By Our Readers
These letters are in reaction to two articles that appear in the June 13, 2010, issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD:
“Two Views About the Future of the Restoration Movement: Let”s Keep Moving!” by LeRoy Lawson
“Two Views About the Future of the Restoration Movement: Dissolve or Thrive?” by Dick Alexander
Of Principles and Principals
The principles of the Restoration Movement have remained firm and strong, but many of the principals of the Restoration Movement have not. A quote from Carl Ketcherside of some 30 years ago: “The Restoration Movement has become the Restoration Monument.” Why was/is that? We have pursued the leadings of the megachurches, having become enthralled by their “successes” (at what expense?) instead of pursuing God”s Word.
We do not become a New Testament church by being a megachurch of 3,000 (Acts 2:41) or 5,000 (Acts 4:4). No, we become a New Testament church by pursuing the principles set forth in the New Testament. Making “unity” our goal is putting “the cart before the horse” (I must apologize, I am an old farm boy). Unity follows adherence to God”s Word, not vice versa.
The task at hand admittedly is an ongoing, challenging, and many times, will be laborious. It is a task that will not be accomplished in “high-level meetings” of the Christian churches, churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ (nor involve any denominational/Evangelical participation), but rather a task that requires an honest and open, grassroots movement (notice the small “m”) and a labor of love for God and his Word. That probably means some of our illustrious leaders are going to have to be willing to “step down” and assume the servanthood role that is far less conducive to a prestigious position.
“”Robert L. Clemens
Rochester, Illinois
‘Provided that the Above Is Truly Who We Are . . . ‘
Mark A. Taylor, editor of CHRISTIAN STANDARD, expressed the hope that many readers would join LeRoy Lawson and Dick Alexander in considering who we are and what God may be calling us to do in today”s generation. Here is one reader”s opinion.
Who We Are
Our congregations use the names Christian church or church of Christ, desiring simply to be Christians according to the teachings of the New Testament, without allegiance to party names or organizations of human invention.
Jesus Christ alone is the head and foundation of the church, his body; for wherever two or three are gathered together in his name, there he is in their midst; and it is the Lord himself, not man, who adds to his church those who are being saved.
We believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the New Testament over all the church as the standard by which to judge the claims of scholars, theologians, and traditions.
We call ourselves Christians, without further distinction. A person becomes a Christian by hearing the gospel; believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; repenting of sin; making a public confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; and being baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. We remain Christians by abiding in Christ, and he in us.
On the first day of the week we gather together for the study of Scripture; fellowship; thebreaking of bread (also called the Lord”s Supper or Communion) to show forth the Lord”s death until he comes; and prayer.
On this simple basis we pray for the unity of all Christians, that the world might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and through believing might have life in his name.
What God Is Calling Us to Do
Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners. He came to seek and to save the lost. A servant is not greater than his master. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. What he called his church to do in the first century, he calls her to do in the 21st.
Having gone, make disciples of all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to keep all things I have commanded you; and see, I am with you throughout all days, even to the end of the world.
Provided that the above is by and large truly who we are and what we are trying with God”s help to be and to do, I do not care for my part whether we sing old songs or new, sit reverently or wave our arms about like kids at a rock concert, or even if some of us feel compelled to show the rest of us that they went to college by tossing out a postmodernism here or a deconstruction there, while others engage in an Easter-egg hunt for spiritual gifts (which, although given by God, must be searched for by the recipient), speculating about the mark of the great beast or the times and seasons of the Lord”s appearance, or any other fetish of modern Christendom.
I hope that both Democrats and Republicans, as well as those untouched by political mania, will “feel at home among us,” if by that is meant that they will know that God loves them and calls them to salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, but not if it means that it is sound doctrine to serve both God and mammon, or to preserve women”s so-called rights by killing babies, or to call homosexual adultery and fornication marriage. Those who profess these things should feel convicted, not at home.
Finally, I deny that we have made baptism a test of orthodoxy. We have merely pointed all Christians to what the New Testament teaches about baptism. Our so doing does not put us in danger of claiming to be the only Christians, any more than it does those denominations, by far the majority of Christendom, who since the fourth century”s Nicene Creed have acknowledged and continue to “acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins”; we simply refuse to join the small number of so-called Evangelicals in adding the word “alone” to the Bible”s teaching that we are saved by grace through faith.
“”Neal Cornett
Via e-mail
‘A Nondenominational Church Looking for a Denominational Answer to Unity’?
I am sometimes perplexed by the conversation within Christian churches and churches of Christ about our failure to unite with other Christians. Our movement was founded on two basic principles: faithfulness to the New Testament Scriptures, and the desire to unite with all other Christians to evangelize and impact the world. How do you accomplish the latter while staying true to the former?
That has always been the rub.
I submit we are doing it; at least to a degree of reasonable expectation within individual congregations. The beauty of our “autonomous” churches (no denominational headquarters dictating beliefs or practices, just local elders/leaders working with the Bible as their guide) is that we have no constraints to separate us from other like-minded Christians except those constraints we create locally. We invite anyone who accepts the Bible as their guide for faith and practice to join us, and we will work with anyone or any group who is not part of our congregation, but who is willing to cooperate in works of evangelism or ministry, again with the Bible as the overall guide. Some will, some won”t, and sometimes we aren”t interested if they obviously contradict a key biblical teaching. Such discretion is part of the reason local leaders are needed. But, if we do that, how could it be any better?
Without a formal and denominational structure that technically says, “All belong to this church,” you will never have anything more than individual congregations that serve certain locations trying to cooperate. As long as they can cooperate, as long as they don”t fight and tear each other down, that”s about as unified as the church can get, or ever did get in the past. What else are we looking for? I sometimes think we are a nondenominational church looking for a denominational answer to unity.
My view is that when people within a congregation have a cooperative spirit with other local congregations, that”s as good as it will get. It is unity with diversity based on backgrounds and preferences (music style, worship style, preaching style, etc). We threaten unity when we fight over such things, but if we don”t fight, those kind of differences will never go away and we must allow for them. I don”t think having a Baptist church and Methodist church and Christian church in a town causes a problem unless people see them disputing over issues that seem trivial. If it”s not trivial, if it is a key point of doctrine that is emphasized in the New Testament, then we need to defend that just as the apostles did their teaching when confronted by the Gnostics, etc.
Meanwhile, as people sort through their personal preferences on the nonessentials, we of Restoration Movement heritage simply need to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, teach the response to him that is the same as what the apostle”s taught, and work within our congregations to teach, worship, and minister to those in our community with the Bible as our guide. We should cooperate with a spirit of unity when we can, stay faithful to our best understanding of God”s Word within our congregation and with our influence outside our congregation, and realize we have little control beyond that.
I can”t see it being any better until the Lord comes and true unity finally exists in Heaven.
“”Rick Willis
Elder, Southern Heights Christian Church
Lebanon, Missouri
‘Many Choice Thoughts to Ponder’
I commend you for carrying the two articles, “Let”s Keep Moving” by LeRoy Lawson and “Dissolve or Thrive” by Dick Alexander.
Their messages were loud and clear. They contained many choice thoughts to ponder. I am convinced that many in the religious world are becoming more and more nondenominational in their personal desire for unity in the body of believers! As “Christians only” we must seize this moment to advance the nonsectarian cause of Christ! But our platform for unity must be based on Holy Scripture! In essentials unity . . . in nonessentials liberty!
Bob Russell said it best when he spoke at a recent North American Christian Convention. He said, “You don”t have to be my twin to be my brother or my sister in Christ!”
I too am convinced we must stop trying to “restore the Restoration Movement” but rather to focus on being “Free in Christ” and restoring nondenominational, New Testament Christianity! Together, let”s seek fellowship with all who will make Christ Lord of their lives! We can certainly learn from others and I believe they can learn from us, too!
“”Cecil Todd
Revival Fires Ministry
Branson West, Missouri
‘Challenging Thoughts’
What a great article by LeRoy Lawson! I welcome the challenging thoughts about who we are as a movement. Thank you LeRoy, and thank you CHRISTIAN STANDARD for giving our church members and leaders something to ponder and pray about. I think it is timely this whole year as we have been building to the launching of the Restoration Revolution at the National Missionary Convention in November.
Like you said, I think we have become stuck in a rut of how we view ownership: ownership of our churches, ownership of our colleges and ministries. And the NMC does not own the idea of revolutionizing how we do church. I love your words on interdepedence; for a movement based on unity we have allowed ourselves to become prickly about doing things together. I don”t want us to be labeled Evangelical or fundamentalist, but just “Christians only.”
We do have a way of spanking entrepreneurial pastors and churches and we have criticized people who have done some radical things, like how Jesus did some things that shook up society in his day. We need to remember our roots, or like Ben Cacharias has said, “our tribe.” We are who we are, no matter how we got here.
We have a lot of church attenders from other roots who have no clue what the Restoration Movement is. We have a special past, but let”s live it to the best we can, not allow it to limit us. We have some people or ministries in our movement who have done some incredible things: XXX Church, Amor Ministries, some incredible churches, and some dedicated missionaries who have left their place in history touching thousands of lives in the name of Jesus. This is a very small list.
Great thoughts, great message””timely and challenging. Thank you, LeRoy!
“”David Empson
Clayton, Indiana
‘Moving . . . in What Direction?’
In order to hold the views of Mr. Alexander, all that one must do is ignore three things:
“¢Â The History of the Restoration Movement. History such as Christians Only by James DeForest Murch. If that reading is too slow and plodding, then two other good sources are The Fool of God a novel based on the life of Alexander Campbell by Louis Cochran or Raccoon John Smith a novel by the same author.
“¢Â The history of the churches of Christ and Christian churches from 1850 to 1950. Where did our Christian camps come from and the institutions which used to be Bible colleges = the institutions that produced fine preachers until academics took over the teaching and threw out books from authors like Gareth Reese and Donald Hunt.
“¢Â The history being written today by those who refuse to give up the pure and simple teachings of God”s Word = those who still believe that God”s Word is relevant to every generation. Those who are still holding to what the Restoration fathers declared, taught and practiced are seeing the following:
— Preachers ordained to proclaim God”s Word””nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.
— Restoration-based congregations growing and expanding.
— Denominational churches shrinking and closing.
— Denominational preachers being won over to the plain and simple gospel.
And prior to Dick Alexander”s article, Mr. Lawson challenged us to “Keep Moving.” The response to that is, “In what direction? The one that you advocate?”
On page 5, Mr. Lawson says, “Often this proposition is basically an admission of failure. We”re a unity movement, after all, and Christianity is far from united. We”d be hard-pressed to prove we can even unite ourselves.”
Well, that can also be believed if the same history is ignored. Has Mr. Lawson ever read of the variety of preachers, teachers and churches that united under the coaching of Stone, Campbell, Smith, and their contemporaries? Has he studied how we built those Christian camps and colleges? Has he sat down lately with the three Churches of Christ in Covington, Indiana (two instrumental and one non) to see how united they are on the biblical plan of salvation and how they are NOT worried about their differing opinions about music?
Mr. Lawson continued by saying, “We might as well admit the grand vision of achieving unity by means of restoration was more idealistic than realistic. It was fostered by enlightenment rationalism, which seemed to believe if we could just get our thoughts right, all would be well.”
While we cannot argue about the thoughts of the times in which the RS fathers lived, saying “achieving unity by means of restoration was more idealistic than realistic” is saying that John 17:6-19 is unrealistic at best. If we want to be more direct, we can use this quote to call Jesus at least an unrealistic dreamer. Is that the case? Did He mean it or not when He prayed to our Father and asked for unity?
In the next paragraph (still on page 5), Mr. Lawson says, “Here”s the problem: if we insist on being a movement and not a denomination, we can”t control it.” How many problems are there with that statement?
· It”s not ours to control. According to the Word, whose church is it? Who has total and sole authority over it? Has Mr. Lawson ever read Matthew 28:18?
· If we are all under the lordship of Christ, He controls us. The last time I checked we all get the Holy Spirit at salvation (Acts 2:38) and there is just one of him (Ephesians 4:5).
There is much more that could be said about these articles by Lawson and Alexander. However, the above quotes are the foundation of what these men said. They are the meat of their writings. In all honesty, I don”t see how they can have any spin put on them. They are what they are. All that it takes to subscribe to these complimentary viewpoints is:
· Willful ignorance of our past and present.
· Willfully ignoring Scripture.
· Willful ignorance of what is going on out in the real world in churches and the communities we are in.
· Willful lack of belief in what men like Raccoon John Smith road horses thousands of miles to proclaim.
The one thing that I believe both of these men said, and that I can agree with is, “It”s our turn now. The future is up to us.” And to that, I say, “As for me and my house, we”ll side with Stone, Campbell, Scott, Smith, Errett, and that crowd. We”ll believe that Jesus meant His prayer recorded in John 17. And we”ll also believe that it is still His church and He has all authority over it.”
“”Bill Cook
Covington, Indiana
‘The Movement Has Not Failed’
If our movement has “failed,” as pondered by Dick Alexander in his June 13 article, it is because we have lost a vision for the purity of the New Testament church apart from the traditions of man. It”s partly because we have our own traditions [and partly because in] arguing method against method without a strong biblical platform, we have given away the advantage. We must be intellectually honest with ourselves.
But I am here to say the movement has not failed and that the restoration plea still works, which Mr. Alexander says doesn?t happen today. The church I lead has left its denomination and has answered the restoration plea. It was precipitated by the gross error of liberal political correctness that replaced the Bible in their churches, causing them to finally say, enough is enough, but it was led along by the “gentle instruction” of 2 Timothy 2:25 rather than “beating them over the head” with the Bible as we are apt to do.
By preaching and teaching the “Bible only” we have been producing “Christians only” and it has been an exciting journey that I pray has only just begun. Many of those axioms and simple principles of the restoration plea that I have learned since I was a kid in Sunday school simply work.
In 2005 the Jerusalem United Church of Christ of Greenville, Pennsylvania, became theJerusalem Christian Church after its withdrawal from the UCC over its teaching on same-sex marriage. We were then just a handful of faithful believers trying to keep from closing our doors, but now we are dealing with issues of parking and seating wondering where to put them all. God blesses faithfulness!
A couple of years after this journey started, recognizing a vacuum of qualified teachers and leaders, I contacted a large church in the Midwest famous for its church planting efforts to ask for help. The person I talked to on the phone told me they never heard of doing what we are doing and didn?t know that they could offer anything. Can you imagine that, a leading church in the Restoration Movement never heard of an old established congregation leaving her denomination and becoming a “New Testament” church? They think they have to plant new churches. I wonder if they are reproducing their methods rather than making the “plea”?
My point is simple, there is a church revealed in the Bible and it is the pure church that Jesus has built. By looking to that church for example, and looking to the Scriptures for instructions, and by resisting the traditions of man, we can be that church. Then we will “dissolve” into the one true church, not simply surrender to the ecumenical movement of traditionalism trying to deny that our differences matter. It”s a cop-out to give in to systematic theologies that explain away key biblical doctrines while saying it really doesn?t matter. But, we must learn to speak the truth, in love, and thereby the church will thrive.
If the Restoration Movement has failed, the restoration plea has not. Perhaps we need aKnute Rockne in the movement to call us back to the basics of the plea: “This is a Bible . . .”
“”John Canon
Minister, Jerusalem Christian Church
Greenville, Pennsylvania
‘Puzzled by His Statement’
Although I agree with most of what LeRoy Lawson wrote in his article about the future of the Restoration Movement, I am puzzled by his statement that he”d like to see “more diversity politically, so that even Democrats can feel at home among us.”
How does Mr. Lawson expect a Democrat to feel at home among people who think the Bible says we are to love children instead of kill them, that if a man doesn”t work he shouldn”t eat, that homosexual practices are wrong, that marriage is when a man cleaves to a wife, and a host of other biblical principles that are in direct opposition to what the Democratic Party has become?
Unless Mr. Lawson is merely expressing his hope that liberal leopards will change their spots, I don”t like his apparent implication that if a Democrat doesn”t feel at home around me it is somehow my fault.
Second, while the principle of restoration is and will always be valid, I am afraid we have lost the right to couple it with the word movement. In my church and in my state I see movement, to be sure, but it isn”t in the direction of restoration.
“”Dale Blanshan
Rochester, Minnesota
‘Stimulating and Thought-Provoking’
I found both of these essays and analyses stimulating and thought-provoking. As a member of the noninstrumental Churches of Christ, I have different life experience, but I share a common heritage with these brethren. This commonality is intensified by my receiving a master”s degree at Cincinnati Christian Seminary (1974-76). I especially enjoyed my studies in Restoration Literature under Dr. Harold Ford. During that time and over the next few years, Sam Stone was gracious enough to publish a few of my articles in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD, as well. Since then, I have let my subscription to the STANDARD lapse, only recently beginning to read it online. I have also lost contact with all my friends in that portion of the Restoration Movement””if it still be a movement.
We in the Church of Christ are at a similar crossroads, but may not be as well placed as the Christian churches and churches of Christ. While we have a few dynamic congregations, we also still have many that are more focused on restoring the restoration than in being disciples of the Christ. There is a lot of groping for a stronger sense of identity. There is much in the two essays applicable to our situation””and I thank you for publishing them. I will do what I can in my own small way to draw attention to these articles.
There is a movement within our branch of the church that is away from the very strict exclusive stance of the 20th century. Many now see the Sand Creek Address and Declaration for the sectarianism that it is, though (sadly) that vision is far from general. As you are likely aware, several congregations have added one or more instrumental worship periods””but the vast majority of our congregations still regard such a thing as blasphemous. Hopefully, there will be continued movement into a more open, irenic spirit””and into a greater commitment to our mission of being the presence of Christ in the world of today.
“”Jerry Starling
Regional representative for Eastern European Mission
‘Refreshing’
I thoroughly enjoyed the two articles from LeRoy Lawson and Dick Alexander. The whole notion of challenging the status quo of our thinking is refreshing to me. I am a dedicated believer in New Testament Christianity. However, seeing it in the relevant light of where we came from, where we are today, and where we need to go in order to remain relevant and win the lost is wonderful material to consume. Thanks for publishing.
“”Jerry Barnes
Roanoke, Virginia
‘Primacy of Preaching Wasn’t Mentioned’
I think it quite ironic that in Roy and Dick”s articles in the June 13, 2010, CHRISTIAN STANDARD, that the primacy of preaching wasn”t mentioned as a platform for Restoration Identity. Yet, this does not surprise me. Pragmatics have been the watchword of “The Movement” for some time now and thus, to speak of the “foolishness of preaching” as having centrality in giving identity to “us” always seems to be an afterthought, if a thought at all.
We have lost the passion for simply preaching the truth as a way to call individuals to restore what is in “the Book.” It”s sad, but when you speak of “The Book” these days, the common response is, “What author are you talking about?” We have been so entrenched in promoting pragmatism and not the primacy of preaching that we have failed to uphold our identity as a “people of the Book.”
We need not abandon the “Restoration Ideal.” Maybe we just need to repent and come back to understanding that the Word is “alive and powerful” (Hebrews 4:12) and worthy to become again the emphasis in our Bible colleges, our periodicals, and our pulpits . . . without the pragmatism and postmodernism. We will never find vitality again until we recapture the “pulpit priority” as we run in harmony with the Spirit and “The Book.”
“”Barry Thornton
President, Duneland School of Theology
Preaching pastor/elder, Chesterton First Christian Church
‘Makes No Sense to Say We Have Failed’
In reference to Mr. Lawson”s “Wrong Assumption,” here is the real question: Was the entire premise of the Restoration Movement based on a wrong proposition?
How can a unity movement that wants to unite all sects contradict its own aim by setting itself apart as a separate entity, claiming””even if with reason””to know the truth better than any of the others? After all, the restoration ideal was nothing new to the Stone/Campbell Movement. As early as the New Testament writers themselves, there always has been the aim to preserve the true teachings of Scripture. Most, if not all, of them were aware that distortion and plain false teaching would endanger the gospel message. Moreover, the constant stimulus of local culture has always challenged the accuracy of Scripture. Each one of them continuously encouraged believers to remain true to the Word, yet never without the equally important call to unity.
For the task of restoring the church at large to the truth? The truth has the peculiar feature to prove itself to be just that, true, and most of the time without having much to say about it. Not wanting to appear to just play with words, it is my aim to point out that even the apostles saw as the only way to maintain the truth within the church, to practice what it teaches. We will find amongst ourselves enough recognition of the premise that diversity does not necessarily have to displace unity, and that the common cause can survive in spite of disagreement. Is not that what it meant when we said, “We are Christians only”?
As we know from our own inability to agree””and consequently to stay together””within this so-called Restoration Movement, the issues that drove us apart were mostly not of great doctrinal significance. But to expect to overcome the great number and theologically critical disagreements of now nearly 2,000 years in a period of just over 200 years, is more than just presumptuous. Besides, it could never be done from the outside in.
In contrast, I believe the Christian churches and churches of Christ have a lot to show for. There are Christians worldwide who have found their Lord through what goes on in these organizations. It makes no sense to say we have failed or should go back to the beginning. We would only fall again over this confusing doctrinal pandemonium that sprung the roots of our own tradition. The only thing that counts, and maybe needs to increase, is the desire to establish the kind of community the Lord had in mind when he first proclaimed his kingdom on earth. It”s not the proper theology that will get the job done, but the return to the simplicity of his message and the completion of the task he has laid before us.
That brings us back to the cause.
The identification of what exactly is this cause, and henceforth, the eagerness to pursue it in his name, should eliminate all doubts if or if not we are performing according to our purpose as a church of Christ. The only thing that should frustrate us is not that others have different ideas, but rather, when we ourselves stray off the course and hinder our own spiritual formation.
Do we need a movement? Yes, we do! But let us be concerned with our own restoration first. The task is greater than one church can do on its own. We need each other, the expertise, the insight, and the resources. It”s the Christian way to work together and help each other to figure things out. It”s this strength from within that, in the end, will make us stand as the “true” church, the one that Christ said would even smash the gates of Hell. Are we looking for identity and the continuation of a name? Should there be one other than the identity we have in Christ, or a name other than his?
I agree, we are not the whole kingdom, but we can be a strong pillar of it. By living the Bible in truth, or better, in reality, we are evidencing that what some may have difficulty understanding from the Word. But telling them how wrong they are will never work.
If we are indeed proclaiming correctly the Word of God, than let”s live up to it as diligently and as good we can manage. I am sure God will bless us for just doing that and if it be so, maybe the fruit we bear shall convince those who are no doubt watching us, to join in and let the truth impact their lives as well.
“”Michael Pawlowitsch
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada
This last letter, also from Michael Pawlowitsch (the writer of the preceding letter), references Mark Taylor’s editorial, “Never More Movement, Never More Questions,” also from the June 13 issue, but touches on ideas that appear in LeRoy Lawson and Dick Alexander’s articles.
‘Too Little Strategy’
I have been reading the comments made by a number of individuals in Mark Taylor”s column “Never More Movement, Never More Questions” (June 13, 2010). The currant idea of church life””in particular church growth and evangelism””seems to focus only on preaching and getting out the Word of God. Sure, it is important and that”s how, as the Bible tells us, we grow faith. But all of that only goes so far unless the principles of our faith work themselves into the lifestyle of the members of our churches. And frankly, as far as the opportunity to evidence Christian interaction and the expression of our faith is concerned, we don”t plan any such occasions.
On Sundays, except for minimal moments at the sidelines, we are taught or preached to and are participating in previously prepared practices or activities. I am not saying this is wrong or that nobody is doing anything. But as far as really living out our faith in true-to-life activities, I fear we have far too little strategy for that. To expect for this to happen by itself in the personal and private lives of Christians is not quite realistic. It just doesn”t happen, at least not enough to find and set the typical Christian precedent to be recognized as such by the secular community.
I can sympathize with those who feel there is not much life in the Christian community, for life needs to happen every day, or at least on those occasions when there is any chance of application for the Christian principles we so eagerly study. A church of people who are busy in service for their God will never complain that “there is nothing going on.”
Christ was more than just a teacher. He is our Savior. That Christ was glorified is what gives Christianity its unique status. Should it not be so with the church of today? If we were asked, “What”s happening in the church these days?” how would we answer? Is it preaching, teaching, and studying the Bible, or would it be like Jesus said, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news [relief] preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me” (Matthew 11:4-6)?
It would be divine if the church would find its identity in the practical application and actual compliance to the commands of our Lord we so eagerly profess. I believe our Savior is not so much interested in the size of our churches and buildings, but its relevance in the lives of its members and community.
“”Michael Pawlowitsch
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada
0 Comments