Great is thy faithfulness

Why, oh why, do some churches feel that they have to modernise everything in order to appeal to people? I am not a die-hard traditionalist however I also do not believe that the decline in church attendance has been caused purely by the use of old-fashioned English and can be reversed simply by replacing all instances of 'thee' and 'thou' in our prayers, worship and bible readings by 'you'. Such language was already out of date when I was a child but that didn't stop me from understanding what was meant, at least most of the time. It also didn't stop me from becoming a Christian.

The English of the King James Version, although beautiful, can be impenetrable and so I personally use the NIV for Bible study. Being of a certain age (ie over 50) I do, however, prefer to keep the old language of 'Our Father' which I learnt as a child and I really, really object when people try and modernise the words of favourite old hymns. Do we modernise Shakespeare? Do we update John Donne? Or Chaucer? Hymns are poetry set to music. When you alter the words you spoil them. Churches which do this also run the risk of alienating older people who know many old hymns off by heart and who become confused when the words are changed. Such relentless modernisation makes me feel that old people are being forgotten when it comes to evangelisation. Everything is aimed at the younger generation and yet pensioners have an even more urgent need to hear the gospel because their time is short.

The vast majority of the over-50s in this country grew up with the King James Version and the Church of Scotland Hymnary 2nd Edition with the Scottish Psalter. That is what they are familiar with. It therefore makes sense that that is what churches should use if they want to reach the over-50s. You have only to look at the faces of the residents in an old-folks' home when old hymns are being sung to see how much they enjoy them. I'm not saying that we can't have modern songs. I'm just saying that we should have a mixture of both old and new and that we shouldn't try and update the old favourites. "Great is your faithfulness" just doesn't sound right any more than "wherefore are you Romeo".

Where do you draw the line?

In this age of increasing deception and compromise, I am wondering where one should draw the line when it comes to fellowshipping with people who do not hold exactly the same views as me. I don't think I am alone in wondering this and so I want to explore the issue in this post, and am taking the unusual step of opening it for comments so that others can contribute to the discussion if they wish.

As I have already said, I am an Arminian Baptist. I have described Arminianism elsewhere on this blog and I believe in adult, or believer's, baptism, not the christening of infants. At the moment I attend a Presbyterian church which is Calvinist and practises infant baptism. So you would be right in deducing that I don't see these things as deal-breakers when it comes to christian fellowship. Maybe some people would. However, if my church were to start holding joint services of worship with Our Lady of Lourdes RC church round the corner I would be out of there like a shot. A line would have been crossed because I don't believe that we share the same gospel with the Roman Catholic church.

If a minister were to preach something contrary to the Word of God as expressed in Scripture, I would leave that church. It is dangerous to sit and listen to heresy - eventually you will start to believe it. If a church leader were to start advocating things which are extra-biblical, such as lectio divina, visions of angels, centering prayer, Toronto-blessing type manifestations, I would also leave. These things are not founded in the Bible and can lead one into deception. You'll notice I'm talking about what the minister or leader is doing. That is because they set the direction of the church. I would be concerned if a member of the congregation had unbiblical views but it would not be a leaving issue for me unless it infected the whole congregation.

What else would cause me to leave a church? The use of The Message as the primary version of the Bible. Participation in the Purpose Driven Church program. Promotion of extra-biblical revelation and experiential christianity. A female leader. A leadership which is above criticism. Attempts to unduly control and influence my life in areas where the church has no authority eg telling me what job to take, what house to live in, who to marry. (Those are the signs of a cult, not a church.) Undue pressure to give financially to the church. I'm sure I could think of a few more things given time and I'll maybe expand on some of the above in later posts, again given time!

One particularly pressing issue for many in Scotland at the moment is the fact that, while their church is fine and their minister is sound, the denomination to which they belong is going off the rails. That is a difficult one. Do you (or should you) belong to the local church or do you belong to the denomination? Should you leave a good church just because the denomination is bad? I don't know the answer to that and, I suspect, many others don't either. It needs to be a matter for much prayer and, ultimately, the conscience of the individual. I personally am not loyal to any particular denomination and so look for the best church locally.

Ultimately the issue is not whether I agree with the minister/church/denomination. It's whether they agree with the Word of God as set forth in the Bible. When Paul and his companions arrived in Berea with the gospel, the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11b NIV) We need to be like that and not like the Corinthians who "put up with a different gospel" to the one Paul preached "easily enough". (2 Corinthians 11:4b NIV)