Well, this is the second video of our recording of the audiobook of my book, Contending but Not Contentious, which I wrote for the September 2024 GIBF meeting, the Global Independent Baptist Fellowship meeting. You can go to our previous video to see part one, and now this video covers the bulk of the book. It talks about the different kinds of, quote-unquote, fights we might get into, and how we have distinctions between types of churches. Now, to illustrate this, and I do not cover this in the book, but just by way of introduction to this video, I will tell a story. It was a conversation I had just this morning with my son Abe. I grew up not going to the movie theaters. Our family has not gone to the movie theaters, and so that has been a topic of conversation in our home for a while: “Well, why, Dad? Why can we not?” My son is 12, and my daughters are 10 and 8. What I was trying to impress on my son is that if we are making a change, and perhaps we will, but I am just saying, if we are making this change, this is something I did not do growing up. This is something Grandpa was taught way back when he was in Bible college. So if we are going to make that change after 50 or 60 years, I want you to be sure why we are making this change. If it has been going down this path for 60 years and we are the ones who change it, I want to know why the previous generation was going down that path. So this morning, at our man time, we started to talk about the reasons they put up some barriers in past generations. Why were they against movie theaters? What was bad about them? We started trying to think through that, and then we started trying to think through, oh, what is good about going to a movie theater? What makes you more godly by going to a movie theater? So there are some things we are working through and talking about. But that is the idea of changing intentionally. I am not against change, but I want to make a change that is intentional, not just, “Well, everyone else is doing it, and it seems like fun.” I do not want to make decisions just based on what everyone else is doing and because it seems like fun. If we are going to make a change, let’s make some deliberate changes. In the broader sense, as far as church themes and church changes and church trends go, there are some things that have been in place, sometimes for decades, and there are some generations who want to change, and sometimes those changes are good, but sometimes I believe those changes are premature. So how you change is what this book is all about, at least this section of the book: in what areas should we change, and if we do change, how do we go about making those changes? That is the broad overview of this section of the audiobook, and so I hope you enjoy this reading. I am just facing the iPad throughout this reading. It is not conversational like this, but I hope you will enjoy it. Again, if you missed the first part, go back and watch that, but this is our second video out of three that we are going to make of the audiobook recording. Enjoy.
Part One: When to Fight
Chapter 1: Show Me Book, Chapter, and Verse
If we major on the majors and minor on the minors, there is a line between major and minor. When is something major enough to major on? Where you draw that line determines which camp you fall into. In Bible days you were either a Christian or a heretic, and those were the only two camps. You were with the apostles, or you were with the false teachers, and there were no denominations. Today Christianity is much more nuanced than that. For better or worse, we have split into denominations or circles or camps grouped around shared beliefs, but all those denominations or circles or camps have a limit line. Where is yours?
Lawful Versus Expedient
“Well, I draw my line at the Bible.” Okay, well, I do too, but everyone says that. You will find some extremely convincing apologists on either side of you who make an argument as to why their lines are right. The people left of you will poke holes in any position you hold. That argument did not stop Paul from helping Christians draw lines that may not always have specific book, chapter, and verse support. First Corinthians 10:23: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” Paul often chose expedience as the guiding principle when the lawful argument was silent. In areas that were not so cut and dried, as in meat offered to idols, his decision was shaped by the edification of others more than by his own preference. In areas that some consider gray, I am not always convinced that the positions some people hold are the stronger-brother positions. I am certainly not making the case for throwing the Bible out, but to boil every philosophy and teaching down to just one specific book, chapter, and verse is untenable. Some positions require a lengthier explanation of biblical principles, and even Paul left some room for differing opinions. One of his points was that where the Bible was silent on a book, chapter, and verse, he could still make a principled decision based on expedience. By the way, his decisions sounded pretty dogmatic. This was not majoring on the minors, but it was a limiting of freedoms rather than a flaunting of freedoms, as when he said, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”
Principles Are Biblical Arguments
So how do we arrive at conclusions? We look to the Scriptures for both commandments and principles. A commandment is a thou shalt, and we establish easy, first-order convictions from them. A principle is a general expression of God’s will, often with a broad application. Just because a principle is less direct than a commandment, and therefore has different applications in different cultures and eras, a principle is still a biblical argument. When you stack up enough Bible commandments and principles, you end up at a conviction, something I am convinced about. Fewer Bible principles likely means that a conviction drops from first-order importance to second- or third-order, but even a minor teaching is still a biblical teaching. Pastor Tom Brennan defines a preference as something I prefer. If I had my preference of any car on a car lot, I would choose the one I think is best. A preference is not unimportant; it just may not have the level of biblical support to become something major. Often it is not that some camps are majoring on the minors, but that they are not yet ready to dismiss certain topics as being no big deal. To them, since it is a biblical discussion, even some seemingly minor discussions are in fact major.
What Is Major?
What kind of carpet you choose is not on the same level as what kind of gospel you preach, and I would never equate the two, but both have implications. Christians ought to make a biblical decision about each. If you stack up enough minor decisions, you have something major on your hands after a while. The line between minor and major is sometimes obvious. Second Peter 2:1 calls some beliefs damnable heresies, beliefs that would condemn you to hell if you believed them: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” More often, the line is not so obvious. I am sincerely not trying to split hairs over minutiae, but it is those very hairs that split denominations eventually. Minor leads to major. The question is not if you will split, but how soon you will split. And splitting over a minor issue does not mean that issue is elevated to the same importance as the gospel. Beliefs about music styles and beliefs about salvation are not equal fights, but I hope we can talk about both charitably and not be accused of straining at gnats. Both have generational impact, and we cannot dismiss the concerns of the previous generation, who have seen the cycles of change.
Generational Considerations
It is wise to consider decisions generationally. Where has this seemingly minor issue taken previous generations? If it leads somewhere major, should I fight it now? That kind of fight is a luxury of our sliver of history. We are not fighting for our lives, so we can fight for our niche. This level of camp division has not always been.
We Are in the Bullseye of History
If I lived in A.D. 400, would I separate over the issues I am separating over now? To frame that question another way, if persecution broke out in America today, would I link arms with people I am currently separated from? If I were forced to decide, I would choose Lutheran Bonhoeffer over Muslim Muhammad. This question challenges the camp mentality. After all, some of our Baptist forefathers held practices that I would not participate in today. So what now? Today’s separation is not always doctrinal, and it is okay to say so. I view today’s Baptists and baptistic evangelicals like a circular target. We are in the bullseye of several concentric circles. The outer circle is where we agree most broadly, and the closer you go to the middle, the more nuanced the separation becomes. Outside circle: the Bible and church ordinances. The outside circle is the broadest agreement we have with our Baptist forefathers. They stood for believer’s baptism and kept the church’s communion pure. Whatever else they believed in practice, they held the Bible as their sole authority. Next circle: Baptist distinctives. As time went on, our Baptist forefathers fought battles on so many fronts that we take for granted today. What we call our Baptist distinctives, commonly remembered by the BAPTISTS acrostic, were not always so obvious and widely accepted. It was through centuries of study, writing, persecution, preaching, and practice that we arrived where we are today. On paper, many evangelicals believe exactly the same, but are they truly the same? Well, groups then formed around the next inner circle, the fundamentals. Next circle: the fundamentalists. In an oversimplified history of fundamentalism among Baptists, many fights erupted around not only the fundamentals of the faith but also the other teachings that fed or surrounded those fundamentals. These were perhaps not the damnable heresies Peter decried, but they were important nonetheless. Eventually clearer lines were drawn between parties, and the fundamentalists thundered their support for, well, the fundamentals. Defining which truths were the fundamentals proved to be difficult, and increasingly smaller groups formed around denominations, conventions, associations, fellowships, and camps or circles. Still, if you examine the statements of faith of any two Christian churches, you will likely find over 95% agreement. Inner circle, bullseye: modern-era cycles. Disagreements are not typically on paper but in practice. The inner circle of the bullseye is not yet willing to dismiss as many minor things as the outer rings do, so it draws the line between major and minor now rather than later. The root of the fight is often less about the issues themselves and more about how a person decides. That is how my dad can be friends with men who may hold a few different practices from us, yet have the same philosophical underpinnings. Their differences had the same goals and purposes as his, and the decision-making process was the same as his. How and why people make one change flows into every change.
Separation in Direction Before Doctrine
Bullseye separation is not always on firm doctrinal grounds, but on directional grounds: where is this minor change leading? Many men before this generation have seen the cycle of changes that have spread through our movement and want to avoid any direction that might eventually lead to doctrinal changes. The warnings in the past about wire-rim glasses, for example, were less about the glasses and more about the direction toward trendiness in the church. The warnings about screens in churches were not against technology, but for a congregation that could still think deeply and cherish a boring old Book. The differences between praise teams and choirs might not seem huge, but warnings have proven justified in churches that have more of a performance style than involvement in congregational singing. Pastors who sounded these warnings were labeled as rabble-rousers. True, how they fought might sometimes have been contentious, but what they fought about now has some objective data to analyze. When they argued about direction leading to doctrinal change, they were mostly right.
How Many Steps Away?
People who are nine or ten steps away from us deny the authority of Scripture, mix works with salvation, deny the deity of Jesus Christ, and embrace any number of other heresies that we would all decry. But what about people who are one or two steps away? They are not into doctrinal heresy, but they also do not practice exactly like us. Should we separate over preferences? After Bible college, it took a while for me to sort through the difference between convictions and preferences, when to separate and when to extend grace. Sometimes impressionable students come away from Bible college thinking everything they learned is of salvation-level doctrinal importance. The first time they are challenged, their one proof-text verse falls apart. If they have never been told that not all preferences are doctrines, they might be in for a shock.
Preference Influences Direction
Colossians 2:5: “For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.” I believe the order of verse 5 is something slightly less than the faith of the same verse, and Paul is thankful for both. Camps form around preferences, and it is okay to say that out loud. Preferences lead somewhere, so my ministry affiliations will reflect the direction I want to head. Admittedly, direction is hard to define and more subjective than the doctrinal fights of the past. I speak only for myself here, but I, for one, am okay with small camps that are unified around a few characteristic positions rather than broad camps that are too dismissive of key teachings.
The SBC: A Case Study
At the time of this writing, the Southern Baptist Convention has been fighting for decades over what topics are major versus minor. They agreed to disagree and stay unified over Calvinism in the early 2000s, and their latest fight is over women pastors. Rick Warren battled it out against Al Mohler, and the SBC is split on the issue. In the SBC, it used to be perceived as overwhelmingly obvious that women could not be pastors. It was not even a question among Baptists until recently, but now it is not so obvious. In 2024 the vote to clarify the SBC documents as complementarian failed to get the two-thirds majority vote. There are nuanced reasons for that, I am sure, but the point is that this behemoth of a convention is no longer as clear on the majors as it used to be. The SBC might end up going through a major split, just like many inclusive denominations have within the past few years: Presbyterians, Episcopalians, United Methodists, and more. I believe it is inevitable, because no matter where you draw your line, there is always someone left of you calling you to their side. History seems to indicate that once the left-leaning voices reach a critical mass, some kind of split happens. In my observation, Independent Baptists split from Southern Baptists a long time ago because of direction.
Admittedly Niche Fights
What is happening in the SBC has happened before and will happen again, and the bullseye group is that pesky, vocal minority that is willing to separate before it gets explicitly doctrinal, as long as the understanding is clear that I am not enemies with my brothers, nor do I think they are evil or wish ill toward them. I believe we can have the same mind as Jesus Christ in Mark 9:40: “For he that is not against us is on our part.” I can simultaneously be thankful for John MacArthur and disagree with some of his theological positions. I can simultaneously applaud some Calvary Chapel pastors for their bold stand during COVID and show why our church separates from them. I am friendly to everyone. I am a friend with, and a friend to, many people who are different from me. But when it comes to ecclesiastical separation, our church draws lines before the discussion gets doctrinal. I believe foothills lead to mountains, and they are all connected. Not all foothill doctrines are as grand as soteriology, for example, but they all connect. When I see someone making a change in one foothill area, there is a lot of historical evidence to show that change is a package deal. More change is coming. I may not have a problem with the first step; it is the destination that makes me nervous.
Direction Ends at Destination Disneyland
Not all drifting leads to immediate destruction, as some doom-and-gloom voices like to make you think. A person might drift for 20 years and not go the distance that others said he would go. Not all churches slide down the slippery slope into apostasy in one generation, but what direction are they heading? Hypothetically, consider the next two pastoral transitions. Maybe one generation only changes a little, but will the next generation know how to change? It would be foolish to argue against any change. Change is inevitable, but the direction of every change makes us more like someone. The train will go where the tracks are leading, and if I am not a fan of the destination, I would rather not even start down those tracks. The risk is not worth the reward of Destination Disneyland.
Destination Disneyland
We had a member join our church a few years ago after spending ten years in what he called Disneyland churches. These churches had it all: sprawling buildings, thousands of attendees, hundreds of volunteers in each ministry, huge outreach days, practical sermons on everyday topics, community for every life phase, and as a bonus, for special occasions, they even talked about God sometimes. A glaring problem was that Christians were never called to be biblical disciples. This member was drinking with buddies on Saturday and singing about forgiveness on Sunday. In ten years he barely recalls hearing anything about sin. This is only one anecdotal example. I realize that many large churches do many great things, but if the above example is the model of what churches ought to be, a pinnacle of successful Christianity, it is not a destination where I would like to lead our church. This member who found our church wanted to be a disciple of Jesus, wanted to be regularly called to something more, wanted to be fed God’s Word, and wanted to worship God in a truth-rich environment. I have been to Destination Disneyland. On paper, churches like Saddleback, for example, seem to have all the right doctrines. I have been to a service with Rick Warren preaching. I have experienced the guest welcome team, the music team, and everything a typical service had to offer, and I came away sad. First, it felt like a corporation, not a family. It was a machine, not a body. I am sure the first church in Jerusalem dealt with that too, so it is what all large churches deal with, I am sure, but it was missing a personal touch because of that. Second, the worship was performance, not congregational. Only the band was singing, and the few voices from the congregation were swallowed up by the enormous room and amplified instruments. Third, the sermon was encouraging. It was shortly after Rick Warren had lost his son to suicide, but it never mentioned the gospel. There was never a clarification made about sin, Jesus’ sacrifice, or our source of power over evil. Fourth, and most heartbreaking, at the closing prayer Warren said, “In Jesus’ name, amen. Let’s give a hand to all those who just gave their life to Jesus Christ,” and everyone cheered. There was no teaching about Jesus, sin, the sacrifice of the cross, the resurrection, or anything resembling the gospel message. I have a theological degree, and even I was confused about what he taught and prayed. I know people are being saved in these churches, and I know they have a passion that seems to be real, but if people believe they are going to heaven because a congregation clapped for them after a service and they got baptized, they are damnably mistaken. That is horrifying.
Fighting for Serious Discipleship
I want so badly for churches to produce disciples of Jesus Christ. In order to do that, they must be careful about many key areas. Salvation: serious discipleship starts with a clear gospel. Sinners must realize that their sin separates them from God, and they must turn to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 1 Thessalonians 1:9: “For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” This is biblical repentance, and Destination Disneyland weakens the presentation of the gospel. Baptism: serious discipleship continues with a clear understanding of baptism as an identification with Jesus Christ by the authority of the church. Churches that accept every kind of baptism, for example Catholic, Mormon, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, also accept every kind of teaching that comes with the baptizing authority. Destination Disneyland weakens the impact of baptism. Holy living: serious discipleship is about growing more like Christ every day and being taught “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” Matthew 28:20: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” I was told by a standout high school student who won a Christian character award at a large Christian school, “I am into God and stuff, just not the Bible.” That is impossible. Holy living permeates every aspect of life: day-to-day holiness, corporate worship, being a faithful student of the Bible, and so much more. Destination Disneyland seems to emphasize many other things besides these. Apostate is a weighty term to just throw around, and I do not believe we have biblical apostasy across Christendom, but Scripture does warn that people will not endure sound doctrine, and that the human tendency will be to only listen to what we like: itching ears. That is what Destination Disneyland does best, and I believe it is a biblically flawed direction to lean toward. In which church in your town can someone become a fully committed disciple of Jesus? I hope it is yours.
Chapter 2: Change
“You are against change. You are a changeaphobe.” Some would argue that hesitance is ungodly fear and that we ought to come to the light: wake up, quit with the shackles, stop being legalistic, do not major on the minors, and dismiss second-order disagreements. But as I said before, I am not against change. Change is inevitable and is sometimes good. When singing in churches went from choirs to the congregation, it was a good change. Culture has changed from pastors wearing robes and climbing a staircase to the pulpit, but I do not hear anyone calling for us to return to those old paths. My beard and wire-rim glasses were rebellious in the past, but the associations have changed. These are examples of inevitable changes. I am not scared of change any more than you are scared of homosexuals when you are called a homophobe. I have never been called a changeaphobe, but by being cautious about change, I suppose some might think I am scared of rocking the boat. That is not the issue. I am cautious of rapid change.
Here Is What I Am Cautious Of: Rapid Change
I am amazed to see how quickly people change once they start. I prefer to give new ideas time to simmer and see what comes of them. I like to see the reasons behind the change, and I want to give the fruit of the change time to ripen. We do this for pastors, since one of his qualifications is being not a novice. I like to do the same with anything that smells of Destination Disneyland; see the previous chapter. Even if a change seems like a fresh idea that could help people, I wonder if it is profitable in the long term. I like Pastor Wayne Hardy’s playful adaptation of 1 Timothy 5:22, “Lay hands suddenly on no technology.” The verse itself reads, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” In other words, let’s wait and see. I remember watching my dad reason out the decision to use projector screens back when that was a hot debate. Cutting-edge churches found reasons to justify their use, while traditionalist churches warned of where the trend might lead. Some of the predictions were right, and some were crazy, but now we have decades of data to show which direction correlated with that decision. The fruit of a decision from 1995 is perhaps only now ripening, for better or worse, but the point is that people in 1995 could not see what we see now.
I Will Be Twenty Years Behind Most Changes
I am okay with slow change. Hot-button topics of debate today might fade tomorrow, but for now it is wise to wait and see. I am not convinced that we are missing out by not adapting to the latest trends, and I would rather not create an appetite in our church for what is next every time something new hits the church scene. If I am not fond of the destination, why start going that direction? After a long time of waiting and watching, I might eventually come around. If a tool proves itself to be not only biblically permissible but effective for the kingdom of God, then of course I am in. Maybe I am 20 years late, but hey, my super rad Kodak Carousel slide projector is way cheaper now.
Creativity Within the Box
Brother Sam Davison used to say, “Ministry is not easy, but it is simple.” He has somehow kept a fresh vibrance for ministry, yet he reads the same Book four times per year. By limiting his creativity to the box of the Bible, he has shown that you can live a lifetime in that Book and never come close to exhausting its potential. Man’s creativity reflects the image of the Creator, but our flesh can twist anything good into something bad. Instead of using creativity inside the box of God’s guidelines, the Bible, the temptation to discard the old in favor of the new is real. Looking for fresh ideas can sometimes lead to viewing the Bible’s methodologies as too outdated for our culture. I believe the box of the Bible offers us plenty of room for creativity. I love that my generation has made some creative changes, but how we make those changes matters too.
Worldly Versus Cultural
If change is inevitable, I must be able to discern between worldly and cultural change. Christians should never be worldly, but should we also never be concerned about culture? I understand when preachers say we cannot let the culture determine our practice. I have probably said the same thing. Yet if I am honest, many of my practices are a direct reflection of our culture. For example, wearing a suit to church is a cultural decision. The culture decides what dressing up means. In 2023, Congress passed a resolution instituting a formal dress code after U.S. Senator John Fetterman bucked the unwritten rules and repeatedly wore shorts and a hoodie to the Senate floor. One argument for wearing our Sunday best to church is that our culture still connects our appearance to the importance of the occasion. This mindset is changing, and it is a regional discussion as well as a national one, but it is still a cultural decision. Cowboy culture is different from white-collar culture, and both are different from Roman toga-and-tunic culture. But was Jesus worldly for wearing the cultural clothing of His day? No. Worldly and cultural are not the same. While we cannot put the words worldly and cultural in neat little boxes, it helps me to think of these words on a spectrum: worldly is toward the system of this world, is led by Satan, and should be avoided; cultural is toward environment and may or may not be sinful.
The World Defines Worldly
The world defines worldly, so the word worldly means different things in different places and in different generations. In the book Meet Generation Z, author James White shows the decline of biblical literacy among the next generation. My dad grew up in a culture where prayer and Bible reading were part of his public schooling, and practically everyone had a common morality, even if they were not Christians. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being Christian, well, the culture was around a 7. Today the culture is roughly at a 3 and declining. Introducing people to Christ is a far greater leap. What was once only a slight nudge from 7 to 10 is now a great leap from 3 to 10, so each exposure to the gospel may only nudge the hearer up one point on that scale, and conversions take longer. This distance affects worldliness too. In this increasingly post-Christian culture, what used to be considered worldly may be only cultural now. Dress, music, and entertainment change, and we are not fighting the exact same battles that Jesus and Paul and Jude fought.
In Summary
It may sound like I am downplaying worldliness, but I am not. I am making the case that change happens naturally as culture grows increasingly evil. Christians live holy lives by staying separate from the culture without entirely leaving it; see 1 Corinthians 5:9-10: “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.” Because the world changes, worldliness changes with it, and Christians must discern between practices that are merely cultural and those that are worldly. Some church changes tickle that line, and I believe it is wiser to wait and see where each change might lead. Sometimes a church waits too long, and they are so disconnected from the culture that they seem weird. I am not saying we should isolate like the Amish, but I am also not trying to be so culturally relevant that I tip into worldliness. I do not intend to be contentious or unloving about my separation, but if I choose to change slower than others, it is because I am thinking generationally. Israel’s history helped me with this. Let’s talk about them next.
Chapter 3: Israel’s Civil Cold War
How do you decide what battles to fight? When culture changes, what do we do? Do we hold to traditions just for tradition’s sake? Do we pride ourselves on having outdated carpet and an ugly website just because we are old school? What changes are good, and what changes should we fight? What is our default response to change? Joshua’s generation faced this too. Moses’ generation died off in the wilderness, and their children were the ones who would inhabit the Promised Land. They had the law of God as their guide, and they were serious about their mission to conquer and then inhabit the land. They crossed the Jordan River, set up the twelve-stone memorial, and got to work. By the end of the book they had subdued the Canaanites, as God had promised, as you see in Joshua 21:43: “And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.” Up to this point in Israel’s history, they had always been together. Now they were to spread out and settle the land. Tribalism was a real threat to the unity of Israel, so Joshua charged them to be vigilant about their spiritual unity in Joshua 22:5: “But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the LORD charged you, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.” Uh-oh. After settling the land, the first sign of trouble struck. Joshua 22 tells a story I had never heard in Sunday school. Immediately after talking about spiritual unity and following the commandments of the Lord, the tribes on the east side of Jordan set up a huge stone altar. It looked like a bad change, so a civil cold war broke out. The other tribes were ready for battle, but how would they decide what to do? First, seek the Scriptures. Moses taught Israel exactly what to do in this situation. They were to research whether it was true, Deuteronomy 13:12: “If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.” Second, default to vigilance. Since God’s command to Israel was to stay vigilant about every potential problem, they rallied their army and got ready for battle, in Joshua 22:12: “And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them.” Idolatry was certainly a major problem, not a minor one, and the representatives of Israel were very concerned that the rebellion of the past should not be repeated, as in Joshua 22:19: “Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of the LORD, wherein the LORD’s tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us: but rebel not against the LORD, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the LORD our God.” Achan’s history served as an objective argument, but the question of this altar was a bit more subjective. God had told them that there would be a place where He would set His name there, in Deuteronomy 12:5: “But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come.” But it was not clear whether the tabernacle was to be the only place of spiritual significance. Well, the tribes on the east side of Jordan intended the exact opposite of what they were being accused of. They wanted to build a visible altar to remind their people of the unity they had with the twelve tribes. They had zero intention of creating a separate worship place, but instead wanted the altar to serve as a kind of memorial, similar to the twelve stones that Joshua set up, as we see in Joshua 22:22-29: “The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,) That we have built us an altar to turn from following the LORD, or if to offer thereon burnt offering or meat offering, or if to offer peace offerings thereon, let the LORD himself require it; And if we have not rather done it for fear of this thing, saying, In time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have ye to do with the LORD God of Israel? For the LORD hath made Jordan a border between us and you, ye children of Reuben and children of Gad; ye have no part in the LORD: so shall your children make our children cease from fearing the LORD. Therefore we said, Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice: But that it may be a witness between us, and you, and our generations after us, that we might do the service of the LORD before him with our burnt offerings, and with our sacrifices, and with our peace offerings; that your children may not say to our children in time to come, Ye have no part in the LORD. Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should so say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say again, Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it is a witness between us and you. God forbid that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the LORD our God that is before his tabernacle.” Third, investigate carefully. To their credit, the representatives of Israel did as God commanded. They inquired, made search, asked diligently, saw if it was true, and made certain. Their default position was vigilance, but before rushing to battle, they investigated first. Fourth, use discernment. The representatives were convinced that God was pleased, so they all went home grateful to God, in Joshua 22:30-31: “And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation and heads of the thousands of Israel which were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spake, it pleased them. And Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest said unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the children of Manasseh, This day we perceive that the LORD is among us, because ye have not committed this trespass against the LORD: now ye have delivered the children of Israel out of the hand of the LORD.” And the thing pleased the children of Israel. Whew, crisis averted. They discerned the intent and the direction of the altar and determined it was all to the glory of God.
What Is the Point?
The point I am making is regarding how they changed: slowly, with purpose, checking with Scripture, checking with history, and cautious by default. I am not arguing against change, but much of the change I see in churches today is more about feelings of comfort than caution. History is often dismissed with, “Well, we are the exception. We will not change our doctrine like the others did.”
History Is an Objective Example
History is not always as subjective as people like to make it. It can be another objective metric to measure change against. Moses often reminded the people of their past to point them to a better future. The psalmist often recalled the past as a basis for trust in God. The children of Israel recounted the story of Achan when they were facing the issue in Joshua 22. Recalling history is not just for the Old Testament. Paul used history as an objective example of fruit. In 2 Timothy 3:10 he pointed to the manner of life of those who had trained them: “But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience.” In verse 14 he said, “knowing of whom thou hast learned them”: “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” In 2 Timothy 4:8 he pointed to himself as an example: “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”
My Friend Was Deconstructing
A friend of mine told me of a season of deconstruction that he was going through. After listening to some influential authors and YouTube personalities, he was just about to leave his training and follow a new path, but then he studied 2 Timothy and considered the fruit of both paths. His home church, his home pastor, and his college pastor had such a gracious spirit, the kind of spirit he saw in Christ, and it was different from the kind of spirit he was listening to, which was angry and angsty. He considered Paul’s words to Timothy: “thou hast fully known my doctrine,” but also his manner of life. My friend concluded that the fruit of both ministries was as objective a metric as anything else. It did not bear the same weight as Scripture, but it was high on the list nonetheless. The patterns of the past meant something for the future. For us, the experience of men who have seen the cycles should be considered.
Anne of Avonlea on the Wisdom of Experience
Experience matters, and it would be such a loss to dismiss the previous generation’s wisdom. My girls were listening to the audiobook of Anne of Avonlea, and little Paul’s grandmother gave some good advice on discerning whose example to follow: “‘Grandma says we should never think anything but religious thoughts on Sundays,’… ‘But teacher here said once that every really beautiful thought was religious, no matter what it was about, or what day we thought it on. But I feel sure Grandma thinks that sermons and Sunday-school lessons are the only things you can think truly religious thoughts about. And when it comes to a difference of opinion between Grandma and teacher, I don’t know what to do. In my heart,’ Paul laid his hand on his breast and raised very serious blue eyes to Miss Lavendar’s immediately sympathetic face, ‘I agree with teacher. But then, you see, Grandma has brought father up her way and made a brilliant success of him; and teacher has never brought anybody up yet, though she’s helping with Davy and Dora. But you can’t tell how they’ll turn out till they ARE grown up. So sometimes I feel as if it might be safer to go by Grandma’s opinions.’ ‘I think it would,’ agreed Anne solemnly. ‘Anyway, I daresay if your grandma and I both got down to what we really do mean, under our different ways of expressing it, we’d find out we both meant much the same thing. You’d better go by her way of expressing it, since it’s been the result of experience. We’ll have to wait until we see how the twins do turn out before we can be sure that my way is equally good.'”
Timeless Contenders Who Allow for Change
Israel did not want to repeat the problems of the past, so they were vigilant about their present. This was a commendable response to change. Pastor Hardy differentiates between change agents who contend and timeless contenders who allow for change. Few argue against change itself, but rather against the fruit of bad change. The aging generation has been around long enough to see the cycle play out more than once, so it is wise to give their experience some weight.
The Long Game
Israel did right during Joshua’s generation, but the broader context of the book of Judges tells a different story. They did not keep the same level of vigilance. We know and love Joshua’s closing sermon, “choose you this day whom ye will serve… but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD,” in Joshua 24:15: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” In the closing three chapters of Joshua, the people repeatedly said, “We will be fine. We promise to never leave God. It is not going to be a problem. How could we forget God? Of course we will not change our doctrine.” And for many years Israel did just fine. Joshua 24:31 says, “And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.” But something happened in one generation. All the promises the fathers made in Joshua 22, 23, and 24 were abandoned by their children. Somewhere along the line the dads lost their spunk for the fight, and the children forsook the Lord. It took one generation. The Scriptures do not tell us exactly how, but we are told that they knew not the Lord. Judges 2:7: “And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel.” Verse 10 says, “And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim.” Joshua 22 is the only example of Israel being willing to fight for the nation’s spiritual unity. It is the only time we see them going to battle over direction, and they did the right thing. But that is the problem: this is the only time they rallied to obey the Lord. This is an argument from silence. The apostasy in Judges 2 does not happen all at once. There must have been many little hints of God’s people leaning toward Baal worship, yet only once do we see them gathering themselves to go up to war against them; see the previous chapter, on Joshua 22:12, for reference. We do not know why they stopped fighting, but in one generation we see the decline, and the book of Judges is not pretty. If we can learn anything from this, it should be to keep the fighting spirit alive, so long as we know what we are fighting for. If we are fighting to avoid Baal worship, that seems like a good fight to me.
Chapter 4: What Are You Fighting For?
Timeless contenders of the past: timeless contenders sometimes get a bad reputation for picking fights over seemingly minor things, but an honest assessment of their hearts will likely reveal much deeper reasons than just, “Oh, he is stuck in his ways,” or “He just likes a good fight.” Some men do take fighting to an extreme that goes beyond Jude’s “earnestly contend for the faith” and tips into a contentious spirit, but most of the timeless contenders that I know are fighting for the next generations. The question “What are you fighting for?” is not posed negatively, as in, “What are you fighting for? Why do you guys have to be fighting all the time?” No, it is a positive question: what are you fighting for, as in, what are you trying to preserve? Some of my college mentors fought to keep doctrinal purity. Sometimes they were successful in the fight, and sometimes the institutions crumbled around them. Pastor John Aldrich challenged our class in Bible college to keep going strong for Christ no matter what happened around us. Pastor Sam Davison’s “Broad Way and Narrow Way” sermon was like a final plea to pastors to stay on the same straight and narrow path the Baptist Bible Fellowship was founded on, yet too many people wanted the fellowship to change. My dad was involved in some all-night board meetings trying to keep Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College on the same path it was founded on. It was 20 years later that I was enjoying the good fruit of the remnant that did not change with the crowd. These were timeless contenders, and they fought important fights that I benefited from but did not have to go through myself. Now it is our turn. Obviously, not everyone has changed.
What Are You Fighting For?
Well, I would like to fight to keep what has been passed down so passionately to me. I want to fight to keep away from Baal worship in the next generation. I am not one who thinks that every church that is not like mine will be apostate in one generation. I am not convinced that every church that changes a little changes a lot. I know exceptions to the slippery-slope argument, but compared to the number that have changed, there are few. When you can name the exceptions, that has to say something about the direction of the majority. For many, what starts as “Come on, ease up, it is just preference, not doctrine,” ends up as a change of doctrine. Full-on apostasy? Well, probably not. But if it is different, it is a step toward something. The direction is often what the fight is actually about.
The Gain-Loss Principle
When someone takes one or two steps away, what is your default response? Open to it, with an inclusive “Let’s try it”? Closed to it, with a skeptical “You are a liberal”? Or vigilant about it, with a slightly prickly “Hmm, let’s wait and see”? Some people cannot believe that we would not immediately agree with X, because X is reaching so many people and touching so many lives. But my default stance toward X is usually a slightly prickly “It might be profitable, but let’s wait and see.” I want to consider the losses as well as the gains. “What? You do not care about the gospel?” No, I do. I certainly do. But I also care about the next generation, and I want God to be pleased with the results and the methodology. X, whatever it is, may or may not be following the wisest path. I am not against the good fruit of the gospel, but has X planted other seeds that have not had time to sprout? The gains are often obvious, but what about the losses? Only after considering both the gains and the losses can we calculate total profit; see Mark 8:36: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” And that takes time.
I Get It
I understand when people get a little prickly about rapid change. Can you blame them? If they have seen this cycle before, and they have heard all the same reasons before, and have seen it crash and burn before, why would they be warm to it this time? The rosebush is beautiful, but it is also prickly. The thorns are there to protect the beauty, not just to bring pain. I believe the intent of true timeless contenders is not to harm but to protect something good for many generations. Their prickliness is vigilance, not paranoia.
Prickly by Default
We know where the previous generation lands on many topics that some would consider nonessentials. They fought the battles and settled on some areas that lost them friends. Because they have already fought these battles, every time those same issues resurface, these men are firm in their resolve to gather themselves together to go up to war against them; see the previous section on Joshua 22:12. With the Holy Spirit’s help, I want to be able to discern which of these fights to engage in. I am in the next generation, and I am not wise enough in myself to know where each decision might lead, so I rely on the previous generations to offer some of their wisdom for the direction that would be wise for me to take. When they get prickly about something, I think it is wise of us to listen up. That is not man worship; that is generational wisdom. It does not mean that they are right, but every new idea cannot be right either. God help us be timeless contenders while avoiding a contentious spirit.
Well, that concludes part one of the book. That was the biggest section of the book. The introduction to the book was in the previous video, and this video just covered part one. In the next video, which we will release next week, we cover part two, which is the spirit behind the change: not being contentious, and learning from James, learning from Jesus, learning from the Scriptures about the spirit behind that change. I hope this is a help for us. So God bless you; we will see you in the next video.
