditate on the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of John, Chapter 15 through Chapter 16, verse 4, the context from which the selection in the previous section was taken.

Look, for example, at John 15:4-10. Jesus discusses:

Abiding in him and his love
The consequences of not abiding in him
The benefits of abiding in him
His own abiding in his father's love.

To summarize these verses, he calls us to himself. Then he says:

"These things have I spoken to you that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be full." John 15:11 you that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be full." John 15:11

Today's Christians and churches should be eager to be measured by passages such as this. Do I abide in Jesus, or am I faking it? Does my church lead people into this kind of abiding with Jesus, or are we all faking it? Is joy in Jesus made full in our fellowship and our personal lives? Are lost sheep being brought into the fold?

If these things are happening, Hallelujah! If not, what is going on? Have the Nicolai-tans taken over? Am I one of them?Have the Nicolai-tans taken over? Am I one of them?Have the Nicolai-tans taken over? Am I one of them?Have the Nicolai-tans taken over? Am I one of them??Have the Nicolai-tans taken over? Am I one of them?Have the Nicolai-tans taken over? Am I one of them?

WHAT THEN SHALL I DO?

Every Christian should accept personal responsibility for abiding in Jesus. That is the one thing that enables Jesus to deal effectively with whatever comes along in our lives. It opens the door to his power.

Concerning the specific matter of the lordship of Jesus in our gatherings, here are a few summary suggestions:

1. Be informed of how Jesus expects his body to function. Study his Word.
2. Commit yourself to be a servant for Jesus, even a bond-servant. So relate to the brethren.
3. Carefully consider boldly opposing the efforts of Satan to gain or keep control of any Christian assembly in which you have an involvement. No matter how sweetly they talk, give none lordship but Jesus. Use the Word.
4. Should you find yourself outside the mainstream of popular religion, trust Jesus to lead you to the fellowship he has for you. Ask Jesus; he will show you his people.
5. Praise God in everything.

AND IF I AM A LEADER?

If you are a leader in the Christian community, perhaps the Holy Spirit has brought you to ask where you fit into God's plan. I truly hope this is so for you. Obviously, only God can answer that question for you in any specific way.

There are various guidelines in the New Testament which continue to be valid for leaders, but in the context of our being one another's servants, not masters. From a practical perspective, here are some suggestions which may be useful to consider:

1. Verify your spiritual gifts as being from God, and as being empowered by the Holy Spirit. Only do things because He leads you, not because you can or because it is expected of you or because it is profitable to you or because it enhances your security or because some other spirit instructs you.
2. Do not confuse spiritual gifts and their related functional authority with positional authority. Jesus has not delegated positional authority to anyone in his body.
3. Absolutely refuse to allow yourself to be used as a priest by any person or group in the fellowship. If someone else needs to know God's will, lead them to Jesus, then back off. If that is not enough, then help them to learn to walk with Jesus - if you know how. Face this - you may know very little about walking with Jesus yourself, but even if you do, you can never do more than point the way for someone else.
4. Avoid any potential for conflict of interest in financial matters. Greed among the "Professional Ministry" has been perceived by the general public to be rampant throughout western culture for several centuries. To counteract this, I suggest that you never ask for financial support, and refuse to accept any salary or personal security in any guise. George Mueller's way worked. Check him out.
5. Teach those whom you lead to require these characteristics of all those who would lead them. Thus false leaders will be avoided, Jesus will be allowed to function as Lord and you will be a faithful servant.
6. Trust Jesus. He is able to handle the situation.

0 Comments

In Vitro Fertilization is Sin: A Discourse

Come-Outersim By William Goodell

Orthodoxy without Orthopraxy is Dead.

Abolitionism is a Call to Personal Holiness﻿

Covet Not The Pulpit

Indirect and Direct ACTION

﻿Jesus is Lord

Abolitionism is a Call to Personal Holiness

Jesus is Lord