Sometime in the last six months I was sitting in a "Bible Church" on a Sunday morning, and it was a disheartening experience. We sang songs where "I" figured prominently, but "Christ" wasn't so prevalent. And we heard a very long sermon that seemed to be all about "community" and "sharing" and "real relationships," but there wasn't a whole lot about the Lord Jesus. And as I sat there I thought to myself, "Roman Catholicism is better than this, at least Roman Catholics have a God."
I was so surprised by what I had thought, that I was taken aback, and spent the rest of the day thinking about it.
Now, I have all sorts of problems with Roman Catholicism. I'm in no danger of converting to Roman Catholicism, because I have no interest in working for what God offers for free (Romans 4:5). And while I could make the argument that Roman Catholicism doesn't explicitly deny the Gospel – because they believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1–8) –; there is an implicit denial of the Gospel, because there is a responsibility to "walk according to the truth of the Gospel" (Galatians 2:14), and Roman Catholicism surely fails that test.
But the fact remains that my experiences in Evangelical churches have begun to make Roman Catholicism look a lot better than it once looked.
When so-called worship music is a lot about "I" and not much about "Him," then I have to ask who is actually the object of worship. When sermons are mainly about "I" and not much about "Him," I have to ask who is really at the center. When I can sit in a church for the better part of an hour and hear nothing about the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord, I have to ask why precisely I'm there.
Many years ago, after we decided we could no longer remain in fellowship with a particular "brethren" group, we spent several months visiting a "continuing Anglican" church.
(I need to pause to give a word of explanation for our non-American friends. The Anglican church in Canada and the Church of England are associated with the Episcopalian church here in the United States. Here, "Anglican" generally signifies a church that has broken away from the Anglican communion. There are something like 16 Anglican denominations in the USA that are explicitly not in fellowship with the Church of England. I'm oversimplifying a little, but it's important to note that "Anglican" in the USA is carefully chosen to mean "not Episcopalian" and "not in communion with the Church of England.")
Several people acted surprised that we would gravitate to a liturgical church after being so thoroughly "brethren," thinking we'd end up somewhere more Evangelical. But in my mind, liturgical worship is much closer to what we practiced with "brethren" than what I'd find in a Baptist church or a Bible church.
What I value about "brethren" assemblies is exactly what I valued about liturgical worship: the focus is on the Lord, not on me. The "main event" is remembering the Lord, not listening to a sermon. And while I understand there are some dissimilarities between liturgical worship and the Lord's Supper as practiced in most "brethren" circles, I found the similarities much more compelling. For example, liturgical worship is entirely participative (is that even a word?): there's no question that you're not a spectator, watching a show. You're absolutely participating.
I honestly believe "closed brethren" are much more closely related to Anglicanism than they are to the local Baptist church. It makes perfect sense to me that when W. T. Turpin abandoned brethrenism, he returned to the Church of England, rather than joining a Baptist church.
OK, this wasn't meant to be a defense of Anglicanism. My point is that it made sense to us to step from "brethren" into a liturgical church, because the beneath-the-surface similarities were compelling: we were interested in "church" that was about the Lord, not about us. We were interested in a place where the Lord's Supper was central. We were looking for something where the congregation was actively participating, rather than simply listening to someone speak.
So I'm on an "assembly quest" again, because we're no longer in the city. We didn't intend to leave the assembly so much as we intended to leave the city and come to a place where we have room and it gets dark at night. And I'll hasten to say, when I've been back in the city, I've remembered the Lord at the same assembly where we'd been in fellowship from 2010 through 2019. The assembly there knows very well why we left, and it had nothing to do with them.
But we've been living in the middle of nowhere for more than two years now, and we've visited a whole lot of churches. In this area in particular, there are too many small non-denominational churches to list. And over the last couple years, I've given a lot of thought to what I'm looking for in a church.
So here's what I've settled on as a first requirement: they need to acknowledge God as God. I don't need to hear sermons about how to live a better life, and I don't need to sing songs about myself, my own devotion, and my own faithfulness. "Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him" is a catchy song, but when I pay attention to the words, it's obvious it's about me, not about Him. I can do without that sort of thing.
And I'm not saying I'm looking for a liturgical church, by the way. I am saying that liturgical worship gets the most important thing right, and the best of "brethren" has a lot in common with it.
10 comments:
Some random thoughts:
Roman Catholicism contains enough of the truth to deceive millions of people. It offers a system of justification when the gospel offers instantaneous justification by grace, faith, and blood. 'Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness'.
The modern churchgoer has little appreciation that the tone for Gods dealings with men in the NT was set by John the Baptist - 'and so also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees..' I acknowledge that there is a dispensational setting to this phrase but it clearly explains that God is not in the business of trimming the trees. Man is cut down at the root when the true gospel is preached.
I spoke with an old brother recently and he said, 'the neglect of teaching the identification truths found in Romans 6-8 has led to man being alive and kicking in the churches instead of dead and buried'.
I once attended a funeral service where the brother spoke about Mary and Simeon in the temple. He said, 'Mary brought Christ in. Simeon lifted him up'. As your quest continues, I heartily agree with you that we must seek a fellowship where the saints are trying to bring Christ into the assembly and are lifting Him up before God.
Apparently, it takes 4 tons of roses to make 1 kg of rose oil. To speak about Christ alone takes a lot of distillation and that's why so few go in for it. Much easier to speak about ourselves!
Finding a church where identification truths are taught is no where to be found in my location.
But - plenty of man-centered and law-centered but not Christ-centered churches are found and abound!
Surely one lesson we can learn from the story of Nehushtan is, what we lift up we eventually start to worship. Christ lifted up ought to be the center of our worship, but when we lift up ourselves instead of Christ...
It seems to me that Roman Catholicism makes grace something to be earned, which isn't grace anymore. To teach that we can make God our debtor!
Robert and Susan, you've made a huge point here. It's not just that I have died with Christ for my practical walk, but I have died with Christ for worship too, and acceptance before God, and... the list goes on. If we could get that into our hearts! If we could see ourselves as God sees us: those who have died with Christ, have been buried with Him, have been raised with Him, and have Him as our Life.
I received a book in the mail today, and in reading the first chapter, came across this sentence:
“And not only has the moral distance between God and man been removed (not *bridged* but *removed*)(emphasis his) by the death of Christ, but it is through Him in His risen and glorified life (and through no one else) that we have access to God known as Father.” (Geoffrey S. Bacon)
That little note in the first parenthesis stood out to me, and I think it captures a lot of what is being said here.
I recently came across this booklet:
https://www.brethrenarchive.org/people/m-c-gahan/pamphlets/the-souls-transfer-from-adam-to-christ/
The intelligent transfer of the soul from Adam to Christ is no nominal or superficial matter; it is a distinct and practical emancipation; for “ Life in Christ Jesus,” which is by His Spirit, involves life in Him Who has died and risen out of all connection with sin and death; for “In that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God ”
For some reason??? I cannot open or download that Robert.
But I do recommend this:
https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/FW_Grant/FWG_Leaves_Book08.html
Try this, Susan:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16flwN4pQO17PzP02747psfNTYeHblrHa/view?usp=sharing
I uploaded the pdf onto my Drive, so this link should give you the file.
Another good article by MC Gahan:
https://stempublishing.com/magazines/cf/1896/Ye-in-Me-and-I-in-You.html
Thank you so much Rodger!
Got it!!!
Thanks Susan. That's excellent.
Post a Comment