Category: General Reflections
Thursday morning began with a very energetic time of singing followed by a fine message by Ron Morrison. The main encouragement was that we take risks for God. He did not mean by this that we should be presumptuous or reckless, but that we should not be afraid to trust God with our life and ministry. We have been entrusted with only one life to live, and we ought to make the most of it by serving Christ even outside our comfort zones. Laziness is wickedness, and failure to go forward with the kingdom of God out of fear is unacceptable. We should "risk" that God will take care of us in every circumstance, which is not much of a risk.
The afternoon business session included open dialogue about a few issues raised from the floor. (One topic raised that was not discussed was lifting the alcohol prohibition for pastors.) First, the powers that be defended the rationale for taking 15% of contributions made to special projects to cover administration costs. The official justification led to responses from pastors and missionaries either defending the fee or arguing against it. Second, a lot of conversation revolved around whether the long standing missionary tour model is still beneficial and effective or whether we ought to pursue alternative means of interaction with missionaries. No decisions were made, but several suggestions for improvement were offered. Third, fourth, etc., were various and sundry concerns raised by the delegates.
The evening session included a message from pastor Scott Slocum. It was troubling. There were several assumptions behind his exhortations which led to erroneous conclusions.
His first point was that we must be committed to Christ above all else, above family, self, and church. That sounds great at first glance, but it's really a setup for his primary concern which is--all that Christ cares about is saving His lost children (see below). So, being committed to Christ above all else is equal to being committed to saving the lost. If you have any other concern in life then you are not committed to Christ (instead, you are committed to the church or yourself or . . .). Then he changed the image, and, using the Prodigal Son as the basis, argued that the Father's greatest concern is saving His children. Salvation is the 'heart of the Father', and only those who have the same passion for the lost have the Father's heart. Everyone else is like the older brother, living in the Father's house and experiencing His blessings and presence, but completely missing His heart.
At the most basic level, Mr. Slocum believes that all humans are God's children, some are lost children and some are found children, but we are all in the same family. And the Father is so concerned with His lost children that He is filled with anxiety at the thought of not finding them; as he put it, "My theology has room for a frantic God." He told the story of how, many years ago in Florida, his son had been missing for over thirty minutes (he thought his wife had him, and vice versa). When the son's absence was realized, Scott was frantic in his desire to find him. He didn't care about anyone or anything else, only finding his son mattered. In the same way, he argues, the Father is frantic about finding His lost sons and daughters. (By the way, frantic means "distraught with fear or anxiety," so Mr. Slocum is saying that God is distraught with fear about finding His lost children.) Then to close out the sermon, he showed a clip from Schindler's List which shows Mr. Schindler mournful and weeping that he didn't rescue more Jews from death. His admonishment was that some of the tears the Lord will wipe away from our eyes when we see Him will be due to the fact that we didn't save more people. He said, "It will all look different at the end," meaning that we will see all the souls that we could have saved with deep regret.
Some of the implications of this sermon are 1) the church which is not committed, above all, to evangelism is equal to the Pharisees who were denounced by Christ. 2) Anyone who spends time doing anything other than evangelism does not have 'the Father's heart' (which makes one wonder why Mr. Slocum bothers to come to council to preach when he could be out evangelizing and finding God's lost children). 3) That pastors who work hard at preaching and teaching, edifying the body of Christ, equipping the saints for works of service, caring for the souls of believers, managing God's household, and shepherding Christ's sheep, really don't know the will of Christ. Even though these are the things explicitly revealed by Christ in His word that church leaders ought to be concerned with, they shouldn't be the goals of the church because 4) every church must change the way it does music, the way it preaches, the way it looks and feels, so that lesbians, abortion-rights advocates, homosexuals, (which Mr. Slocum called "complex, gray matters") etc., are comfortable to come to our services. These are God's lost children, and if we don't welcome them to our church, then we don't have the Father's heart.
Throughout his rebuke of the modern church (at least of those who are primarily concerned with the edification of believers), Mr. Slocum never mentioned the word (or concept) of repentance. He emphasized that the prodigal son was accepted joyfully by his father. True, but only after the son realized the error of his ways and came back to the father. And, ironically, the father was not frantically pursuing the son in the parable. It seems that the father held up as the example of the 'Father's heart" did not manifest the heart that Slocum was searching for. What the father did manifest was a merciful willingness (delight even) to receive his wayward son back when he returned in remorse.
The last thing I will note is that the Scripture does not regard unbelievers as children of God (lost or not), but as children of the devil. Only believers have been adopted into God's family. To regard unbelievers as God's children who are "lost" is to confuse the terms of a parable with the meaning of a parable; and to compare unbelievers with a man's son who has been lost in the crowd is irresponsible. An unrepentant lesbian is not a member of God's household who has accidently been caught up in the crowd and carried down the street against her will. She is a rebellious hater of God who purposefully runs away from God thumbing her nose at Him as she flees, and she will remain such unless He graciously grants her a new, repentant heart. And neither we, nor God, will weep with regret on the Day of Judgment. God and Mr. Schindler have nothing in common. Schindler had selfish, acquisitive purposes for saving Jews, and only realized after the fact that he could have done more from a benevolent heart. God's purposes in saving sinners reflect His perfectly holy and divine motives, and He rescues precisely who He wants and condemns precisely who He wants. God has no "what could have been" moments.