Cities--or Conservatives--Under Siege?

Bill Eichner 3 May 2001

An article running some two years ago in the Adventist Review (January 1999, pp. 8-13) entitled "Cities Under Siege" has come to my attention. Should you desire to, you can check the original article online at http://www.adventist.org/rhp/pdf/1999/1501-99.pdf. Let us recall several points. First, the general tenor of the piece is that of reaching the cities (particularly the larger ones) with the gospel message of salvation. The author describes the challenges of such a task, with an emphasis placed on our church's inability to perform them while persisting in our present mindsets. The author, Ron Halvorsen, Sr., compares the left (liberals) with the right (conservatives), concluding that each group lacks the ability to perform such a task. He dwells on the climate within each group. Jeremiah is cited as an example demonstrating the potential to succeed.

Along with Halvorsen's article we'll consider problems plaguing our church in this present age. The liberal/conservative divide is impacting God's church more pointedly than we've seen up to this point. Let's start with a look at the article by Ron Halvorsen, Sr. Then we'll weigh a personal experience. Combining our discoveries, perhaps we all will catch sight of the need to become more aware of our surroundings and wake out of our slumber.

Halvorsen states that "the church needs reformation," and that "the church rises no higher than the spiritual life of its leaders". Correctly he insists that the requirement for success is founded in "our own walk with God, our own prayer and study life." He next indicates that another criterion is "our own experience in worship". This last component is somewhat disconcerting to me. In the paragraph before he writes of God dealing " with a careless culture" and "a careless church." Why then leave the impression that one's decision about how to worship is left optionally to the worshiper? Only as our experience comes in line with God through prayer and study is it safe. Perhaps that is what Halvorsen meant to imply, but the following verbiage communicates otherwise.

Penning forth the problem, severe criticism is leveled against both the left (liberals) and the right (conservatives).

The left, Halvorsen declares, ". . . with its cunningly devised fables, has robbed us of the idea of the remnant, the idea of the gospel commission. There's no urgency in our evangelism, there's no urgency to go out and seek and save that which is lost." While I would agree that "cunningly devised fables" plague the left, I disagree that the left is not evangelistic driven. It is the manner in which they evangelize that is, to me, objectionable. This would be their "cunningly devised fables" as is expressed in their willingness to compromise, hoping to gain members by turning their blind eyes toward the influence of rock music, questionable Christian lifestyle, etc. They thus excuse laxness in following Biblical principles as the only way to gain the youth and worldly.

As condescending as Halvorsen is with the liberal left, his critique of the conservative right is much more aggressive. He refers to them as "sanctimonious," legalistic (as the Pharisees), and proclaiming another gospel. That not being enough, he goes on to expound that they are "archaic," clinging to the past with "self-righteousness" exceeding "even that of the Pharisees." Further, he states; "With their 'ascension suspenders' and their dresses dragging the ground, they go forth with a message to the twentieth century that is not heard, nor is it responded to." Still, making sure the point is made, he continues to communicate that the conservative is, "Living a monastic lifestyle, they don't understand the needs and problems of our culture, and they've tried desperately to force a nineteenth-century culture on the twentieth-century church." Instead of clinging to the past he believes we "should be moving toward a promising future."

Halvorsen denounces the short-comings of the "Historic Adventists" as fulfilling the for-mentioned criteria. What does that make of the beliefs of our forefathers? This thinking reminds me of a sermon I heard a year or so ago. One of the statements expressed went something like this: "If an 1800's person were to come into our service and be comfortable, we must be doing something wrong." Oh? Of the many "Historic Adventists" I know, I can think of none either legalistic or pharisaical--and certainly they are not preaching another gospel, unless one considers that our church founders did. If clinging to the past means to resist the culture of today, I say amen! Opening the floodgates of today's culture upon the church would be like the churches' moving into Sodom. Can anyone in their right mind view this as "a promising future"?

"Thus we find the church in crisis as we find the world in crisis," pronounces Halvorsen. Anyone with two working brain cells can agree on that one. So who is at fault? Is it the ones who believe in retaining the written Word or those who are exploring the culture of the here and now? Speaking of the here and now, Halvorsen relates an experience of an eight year old who died in his arms from an injected drug overdose. So what do we do? Give our young people rock music and Saturday Night Live-type entertainment sifted through the church to save them? This would teach them that worldliness is being anointed by the church. So, if they find equivalent entertainment on their own, they are just harmonizing with what the church has already taught them in church programs.

We know where that leads, to other youth of like culture, drugs, illicit sex and all that goes with that lifestyle. Are we reaching the youth or destroying them? Some may possibly end up as dead as that eight year old--and all because we taught them how to swing with the music and play with irreverent behavior. So again I ask, who is at fault? Is it the conservative teaching Biblical principles or the liberal incorporating today's culture into the church?

Halvorsen makes a good point when he explains the destitution in our cities. They, too, need missionaries as much as foreign countries. He writes of the lost in Harlem with all the crime, drugs and violence, and of the Gen-Xers with their sophistication, possessions and apparent wealth. How do we reach this diversity of people? Halvorsen outlines a four step program. Briefly they are as follows. First, make our people aware of the need. Second, pray and walk the city streets as did Jeremiah. Third, stop fighting, "over insignificant theological issues," and evangelize. (Since when are solid principles "insignificant theological issues"?) Finally, he suggests, stop the evacuation from our cities, stay and do the work.

While one would agree that we must expend our energies abundantly in reaching the lost, no matter where they are, there are several accouterments needing definition. How many will hear and repent? Not many, if I read the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy correctly. Numbers, however, should not be our primary goal. It is for us to give the message; it is the Holy Spirit that convicts. Too many times we try to temper the message with worldly frills for the larger numbers we hope to gain. Instead, we ought to be giving the uncensored message as the Prophets gave it. Look at Jonah for instance. He didn't mince any words, but those words cut to the quick and people repented. No whitewash given there. Should we be irresponsibly presumptuous? Of course not. Neither should we compromise.

What happened to the pulse-pounding Advent message we heard some thirty or more years ago? Some will say, "It was insensitive, too bold. We are afraid of offending someone." While we are not to go out of our way to offend, neither should we play with the message until we change it into something other than what it is. Do you think there could be a correlation between how many are baptized and those who go right out the back door? What appears on the surface may be different once one scratches beneath that surface. Can we baptize without commitment? It only discourages. When it is discovered who we really are how many leave us? Something even more sinister is happening. We are weakening our church by bringing the standard down to fit more comfortably into our society. A quick look at our churches shows this to be true with the dress, jewelry and pleasures our people partake of. Is it any wonder we are referred to as Laodiceans?

What would I suggest? Give the message as it reads, how our pioneers gave it. Stop changing our church to fit our culture. Quit playing with the canned programs from other denominations. Become serious with who we are. Indeed, we must not be ashamed of who we are. Get back to basics. The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are clear on these issues. Sad to say some of our own people don't even believe them anymore. The prevailing attitude of manufacturing new interpretations to fit what we would rather believe must vaporize. There was a time when our pastors were front-line theologians; sorry to say that few are anymore. Too many times they have sat at the feet of others filling their minds with despicable heresies in theology to receive coveted degrees. Sad to say some professors in our own schools of higher learning are guilty of teaching these heresies. Until we abandon playing with worldly game plans, we will continue to be crippled in our outreach wherever it may be.

Now I am going to share a personal experience. The names will be changed for obvious reasons. The setting was a pastor's forum (a meeting in which the pastor shares concerns and/or news with the congregation). The discussion centered on worship styles, particularly as practiced at the Oregon youth tent during campmeeting in the years in question. Pete, one of the elders, apologized for all the elders as to our disagreement over this issue. I stood and stated that; "Most of us were in agreement most of the year". Since that cut across Pete's point of view a huge issue was raised. It was suggested, in the meeting by Pete's friends, to "fire" all the elders and select new ones. After this meeting I was detained by one of Pete's friends (Tim).

With Tim's finger stuck in my face, I was informed that I was wrong in not conforming to Pete's point of view. In short, Pete considered anyone who questioned church authority akin to offending God by speaking against His anointed. Pete a few weeks prior, came up with the idea that our pastor should be likened to Moses and he (Pete) as Aaron. To question either one of them (pastor or Pete) should be compared to the disobedience of the Children of Israel. After being thoroughly chastised, again, I attempted leave. Pete's wife, (Patty) waylaid me and along with Pete and another friend (Duke) expounded further their points of view.

Patty informed me that if I were to look, listen or read any material from unauthorized sources I should consider resigning as a church elder. They were particularly upset about videos (produced by an independent) depicting youth activities in our conference. They believed them to be inaccurate even though it was shown that live rock bands preformed (also other questionable activities) at these youth gatherings. They appraised a video (produced by an independent), we had viewed earlier in the year, as being inaccurate in it's portrayal of the activities at the youth tent. The fact remains, when a video is recorded and you see it, it is hard to say that something didn't happen.

Interestingly, when at a later youth rally, when videotaping was again conducted, the police were called by a church official. Upon arrival, the police stated that it was a public gathering and there were no laws prohibiting taping of open meetings such as this one. There was a time when we were encouraged to tape our programs. What is wrong with this picture? Should this give us a wake up call?

How, you may ask, do I correlate my personal encounter above with Halvorsen's theme of evangelizing the cities? The problem is so noxious that few in the pew realize the toxicity in their church until it may well be beyond repair. Perhaps, this is why many churches have split in recent years. Time for sleeping is far past. The trends of liberalism have so entwined their cancerous tentacles within our midst that many cannot or will not see it's dangers. Let us make a few observations.

1. Even when shown the facts many will not believe there is a problem in worship styles. Some are so close-minded that they will not view, read or listen to opposing considerations. "Leadership is in control," they say, "it is sinful to question them." "We will consider only what leadership sanctions," they say. But this is a Catholic mindset--one that led into the dark ages. It seems to me that Communism has this same type of mindset as well. Cannot history teach us anything?
2. Articles, such as Halvorsen's, sound good on the surface. After all shouldn't we all just get along, put our differences aside and move forward to evangelize? But what they are saying is, as long as you do it their way. Their way usually has a few hooks in it and they are not fundamentally the way our church pioneers have taught. Be vigilant, if the new and different is in conflict with the way God has led in the past, shouldn't we fear to move forward with it?
3. Those who choose only to be followers are in grievous danger, eating up the inventive wave of contemporary beliefs. While articles, books and tapes of liberalism are being promoted, those of conservatives (in many cases the beliefs that our pioneers taught) are being banned. Books such as Women in Ministry are being promoted, (only those that agreed with women's ordination could author chapters) while Prove All Things (the opposing view) are being excluded. We can buy tapes of "Christian Rock and Roll," in our book centers, but little is usually found of those materials disagreeing with the view of those promoting the new music.
4. Censoring is becoming ever more prevalent while the belief that it is actually taking place is diminishing in the minds of many. Sometimes this censoring is subtle, other times it is more blatant. Defending their stand (to censor) people are saying, "Eve looked, listened and fell so we must guard our minds." But who is to be the guardian? Who is ultimately responsible for you (i.e. what you learn, take into your minds), you yourself or another person? Who has the right to dictate to you what you read or view? Not even God takes that from you.

Is it safe for you to permit church leaders to make those decisions for you? Some would say, yes. They have told me so. But some of us value our freedom of thought too much to permit the blank-check imposition of only one-sided revisionism being placed upon ourselves. While we can consider the views and opinions of others, their ideas must, in the end, gel with God's principles or be discarded. Don't ever let anyone take that from you. Remember, even God gives us the freedom of choice. Should we give that choice to another?

In conclusion let me state a line from an old pastor, Elder McKeown (now deceased). Near the end of his sermons he would state, "Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself." You see, he had nothing to hide. His presentations were true to the Word. He had nothing to fear if we went home and "looked it up for ourselves." Only those who have a hidden agenda have to fear, telling us; "Don't look, read, listen or tape anything we don't give you permission to." When you hear sentiments such as this, be suspicions. May the red lights in our brains flash, "emergency!"

Let us refuse to submit to the attempt to pull the blinds over our eyes. Two gospels run side-by-side in the church today. One speaks to our human nature telling us; "You may sin, live, play your happy tunes and celebrate." The second speaks as that still small voice; "Purge the sin in your lives, be reverent and watchful in the expectation for our Lord's soon return." The first speaks to the instant gratification of our carnal nature. The second is speaking to our spiritual nature, as bestowed by Christ, calling us to patiently wait upon Him. We know how this second one flies in the face of the secular society we live in today. May God's grace, courage and peace rest upon us in this time of seige.