THE BIBLE
We believe that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is supernaturally inspired, so that it is inerrant in the original manuscripts and preserved by God in its verbal and plenary inspiration, so that it is a divinely authoritative standard for every age and every life. (Matthew 5:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21) (Notice that we do not have the original manuscripts available to us today, so according to AWANA, we do not have the inspired Word of God today.)
THE CHURCH
We believe that the true Church is composed of all persons who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit through saving faith in Jesus Christ; that they are united together in the body of Christ of which He is Lord and Head; and are commissioned for the God-given tasks of worshiping, fellowshipping, teaching, evangelizing and exercising the spiritual gifts. (Acts 2:42,47; Romans 12:5; Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:23-24; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14; 2 Corinthians 11:2) (Notice this is an outright universal church position) (Italics mine).
THE ORDINANCES
We believe the ordinances for the believer are water baptism by immersion and the Lord's supper as a memorial. They are, however, not to be regarded as a means of salvation. But both of which are an evidence of obedience and fellowship with the Lord. (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38, 41, 8:12, 35-38; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29) (Notice there is no mention of church authority here: about the restriction of the Supper to local church members only and the necessity of authority by a Scriptural, New Testament (Baptist) church for baptism to be valid.)
In any case, it makes no difference to me. 2 John 10,11 makes it very plain: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." Many preachers will say that as long as they are right on salvation, that it is okay to use a program if we are allowed to control what is taught. Here is what the universal church doctrine does as is attested by the above article of the AWANA statement of beliefs: 1) it directly contradicts the Bible's teaching of a local, visible church only; 2) it unites those who (although individually they may trust Christ alone apart from works or ceremonies per Revelation 18:4) are part of false churches who teach a false plan of salvation; and 3) declares them to be in fellowship. If we in any way show affinity for a program, a conference, a worship service, a church, teaching of the universal church heresy, etc. that joins together with false religion, then we are bidding God speed to a false gospel. If our ABA has a similar program called Discovery, what excuse is there to go out from the truth to use a program such as AWANA? That is what programs like Discovery and All The Kings Men (an alternative to the Promise Keepers) are for. I have heard the argument that Discovery is too expensive or that all the other churches in town use AWANA and we don't want our children going to those. Let me ask this: what monetary value do we place on the truth and the souls of men? Is this the direction we want our ABA to go? Do we want to go from the Bible position to one that is ecumenical? God forbid! At some point, we will no longer be able to ignore these departures by our churches in order for us to stay true to God. This and other issues need to keep being pressed.
I have been in churches that have used both programs. The Awana'a program was hands down the most successful. The Discovery program leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know what the answer is.
ReplyDeletePaul told young Timonthy to preach the Gospel.
ReplyDeleteWhy do some think we need a program designed by man?
The simple Gospel of Jesus has always worked for me.
Dunno who you talked to, but they lied to you. I've personally looked over ALL the AWANA papers. I looked at them IN DEPTH when this same argument was posed to me. Nobody signs any agreement stating that we must teach all the AWANA lessons. The papers simply state that (and I wish I had them in front of me for page numbers and quotes, but I no longer do) you MAY NOT!!! alter these lesson materials in any way. In other words, it is not right for you to change these lessons and then pass them off as AWANA material. You can't go through changing the lesson books and then give them out as "AWANA" lessons, since they won't be. This is a totally normal thing which is bound by law for all materials, stated or not. You are not allowed to alter movies, works of art, literary works, etc, without permission from the author/artist.
ReplyDeleteThe "doctrinal statement" as you call it of the AWANA program is nothing more than a set of beliefs that the AWANA creators believe. I looked over the lessons, and myself can not recall any lessons over these subjects.
Our church used the AWANA program for the encouragement system. It helps lost students memorize scripture, so that when our teachers teach about these Scriptures, they will have both understanding of the verses and the verses in their minds.
Now, why not get to the root of this whole issue? It isn't using materials produced by non-denominational profit organizations such as those which produce our Heavenly Highway Hymnals. It isn't using materials which could contain doctrinal errors, such as many hymns written by false denominational men such as those included in our ABA hymnals. (Remember scripture teaches songs are also to TEACH one another.)
The real issue appears to be that you don't like change or modern things.
By the way, to show I do not defend these things out of personal bias, I have never taught in or used AWANA personally. I do not care for it, or for Discovery. I create my own lessons and "programs" if you must call them such, from my own studies. I have no reason to defend them for myself, since I have never been involved in the AWANA program. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Bro. James,
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that all ABA churches who use the AWANA ministry personally teach or believe in the aforementioned doctrines. However, do we really want to use God's money to support such a program? In God's eyes, they are partaking in their evil deeds. Sometimes, you truly believe something, but God makes you more acutely aware of it. I have always believed the universal church doctrine to be an abomination, and as one preacher put it at his ordination, "a doctrine straight from the pits of hell." Btw, this preacher pastors a little country BMA church. I am not just "agin" everything. To actually espouse it or to give support to it is fellowshipping and bidding God speed to a false gospel. Also, I don't believe in singing a heretical song any more than using heretical teaching ministries.
I talked again to an AWANA operator. While she stated that the doctrinal statement is not actually a part of the ministry agreement, it is part of the registration package and forms the basis for the materials. Our churches know from the outset what they are teaching. The teachers may take some good out of it and rework the bad in their lessons, and these churches may not participate in the AWANA Games, but what example is it setting for young people who see AWANA being used by other false churches or who may study the materials for themselves? Will it blur the distinctions in their minds?
Bro. Barry,
Is God not capable of being successful in his churches and with the truth?
Bro. Robinson,
I highly appreciate your comment. While I am not totally against all programs, I would tend to agree with you more. I feel that many of our men who are saying "change the method but don't change the message" are going way too far.
I still feel after all the comments and after I've thought about what I said that this is an issue that needs to be continually agitated.
OK. #1 - like I said, I don't like the program, but that is for different reasons.
ReplyDelete#2 - You said "To actually espouse it or to give support to it is fellowshipping and bidding God speed to a false gospel. Also, I don't believe in singing a heretical song any more than using heretical teaching ministries." So again, let me ask you this. Do you agree with BUYING "giving support to" a songbook company which contains heretical songs in it? If you can pick and choose which songs to sing (and thereby teach a congregation with), then how is it any different than BUYING "giving support to" a lesson company which contains heretical lessons in it, and picking and choosing which lessons to use? How are these two things different?
You also said... "but what example is it setting for young people who see AWANA being used by other false churches or who may study the materials for themselves? Will it blur the distinctions in their minds?"
ReplyDeleteAgain, we use song books used by other false churches who sing these materials for themselves.
We use the same Bible false churches who may study the Bible for themselves.
We use pews which false churches use also.
We use object lessons false churches may use.
We use "choirs" like false churches.
We use steeples like false churches.
We use stained glass like false churches.
We use ABA study literature, which is also used in false churches.
Do I think this blurs things in the minds of a student? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. I believe it is more about what you are teaching your children. If you train your children in Scripture, and to study for themselves and know WHY we believe what we believe, then they will be doctrinally sound. If not, they won't. I think this is the key, and all the other arguments such as about Discovery or AWANA are just fluff to divert our attention from the truth. The truth that we need to train our children and raise them in the Word of God. Let's forget all the outside distractions, and teach our children the stand on the promises in God's Word, to know the truths and doctrines in God's Word, to live and behave as taught by the Word of God.
I won't mention the name, but a preacher recently preached in a meeting that we ought to take a stand. He said we ought to take a stand on the old paths. The majority of this sermon was about these two phrases. I love this preacher, and I appreciate him much. I respect the man highly. But it just occurred to me during that sermon that EVERY TIME I have heard a sermon like it, there was something missing. Preachers get caught up in the outside things and think we ought to stand up for either change, or for tradition. The truth is, let's just preach that we should STAND FIRM on our ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. This should solve the problems we face.
AWANA is a solid gospel teaching program for kids that really encourages the memorization of scripture. Speaking of scripture, pray before you read it next time that God would forgive you for proof-texting by taking one verse in 2 John out of context and labeling others as heretics (awful strong word).
ReplyDeleteIf you read the whoe book (12 verses long), you will read in verse 7: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ. (8) Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. (9) Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ (the incarnation mentioned in v. 7), hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both theh Father and the Son.
Now comes your favorite verses.
(10) If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (the doctrine of the incarnation) receive him not into your house,...
John was writing about those who were denying the incarnation of Jesus. If you're wrong about Jesus, you're really wrong.
I think you are really sincere in what you believe and are at the same time sincerely wrong in a lot of what you believe. Be careful that in your mis-informed rhetoric you don't judge others too quickly.
I don't expect this to change your views, but I feel better having said it.
Your brother in Christ,
Jason
Bro. Landmarker, I am not saying that God can not be successful with any "man-made" program that churches apply. But I have seen both of these programs. I have seen more children come to salvation under the Awana's program. However we should not be teaching kids things that the Bible does not apply. That is why I said "I don't know what the answer is".
ReplyDeleteBrother Robinson is right - God doesn't need any man made program to accomplish His work. Those who compare programs and attribute more power to one than the other are guilty of blaspheming the inherent power of the Holy Spirit to use the preaching of the Scriptures without the schemes and coercions of men.
ReplyDeleteAWANA, and its ABA knock off, Discovery, are both an abomination in the sight of God. They don't produce Christians, they produce little uniformed Pharisees.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteMen like you ignore the Lord, so don't think it will effect me for you to ignore me. Those who know the truth know that the "method" can, indeed, be an abomination and is when it overshadows the gospel. As Paul said,
"for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to the preach the gospel; not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
On top of that, manipulating children by leading them to pray a pray is no more preaching the gospel than is the Catholic confessional. It is deceit and spiritual child abuse. And that is the "method" pursued by all of the child "soul winning" programs. May God have mercy on us and deliver us from all such wickedness.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Wow. I think it is time to have some lemonade and cool off for a minute. I may not prefer discovery, but i have seen children saved in the program. These children were not saved by a follow the leader prayer either.
ReplyDeleteOne blogger's vicious, judgmental, and "all inclusive statements" remind me of...well,....the Pharisees.
ReplyDeleteI John 3:14 "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death."
Brother Neal,
ReplyDeleteTruth always judges error and is always all inclusive.
The Pharisees elevated the commandments of men to the level of the commandments of God. When men claim that God uses Discovery and AWANA, they have, like a Pharisee, made the tradition of men into the commandment of God, for who can speak against what God uses?
So far as love goes, John also said,
"And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it."
Nothing in love obligates me, nor any man, to pay homage or respect to the programs of men - be it Discovery, AWANA or any other. Our love will be judged by our adherence to the commandments of God. So if you are going to accuse me of not having love, then I suggest you point out which commandment of God I have broken or advocated breaking. If you do so, I will gladly repent. If you can't do so, I suggest you repent of bearing false witness against the brethren.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Bro. Bobbitt is right about having some lemonade. It's permissible to debate issues (even passionately and vehemently), but when it comes to personal insults, it is not. Even judging Mark Osgatharp's sanity! Jk. Some would consider call something heretical or someone a heretic such a personal insult. However, if someone teaches false doctrine, the material is heretical and the person is a heretic. Heresy and heretic are Biblical words. Heresy is more than just teaching or promoting false doctrine about the fundamental doctrines related to salvation. Universal church is one of the most devious weapons in Satan’s arsenal to try to undermine and destroy the Lord’s true, New Testament (Baptist) churches. Personal attacks would include those judging someone’s mental state or their intelligence, made against their physical characteristics, their educational level, etc. I hope you get the idea.
ReplyDeleteBro. Jason,
I am not proof-texting. I am assuming that you mean that I made that Scripture fit my pet theology rather my theology conform to the Scripture.. The prohibition against bidding God speed to false doctrine is a Scriptural principle. (See above about heresy) I am no more proof-texting with that Scripture than if I applied the adding to and taking away from Scripture beyond the Book of Revelation. The teaching of separation from false doctrine is found throughout just as the command not to add to or take away from Scripture. Also, I never said that those who teach, promote, or support universal “have not God” or are not saved.
Bro. James,
I think my pastor knows why he believes what he believes. He preaches all the time that we have what we have need in the Bible and that he is glad he can open his Bible and find his beliefs. Traditional and contemporary is just a label that quickly identifies just as Landmark, Anabaptist, etc. There is good tradition and bad tradition. This is attested by Scripture.
Bro. Mark,
You are doing so much ranting about teaching methods. God doesn't have to, but He uses sinful men to carry His gospel. We all know that it is human nature to give other things the glory beside God, but that doesn't make Discovery any more inherently evil than Sunday School, VBS, or anything similar as long as everything done has a purpose and is tied into magnifying the Scriptures, and if it does not take the time nor the emphasis away from the preaching of the gospel, nor appeal to the flesh or human psychology. For example, a game can be used as an object lesson. Jesus used object lessons. My problem with AWANA is it teaches false doctrine and promotes ecumenism through its regional activities.
You rant so much over reliance on programs rather than reliance on God. Do you not believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be saved apart from the direct witness of a true, New Testament church? Such almost teaches church salvation. There will be people saved in false churches (read my words carefully) IN SPITE OF that church. My great-uncle was Missionary Baptist and joined the Church of Christ when he married. A man testified that if it was anything he learned from Uncle L.D., it was salvation by grace through faith and security of the believer. Charles Spurgeon (I am in no way endorsing his Calvinism) was saved while in a Methodist church by the Scripture, "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:22)
That being said, it is alarming that today when we have a spiritual need in the church, we have to implement a program and it has to have a catchy slogan. Just my 2 cents.
I'll pass on the lemonade, but how about some iced tea (sweet)...
ReplyDeleteBro. Mark, I didn't accuse you of anything. I referred to a "blogger." But since you responded, I'll make just a few comments with no intention of responding again.
First, I would not step out & defend Awana or Discovery. I have pastored two churches and neither have used them. Furthermore, I do feel that there is too much emphasis put on "literature" and "programs." If that literature, however, contains the printed Word of God and simply uses illustrations or commentary to go along with the scripture, then each church will decide if & how to use that literature.
Second, you wrote "truth does judge error and is always all inclusive." But what you stated were opinions, not truths. A few examples are:
"Awana and...Discovery are both an abomination in the sight of God." (where is this truth written?)
"they don't produce Christians" (so you KNOW for a fact/truth that no one has been saved as a result of reading a Bible verse in the literature under consideration)
I agree with you that "the method should not overshadow the gospel"
You clearly imply that all who use such literature are guilty of "manipulating children, deceit, and spiritual child abuse."
(so you know this as a truth?....or is it an opinion?)
I did not accuse you of not having love (since I never named anyone in my post), but perhaps you are not demonstrating love in your comments. God expects us to stand for the truth and He also expects us to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
You sitting in judgement of every church who might use literature of some kind and accusing them of abomination, manipulation, child abuse, etc. takes away any credence that your argument might have that the Bible should be the focus.
The truth stands. But opinions are open to evaluation.
Also, AWANA is a para-church ministry and was started at North Side Gospel Center in Chicago.
ReplyDeleteBrother Neal,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Bro. Mark, I didn't accuse you of anything. I referred to a 'blogger.'"
You referred to "one blogger" which was me and you know it and the Lord knows it, so quit lying about it.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Brother Melton,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"You rant so much over reliance on programs rather than reliance on God."
Now just think about that criticism a little and then explain to me how a man can rant too much about reliance on God rather than reliance on anything else?
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Bro. Mark,
ReplyDeleteYou are misrepresenting the intent of my words. No one can ever rant too much about reliance on programs rather than relying on God. What I meant was that while you rant that churches who use Discovery are relying on programs rather than relying on God (which is untrue), you make the claim that no one can be saved apart from the direct influence of a member of a true, New Testament church, Holy Spirit and the Word of God notwithstanding. You never did admit nor deny this. Where does this place reliance?
My observation of these types of programs is that the first recommendation is never "do this because it is scriptural", but rather "if do this you will get this result". I suppose that somewhere in the back of their minds the folks do think the programs are scriptural, but I don't believe I've ever heard any one promoting them for that reason. I agree that the upshot of all this is saying that the Holy Spirit can be "used" more by one program than the other, or uses one program more than the other. Where does the Scripture hint of such?
ReplyDeleteI haven't had any lemonade or iced tea, but I did just have TWO Dr. Pepper floats, so I am quite cool while typing this.
Brother Melton,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"What I meant was that while you rant that churches who use Discovery are relying on programs rather than relying on God (which is untrue)..."
Yes, churches that "use Discovery" are relying on programs rather than relying on God, because they have said that what God has ordained is insufficient and so turned to a man made program, which copy-catted another man made program - AWANA.
Now don't give me any lies about Discovery being comparable to a sermon or a written exposition of the Scriptures, because, as we all know, Discovery and AWANA both are far more than that.
On top of that, any time a man presumes to navigate another human being into a "salvation experience" he has quit relying on God and commenced relying on his own wisdom to accomplish what only God can accomplish.
I have told you plainly before that I believe that men are saved only the way ordained in His word - by the preaching of the gospel by His true New Testament churches. You have yet to show me where God said He would save a man through any other means, and so any anecdotes you might give to the contrary are shear speculations and carry no weight in the establishment of truth.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Brother Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteAfter several years of doctrinal conversations on the internet, it is becoming increasingly evident to me that what the Bible says has very little to do with how Baptist preachers formulate their doctrinal opinions.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Anyone who thinks that a church can rely on Discovery or AWANA has obviously never come into contact with either material. Having implemented and worked with both programs, I can tell you that both require a great deal of planning, study, and the instructors had better know the scripture because if they don't, classtime becomes very ineffectual very quickly. Neither one is a "plug and play" system.
ReplyDeleteAs for AWANA, I too believe their doctrine on the church (universal and local, dual nature) is in error. However, I have never found that teaching in the lesson materials. It's in their doctrinal statement, but not in the curriculum (at least, as far as I have found.) I was never told that I had to sign that I agreed with the doctrinal statement or even that I would teach it. The way of Salvation and discipleship presented in the scripture is true, however, and I do believe kids are saved when competent teachers teach that plan of salvation and discipleship to kids.
To be honest, however, I don't see what makes AWANA such a popular program. It's really nothing special. The reason "it produces results" is because the churches that fully implement it, by necessity, wind up really working with their young people.
It works the same with Discovery. I have successfully implemented Discovery at two different churches, and given the choice between the two, I'd always recommend Discovery over Awana for a variety of reasons which I won't list here. For the life of me, I'll never understand why ABA folks reject this program in favor of AWANA. Discovery is by far more theologically sound, plus is way more versatile allowing the church to tailor it to its needs.
Churches that implement either program can see the Lord move in their youth department, seeing souls saved and spiritual growth take place. This result, however, is not the result of the program, but rather the result of the committment the teachers to teaching the Word of God and taking their roles in the program and the lives of the kids seriously.
Brother Acker,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"For the life of me, I'll never understand why ABA folks reject this program in favor of AWANA."
Our folks favor AWANA because they see all the big Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist and falsely so called "non-denominational" churches that are growing by leaps and bounds through the AWANA program, and they want a piece of the action.
They prefer AWANA for the same reason people prefer LEVI jeans over Rustlers and a Cadillac over a Chevy.
Frankly, I'm amazed and appalled that a people who professedly stand on the old landmarks of God's all sufficient word are even having this discussion.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Bro. Osgatharp,
ReplyDeleteEarlier, I wrote, "I didn't accuse you of anything." At that point, I should have added, "by name." Perhaps then you would not have called me a liar.
But just in case anyone has any doubt, inlcluding you, I was referring to you in my first Comment (just not by name) and I still believe as such.
I don't have anything against you personally. I don't know you. But it seems clear to me that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% are liars, bear false witness, and do not use the Bible to "formulate their doctrinal opinions."
This goes for anyone reading.....
Contend for the faith? Sure. But continual rock throwers, Baptist bashers, and preacher policemen of everyone else have no edifying or positive contribution to anything. (That's my opinion by the way, not a divine, eternal truth.)
Bro. Osgatharp, I will assume that you will never pass out a tract, never sing out of a hymnbook, and do not have the "Church Covenant" on the church wall. They were written by men, and, though scriptural, are NOT the Word of God. If you will avoid these wicked unGodly tracts and songs written by men, I can at least then applaud your consistency.
If anyone is reading these Comments who are lost and in need of a Savior, preachers do this sometimes to learn, sometimes to challenge, sometimes to poke, and sometimes because they really wanted to be a lawyer and God called them to preach :)
The most important thing is that Jesus is the only hope of the world and that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord (in repentance and faith) can be saved.
At least for this preacher, that should be the focus of my life and ministry.
Oooops, I forgot. As I exit, I'll take a grape snow-cone.
ReplyDeleteLet me just recap my position on programs. First, I am not anti-program. Secondly, I plainly stated that any program used by a church must never de-emphasize or take the place of the preaching of the gospel. I never equated the two. There goes Bro. Osgatharp twisting my words again. I am flatly against AWANA because 1) it was started not in a Baptist church, but by North Side Gospel Center in Chicago, 2) it is a para-church ministry, and 3) it promotes false doctrine and ecumenism. I choose to do my agitation against it because it has fundamental doctrinal and practical issues. I believe that for those ABA churches who want a youth program, then we offer a viable alternative in the Discovery program, so there is no excuse for going away from truth. If I do have any criticisms of Discovery, it would be 1) it has a time set aside for games and 2) it has an award system based upon points earned for completing acts of Christian service. However, one could make a good counter-argument that Jesus Christ used object lessons in his teaching, so if the activity centers around and helps to illustrate the lesson, there is nothing wrong with the game time. One could also make the counter-argument that we will be rewarded at the Judgment Seat of Christ for work done here for Him after salvation. So, I do not really choose to fight against Discovery, any more than I would Sunday School, VBS, etc. or similar ministry. Also, no right thinking Baptist is going to intentionally lead a child to just pray a prayer-- to make a false confession. However, I am not a fan of children's chapel for the simple reason that it is most commonly held during the adult worship service, and of nurseries. I believe that even babies need to be in the auditorium to hear the Word of God preached. If you will look at 2 Timothy 3:14, the Greek word for child means "infant, babe, new born child." Paul told Timothy that he had learned Scriptures from an infant up, whereby the Holy Spirit would cause him to understand and apply to his at a competent age. Paul ties this together in 4:1,2 where he tells Timothy: I charge thee THEREFORE...PREACH THE WORD..." One would make the argument that young children might be a distraction. However, there was a time when churches had neither of these and ladies commonly had more children. Enough of that.
ReplyDeleteBro. Neal,
What do you mean by Baptist bashers? Do you mean one who would bring any criticism against other Baptists? Or are you referring to Bro. Osgatharp's more belligerent tone in his remarks? I know that there is a fine line between calling sin what it is and being unkind. I will admit that perhaps I flirt with that line too much. The Bible does say in Acts 20:27 not to shun from declaring the whole counsel of God and in Ephesians 4:15 to speak the truth, but to do it in love. Also, you said our focus should be Jesus. I agree totally. However, would you agree that we should also have an almost equal focus on defending the truths about the church? Or maybe you are saying that we should not mind other church's business and that we should balance our defense with offense? I understand that it's none of our business, for instance, what color another church's carpet is, but should we be aware of matters that hinder our fellowship and be concerned that our sister churches are departing in areas of doctrine, practice, and/or worship? Also, shouldn't some doctrinal matters that are consider to be "minor" because there is disagreement and not consensus in the ABA, such as Bible versions which is an issue with the Word of God, and the liquid element of the Lord's Supper which is the representation of Christ's sinless blood shed for our sins, be raised to "major" status? Enough of this thinking aloud and rambling. You may choose to answer these questions and you may not.
Brother Melton, you wrote that "no right thinking Baptist is going to intentionally lead a child to just pray a prayer..." I agree. But unfortunately there are a lot of wrong thinking Baptists in the area of "repeat-after-me".
ReplyDeleteConcerning programs in general, I suppose I am "anti-program". Seems to me that any proposal of "if you preach the gospel this way it won't work", and "if you preach the gospel this way it will work better", but "if you preach the gospel this way it will work excellently" is anti-scriptural. Is it not the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation and not the contrivances with come up with to present it?
There is something I find curious about Missionary Baptists who claim to be Landmarkers. Such an ecclesiology entails believing that the Lord has preserved His churches and works specially through them by His Holy Spirit. If He does, why does He always reveal the "good programs" to someone else first? Was someone reading through the Bible and a light bulb went off "we've got to have a Discovery program"? Or did someone look at what some non-denominational group was doing with AWANA and say "we've got to have one of those"? Was someone reading through the Bible and a light bulb went off "we've got to have a King's Men program"? Or did someone look at Promises Keepers and say "we've got to have one of those"? Was someone reading through the Bible and a light bulb went off "we've got to have a Baptist Training Course"? Or did someone look at the Southern Baptist Training Union and say "we need to try that"? And on it goes. If these are scriptural programs, why does God first reveal them to unscriptural groups? Why do we copy them from other groups who first initiate them? If they are not scriptural programs, why do we want them? Call me skeptical; for I am.
Bro. Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned B.T.C. I have personally looked through some of my dad's old quarterlies, and they were very good. It seems we used to take the opportunity in those days to do a lot of good indoctrination and teaching about moral separation in B.T.C. If you take the position that just because someone else does it, it is unscriptural, then you're probably going to peel away most of how we conduct worship. False churches meet at 10 a.m., have hymn books, choirs, etc. I don't think any of those in themselves are against the Bible (unscriptural). If you take away everything that does not have explicit example in the Bible, you must not use you car. If that's your conviction, that's fine. I'm not being sarcastic, just making a point. I'm genuinely interested in what you would consider a Scriptural worship service.
Bro. Melton,
ReplyDeleteThe games in the Discovery program are designed to illustrate the lesson presented during assembly time... so I think you'd probably be okay with them. (Each day has an assembly-time lesson and a corresponding game for game time). As for the reward system for Christian service, I don't understand what is wrong with that concept. Could you please elaborate?
Oh, and the games are non-competitive and promote teamwork. In other words, there aren't two teams competing with each other, but rather one team working together to accomplish an objective.
ReplyDeleteBrother Melton,
ReplyDeleteYou mention "the position that just because someone else does it..." I see I failed to make my point. I am not concerned "just because someone else does it." I am concerned with the mentality of looking around to see what someone else is doing in order to decide what we need to do. If the Lord is working in and through His churches, why does He reveal the good ideas to loose churches, false churches, and non-denominational groups first? And why, if He is working and through His churches, are we checking out what all the false churches are doing to get our ideas? Surely this ought to at least give pause.
Your concern that if we take away everything that does not have explicit example in the Bible, we could not even drive car is a misplaced concern. First of all, I don't know what you mean by an "explicit" example, and might not agree with what you mean. But, that aside, those of us who believe in following New Testament patterns in church practice are talking about scriptural guidance in how to gather and worship, etc. -- not how we travel there. Whether we use coal oil lanterns or electric lights and such like is an obfuscation of the real differences of approach. Every one will not come to the exact same conclusions, but will we search the Scriptures to formulate our practice, or will we search current church practices to see what is working for them?
Finally, you are interested in what I consider a Scriptural worship service -- praying, singing, teaching/preaching, giving. I think that pretty well sums it up.
Brother Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Finally, you are interested in what I consider a Scriptural worship service -- praying, singing, teaching/preaching, giving. I think that pretty well sums it up."
Amen to that!
So far as these other guys, they are hopeless. They can't see the truth because they are, at very best, beholden to ABA tradition and therefore not a liberty to accept categorical truth without regard to the consequences and, at worst, they are enamored with emulating the "successful" Baptists who have used worldly marketing strategies to grow big churches.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Brother Melton,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I believe that for those ABA churches who want a youth program, then we offer a viable alternative in the Discovery program, so there is no excuse for going away from truth."
Does that mean that before Discovery was invented that there was no viable alternative to AWANA?
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Thank you, Bro. Vaughn
ReplyDeletefor your points and for making your points with sound and good argumentation.
I am one who agrees with you.
Joe L Looney III
Pastor of Victory MBC
Cheyenne, Wyoming
(son of another Joe Looney)
Ignoring all of Mark O.'s personal attacks and outrageous claims, I will ask this to all other than him.
ReplyDeleteCan you all please define "program"? I think if you do, we can discuss this in a more educated fashion. We can actually discuss the same thing. Please define your idea of "program".
Brother Charles,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Ignoring all of Mark O.'s personal attacks and outrageous claims, I will ask this to all other than him."
But previously you said,
"Mark Osgatharp, you just purchased yourself an 'ignore' pass on my end. Anything you say in the future will be treated as coming from a complete madman, a lunatic."
So really, you aren't against making personal attacks at all! LOL!
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Brother JamesCharles, you asked that we define "program" in order to discuss this in a more educated fashion. I think defining the terms of discussion is good. Let us be careful, though, that we discuss the meat of the measure and not be diverted to semantics. "Program" can cover a lot of ground. For examples: a series of steps to be carried out or goals to be accomplished; a system of projects or services intended to meet a public need; a plan of action to accomplish a specified end; a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed; a planned, coordinated group of activities, procedures, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo one might be tempted to argue that those who object to "programs" actually object to being systematic or having a "plan". I do not believe that is the core of the matter. Awana and Discovery are both programs in the context of this blog discussion. They have traits beyond merely deciding on a plan or being systematic in doing something -- for example, reading through the Bible in a year; studying the entire Bible together in a specified period. Then how might they be identified? These "programs" usually have an official and exclusive name to distinguish and set them apart from all other "programs". They belong to their creators and are usually copyrighted. They usually makes claims of being a better way to do what the church has been doing, and a better way of doing what it does than the other "programs" that are available. For example, "A recent national survey found Awana to be as important to our alumni's spiritual foundation as all other church activities combined." They imply that it is the church's fault for not reaching the young people (or whomever) and that the implementation of their program will transform all that. They formulate distinguishing features (uniforms, pins, etc.) whereby participants identify directly with the program rather than merely the church, so that in the end the programs do not merely serve the churches, but gain the allegiance of the people they serve. In the end, whether it is a Mission Board, a seminary, or a youth program, it will usually become self-promoting and self-perpetuating (all para-church programs clearly are such from the beginning).
This scenario is one that has played itself out time and again in Baptist history to the detriment of the churches.
Brother JamesCharles, what is your definition and concept of "program"?
The reason I ask for definition of terms is this. AWANA and Discovery are under discussion. Some are calling out "programs" in general. I need to know if Sunday School is included in this. To discuss this, I need to know if VBS is included. I also need to know if the lesson series I've used from God's Word, or the order of services I've designed of my own understanding of what is best for our church and/or youth, are considered programs. I want to know if the style of "fellowship time (with fun music), worship music time, prayer, video with testimony of other teens (or questions), object lesson game or skit, sermon, class time devoted to discussion of sermon" is a "program" to which people here are referring. If so, then I am guilty of creating such a program. It had a name. We called it "Calvary Teen Revolution" in reference not to a revolution of war, but a revolution of life around you, and turning it into revolving your life around God.
ReplyDeleteConcerning "program", I don't guess I've ever had a single definition. This is why I ask for others. I'd just consider a program some way or method of trying to reach people.
I think that points to why it is better to discuss specific "programs" than a vague and unagreed-upon concept of "programs".
ReplyDeleteBro. Osgatharp,
ReplyDeleteWhile it could be considered an insult by Bro. James by questioning your mental state, it is equally not permissible to be malicious and hateful in the tone of your comments.
Bro. Vaughn,
You mentioned Mission Boards. Do you believe associational assemblies to be Scriptural or unScriptural? Also, you stated parenthetically that para-church programs are self-perpetuating and self-promoting from the beginning. Do you believe all ministries beyond a congregational worship service to be para-church?
Brother Melton,
ReplyDelete1. To the extent or degree that associations are fellowship and advisory councils, I believe they are scriptural. To the extent they go beyond that, that is unscriptural. I believe it is fine for councils to recommend something, but when their recommendation becomes the fact of what will be done then that is going beyond counsel or advice. For example, when the missionary committee and messengers of the ABA get done, whoever they recommend are the folks who actually literally get the money.
2. Not sure of all of what is encompassed in your last question, i.e. "ministry" and "para-church". But I do not think every "ministry" beyond a congregation's worship service is inherently wrong. General problems are when they try to do they work instead of the church, or when they create an "entity" to do the work that is already encompassed in the church's commission.
Bro. Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering my questions. Okay, could you explain your answers a little more fully?
1. What I understand from your answer is that 1) you are not totally against an association, 2) you believe what is called a council meeting to be Scriptural, and 3)the current plan of the ABA to be unScriptural. In your mind, what would make the ABA more Scriptural in terms of support of church-sent missionaries?
2. I'm not sure what you mean about trying to do the church's work. Is it that you feel that any ministry such as missionary logistics, disaster relief, medical missionaries, seminaries, etc. that are an organization sponsored by a church but not being done by the church itself to be unScriptural? Does this also apply to an intrachurch ministry such as a class taught by the church itself such as Sunday School, B.T.C., or Discovery, or do you feel that these are unScriptural simply based on the fact that they were ideas that originated outside the Lord's churches?
Brother Vaughn, the reason I ask for clearer definition of terms is so that I know what people are referring to when they us the phrase "programs" in their arguments (see above.) I personally would not see Discovery or AWANA as self-entities, since they cannot and do not teach in and of themselves. A church must be the one doing the teaching. I've never seen an AWANA or Discovery group who goes about teaching and preaching. I have only ever seen churches who purchase the literature, and then teach and preaching with this as an aid. This is why every AWANA or Discovery is totally and completely different from those at other churches. While you may see similarities (i.e. the books being used), you will ultimately see vast differences in the way the churches minister. If AWANA or Discovery was a self-entity doing the work of the LORD outside of or along side of the churches, then this would not be the case.
ReplyDeleteAWANA and Discovery are more or less a set of Sunday School lessons with suggestions for object lessons, games, etc.
This may be more than I can explain in a brief post, but I'll try.
ReplyDeleteBro. Melton,
You understand correctly on the three points noted. As far as moving from the current plan of the ABA to something more scriptural, I really don't think it can be done because of one inherent problem with a national association -- professed or implied fellowship with churches you don't even know. That aside, as far as "more scriptural" in terms of support of church-sent missionaries: for me it would be doing away with the entire salaried missionary system supported through the secretary-treasurer. Let the association (council) simply make recommendations to the churches and let the churches decide in their business meetings whom they will support and support them directly.
On your second point, I don't think I have one answer that can be applied to all. I don't even know what missionary logistics is. Sounds like an imposed problem. As far as disaster relief, I don't think that would interfere with the Great Commission, and might be done by individual Christians as well as Christians working together. Seminaries are a good example of taking the teaching ministry given to the church and creating another organization to do it. Sunday School is usually just a badly-chosen name for a church's studying the Bible together. Then there are those who are not satisfied to just study the Bible together and have to dress it up.
JamesCharles,
I believe it is a good thing to I ask for clearer definition of terms, but as I note it can also be vague in the sense of trying to use the word to get to the heart of the differences. I don't really care what terms are used so much. It is probably best to look at each individual thing that someone might call a "program" and then discuss whether or not one thinks it is scriptural. Initially I used self-perpetuating and self-promoting in reference to Discovery or Awana, not "self-entities". Awana is an actual entity, an organization that supplies the material for the Awana program. So far as I know, Discovery is a "program", patterned after Awana, that is owned by the ABA. Is that correct? If so, those words probably don't describe it as well as they do Awana.
Bro. Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteYou gave an example of an association that you believe would be more scriptural: making only recommendations with no setting of salary at the general level and then the decisions actually being made in church business meetings. Is that the plan followed by the Interstate and Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association? In fact, the churches in that fellowship used to be in the ABA until right after the BMA-ABA split. What are the differences between ABA and the Faithway Baptists? I know that they practice foot washing. I think you have mentioned that they anoint with oil?
Also, I'm sure you have heard of the proposal to the Mission Policy made by Bro. Brooks and others that would take all phases of directing of the work of missionaries including salary and the provisions for paid vacations, etc. for the missionary and put it back under the sponsoring church. Do you see that as a move in the right direction? I think there are way too many "policies". They are supposed to be guidelines only and not a law, but it says that the missionary is expected to follow it. There is more ways to lord over a missionary than to actually be his employer and supervisor. Setting a monetary provision for how many revivals he can hold or for a paid vacation indirectly influences the missionary's work. Do you get the Missionary Baptist News? Did you see the article in the February issue by the chairman of the Missionary Committee, Bro. Paul Vance? Reading it you would think we are under a board system rather than simply a committee elected to serve the churches. I am working on a possible post analyzing the article.
Too many think that church autonomy, independence, etc. is all there is to an association fellowship. The old, if you don't like it you are free to leave it. True Baptists, however, also believe in church sovereignty: that the church is the sovereign unit in kingdom work.
That no man, no board, no committee, no association can tell a church of the living God what to do.
ReplyDeleteAlso, probably a better, more recognizable word for AWANA than "self-perpetuating" and "self-promoting" would be "para-church", or not owned by any church.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Brother Vaughn, I don't see the difference between AWANA literature, Discovery Literature, or Sunday School literature as being "self-perpetuating" and "self-promoting". The Sunday School books say "don't forget to order your next quarter's lessons..." I just don't understand where the distinction is made between using one literature purchased outside of the church, and another kind of literature. Truth is truth. If the majority of it is truth and it does not depart from any major doctrines, I don't understand why it is wrong to use it.
ReplyDeleteBrother Younglandmarker, if I'm not mistaken, when you purchase a dictionary and use a definition from it in your sermon, is this not using "para-church" literature? If you use a commentary written by a man, is it not "para-church" literature? If you use a song book, is this not "para-church" literature?
By the way, does anyone know if the Sunday School literature is "owned" or "sponsored" by a single church?
Lastly, I think if a church purchases AWANA literature, or Discovery literature, or Sunday School literature, the church DOES own it. It not only owns it, but can use it in any fashion it chooses. The only thing it does not have the right to do (with almost anything) is make copies and changes. This is not a doctrinal issue, but the law of the federal government which takes the view that a anything someone makes/creates is rightfully theirs, and so it cannot be changed without permission.
Bro. James,
ReplyDeleteAs to AWANA, the literature IS owned by AWANA, and only licensed to churches for use in their youth programs. In my post, I gave the fundamental doctrinal differences between what AWANA believes and what ABA churches believe and the Bible teaches. Furthermore, it is not sponsored by a church, therefore it is a para-church ministry.
Theoretically, the literature of the ABA is owned by all the churches. The Baptist Sunday School Committee is theoretically a sub-committee of the churches. As #20 in our doctrinal statement says, it is supposed to all be servants of, and under the control of, the churches.
As to copyrights, it is not a federal law that literature MUST be copyrighted. Look in the Heavenly Highway Hymns at #49, "When I See the Blood." The authors did not copyright the song so that churches would be totally free to use it as they saw fit.
Even if something isn't "copyrighted", if I write a book (and don't copy right it), it is still seen as my own personal property by the federal government. Trust me on this one. I've read through 430 pages of 8 font .3 margins copyright law. While I didn't understand it all, I did get very well that the federal government considers all works of art (including written documents) to be the owner of that work.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't believe me, try to take someone's uncopyrighted youtube song, change it up a bit, and then pass it off as your own without giving credit to the author.
Hello My Brothers
ReplyDeleteIf someone has already stated this please forgive me: I stopped reading about comment # 10.
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about AWANNA. Each New Testament church is a sovereign body. If a sovereign New Testament church decides to use this program it is their decision.
Love you my brothers,
Bro. Joey
Brother Melton,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I believe that for those ABA churches who want a youth program, then we offer a viable alternative in the Discovery program, so there is no excuse for going away from truth."
Does that mean that before Discovery was invented that there was no viable alternative to AWANA?
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Thanks Brother Louie. Great comment. Way to bring it back into perspective.
ReplyDeleteA church is not sovereign, only God is.
ReplyDeleteHence, a church does not have the right to do or use anything it so desires.
Truth must be proclaimed, whether or not any church decides to follow that truth.
Bro. Osgatharp,
ReplyDeleteMaybe that was a poor choice of words. The key is "for those who want a youth program." Maybe I should have said suitable. It has many of the same characteristics, yet with a more sound doctrinal foundation. A youth program is not essential to the functioning of the Lord's churches. I am not anti-program, which means I will evaluate each particular program and not write all of them off. However, churches used to be much more successful (IF you are judging solely on numbers) before there were any programs. You will find I am not trying to "market" the church, nor trying to assimilate worldly methods just to "attract" crowds. I see it, as I think I have said, similar to S.S., or maybe more similarly, VBS. You would find that I am against probably against most if not all the same trends that you are against.
The Christian education and discipleship of the youth of the church are the responsibilities of the church, not a program, curriculum, or literature. Programs, curriculum and literature may be good tools, but if you are depending on the tools to do the job, you've planned for failure.
ReplyDeletejll3 said...
ReplyDeleteA church is not sovereign, only God is.
Hence, a church does not have the right to do or use anything it so desires.
by sovereign we mean that no Church or association or "program" like AWANA can tell another Church what to do. Each and every Church is BOUND to the Word of God and cannot change the truth.
A youth program must be "sound" if it is to be used in the Church.
For the ignorant who feel the Word of God is the only thing that should be used and to use anything else makes you a heretic and the Lord removing the candlestick becasue we are trusting more in God than man answer this...
2 Timothy 4:13
(13) The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
Should Paul be ridiculed and branded a heretic because he wanted BOOKS to go along with the parchments or the Scriptures? What could those books have been about?
Big J,
ReplyDeletesays...
"For the ignorant who feel the Word of God is the only thing that should be used..."
Are these the words you really desire to use?
Is God's Word not sufficient? Just the teaching of it? If one just uses God's Word, then only God will get the glory.
Or do we want AWANA to get the glory? Surely AWANA puts the scriptures together better than God. Surely, AWANA adds to God's Word and they are wiser than God.
I understand that discussions such as this can get into the realm of ridiculousness in trying to argue one's point. ---- I guess the "cloke" could be said to be heretical.
We could say that since we are not using "parchments", then we are being heretical. One could go on and on, from one viewpoint to the other.
However, we all have something to learn. Another, however, is that man can never, never improve upon the simple teaching of God's Word. That is the power of God. I seriously doubt that Timothy had AWANA or Discovery when Paul referred to him in 2 Timothy 3:15.
Brother Melton,
ReplyDeleteYou asked if making only recommendations with no setting of salary then the decisions actually being made in church business meetings is the plan followed by the Interstate and Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association. Yes, roughly. But there is no committee to make recommendations. It is more like a forum that allows any church in the association who sponsors a missionary to get that missionary before the messengers/congregation to be seen and heard. This is no vote of any kind on them at the association. As to what are the differences between ABA and the Faithway Baptists the main thing is that there are no salaries at all. There is no agreement entered into between churches and pastors or missionaries for any amount of pay. There are some that still practice anointing with oil, but not to an extent that it is a defining characteristic.
As far as the proposal to the Mission Policy that would take all phases of directing of the work of missionaries and put it back under the sponsoring church, yes, I would say that is a move in the right direction. There ARE way too many "policies", and then you have those who can't agree on whether they are just guidelines or rules that must be followed. I no longer receive the Missionary Baptist News. I let most of my subscriptions run out because I didn't have time to read the some 15 or so monthlies I was getting (And I deliberately canceled one local one because it made my blood pressure go up every time I looked at it. I still sneak a peak because my Mother gets it. Guess that defeats the purpose!). An interesting thing about the Missionary Committeeman you mention is that he grew up in an independent landmark missionary Baptist Church that did direct mission work.
Bro. JamesCharles,
Sunday School literature (or the owners of it) can be very self-promoting. Most who get into this are not content to just make a service available to the churches but campaign to be sure all the churches in association/convention/fellowship are buying & using it. Additionally, I may not be aware of what all goes on with Sunday School literature since we aren't using any, but I thought for the most part it is just Scripture commentary sans the fun & games, etc. Even so, there are a quite a churches where I have seen them study the Sunday School literature rather than studying the Bible. I guess we can mess up anything whether it is good, bad or neutral.
Bro. L.L.L.,
You wrote, "It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about AWANNA. Each New Testament church is a sovereign body. If a sovereign New Testament church decides to use this program it is their decision."
To put this in perspective, what if we were to say:
"It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about Mission Boards and Conventions. Each New Testament church is a sovereign body. If a sovereign New Testament church decides to do this it is their decision."
Or,
"It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about women preachers. Each New Testament church is a sovereign body. If a sovereign New Testament church decides to do this it is their decision."
jll3...I in way intended to imply that the Bible was not enough...look at the rest of that paragraph and you will see that I was speaking tongue in cheek...unless you do think that using AWANA or Discovery will cause the Lord to remove the candlestick.
ReplyDeleteMy question concerning the "other" materials that Paul wanted (specifically the books) was a reference to Paul using the Scripture plus some other "helps". If it was ok for Paul it is ok for me and the Church I am allowed to Pastor.
Bro. Melton I would like to question you concerning your "keys of the kingdom" comment. I am assuming that you refer to as the Lord's Churches we are able to bind and loose etc? That reference only has to do with binding and loosing Church membership, nothing else. We don't bind or loose the Bible or doctrine it is ALREADY bound and we don't have the right to add to it or take away from it.
A Church can use a curriculum if they so choose so long as they have qualified...sound teachers in the classes. Somebody who is able to "spit out the briers" as we say. I think that this falls under thier soverienty to do what is best for them and for the area in which they labor.
btw...I am a big fan of preparing my own youth curriculum and Sunday School material...but I have done and will do "again" a program or a certain material. IT just depends on how busy my plate is and the needs of my group. ALL OF IT WILL BE BIBLICALLY BASED though!
Bros. Vaughn and jll3,
ReplyDeleteExcellent points about church sovereignty. If a church in the Interstate and Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association differ only in the areas of footwashing and pastors' salaries, I would have no problems with them. While I believe both to be in error, neither would be to me a test of fellowship. Anointing of oil is another story.
Bro. Joey,
While church sovereignty AS WELL AS church independence (many emphasize the second and show little regard the first) are fundamental and cherished doctrines in associated fellowship, churches have the freedom to act, but we are "to observe all things whatsover I (Christ) have commanded" and "the keys of the kingdom" are not a blank check.
Church sovereignty should not be used to in effect say that what a church does "is nobody's business" or "let's not have a debate." We will answer to God as churches for whom we fellowshipped. Much of the New Testament is about speaking out about departures from the faith.
I’m actually a little shocked at your comment.
Love ya too brother.
Big J,
ReplyDeleteThat was the exact point of my comment. The Lord's churches only have executive power to carry out the principles of God's Word. They have no right to legislate, which is also what the other brothers (jll3 and R.L. Vaughn) were saying. Don't worry...I haven't gone Catholic. ;)
Perhaps someone here could give us a good dissertation on what the Bible actually teaches about youth programs. If we would go by that we couldn't possibly err nor open ourselves to any valid criticism from man or God. Anyone?
ReplyDeleteMark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Brother Osgatharp,
ReplyDeleteNot a dissertation, but seems to me we have the following considerations. We have neither command nor example for modern-style youth programs. This movement seems to be a tacit rejection of the concept that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, implying that there must be something more or different to reach young people. There is a discontentment that if we don't reach them with what God has given us then we must try something else rather than be satisfied that we have followed God's commandment (and if that something else doesn't work, then we try something else and something else and something else, ad infinitum). And there is a general rejection of the true "youth program" that God established -- parental authority.
Brother Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteHow could any Bible believing Baptist not say "amen" to that? Amen!
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Bro. Vaughn and Bro. Osgatharp,
ReplyDeleteI say "amen" to what Bro. Vaughn wrote.
Big J,
Sufficiency or pragmatism? Words and actions must meet up.
Brother Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone who uses AWANA or Discovery, or Sunday School literature would imply that a church MUST have such things. The major flaw with your argument lies not in the idea of "programs" (which again you say youth programs without any clarifications... youth ministers? youth workers? youth leaders? a specific design?, so I don't know how to address it), anyway as I was saying, the major flaw in your argument is that you are separating the gospel and the "program" of discovery. These "programs" are simply systematic ways of presenting the gospel, plus some games/object lessons suggested to help. Since church members are running/making decisions on how the "program" works on a daily basis including teaching, times, etc, then it really isn't relying on a "program" at all. A church member reads something, then presents the gospel as he sees fit, almost always using the Word of God.
As to the idea that a youth ministry is a departure from God's Word, I disagree highly. You agree that churches had multiple elders. The Bible does not specify how they were divided up. We can speculate with the dividing of deacons to certain widows that they were divided by physical classifications. It is purely speculation, but I am guessing a church can divide up the work between the elders however it so chooses (whether age level, race (Grecian/Hebrew), Bible knowledge via survey, gender, etc.) Since the Bible does leaves HOW to divide the work up between the elders (or how they were divided among the people), then I believe youth ministry is one valid possible option.
I don't know how you can honestly believe youth ministry is a departure from the concept of the gospel being the power of God to salvation, and rather not just another way of presenting the gospel. We ALL present the gospel in different ways, with different words, and different methods (depending on where we are, to whom we are speaking, etc.) "Programs" if I understand what we mean by this (AWANA and Discovery) are another way of presenting the gospel and the Word of God, so we can see that power of God work unto salvation.
Again, I prefer and if I have opportunity always do, make my own "program" and literature, so I don't have any bias towards AWANA or Discovery.
Brother Big J,
You are definitely right. If we assume the Bible is the ONLY thing needed to carry out the great commission, then we should speak monotone and pronounce every word the same. We should never pause, or expound. We should never move while in the pulpit, nor raise our hands. We should not raise our voices. We should not have set service-times. We should not have an "order of services" which is a program a church has designed. We should not use certain songbooks in worship services. We should not use a specific building. We ought to only meet together in random places at random times and read the Bible in a monotone fashion.
Instead the truth is we know that learning proper grammar, using certain voice inflections or volumes, certain motions, and order of services can certainly aid in the presentation of the Word of God. Just as we use these, we may use other literature helps, study helps, order of service (program) helps, etc.
So AMEN Brother Big J.
Brother Melton,
ReplyDeleteI think Brother L.L.L. was saying that one church has no right to tell any other church what to do or how to behave. We can preach the truth, we can reject "letters" or "baptisms". We can refuse to fellowship. Yet we can NEVER go tell a church what to do. Since the days of the apostles has ended, this would be universalism at its highest.
Brother Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteI'm also glad you brought out the point that the Bible is silent on youth programs, as well as funerals, modern-style wedding ceremonies, pulpits (as we have them), microphones, pianos, organs, hymn books, song books (save the Psalms), fellowship halls, sanctuaries, pews, podiums, air conditioning, and anything else we use that is silent concerning the Bible. The Bible also gives certain pastoral qualifications and duties, and yet we find ourselves doing more. We also find committees, boards, associations with names, and "worship services".
The scriptures are silent on many things. To me, this means the Bible is not specifying a design/layout/method of church work and presenting the gospel. The Bible allows this freedom so a church may operate the way it needs to in its own culture, without hindrances. If the Bible dictated a specific way ministry should be carried out (the method), it would make your case. It does not, though. We see very little about church "worship services" in the Bible... if any. We know they sang, and we know they prayed. We know they preached to the lost. But how much of your "worship service" would you find example or command in the Bible? I don't know about you, but I'd say not much. That's because (just like the type of clothing you wear), the Bible is silent. We could start wearing robes like Jesus, but the Bible is silent, giving us freedom to wear suits, or jeans, etc, whatever may be modest (moderate, not excessive).
Brother Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteI'm also glad you brought out the point that the Bible is silent on youth programs, as well as funerals, modern-style wedding ceremonies, pulpits (as we have them), microphones, pianos, organs, hymn books, song books (save the Psalms), fellowship halls, sanctuaries, pews, podiums, air conditioning, and anything else we use that is silent concerning the Bible. The Bible also gives certain pastoral qualifications and duties, and yet we find ourselves doing more. We also find committees, boards, associations with names, and "worship services".
The scriptures are silent on many things. To me, this means the Bible is not specifying a design/layout/method of church work and presenting the gospel. The Bible allows this freedom so a church may operate the way it needs to in its own culture, without hindrances. If the Bible dictated a specific way ministry should be carried out (the method), it would make your case. It does not, though. We see very little about church "worship services" in the Bible... if any. We know they sang, and we know they prayed. We know they preached to the lost. But how much of your "worship service" would you find example or command in the Bible? I don't know about you, but I'd say not much. That's because (just like the type of clothing you wear), the Bible is silent. We could start wearing robes like Jesus, but the Bible is silent, giving us freedom to wear suits, or jeans, etc, whatever may be modest (moderate, not excessive).
Brother Charles,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I don't think anyone who uses AWANA or Discovery, or Sunday School literature would imply that a church MUST have such things."
At the meeting when the ABA voted to pursue the development of the Discovery program, brother Ray O. Brooks stood up and said that "if we love our kids" we will do this. One year brother Curtis said the same thing about camp.
When we - thank God Almighty - voted the literature out of Lakeview Missionary Baptist Church - we had a large group of our people who left because they didn't think we could have church without literature. By the way, all but one family of those who left either joined the Southern Baptists or quit going to church altogether. Go figure!
The only thing I find that the Bible says we will do if we love our kids, or God, or anyone else, is keep God's commandment. As John said,
"This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments."
Since you frankly admit that none of these man made schemes are God's commandments then I rest my case.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Brother Charles,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"If the Bible dictated a specific way ministry should be carried out (the method), it would make your case. It does not, though."
Oh, but it does, most explicitly:
"After that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
Deal with it!
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Deal with it? OK..."foolishness of preaching"...does this have ANY reference to the manner of preaching?
ReplyDeleteCould not my youth workers use the program of Discovery as a "help" to better preach the Word of God?
Does not my Music Director "plan" an order of services to better prepare the heart for the preaching of God's Word?
For the life of me I do not understand your AVERSION to using something alongside your preaching.
I suppose your Biblical service would be turn in your Bibles to Psalm 45, now turn to Psalm 53 finally let us turn to Psalm 150. Now we shall recieve an offering (not found in the Bible though) and now it is time to preach...Turn to Matthew 5...we will now read through the 7th chapter let give you time to respond with an invitation (also not found in the Scripture) and go home.
There is no difference in using a hymnbook that exalts Jesus and a "help" that explains Jesus to go with the Word of God. Niether replaces the Bible, or preaching, they compliment the Scripture.
By “self-promoting” and “self-perpetuating”, I do not mean that the promoters are saying a church MUST have these “programs”. But the tendency is for them to become about the program rather than what the program was intended to do. Seminaries are a good example of this phenomenon. Hardly any Baptist would say that a preacher MUST attend seminary. But most of them won’t call a preacher who hasn’t had seminary training. And while in theory the seminary exists to minister to the preachers and churches, in fact many of them become “self-promoting” and “self-perpetuating” and it becomes about the seminary and finding people to support and attend for the continued existence of the seminary. Those who use AWANA, Discovery, or Sunday School literature never say that a church must have these things. But they do imply that the churches fare better with them, reach people that wouldn’t be reached otherwise, etc., or (like Brother Osgatharp references) “if you love…, then you will…”
ReplyDeletePlural elders is a clear example in the Bible. The Bible does not specify how they were divided up, because it does not specify that they were divided up. We only make that assumption because that is the way many folks do it today. What the Bible does specify is that the elders were preachers/teachers and they performed that function/ministry. Speculating that the deacons were divided to certain widows by physical classifications is purely speculation. But I would say it is worse than that – it speculates contrary to facts of the case. The problem was overload on the apostles and a complaint that some (the Grecians) were not properly, or equally, cared for. The appointing of the deacons was not to divide out any special cases, but to see that all were taken care of equally. So I would conclude that the dividing of churches into classes, youth groups, singles, “keenagers”, etc. is not treating the church equally but dividing them into special classes/groups contrary to the Acts 6 model.
Behind “youth programs” you will usually trace back to a mentality of “we need to have this to keep their interest,” regardless of how we define it. While considering defining “program”, perhaps we should consider defining “methods”? What is a method? Is preaching a method? Is using a method something like the difference between just standing in a pulpit or on someone’s front porch and telling them that Christ died for their sins, was buried and rose again versus inviting someone to the church house for a hamburger supper, a movie, and a gospel presentation afterward? Just what is a method?
Brother JamesCharles, some of the arguments you used are neither parallel nor logical rebuttals – e.g. “We could start wearing robes like Jesus”, and a few of them seem curious to me, to put it mildly – e.g. “If we assume the Bible is the ONLY thing needed to carry out the great commission, then we should speak monotone and pronounce every word the same.” If that is what you believe, then that is what you believe. But it bewrays a misunderstanding of the opposing argument. The call to New Testament practice as normative is not a call to return to the culture of the first century (light from candles, wearing tunics and sandals, traveling by foot, horseback & wagon, etc.). If Paul wore a toga & sandals and walked to church, that does not establish that practice for us. But instead we are talking about what the apostles taught & practiced and what the churches received – whether anti-cultural, semi-cultural or cultural. In other words, the things they received into their way of ministry, gathering, governing, teaching, evangelizing, etc. Paul's never insisted anyone wear sandals, but he insisted that the churches follow the apostolic pattern and his own example. “Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.” (cf. verses such as I Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1-2, 16; 14:33; Eph. 2:20; Phlp. 3:17; 4:9; II Thess. 2:15; 3:6-9; I Tim. 1:16; I Tim. 3:14-15; II Tim. 1:13)
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe I ever used the expression that the Bible is silent on youth programs – rather that there is neither command nor example for them. Just like there is no command or example for sprinkling; no command or example for Episcopal church government, etc. As to many other areas of “silence” where you find inconsistencies – such as funerals, modern-style wedding ceremonies, microphones, pianos, organs, hymn books, fellowship halls, sanctuaries, pews, podiums, air conditioning – I think we can easily see many of them are cultural items only peripheral to the way of ministry of a church. But rather that accept them all as proof of something or nothing, we would do well to examine each one individually in light of the word of God. With legal changes in the U.S., I expect it might not be long before Bible preachers have to reevaluate their participation in “modern-style wedding ceremonies”.
Some of us have a very different approach to the “silence” of Scripture. For awhile we seem to agree. If the Bible has command and example for immersion/baptism, then it is not “silent” on sprinkling and pouring being called baptism, but rather vocal. If the Bible has command and example for unleavened bread and fruit of the vine for the Lord’s Supper, then it is not “silent” on using milk and cookies for the Lord’s Supper, but rather vocal. We don’t require a command for “thou shalt not sprinkle and call it baptism” or “thou shalt not use milk and cookies for the Lord’s Supper”. Most Baptists feel that it is necessary to form their church government after the New Testament pattern, despite the fact that no command says they must do so. So why when we come to these other areas but we suddenly change horses in the middle of the stream? Why require there must be a “thou shalt not have this or that” or else the Bible is “silent” on it? Why do we stop going by the commands and examples we DO have?
Brother Mark Osgatharp - It appears to me that you are now making sense in such a way I can respond. Your arguments literally made no sense to me above, thus the ignoring. I did understand your second - to - most - recent post, though, so I'll not ignore it. I am sorry that some teach that the literature, or the program, MUST be used in a church, or rather that "if we love our youth..." I disagree totally, and I did not think people said things like this. I suppose it is because I am young and never have heard such. I've seen different churches use different literatures, and change literatures. I would expect any church to be open to changing on the spot as they see the need. I do not condemn, look down on, or think less of any church that doesn't use the literature or a specific kind. I believe, however, the literature/program I have made helped our church. I changed it as changes became necessary. I adapted it as need be. I made this literature in such a way as to help our church member teachers to preach of the Word of God to their classes. I ALWAYS preached a sermon (in the usual sense of the word), and then we used the literature afterwords for further expounding in smaller groups for discussion. The literature/program/method we used and changed on a periodic basis was "the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" as you quoted. So I don't have to "deal with" anything, since that is exactly what we did. And if you had read my previous posts, I think you would have noticed that I was referring to the specific method/way of preaching (ministering), not something outside of the preaching. Sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand ALL of what you are saying Brother Vaughn. I'm a little "off" my brain sometimes, and now is one of those times. Let me try to respond as best I can.
ReplyDelete#1 - I do think the norm in Acts was for people to be taken care of, except for the Grecian widows. I do think they divided up specific men to meet specific needs of a specific group of people, so that the entire church could receive equal treatment. I also think that since the "youth programs" or "methods" I've used (usually made by me) are just another way of preaching and being sure the entire church is equally treated. Calvary MBC in Hamburg actually had a method of preaching set up to where every church member who would come on Wednesday nights filled a position of ministering and preaching. It was set up so that the entire church could preach to all who came (young to old alike, though mostly it was young people who came). This, as I see it, is more biblical (the example of the church meeting together to preach) than the modern "worship services". I also do NOT believe we assume they were divided up because that is how it was done today. I've actually thought in every possible way in my mind how they could have done the work together, and dividing up is the only way that makes any sense. I don't see 12 preachers all preaching at the same time to the same group of people working. I don't see all twelve preachers visiting the houses together. It only makes sense to me (and I could be wrong) for ministers to divide up the work so they can get to know specific church members better, and help those specific ones. As you said, it is "speculative", but that does say one thing. It is speculative both ways. We don't know whether or not they divided up the work. This means that the idea they did is equally valid as the idea that they did not.
To be totally honest, fair, and unbiased, I did just recall a Scripture in my mind. The Bible DOES show that multiple elders should be called for a sick person. This still doesn't explain the preaching, but we do know that the elders did all show up as a group for sick people.
#2. The whole church government issue is a pattern we try to follow, because it is clear what the pattern was. The work of elders is not very clear in the Bible. As someone mentioned above, we only know that they are to preach the Word. We don't have any examples that show the methods used. We don't know if other parchments were used in preaching (as Brother Big J brought up). We don't know about the culture of that day. In other words, the command to preach the Word, and a few examples of sermons to the lost, do not show us HOW to preach. As far as examples go, I suppose the best example of preaching would be the write a letter to a church. Paul did it. Peter did it. Jesus did it (Rev 2,3). I just don't know how to explain this any better, and maybe I'm totally missing your point. I just don't see Bible examples of sermons in a church. I don't see "worship services" the way we have them in the Bible. So since I see no examples, I suppose the Bible is silent on this issue. If I saw a pattern, such as I do with church government, then I would concede to you. I just don't see this.
Suppose the "youth leader" in a church decides that AWANA is the way to go and proposes that the church start using it. Part of the church sees AWANA as a progressive step which will enable them to better reach their youth for Christ. The other part sees it as an unneeded fleshly innovation which will divide the church and detract from the preaching of the gospel. Both sides are entrenched and no amount of argument convinces the opposing sides.
ReplyDeleteHow, BIBLICALLY, can the church resolve this dilemma?
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Of all the questions this is the easiest to answer...when the vote is taken the side that is in the minority agrees to cooperate with the majority.
ReplyDeleteThis is basic Church work...not everyone agrees...that is life...but in the Church you show that you are a spiritually minded person by putting aside preferences and working together.
To get mad, huff and puff, throw a fit etc etc...is to show a carnal nature and one that is not honoring to the Lord or His Church.
Big J,
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify - are you saying that a minority who does not believe in AWANA is obligated to cooperate with it because the majority votes for it?
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
in a church covenant relationship...yes I am or (as with anything) they can quietly leave and find another place to worship.
ReplyDeleteRighteousness exalts itself...(quoted from someone I dont know who) if AWANA is of the devil then those who were against it will be proven right and prayerfully those who were for it would change thier minds and go away from AWANA
or
if AWANA proves to be a great accent to the youth work of the Church then those who were against it at the time of the vote would change thier minds and see that it was ok.
It is all about a covenant relationship in a Church (a family relationship) we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Brother J,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"in a church covenant relationship...yes I am or (as with anything) they can quietly leave and find another place to worship."
Where does the Bible justify dividing the body of Christ on a non-Biblical issue (assuming that AWANA is a non-Biblical issue)?
You said: "Righteousness exalts itself...(quoted from someone I dont know who) if AWANA is of the devil then those who were against it will be proven right and prayerfully those who were for it would change thier minds and go away from AWANA."
So you are saying that pragmatism - not the express commandment of the Scriptures - proves the validity or invalidity of a thing?
You said: "It is all about a covenant relationship in a Church (a family relationship)..."
The only covenant I know anything about is the covenant of God in Christ, which is grounded on the New Testament of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since I haven't found AWANA, or Discovery, in that I refuse to make either - or any other program - the basis of Christian fellowship.
You said: "...we can disagree without being disagreeable."
I don't know what "disagreeing without being disagreeable" means. If that means we should capitulate to something that we think is unwise, then I totally disagree. If you mean that we can express our disagreement without cursing one another, then I would agree.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
since you insist I will answer...
ReplyDeleteyou said...
"Where does the Bible justify dividing the body of Christ on a non-Biblical issue (assuming that AWANA is a non-Biblical issue)?"
Where does the scripture say a church vote must be 100%? If one person disagrees does that make the Church divided? How many votes in Churches have been taken that were passed with less than 100%? Why would this be a divisive issue so much to the point that a person felt the need to show thier tail and quit coming to the Church?
you said...
"So you are saying that pragmatism - not the express commandment of the Scriptures - proves the validity or invalidity of a thing?"
I am not sure what to say except that people in the majority CAN be wrong and what is right will eventually be seen as true. The cream rises to the top.
your comment concerning church covenant relationship must be a misunderstanding. I mean that a Church is a group of baptized believers in covenant relationship together...ie Matthew 18:20 the biblical definition of a Church. Unless you are not a Bible Believing baptist you understand what Church covenant relationship is.
Finally you said...
"I don't know what "disagreeing without being disagreeable" means. If that means we should capitulate to something that we think is unwise, then I totally disagree. If you mean that we can express our disagreement without cursing one another, then I would agree."
I think what it means is that if we don't agree with something we can state our opinion and the fact that we do not agree then we shut up and let God work it out...instead of being a hinderance to the work as a whole because it doesnt fit what we THINK is best. We don't become an antagonist or subversive in God's work.
btw...I also agree that we express our disagreement without cursing one another.
Bro. J,
ReplyDeleteWe can lay off of Bro. Osgatharp’s a bit because to his credit, he has been much more “disagreeing without being disagreeable” lately. He has a valid point: there is way too much capitulating being done in our churches, i.e., in the area of youth work and also in our associated work as a whole. I agree with you that if it is not a fundamental issue, then we should not tear up a church over it. However, if a God-called pastor can look over the registration packet for AWANA and swallow it, then God help him. Or if a pastor can watch his youth group go to a non-denominational conference, then God help him.
Bro. Vaughn,
Again, the problem I have with AWANA is one of doctrine and not with that particular type of youth program in general. I am one quite satisfied with a sing-pray-preach type of church myself, but also am not against a conservative church which has a fair amount of activities and a minimal amount of programs. A church you might be personally familiar with is the Timpson MBC, now pastored by Bro. Justin Coburn, but for almost 35 years by Bro. Sammy Eldredge. They have a youth program called KFC (Kids For Christ). They have a monthly meeting where they begin with a devotional by one of the members, a lesson by one of the sponsors, they have a time of fellowship, and also a game. This group of kids does a lot of good in the church and has also donated a lot of money to the Pine Springs Camp #1. One of the activities that they help to put on is the church’s Valentine Banquet. With all that being said, I think you probably know how conservative that church is, and it is one that you would hardly consider “program-oriented.” I am, like you, willing to examine each one on a case-by-case basis. My feeling is if a program exalts Jesus Christ and Scriptures, if it is not entertainment-focused, does not make an appeal to the flesh to try to attract people, and does not take the place or time of the preaching of the gospel, then perhaps it is permissible. There are programs being used today that I am certainly against. For instance, I am totally against taking hard rock music, changing the lyrics a little bit, and calling it Christian music. I don’t think it would fit the “in spirit and in truth” litmus test. Now if you say you are against Discovery because you feel that it focuses too much on entertainment through games, or appeals to the flesh through giving point rewards for Christian service, or that it exhibits a mentality of “if you have activities they will come”, etc. I can see your point of view quite clearly. However, when you put down everything from S.S. to seminaries (especially the one I attend which is quite conservative), to choir singing in a church, then you will lose those who would otherwise be on your side. You make the case that if it does not have “command and example” in Scripture, we should leave it alone. As Bro. James, I, and some others have pointed out, everything that we do does not have explicit mention in the Bible. To say that we use cars to “go” that are not found in the Bible is not condescending, but is an extreme example to show what such a point of view logically ends up. That being said, there are two (maybe three) very outstanding issues that hinder our personal fellowship. It has nothing to do with the aforementioned things. I have high respect for a man who will stand by his convictions (even if they are extreme) and will discuss them in a polite, Christian manner. I would rather someone err on the side of right than wrong. You are probably aware of the hindrances I am talking about because we have discussed these things in the past. If you would like, we can discuss them further: my e-mail address is jmelton75935@yahoo.com.
Brother Melton,
You said,
"We can lay off of Bro. Osgatharp’s a bit because to his cr