Part One     Part Two.

For some, the idea of God not directly talking to them means that God doesn’t speak to them at all, so they won’t get the guidance in their Christian lives necessary for knowing the individual will of God. Since it seems like an attack on their Christian lives, they become defensive.  They aren’t happy with someone saying that God isn’t still talking to them.  In this case, that might be me.  They reject the thought of God not talking to them in this direct manner and then relegate those who disagree to people who will cause them failure in their Christian lives.

I want to take one very normal situation from start to finish where people will say God talked to them to explain the wrong thing being said and then what people should really expect according to scripture.  The situation I will explore on this subject is someone who says God told him to go to France as a missionary.  Perhaps the terminology he uses is “God called me to France.”  He knows he is supposed to go to France as a missionary because “God called him to go there.”  Since the words “go to France” aren’t in the Bible, the thought here is that God communicated that to him directly.  In many, if not most, instances today, the thought of God speaking like that isn’t questioned.

Related to the topic of where one goes as a missionary, I have seen this call to the field for church leaders to be the most important aspect for a missionary. I hear people say that this call is what will keep a person on the field and translate to successful missionary service on that particular mission field.  On the other hand, if he doesn’t have the call, he might fail, and if he does, it will be because he wasn’t called.  This is another example within the category of God speaking directly to someone.  A person says that God told him where to go.

Very often people don’t want their experienced questioned.  They don’t want someone rejecting their claim that God talked to them.  It’s very personal to them.  They might be upset or angry, so others will not question it.  The only proof that God spoke to them, however, is that they say that God spoke to them.  No one else heard it or saw it.  They expect you just to believe what they say that they experienced in their head.

In my hypothetical, I am saying that someone says that God told him to go to France.  That’s how he knows he is supposed to go there.  If that isn’t true for someone, how should it occur that someone would know he should go to France, if he’s supposed to go there as a missionary?

It isn’t wrong for someone to go to France as an evangelist or the more modern term, missionary.  If someone wants to go there, that isn’t wrong.  Should he go just because he wants?  Why is it that he wants to go evangelize France?

Here are biblical reasons why he could go.  Every Word of God and All the Words of God are inspired.  They are sufficient.  France hasn’t had the gospel preached to everyone.  Not everyone is going to hear the gospel in France because there are not enough believers in France preaching the gospel to the French people. An evangelist can go to France.  It’s open to go there.  He has learned French or he has learned enough French fast enough to show his commitment to learning it.  He can preach the gospel to people in the French language.  He doesn’t have to explain why he wants to go there.  He wants to go.

Does the desire to go to France proceed from the Holy Spirit talking to him?  That shouldn’t be the explanation.  It’s good enough that he wants to go.  Someone should tell him all the negatives one has heard about France, and find out if he still wants to go.  It’s fine that he just wants to.  Some people will apply a term to this.  He is burdened to go to France.  That’s fine.  He wants to see the French people saved.  He wants to go to France to evangelize them.  It bothers him there is so little evangelism there.

Consider 1 Corinthians 7:39 with me:  “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”  The verse doesn’t say she marries someone who God tells her.  She is “to be married to whom she will” — “whom she will.”  She can marry whoever she wants, “only in the Lord.”  As this applies to the man who wants to go France, he can go to France if he wants to go to France with certain biblical parameters.

1 Corinthians 6-10 is a section in 1 Corinthians on Christian liberty.  The woman has liberty to marry whom she will in the Lord.  She is not regulated by any scripture from doing what she wants as long as it doesn’t violate scripture.  God gives us liberty.  That is a blessing from God.  Someone has the liberty to go to France if he wants, again, with some scriptural parameters.

Is the the Holy Spirit related to his wanting to go to France?  It can be the Holy Spirit.  The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Eph 6:17).  The Holy Spirit speaks through the Word of God.  The following are the Holy Spirit speaking.  The Holy Spirit said to preach the gospel to everyone.  The Holy Spirit said to enter doors of evangelism that are open.  The Holy Spirit says to go to other nations. The Holy Spirit wants everyone to be saved, including French people.

If someone is to go to France as an evangelist, a church should send him.  “How shall they preach unless they be sent?”  If we are regulated by scriptural example, we see that men did not operate as free agents.  They were sent by churches.  A church should determine if he is qualified, lay hands on him, and send him.  He knows he’s supposed to go because a church sends him.  How does the church know he should go?  Many biblical factors come into the decision.  The agreement of a church is an important facet of the “unity of the Spirit” (Eph 4:3).  The church is the temple of God where the Holy Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16).  The Holy Spirit leads through the authority of a church.

First, he should show biblical evidence that he is himself saved.  The people of a church should witness his biblical lifestyle, which evinces true conversion.  This would include being baptized into the membership of his church.

Second, he should show himself to be faithful in his church.  He should be substantial and solid in biblical doctrine, knowing the teachings of scripture.  He should manifest eagerness to serve the Lord in a number of different ways, including regular evangelism, following up with discipleship.  If he can’t or won’t do it here, then he won’t do it there.  This would include fulfilling all scriptural qualifications.  He should prove himself at this for a period of time.

Third, he has to be able to pay for it in some manner.  Lots of references from the New Testament indicate some plan for living.  If he has a family, that would include obeying all the passages on taking care of a family.  If churches of like faith and practice want to take him on for support, that might be a way.  If he has the capacity to “tent make,” that’s another way.  Today we mainly see the former, but in the Bible, we mainly see the latter.

Once a man gets to France within all the scriptural parameters, as long as the biblical teachings and principles are followed, he should stay there until he has finished the work there.  He has a biblical goal.  He can express that goal.  He should go about practicing it.  He should continue with accountability to the church like we see evinced by the New Testament.  He should come home only if his church wants him to come home.  We have a basis in the Bible for not giving up once he has started there.  However, that does not mean he will never leave France.  Jesus went to certain Samaritan towns, which totally rejected His free offer of the gospel.  He dusted His feet of them. Someone who goes to France might find himself doing the same.  The Holy Spirit won’t say that to him directly.  He will be obeying the example of Jesus.

Much more could be written about this subject, but this is enough for now to bring biblical comprehension to the subject of God talking to someone as it pertains to this one situation.  All like situations would be very, very similar to this one.  God is not talking directly to someone.  God speaks through scripture.

God’s revelation is complete.  Except through scripture, He isn’t speaking to anyone.

You have people who say revelation is complete. They say they are not continuationists. Not. Instead they are cessationists, which is to say that God isn’t speaking any more.  God was speaking. Was. He spoke to Paul and other apostles. He isn’t anymore. Scripture is complete.  It is enough.  Those people say they believe that.

People have a decision to make of varying degrees of importance all the way down to paper or plastic.  In making the decision, they say that God spoke to them.  He told them what to do.

But the people said that God wasn’t speaking anymore.  This is a contradiction.  This is where someone, maybe me, should say that “you can’t have it both ways.”  God is either not speaking anymore or He is still speaking.  It can’t be both.

On one hand people will say that they are cessationists.  One the other hand the same people say that God still speaks to them.

In many instances, people who say they are cessationists still use passages where God speaks to prophets or apostles as a basis for God speaking to them today.  Those prophets and apostles did not have the completed, written Word of God.  God was still speaking to people.  Those texts or passages of scripture are not normative for today.  There is no lesson in them about God speaking today still to people.  God was still speaking directly to people until the Word of God was complete in the first century.

To make decisions today, people should not expect God to speak to them.  If they do hear a voice, they should not consider it to be God speaking to them.  There is no way to know if it is God speaking to them, no validation for that.  The apostles had validation.  They had signs and wonders. Sign gifts have ceased.

What is the validation to people, who say they are cessationists, that God is speaking to them today? I’ve heard several and none of them are scriptural.  Not necessarily in any order, but first, they say they are receiving God’s blessing, so it must be God speaking.  Second, they say that they have seen tremendous evangelistic results, so it must be God speaking.  Third, they say that they are a very, very good Christian by many other’s opinion, so it must be God speaking.  Fourth, they say God hasn’t killed them, so He must not be unhappy, so it must be God speaking.  Fifth, they say that they are seeing answers to prayer, so it must be God speaking.  Sixth, they say that other people are saying that it must be God speaking to them.  Seventh, they say that they prayed really long and hard for God to speak, so He must be speaking to them, because God answers prayer.  Eighth, they say God must be speaking, because after He spoke, what God said to do worked out very, very well.

There are probably more “validations” than the above list of eight.  What really undoes all eight of them and any others is that God isn’t speaking to people any more.  God said He was done speaking in His Word, which is validated (actually validated).  God confirmed His Word and then said He was done, because His Word was finished.

I’m not happy when I hear someone say that God spoke to them.  I don’t believe God spoke to them.

We should read the Bible, study the Bible, and then obey the Bible.  For decisions in our individual will of God, we should apply biblical principles.  Areas that are non-scriptural, where the Bible doesn’t speak, we have liberty.  Again, we use biblical principles to make the best decision we can. We should be satisfied with that.

Today when you want to know what God wants you to do, how do you know or how do you find out? You’ve got the Bible, but it doesn’t tell you whether it’s time to replace your carpet or not.  If you can’t find the information in the Bible, then how do you know?  How do you make decisions in areas where the Bible does not speak?

A very common belief among professing Christians today is that God still speaks to them to reveal their individual will of God.  I’m saying that they think they are getting direct messages from God, spoken to them in their heads.  Many describe this voice or speaking as the still small voice, taken from 1 Kings 19:11-12.  Elijah the prophet received “the still small voice.”  Prophets and apostles have received direct revelation from God.  The 1 Kings text doesn’t provide a basis for believing that God still speaks to you in your head, guiding you in His individual will for you.

If someone hears a voice, something he thinks is telling him to do something, what is that?  Perhaps first, is something supernatural even happening with the voice someone hears in his head or thinks he hears?  Many claim to hear it.

My dealing with people’s experiences, whether dreams or visions or voices, is not to reject the experiences.  I can’t prove someone didn’t have an experience.  To many, I think it’s true, perception is reality.  They perceive it, so it’s real.  Whatever is the experience must be judged by scripture.  This would be to test the spirits, that John talked about in his epistle.

Should we believe that God is talking to someone?  God spoke to and through the apostles, and there are no more apostles.  The total number of apostles is 12, as seen in many places, including the book of Revelation, and the last of them died in the first century.  The Word of God is complete, once and for all delivered.  God does still talk through His written Word.  The Holy Spirit works through the written Word of God.  Except through the written Word, we should not believe that God is talking to someone.

If God isn’t speaking to someone directly, what is that voice that someone hears?  There are only four possibilities.  First, someone is talking to himself.  Second, it is either the excusing or accusing of the conscience.  Third, the Holy Spirit is working through the written Word of God.  Fourth, the devil or a demon are doing something.

How does someone know which of the four is the voice he hears?  There isn’t a basis for knowing what or who the voice is that someone hears.   What matters is that someone is obedient to the Word of God by understanding and then applying it.

If someone says, God spoke to me and told me, should we believe it?  It really depends on what someone means, but the statement is so ambiguous that it is either a falsehood or at least dangerous.  Most people don’t think they mean one of the four possibilities above.  They think they mean the actual voice of God, God actually speaking.  It’s not true, but it could be very useful.

Why or how is the voice in the head, said to be God speaking, useful?  Some of the ways it is useful I’ve actually seen.  This doesn’t mean it is good.  First, when people believe God tells this person things, he has unique authority.   He can tell them God told him to build a building, God gave him a message, and more.  They’ve got to listen to him and do what he says or they are disobeying God.  He has instant power with this.

Second, when someone is hearing God’s direct voice in his head, he is a better Christian than others. He’s got something others don’t have.  Third, when he says that God told him something, people can’t question that.  He’s got a built in excuse for doing things he might want to do.  He’s justified by the voice.  Fourth, if someone doesn’t like what he’s doing, he can just say God told him to do something else.  Now it’s not because he doesn’t like it or it wasn’t succeeding, but because God told him.  He’s got to do what God told him, right?  A pastor shuts it down where he’s lost interest, and tells his congregation God is telling him to go elsewhere.   The church, accustomed to hearing other messages given to him directly from God, gives in to that plan.  He’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.  Fifth, someone preaches a sermon he says he got from God, and even though it isn’t biblical, it is accepted as biblical.  It’s easier to come up with sermons that have popped into your brain.

In many different ways, the voice in the head is validated as God speaking.  A person is a really, really good Christian, very spiritual, so when he says God speaks, people feel awkward questioning it.  If he wasn’t hearing from God, he’d be a bad Christian, it seems.  Lots of people hear the voice, and so many people can’t all be wrong.  The apostles heard the voice, and we’re supposed to obey the Bible.  Was the Christianity of the apostles just for their day?  Someone shouldn’t settle for a Christianity different than the apostles.  They heard the voice.  You can hear the voice.  The person hearing the voice also sees great numeric success.  Where did that come from, if the voice wasn’t legitimate?  The person hearing the voice holds unique sway over people.  From where does that sway originate if not God?

The more unbiblical messages and actions that come from a voice in the head, the further people get away from depending what God did say.  Traditions take on divine authority.  Success validates the voice and perpetuates more extra-scriptural activity.  The voice undermines the sufficiency of scripture.  It detracts from biblical discernment.  Faith comes from the Word, not a voice, so it isn’t faith.  When the Bible isn’t enough, God isn’t pleased.  He isn’t being believed.

The direct voice in the head is not how someone knows the individual will of God.  He relies on biblical principle and Christian liberty.  He is sent to scripture to better know it to better apply it.  Within the perimeter of biblical principle, he has liberty to do what he wills.  God gives that liberty.  He wants people to have it.

If there is a direct voice, why does it only appear at certain times and in a random way?  If someone goes through the grocery store, shouldn’t he look for direct revelation for the best can of beans?  The model of the next car should pop into the head.  Instead of GPS, God literally directs the path.  Right turn here, left there — why?  God said.  That’s not how the Christian life is to be lived.

Many of you reading this know that what I’m describing is rampant among professing Christians today.

Satan is the Father of lies (John 8:44) and as the prince of this world, he rules a world of lies.  The lies fool most of the people almost all of the time.  It’s worse than ever.

Someone hacked the emails of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), gave them to Wikileaks, who dropped them on the first day of the Democrat National Convention.  The emails revealed at least a DNC conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, rigging the primary against him, and then collusion of the mainstream media with the Democrat Party.  Anyone who cared already knew the reality of both the conspiracy and the collusion — facts however denied by the type of people who wrote the emails.  To start, Democrats already lie about the conspiracy and collusion like much of everything else they lie about, so they got caught, right?

As soon as Wikileaks published the emails, the spin from Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, was that the Russians hacked and then leaked the emails because they want Trump to win, another lie.  When asked how he knew this, Mook said “experts” were saying that.  He was just repeating the experts.  When asked who those experts were, he gave no answer.  More lies.  The media colluded with the Clintons by continuing the story of a Russian conspiracy.  This is has been the talking point in the media since then, turning the story from a DNC conspiracy and collusion to the Russians messing with a U.S. election [the latest:  Trump jokes about Russia finding Hillary’s 30,000 emails, and CNN reports that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack Hillary Clinton — speaking of a clown car].

Julian Assange laughed at the Russian conspiracy theory.  He said that the DNC has admitted they’ve been hacked many times.  No one needed the Russians for that.  As an aside, why would anyone think now that Hillary Clinton’s personal server wasn’t hacked if the DNC had been hacked?  Wikileaks published the emails, not Russia. The leaker himself, Julian Assange, professes the leak.  Everyone know he’s the leak.  Nothing is more patently obvious than Wikileaks leaking.  Professional leakers at Wikileaks leaked.  The DNC says it’s the Russians and they keep repeating this lie.  They know their audience — extremely gullible.

I had never ever listened to one Bernie Sanders speech, not even a small percentage of one.  On Monday night, I listened to about half of Elizabeth Warren’s speech and then half of Bernie’s.  Warren wrote a speech that anticipated a supportive crowd and without that, it was painful.  She herself is painful to watch.  I had never heard a speech from her, and I really don’t get her popularity.  I do know she herself lied at least half a dozen times in the short time I watched her.  She lies with tremendous ease.   Incidentally, she looks nothing like an American Indian, one of her claims, another lie.  I started watching Bernie’s speech because after watching part of Warren’s, I was wondering how or if he could bring the convention back from a dangerous precipice.

As rigged as the election has been against Bernie Sanders, his entire worldview is an elaborate lie. What he spews forth could never work.  Like Margaret Thatcher famously said, ‘he would soon run out of other people’s money.’  Sanders is a liar of the Henry Hill variety, who is selling everyone on a boys band, yet he doesn’t know a lick of music.  He offers everyone about everything they would ever want with no possible way of accomplishing it.  He did it again in his speech and said that Hillary is the best possibility left to redistribute all the free handouts.

In the midst of his speech, Sanders said that Hillary Clinton believes the scientists on climate change. No one needs a scientist to observe climate change.  Climate changes.  However, the scientists she believes, as is so often the case, start with a false presupposition and then rig the “evidence” to bolster that presupposition, actually sounding very much like the nomination of Hillary Clinton.  Most of what every speaker says to promote her is lying.

Most churches in the world play the same type of charade that the DNC is doing at its convention. Bernie Sanders in his speech touted Clinton as a champion of diversity.  The DNC divides Americans with identity politics and calls it diversity.  Most churches pander to members and constituents by accepting diversity in belief and practice.  Come how you are.  Worship how you feel.  Almost everything is tolerated.

What’s wrong with the United States?   The gospel must be freely offered, attempted to be preached, to everyone.  The gospel is the solution.  It must be the gospel though.  The gospel isn’t being preached much.  Believers are often ashamed of the gospel, the actual gospel.  I’m not saying they aren’t ashamed of their successful church growth methods.  They love those.

After the obvious first explanation, the gospel, the problem, as I see it, is the inability to point out what’s wrong.  There is so much toleration of error, because men are uncertain about absolute truth. You can’t tell anyone they’re wrong today.  They don’t want to hear it.  They don’t think you should be saying it, because no one can really know for sure.  This is diversity, by the way.  You accept it.  It’s diverse.  We need diversity.  No, it’s wrong.  It’s sin.  It’s ungodly.  If people aren’t sure about the Bible, which they’re not, not sure they can know it or apply it, then no one can or should be judged.

The only acceptable truth is that everyone is accepted, everyone except the intolerant.  I think the North Carolina bathroom law is insufficient. However, look how serious professional basketball is about it.  They removed the NBA all star game from Charlotte because of the intolerance of transgender bathrooms in the state of North Carolina.

The message to police today is that you must tolerate certain behavior.  If you live in an urban area, like I do, and you get out every day, which I do, then you see bad behavior every day.  I could write a very thick book on it.  Anyone who lives in a place like I do, knows this.  If you say anything, you’re in trouble.  You’re the one in the wrong.  People are afraid to say or do anything, except for people with bad behavior.  The people with the bad behavior are more and more bold, because they feel less threatened than ever for behaving like they do.  This started with churches who won’t tell people that they’re wrong. It’s antithetical to church growth.  If the churches won’t stand, then no one should expect anyone to stand, especially the Democrat National Committee.

Three words came out of the Republican National Convention the most memorable and controversial: “Vote Your Conscience.”  I’m sure that I’ve never heard those three words used more.  I became curious to their usage and meaning.  At Google books, “vote your conscience” occurs 2,810 times. Before the year 2000, “vote your conscience” appears there 15 times.  That leaves 2,795 times the year 2000 up until today.  This phrase was not in popular usage until after 2000.  Why wasn’t it used before?  More than ever, people don’t understand the conscience.  When they did, they didn’t say “vote your conscience.”  In a day when the conscience means the least, it is used the most.

From Kent Brandenburg:  Our other pastor, Dave Sutton, and one other man who also teaches in our school, Bethel Christian Academy, traveled to Moscow, Idaho last week to attend the Annual Summer Training of the Logos School, the school founded by Douglas Wilson, whom some call the father of modern Christian classical education.  I asked Pastor Sutton if he wouldn’t mind giving a critique or review of the time there, because I thought it would be of interest to our readers.  By the way, although this is unusual for us, we don’t view attending a conference such as this to be scriptural fellowship.  We are not working or cooperating with Logos or Christ Church in church ministry.  Dave Sutton said there seemed to be about 200 in attendance.  There is a lot someone could get from what Wilson and the Logos School do there, but I asked Dave if he would especially focus on what he mainly saw was different from us.

By Pastor David Sutton

Last week I attended the teacher’s and administrator’s conference hosted by the Logos School in Moscow, Idaho.  I am sure most people who read this blog recognize the name Douglas Wilson, who was one of the founders of this school.  It is a classical Christian school.  I have read Wilson’s books on classical Christian education, and several years ago a friend invited me to spend several days observing the content and teaching methods of his Christian school, which is also classical in its approach

I have to admit that I am impressed with the thinking and reasoning skills of students who are classically trained.  So one of our teachers and I went to the conference to glean from what Logos does.  The conference was extremely organized; and the speakers were thoughtful, helpful, and obviously intelligent.  They do a lot well, and I learned things both educationally and administratively from them.

I went to the conference knowing that our church is very different from the beliefs and practices that Douglas Wilson and those around him have.  However, I do know they are thinking people, and I figured I would benefit from their insight into education.  At the same time, I wanted to get a better grasp on classical education, and identify what really makes it tick.  What I gleaned from my conversations with the school leadership is that worldview is essential.  I know how I look at the world and how a Christian is to think and what life is to be based on; so okay, let me see your worldview.  I’m ready.   Here’s my observation:

First, they spend more time quoting C.S. Lewis, Herodotus, or some other classical scholar than they do Jesus, Paul, or anybody else in Scripture.  I’m not saying that they used zero Scripture: they did use Scripture; but the Bible was not the focus of their system.  They use the Trivium model of instruction as outlined by Dorothy Sayers in her article The Lost Tools of Learning.  (The three stages of learning are the grammar stage, the logic stage, and the rhetoric stage.)  These stages correspond to the learning sequence of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom found in Proverbs 2:1-6 and 4:5-7.  Dorothy Sayers may have recognized through observation the sequence Solomon wrote of.  But if I am going to incorporate a style of pedagogy, I want to do it because the Bible says it, not because Dorothy Sayers says it.  At the conference, Sayers was mentioned more than Solomon.  What does this say about worldview?  The Bible takes a back seat to the experts.  This undermines the teaching that the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

Second, when they did use Scripture, it was often with a glancing blow.  If they read a verse to make a point, they did not comment on the verse, did not drill down on it; they just moved on (the plenary sessions were better).  Logos School does a sterling job getting students to think logically and deeply and to speak persuasively.  But think about what? Speak about what?  Ultimately, isn’t our thinking to be based on the specifics of what Scripture says?  I mean chapter and verse, so that our students are settled on doctrine and practice.  Jesus said that we are to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  If what I observed is the modus operandi  for a conference for academic leaders, what is happening day by day at Logos, and what are they promoting to the schools attending the conference?  To me it is a worldview that is very general in nature.  They say they want to influence society for Christ, but if we don’t teach our children carefully and thoroughly from the Scriptures, they will be drawn away, despite any logical and rhetorical skills (cf. Eph. 4:11-14).

Finally, their application of Christian worldview is inconsistent and pragmatic.  What I mean is this: they teach their students to identify virtuous character traits in a given piece of literature, because who can argue against such behavior.  Parents want this.  On the other hand, when it comes to the age of the earth, they do not take a position.  Why?  They can’t get away with taking a side.  The issue is too controversial, and they risk losing students.  They are not neutral on alcohol, though.  But that one, they can get away with (unfortunately).   Kind of reminds me of the time Jesus asked the religious leaders if John’s baptism was from heaven or of men.  After mulling over their quandary, they said, “We cannot tell” (Mt. 21:25-27).  They were plenty bold, when they thought they had the upper hand; but when an honest answer would hurt them, they went PC.   Not a very good worldview.

Again, Logos School does a lot of things well, and I am glad I picked some of those things up.  But their worldview is not as Bible-centered as they think.

What do churches and pastors do with members of other churches who come to them?  Our church has nothing to do with this subject right this moment, so this isn’t personal.  It is a regular issue all over the country and I think pastors should consider their policy, whether they are handling this occasion in a scriptural way.

I have never had a pastor call me about a former church member.  I’m telling you, I’ve been pastoring for thirty years, and I’ve never had another pastor call me about a church member who has left our church.  When I say “left our church,” I mean of all types of leaving, including church discipline.  On the other hand, I have called other pastors about members who have left their churches every single time — every time.  How could I pastor for thirty years and never have another pastor call me about someone who has left our church?  Hopefully that sounds really bad to you.  It’s true though.  What is with men who practice this way?  Do pastors and churches even care?

Other churches have taken in our disciplined members.  One lady who was a member of our church had committed adultery, so we disciplined her, she was unrepentant, so we removed her from our church.  She went to a local evangelical church, called a “Bible church.” She told them she was from our church.  They were fine with her being there.  She told them she had committed adultery and had been disciplined out, and that was fine too.

Our church disciplined a man from the church and he went to another independent Baptist church about thirty minutes away.  That church accepted him in.  Our church sent a letter to that church and offered them the opportunity to reconcile with us, because they had taken in a disciplined member. That was our attempt to remain in fellowship.  They rejected even having that meeting.

When people talk about unity and fellowship, very often they mean “putting up with false doctrine and bad behavior.”  If you are not willing to put up with false doctrine and bad behavior, you are causing disunity.  If you were to join a group of churches in a meeting, and there you saw your disciplined member, the right behavior is to keep your mouth shut and act like nothing happened. This is called fellowship.  The one who opens his mouth would be called divisive, a harm to unity. I’m not kidding.

Several years ago, the closest church in doctrine and practice in our area got a new pastor.  I called him and invited him to lunch, mainly to talk about this very subject.   We both agreed that if someone from his church came to ours, I would give him a call.  If someone came from our church to his, he would give us a call.  In the years following, we had one person come from his church to ours, and I called him.  We had three different people go their church and I never received a call, not one time.

Later I saw the pastor of the previous paragraph at an event and I asked him why he went ahead and took in our members without a call.  He said he didn’t think it would matter since our church separates over certain doctrine, so that we weren’t in fellowship anyway, so he didn’t think it mattered if he called or not.  I have found this typical of fundamentalism.

Even if two churches are not in fellowship, they should not allow members to hop from church to church without a call.  It’s possible that people have a good reason for leaving a church.  Perhaps they should be in your church.  You should still call the other church for many reasons.

One, a church deserves respect even if it isn’t doing right.  Two, churches shouldn’t allow people to run from unrepentant sin.  That’s about God — He should be respected.  Three, nothing tests fellowship like what churches do with members of another church.  If churches really are about fellowship or unity, they have to try to unify where it really counts, not in the sentimental fake unity. Four, pride is involved with the thinking that you can take someone and work them into your church, who has left another church.  Five, people need to be taught to deal with their problems correctly even if they should have left the other church.

No pastor or his church wants other pastors and churches believing lies about them.  When a person comes to your church from another church and says the former church stunk, that could be a lie. The former church deserves due process. We want due process, so we should give due process to others too. Believing whatever someone else tells you about another person is not a biblical or godly practice.  We should give someone else or another church an opportunity to defend themselves.  Even if we wouldn’t fellowship with that church, we don’t have the right to believe a lie about it.

I get what happens.  Your church member goes to another church.  That church sees a new member. You know, who doesn’t want a new member?  If you get a new member, your church gets bigger. Getting bigger is good, is the reasoning.  If you behave like you are going to call the former church and maybe believe that church, you may lose a new member.  Instead of risking the loss of a new member, you do not make the call.  I think that’s what happens.  This is a faithless lack of trusting God.  It’s many more other things, but faithlessness is a start.  It might be just be putting your head in the sand.  If you find out the bad news, then it means you are responsible for that bad news.  The truth is that you are still responsible because you wouldn’t even call to find out.

We had a man come to our church from an American Baptist Church.  Many of the American Baptists are liberal.  It’s the right thing to call and find out what’s up before someone can be considered for joining.  Why should an unscriptural church start having respect for scripture if the so-called scriptural church doesn’t have respect for scripture?  Scriptural churches should handle things scripturally.