Pastor’s Notes

“Is Sunday school biblical?”  Usually such a question means: “Is it right, or should it be practiced?  Should we participate in it?  Is it the will of God?  Should it be supported, promoted and encouraged as an essential part of the ministry of a church?”

There has arisen in recent days a concerted effort by some groups in our country to cast aspersions on the ministry of the Sunday school.  This movement was, in part at least, inspired by some very real and legitimate concerns about what passes for “youth ministry” across the “evangelical” world. Much of what is called youth ministry is about as far from a biblical definition of ministry as one can get.  Young people do not need more entertainment with a pinch of religion thrown in for accent, they need to be challenged to step up, take up the cross and follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

The biblical format for a Sunday school ministry is one that seeks to reinforce and encourage whatever biblical training is taking place in the homes of the children and young people.  We parents are charged with the responsibility of teaching the Bible to our children, but a careful study of the Word of God will reveal that God raises up teachers in the church. He calls and equips them to teach others.  He uses them to be a blessing and help to children, young people and adults alike.

Certain groups, some with good intentions and some with wrong motives,  have attempted to denigrate Sunday schools using carefully chosen wording to provoke negative connotations for graded Sunday school classes.  Their charges are that the church seeks to divide the family and to drive a wedge between parents and children.  They will frequently repeat terms like age segregated and family division.  They make the charge that graded classes, secular or Sunday school, are a recent creation of secular humanists.  Further, they charge that classes tend to promote the institutionalization of children and the goal of humanists that they become wards of the State.  They insist that there is no support for the idea of such classes or schools in the Bible or in the record of history.  Just saying it loudly, angrily and often does not make it so.  They happen to be wrong on all the aforementioned counts.

New Testament characters make mention of schooling back through Old Testament history.   In Acts 7:22, Stephen refers to Moses’ schooling, saying he was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.”  Even in the time of our Lord’s sojourn on earth there were such schools and they did minister to age related groups.  In fact, the religious component in these schools was more prevalent than the other educational disciplines.

Historian H.H. Meyer, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, said;

“Synagogues with attached schools for the young were to be found in every important Jewish community.  Public elementary schools, other than those connected with the synagogues were of slower growth and do not seem to have been common until sometime after Joshua Ben Gamala, (high priest from 63-65 A.D.), ordered teachers to be appointed in every province and city to instruct children having attained the age of 6-7 years.  In the synagogue schools the hazzan, or attendant, not infrequently served as schoolmaster.”

We find this well known office, schoolmaster, recognized in Scripture in the book of Galatians, where it is used as an analogy for the work that the Law of God does to guide men to Christ. Webster’s Dictionary defines the word as follows; 1.“The man who presides over and teaches a school; a teacher, instructor, or preceptor of a school.  2. He or that which disciplines, instructs and leads.

Fred H. Wright in his book, Manners and Customs in Bible Times, wrote, “The archaeological expedition conducted by Sir Charles L. Woolley at Ur of the Chaldees, from 1922 to 1934 has proven there were schools in the city of Abraham’s youth.”  Wright goes on to mention biblical and historical references to the school of the prophets formed by Samuel.  He also writes of the synagogue schools that were prevalent at the time of Jesus’ childhood.  He writes, “When Jesus grew up as a boy in the village of Nazareth he no doubt attended the synagogue school.  The Jewish child was sent to school in the fifth or sixth year of life.”  And then he points out, “Until the children were 10 years of age, the Bible was the one textbook.  From 10 to 15 the traditional law was the main subject dealt with, and the study of theology as taught in the Talmud was taken up with those over 15 years of age.”  Wright later makes reference to the Rabbinical Schools common in Paul’s day.  He states, “As a young man of thirteen years of age, Saul of Tarsus came to Jerusalem to begin his training under the great leader, Gamaliel.”

Paul even makes reference to this influential teacher he had in the days of his youth:  Acts 22:3  I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.   I trust that it is becoming evident to the reader that the charge that there is no precedent for age related schools in the Bible or in the historical record is unfounded.

Wright goes on in his account, quoting from Camden Cobern in The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on the New Testament, “It is now known that there were 20 grammar schools in the great city of Rome when the Apostle Paul first visited the city.  Girls as well as boys were allowed to go to school, but there is evidence that more boys than girls availed themselves of the privilege.”

Wright explains that Paul’s reference to a “schoolmaster” in Galatians came from a commonly known position in these schools.  Among the schoolmaster’s responsibilities according to references in several ancient papyri, was the task of getting those children under his care to and from school.  Archeological discoveries in Ephesus indicate that the school of Tyrannus Paul mentions using as a meeting place for the church established there, was an elementary school.

The eminent historian Alfred Edersheim in The Life and Times Of Jesus The Messiah, gives us a portrait of the education of children in the Hebrew culture at the time of Christ:

“The regular instruction commenced in the fifth or sixth year (according to strength), when every child was sent to school.  There can be no reasonable doubt that such schools existed throughout the land.  We find references to them in almost every period; indeed the existence of higher schools and Academies would not have been possible without such primary instruction.”  He wrote, “It was deemed unlawful to live in a place where there was no school.”

He went on to say, “For a long time it was not uncommon to teach in the open air; but this must have been chiefly in connection with theological discussions, and the instruction of youths.  But the children were gathered in the synagogues, or in School-houses, where at first they either stood, teacher and pupils alike, or else sat  on the ground in a semicircle, facing the teacher, as it were, literally to carry into practice the prophetic saying, ‘Thine eyes shall see thy teachers.’”

He added, “Thus encircled by his pupils,…the teacher should impart to them the precious knowledge of the Law, with constant adaptation to their capacity, with unwearied patience, intense earnestness, strictness tempered by kindness, but, above all, with the highest object of their training ever in view.  To keep children from all contact with vise; to train them to gentleness, even when bitterest wrong had been received; to show sin in its repulsiveness, rather than to terrify by its consequences;  to train to strict truthfulness;  to avoid all that might lead to disagreeable or indelicate thoughts; and do this without showing partiality, without either undo severity, or laxity of discipline, with judicious increase of study and work, with careful attention to thoroughness in acquiring knowledge—all this and more constituted the ideal set before the teacher, and made his office of such high esteem in Israel.”

Concerning the particulars of class structure in the Biblical era Edersheim writes;

“Up to ten years of age, the Bible exclusively would be the textbook…The Talmud was taught in the Academies, to which access could not be gained till after the age of fifteen.  Care was taken not to send a child too early to school, nor to overwork him when there.  For this purpose the school hours were fixed, and attendance shortened during the summer months.  Teaching in school would of course be greatly aided by the services of the Synagogue, and the deeper influences of home life.”  He adds, “Besides, a school for Bible study was attached to every academy, in which copies of the Holy Scriptures would be kept.”  He said, “Certain sections were copied for the instruction of children.  Among them, the history of the creation to that of the flood; Lev. 1-9; and Numbers 1-10:35, are specifically mentioned.  It was in such circumstances and under such influences, that the early years of Jesus passed.”

John Stambaugh and David Balch point out the following in their book, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, “The synagogue was a place of prayer, where the congregation gathered on the Sabbath and on holy days.  It was also a school, where the Torah was studied; some of the excavated synagogues included separate rooms for instruction.” (It sounds a lot like Sunday school doesn’t it?)

Ample evidence for the Biblical basis of a Sunday School ministry is provided in the above citations.  In addition, any diligent researcher can produce a ponderous volume of such evidence for the following facts; that schools have long existed; that Sunday schools, or Sabbath schools in various forms have long existed; that these schools gave attention to distinctions in ages of pupils; and that having classes with children in them was not viewed as an attempt to divide families.

Some 20 different terms in the Scripture  show a distinction in age and  indicate differing levels of maturity, development and understanding.  Searching the Scripture you will find at least the following age related terms: a suckling, an infant, a babe, a weaned child, a little child, a child, boys and girls, a little lad, a lad, a stripling, a youth, a young man, a man, a man of full age, an old man, an aged man, a very aged man, a man well stricken in years and finally, a man as good as dead.  The contention by some that the Bible does not use age based distinctions is clearly groundless.  Age graded Sunday school classes simply recognize these distinctions in an organized fashion.

Parents who teach their children the Scriptures do well.  Parents who teach their children the scriptures and give them the opportunity to grow up in Sunday school classes do better.  Parents who provide a biblical example for their children to follow are wise.  Parents who provide that example and allow their children to experience the example of godly Sunday school teachers demonstrate the greater wisdom.  Adults who faithfully attend the church preaching services do well.  Adults who also are found faithful to their attendance in an Adult Sunday school class do better.

When the Psalmist declared he had more understanding than all his teachers, (Psalm 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.), he stated two truths that have been missed by those administering the recent blows to the Sunday school ministry.

1. The Psalmist had many teachers.

2.  That fact provided him the great opportunity of receiving the combined wisdom of all his teachers.

The production of an airliner is the combined understanding of many minds rather than the wisdom of one mind.  The best equipped for life and ministry are those whose training is the result of many godly influences from the lives of preachers and teachers.

Cliff Schimmels, in his book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Sunday School, wrote of going to speak at a small country church on an icy blustery winter’s day.  He was surprised to find it crowded full even on such a bad weather day.  He reflected on his own upbringing in Sunday school as he watched the children going to their classes.  After the services he sat visiting with an elderly man.  He told Mr. Schimmels fondly of his seventy plus years in that very Sunday school and of his blessed memories of many Sunday school teachers.  Then Mr. Schimmels wrote, “I asked him why, after seventy years of being in this Sunday school, he had chosen to risk life and limb to come out on a treacherous morning like this.  Surely he had heard all the lessons by now and wasn’t expecting anything new.  ‘Paul told me to come,’” he told me.”  Schimmels tried to recall someone named Paul who would have spoken so highly of him as a guest speaker that this man would come out in such inclement weather.  Schimmels asked, “Paul who?”   With that the old man took out his well worn Bible and began to read, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”  2Timothy 3:14-15. He closed his Bible and said, “I learned those verses in Sunday school before I learned to read.”  We do right as parents when we allow the influence and instruction of godly Sunday school teachers to come alongside our own training of our children as we raise them up to love, honor and serve the Lord Jesus Christ.

Classic Christianity

Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.”

We live in remarkable times.  The e-communications era has not only made it much easier to find things easily which once were very time consuming, but it has also provided a means for the cornucopia of variant and culture driven religious upstarts to ply their philosophies.  To these people, the plain dressed truths of classic Christianity are dated, stuffy, overly cautious, too preachy, judgmental and boring.  Unaware that they are comprised of just the same crowd of people Paul encountered so long ago in Athens, they spend “their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.” (Acts 17:21)  Religious radio man, Harold Camping is now telling his diminishing band of adherents that the rapture of the saints will definitely occur on the May 11, 2011.  He said that if he’s still around on May 12, then it means that he is unsaved!  Though it is possible that the Lord may return on that day, it is just as possible that he will come before that, or after.  One would think that after the many embarrassments of all those many religious prognosticators who’ve stumbled before him, that Camping would have learned. Classic Christianity has always preached the possibility of the imminent return of Jesus Christ, while at the same time recognizing that the date of his return would not be revealed beforetime.  Why even Paul himself wrote of his hope of the return of his Saviour during his lifetime.  The Pagan Mayan culture is all the rage now, the message being that the end of the world is not May 11, 2011, but 2012.  Why?  Because, we’re told, the Mayan’s calendar ends at 2012!  Maybe they just got tired of chiseling by then.  Maybe the calendar man died.  Classic Christianity stays with the always relevant Word of God which states, “but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” (Mt. 24:36)

The advertisement goes out for “Contemporary Worship styles,” and the Mars hill people Paul spoke to 2000 years ago show up again now.  They sit and stand and sway and hum as a pretty average “worship” team bang their drums and pick some pretty average licks on their electric guitars.  Then a young urban-cool looking fellow, with maybe a discrete tattoo or two showing just at the neckline of his fashion tee-shirt strolls up, sits on a stool, …and “shares.”  Some, maybe a lot of what he says is not objectionable, but what is not said, what is never mentioned, what is avoided is where the greater damage is done. The word “contemporary” was carefully chosen.  It suggests the desire of the promoters to keep up with the current trends and fashions of present culture.  The real time effect and impact of “Contemporary Christianity” is found in a root of its own descriptive word. It is temporary.  “Contemporary Christianity” in its fever to keep in step with corresponding culture, has two unchanging problems: 1. It’s always about a ½ step behind, and 2. It’s continually having to change.  No wonder its temporary!  Classic Christianity, by contrast does not attempt to mimic the surrounding culture.  Classic Christianity frames its choices regarding, direction, walk, conduct, associations, music, dress, amusements, etc. by application of Biblical principles which are plainly defined.  The “Relevant Religion” movements that come and go are by nature confined to the confusion engendered by their insistence that nothing is absolute.

“House church:  Skip the sermon and worship at home.”

Pastor William M. Rench

August 2010

That was the headline of a recent AP article in The Californian, our local newspaper.

The story went on to tell of a group movement that is afoot to reject the church as it is defined by an organized entity with pastors, deacons, a doctrinal position, gathering for worship, instruction, preaching and carrying out the Great Commission.  In its place is a get-together in someone’s home with no more than 12 to 15 people for “sharing what’s going on in their lives,” according to the article.

One such gathering was described as follows:  “It was a lively, sometimes chaotic event, with noisy and mostly happy young children flitting about.”  There was a fellowship time, then “to the kitchen table to observe the Eucharist with prayer, pinched-off pieces of sourdough bread and red wine in plastic cups.”  Celebration continues with a potluck meal.  Then they gave a Power Point presentation about “corporate giving.”  Said the reporter, “The majority seem averse to a regular offering.”  The article went on to suggest that these anti-church gatherings are a backlash against all the “spectator sport” mega churches.  Most mega churches do have that character of being for the non-committed “spectator Christian” and are “doctrine-lite,” seeming to have a motto such as “come as you are, do as you please, stay like you were.”  These new era, house gatherings retain many of the flaws of the average mega church and add a few more of their own.

1.  They remain doctrine-lite. The emphasis is sharing rather than surrender to the will of the Word of God.

2.  The format is experience-based not truth-based.

3.  The formula lends itself to error of many kinds. For example, the article talked about how everyone in these groups was expected to teach.  So, 15 people throw out 15 perspectives on any given subject.  Lively discussion no doubt ensues and whoever is the dominant voice carries the day.  Little by little some form of doctrine surfaces but is arrived at by consensus of opinion and by the influence of the most persuasive individuals in the group.

4. They cultivate a disdain for any sense of biblical authority and leadership. It is of little wonder that over the process of time many of those who have chosen to reject the structure of a local church find their own children dismissing authority.

Some of the leaders in the “home church” movement have written articles attempting to respond to the significant number of homeschool parents who are shocked and hurt by their children rebelling.  Homeschooling can only be truly successful if the family is involved in and serving the Lord under the leadership at a biblical local church.

Our founding fathers found it necessary to throw off the bonds of an abusive and unjust secular authority represented by the King of England, but scarcely any of them ever dismissed the essential nature a connection with a local church.

5. They cultivate a disdain for preaching. Often central to the philosophy of these “home churches” is       what is reflected in the title of the news clipping I began with,     “Skip the sermon.”  Christians can gather for fellowship at any       time and most any place, but when we gather for church there        is to be preaching.  The Bible leaves no doubt as to God’s choice for communicating His Word to the world.  John the Baptist came preaching.  Our Lord Jesus came preaching.  The Apostles went out preaching.  God chose “the foolishness of preaching.”  These “home churches” join with the world when they decry the preaching of the Word as “foolishness.”  They wish to dispense with what God has chosen as His means to get His Word out to the world.

From Old Testament times, God has always chosen to call a man to stand forth and declare God’s Word and to “give the sense of it” to a congregation of people.  “Home churches” will search in vain to find Scripture to justify the dismissal of preaching.  Not once in Scripture does God command us to gather in small groups limited to 15 and share opinions and fellowship.

On the contrary we find local churches established as we read the New Testament.  These churches had structure, pastors, deacons, congregations, ministries, and missionaries.  They gathered together on Sunday and at other times.  They had preaching, teaching, worship, singing, prayers, giving, and going.  They had leadership.  The simplest biblical illustration of the New Testament church is one used over and over in the Bible.  It is that of a fold of sheep and a shepherd.  The “home fellowships” would like to dismiss the role of the Pastor.  When Jesus sought to describe a people headed for scattering and confusion, He described them as “sheep without a shepherd.”

Though it is true that some have abused the role of Pastor, it does not justify the desire of “home fellowships” to dispose of that biblical office.  God has ordained it, let not men put it asunder.  Though there are examples to be given of churches and ministers carrying on in ways which cannot be supported biblically, yet there are many churches large and small who are laboring to follow the example set forth in the Word of God.

A “home study fellowship” does not comprise a church, even if they decide to meet on a Sunday, sing some choruses, pray some prayers, read some Scriptures, and do some sharing.  Were there some churches that met in houses in the early days of the New Testament church?  Indeed there were, but they had Pastors, Deacons, preaching, praying, Missionaries, and a purpose to carry out the Great Commission given to them by the Lord Jesus Christ.  They did not limit their numbers.  They did not dismiss the offices of Pastor and Deacon.  They always wanted to reach more. They did not disdain preaching.  They always wanted to hear more.  Their goal was not to have happy family life, but to reach the lost world with the gospel.

The people in those early churches reached the world of their generation with the gospel of Jesus Christ by following God’s plan carried out through His institution of the local New Testament church, “The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”  Amen and Amen!  May our God help us to follow their example and not whatever the latest pop religious fad happens to be.

Some cautions and some guidance

Among a pastor’s responsibilities given in Scripture is to defend the faith once delivered to the saints, to preach and teach sound doctrine, and to guard and warn the flock against doctrinal error.  We were told by the Holy Spirit through the writing of the Apostle Paul that these times in which we live would come, where many would not endure sound doctrine, but rather, would heap to themselves teachers  who would say things they preferred hearing over sound doctrine.  Notice in 2Timothy 4:3 that Paul says, “they will not endure  sound doctrine;” We don’t always enjoy sound doctrine; sometimes we must endure it.  It’s not always easy to take, but truth and faithfulness to it are much more important than enjoyment.  Pastor R. B. Oullette of Bridgeport, Michigan, puts it well:

What we often miss in this passage is that there was not only a responsibility for the preacher but for the hearer. The Bible warns us that the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine. The word endure is an interesting word. It means “to hold oneself up against, to put up with, to forbear, to suffer.”

What a strange term to use for listening to Bible preaching! If we had been writing the Scripture, wouldn’t we have said the time will come when they will not enjoy sound doctrine? No, the Bible says we have to put up with sound doctrine. God knew that Bible preaching will sometimes be unpalatable to us.

Preaching challenges our presuppositions, moves us out of our comfort zones, or causes us to re-think our basic philosophies of life. Our human flesh would rather hear pop psychology, feel-good stories, and simple aphorisms which, while they tickle the ear, do not build the soul or change the life. Much of the preaching today (particularly in the contemporary churches) reminds me of the statement in Jeremiah where God says, “They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly” (Jeremiah 8:11).

There are a very many “para-church” groups out there, and their influence is aided by the internet age. Many of the groups involved in Christian education and in the home-school movement are interdenominational, doctrinally shallow groups.  There are other prominent organizations in the home-school movement we would find much to agree with, but who teach some serious errors concerning the local church.  The Bible tells us to mark those who cause divisions in a church and avoid them (Romans 16:17).  Some of these groups seem to have their sights set on the local church and on pastors.  Once- popular radio teacher, Harold Camping, decided to leave his connections with a local church and then later began to teach over his radio program that Christians ought to reject the local church, pastoral leadership and historic doctrines concerning the church.

It is understandable that many people have grown disenchanted with the church in general as they hear repeatedly of the breaches of trust in an institution that ought to be trustworthy.  Many of the “mainline denominational churches” have long since abandoned any pretense of faithfulness to the Word of God and are now little more than social clubs on the order of the Elks Lodge or the Rotary Club.  Crackpots like this “Rev.” Phelps in Westboro, Kansas, who protests at military funerals and cheers the deaths of soldiers, grab the news headlines. Longstanding corruptions within the fabric of the Roman Catholic priesthood have in recent years become more publicly known.  Outrageous abuse and greed practiced by many well-known televangelists fuel the fires. “Contemporary churches” have turned the church service into a venue for religious entertainment.  All this has led some to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”  They are drawing the conclusion that since many churches are a reprehensible aspect of what they should be, then the local church must be passé.  They conclude, as far as church is concerned, “We can take or leave it.”  Home Bible studies suddenly are supposed to replace the need of a local church.  Preaching is replaced with “sharing.”  Doctrine is replaced with “experience.”  Hymns are replaced with “choruses.”  Church is replaced with “family.”

Let me say this; no one is fully “pro-family” until they are fully “pro-church.”  No Christian family can be what it should be apart from a strong bond to a local Bible-believing New Testament church.  Some of those groups who have promoted the importance of family above church are attempting to undermine the ministries of local churches by telling their followers that such things as Sunday school classes are attempts to break up families!  Sunday school teachers and junior church workers teaching Bible truths to children are some of the best helps a family can have!  In 30+ years of ministry, I’ve seen the negative results in the lives of those who were convinced to dismiss the role of the church in their families.

Children who are raised with a strong sense of the importance of involvement in and commitment to a local church are far better off than those who are taught to be suspicious of nursery workers, Sunday school teachers and pastors.  Over the years of educating our 4 children, each of them has had a good portion of their education in a home-schooled setting.  Certainly there are many commendable resources available for home-school education.  The curriculum available from A Beka is very good and so is that from Bob Jones Press.  Neither of these curriculum’s compilers attempt to denigrate the role of the church in the lives of believers.

One writer who started out with some fairly sound material on raising children but has moved subtly away from sound doctrine is

Michael Pearl.  I have recently removed all of his material from my personal library and from the church library because of the misguided nature of what he’s lately been teaching.  After some research, I found a number of serious errors in his teachings.

For some time now, I’ve been concerned about his increasingly negative tone about the local church.  He’s made the same mistake that many do of elevating “the family” to a sacred status never accorded to it by the Scripture.  The Bible says very little indeed about the family in comparison to what it says about the church.

Mike Pearl has turned a good many away from their churches with his “home-brewed” doctrines.  Among the errors I’ve learned that he espouses are the following:

1. That Jesus became a sinful son of man as he died on the cross. He uses the passage in 2Corinthians 5:21 which says, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This passage together with many other verses of Scripture, teach us that God did lay upon Jesus the sins of us all, and the guilt of those sins, that He might be that sacrifice for the penalty of sin due to us.  Jesus was not somehow transformed from the sinless Son of God into a sinful son of man!
2. That Christians can and do, in this life, reach a state of sinless perfection. He had publicly claimed that he has lived in this way for many years! (“No Greater Joy” Newsletter Jan-Feb ’05, page 21)  You’d best believe the Bible over Mike Pearl, for it declares, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1John 1:8
3. That a race of people, etc. existed before Adam and Eve, on an old earth that had to be destroyed. Again, he contradicts the plain words of God.  The Bible states, “The first man Adam…”  Christians need not attempt to give concessions to evolutionists who demand we give them multiplied millions of years of existence in order that their theories might gain some credence.
4. That the qualifications in Scripture for pastors and deacons to be husbands of one wife doesn’t exactly mean that, but that it really means one wife at a time!

Mike and Debi Pearl’s oldest daughter, Rebekah, married a man named Gabriel Anast who appears to be a product of their teachings.   He decided to quit his job so he could, as he said, devote 40-50 hours a week to Bible study. Meanwhile, his family was dependent on food donations to survive.  For a time, Mr. Anast was soliciting internet donations so he could start an “internet church.”  Rebekah started a website where she recorded her dreams and gave out “interpretations.”  When God called me to ministry, I found it necessary to work a swing-shift job at night so I could go to Bible college in the day time and still support a family.  God did not call us to go into isolation into the mountains of New Mexico or some such place and raise a big family.  He called us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.  It seems apparent that we ought to be skeptical about the soundness of Mike Pearl’s “teachings.”

The reason I’ve decided to discard even the earlier, less erroneous materials of Mike Pearl is the fact that many Christians tend to latch on to those who give some initially good material but follow such ones on into their errors as well.  Another example of this is Bill Gothard, whose earlier material was, for the most part, essentially sound.  As time went on, Gothard got ever further into unsound and patently unscriptural teachings.  I suspect that a good part of his growing departures are attributable to the fact that he lacks any firm accountability to a local church.

Brethren, God didn’t call us to follow itinerant and internet teachers but to belong to a good, biblical local church and to follow our Pastor’s leadership as we serve God together in our local church.

David Cloud, in one of his fine articles, said it well:

“My friends, the Bible plainly states that it is the church that is the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15).  Why doesn’t it say that the home is the pillar and ground of the truth?  And this is not some vague ‘universal’ church but a scripturally organized assembly that has pastors and deacons (I Tim. 3:1-14).  The believer’s service to the Lord is to be in and through such a church, under the leadership of God-ordained pastors and elders (I Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7,13).

Any family that is not in proper relationship with and submission to God-ordained church authority is not in the will of God (unless, of course, the family is in a situation in which no such church exists in their area).  I say on the authority of the Scriptures.  I would ask such a family, ‘Who has the rule over you?’  If they reply, ‘God does,’ I would rejoin that God Himself says that church elders are to have the rule over us (Heb. 13:17), not as lords over us but as shepherds who must, in turn, give account to the Great Shepherd (I Pet. 5:1-4).

I understand all too well that pastoral authority has been abused at times and that this is an hour of great compromise in churches, but this is no excuse to reject it.  Husbands and fathers have abused their authority at least as much as pastors have abused theirs, but that does not mean that we are free to reject either one.  The Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘I will build my church’ (Mat. 16:18).  It is His plan and program, and it is not to be despised.”

As mentioned, many groups have been formed to aid Christians in schooling their children and to give counsel regarding family, child rearing and like subjects.  Some of them are doctrinally sound but a good many are not.  One group you will be helped by without being subjected to unsound doctrine or attempts to call into question the importance of the local church is the Christian Law Association, headed by David Gibbs.

We have supported Dr. David Gibbs and the Christian Law Association for many years.  Bro. Gibbs is a legal missionary, aiding Bible-believing Christians and families in defending liberties concerning our faith.

C.L.A. also provides legal help for home-school families connected with our church at no charge.  The Homeschool Legal Advantage Ministry Program provides resources for home-school families, as well as assistance when problems arise.  I encourage you to get acquainted with C.L.A. because I am confident of their biblical positions.

It is certain that any detractor would not have to dig very deeply to discover things in our own ministry that are weighed and found wanting.  We make no claim to being without need of improvement, but  there are some things that do help us to keep coming back to what Jeremiah 6:16 calls “old paths” and the “good way.”  Among those things are these:  1.) We continue to insist on a high view of the Word of God as perfect, pure, preserved and practical;  and 2.) We hold that the local church as defined in Scripture is “the house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth.”

If we will hold a high regard for the Book of God and the Bride of Christ, we are much less likely to fall for the blatant or the subtle doctrinal errors so prevalent in this hour.

Psalm 138:2 “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”

Eph. 5:25 “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”

As was quoted in various news articles, our primary concern is that the land adjacent to our property is wholly inadequate and unsuited for the proposed 25,000 square foot Islamic worship center.  As Baptists, we have always been defenders of America’s concept of freedom of religion. History records that Baptist people led the way in that regard, but it is an issue of context as well. It is our stand for religious freedom that causes us concern when we see the growing influence of the more radical elements in Islam, and the principles embedded in Sharia law which seek to give prominence to the expression of Islam and seek to replace the American Constitution and our Bill or Rights.

This argument is true also for the situation concerning Ground Zero.  While we maintain that we as Americans are free to worship as we please, the insistence of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build the mosque on Ground Zero is completely out of context and spreads an aggressive and “in your face” message.  On top of the message that is sent, certain contradictions in his quotes raise concerns.  Taken from this article, Imam Rauf’s statements in English contradict his statements in Arabic.

What he said in May was “Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.”  However, in March he was quoted as saying, “I do not believe in religious dialogue.”

When asked his views on Sharia law the day after his “interweaving faith” statement, he stated: “Islam can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern.”

His apparent support for Sharia law over our American system is disconcerting.  Context is certainly a factor when determining the location of certain mosques across this country, but a major concern is also with the religion of Islam itself.  We as Christians certainly believe that we have the truth!  We want to spread the fact that God sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world because He loved the world.  He died and rose from the dead, and we all should repent of our sin and put our entire trust in His finished work.  Where would the purpose and future of a set of beliefs lie if it were not propagated?

Our purpose as Christians is to propagate the message of the gospel: “how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…” (I Cor. 15:3-4)  When Islam contradicts this simple yet exclusive message, why would people be upset over our supposed “intolerant view” when we teach what we believe?  I personally have much more respect for those who hold to a position that they believe is true rather than for those who believe one way yet accept all other teachings.  It seems logical to me that we would be opposed to Islam based on its fundamental teachings and on documented stories of the terror that radical Islam promotes.

Certain radical expressions come to mind.  Jackie Sheets chronicles the following in an article that was posted on August 5, 2010 in the North County Times:

Imam Zaid Shakir, former Muslim chaplain at Yale, stated the Koran “pushes us in the exact opposite direction to the forces at work in the American political spectrum.”

Omar Ahmad, co-founder and past president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), stated: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesperson, said: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the U.S. to be Islamic sometime in the future…”

And Imam Feisal Rauf has refused to sign a pledge to “repudiate the threat from authoritative sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims”, a pledge issued by ex-Muslims. Islam functions under a church/state form of government that is incompatible with our Constitution.

As an American who honors and seeks to defend our Constitution, am I supposed to ignore these statements by American Islamic leaders?

Christianity is vanishing in the “Holy Land” and no churches or synagogues are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia continues to finance Islamic organizations, mosques and Wahhabi Islamic day schools throughout the U.S. with petrodollars.

Former Congressman, Newt Gingrich warns that radical Islam and the spread of Sharia law takes place not only by acts of terror but also through “non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.”  In this article, he goes on to say the following:

In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.

However, America’s commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for proselytizing at an Arab festival.  They were doing so in a legal, peaceful manner that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia’s rules on proselytizing. Police may say they were trying to prevent an incident, but why should the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom be sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam?*

Shockingly, sharia honor killings—in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family—are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered “domestic disturbances.” (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.

He says this about Imam Rauf:

There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an “accessory” to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

An Associated Press article by Deb Riechmann and Amir Shah  spoke of the terrible slaughter of ten relief workers on August 5.  These ten people from America, Afghanistan, Germany and Great Britain were killed simply because they were understood to be Christians, according to the sole survivor.  While they did not proselytize, they were sent out by a Christian organization as a medical care team for remote villages.  This is only one recent example of what is promoted by the Quran and acted on by those Muslims who are radically fundamental.

In our recent debates, some supporters of the proposal of a mosque next to our church building have suggested that Islam respects all “faiths” and seeks peace for all.  That does not appear to be what the Quran and Hadith teach.  Are we misreading these passages?

Hadith 8 “I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah.” The marginal explanatory note included below that verse says, “The waging of war is enjoined against certain categories of persons such as those who attack a Muslim country, and those who prevent the preaching and spread of Islam by peaceful means, and apostates.” (Apostates are those who leave Islam)

Hadith 29 says that the highest act a Muslim can do to ensure entrance to Paradise is an act of Jihad (holy war to Spread Islam).

Surah 2:190-192 commands Muslims to fight in the cause of Allah.

Surah 2:216 “Fighting is prescribed upon you.”

Surah 3:13 “Say to those who reject faith, ‘Soon ye will be vanquished and gathered together to Hell.’”

Surah 3:83 “Do they seek for other than the Religion of Allah?  While all creatures in the heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His will (accepted Islam), and to Him shall they be brought back.

Surah 3:85 “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.”

Surah 5:74 “Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter.”

Surah 5:76 “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Islam fight in the cause of Evil.”

Surah 5:95 “Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons then to those that sit at home.”

The above are but a sampling of the many passages in the Quran that would seem to us to make it difficult to describe Islam as a religion of peace.  Bible believing Christians know that our source of power is not the sword, or politics, but our Saviour, and His word.  The most powerful means we Christians have to answer the claims of Islam is to preach and to live in our lives the truth of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

No, in spite of our fundamental differences with the local Islamic group here, we have no intention of interfering with their worship services, or participating in marches or demonstrations.  The Imam and I parted our last meeting shaking hands and smiling.  We plan to talk together again.  I pray that I can some day introduce him to our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

—Pastor Rench

Our concerns relating to a 1,300 person mosque being proposed within a few feet of our church building have been briefly, publically aired. As a result we have received many comments. Most have been encouraging and supportive. Some have been of opposing views, but civil. Then others have been vitriolic. We have been called bigots, racists, hypocrites and intolerant by this last group. It is surprising to me how intolerant these who preach tolerance are of views which are different from their own.

Our reasons for opposing this mosque are two-fold. First, the location is wholly inadequate. There are about 1-2 usable acres on this plot because the back half is a steep hill with houses at the top, and the front half is in the flood plain. Their 25,000 sq. ft. mosque would have to be built looming over our church building. A building that size requires over 430 parking spaces. This is absolutely impossible to provide on their available space. A commercial parking structure of 4 to 6 stories would have to be erected in this rural residential area. Our property shares a 1,000 ft. boundary with the acreage they have bought next to us. This puts 2 groups with very different positions in a setting that cannot help but be confrontational. This group has sponsored rallies in this area that I would characterize as anti-Israel. We support Israel’s right to exist. Typically, we see mosques broadcasting their 5 daily calls to prayer over loud speakers. Although this may not initially happen, our concern is that it will.

Our secondary issue is regarding Islam itself. Wherever Islam is dominant, we see very different conditions, and we find widespread persecution against Christians. When we see the reports and read the accounts of the results of Sharia law, we certainly find ample cause to oppose the spread of Islam. There are certainly plenty of people who oppose any spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In America, we still have the freedom of speech to do that. Islamic law does not provide that blessed freedom.