CHAPTER 4

Jesus because He found us.
We must be extremely dedicated to this mission. When we are, God will bring forth
fruit from our labors. Now as disciples who are to be wise as serpents, we must
evaluate our work in order to determine if it is a work of either wood, hay, stubble, or a
work of gold, silver and precious stones (1 Cor. 3:9-15). I have been involved in both
types of work in my global adventures. However, I can say this by looking back at past
failures and victories. We can make a determination of failures and victories only by
planning for the future with information we have learned from the past.
I have traveled to more countries than I can remember and lived on three continents.
Since I launched into global living and became a global citizen in 1974, I have
experienced a number of movements within the socio-religious structures of various
cultures. I have experienced the church at several different stages of growth in countries
throughout the world. I thought that it would be good to share at least one scenario of
the growth and decline that seems to be common in many places where the church has
been planted. This particular scenario that is not uncommon is one that often produces
churches of wood, hay, stubble. We must thus look back at these cases in order to
prevent ourselves from repeating history. In looking back at past failures, we must learn
the skill of planting churches that are gold, silver and precious stones.
I would thus like to point out some of the typical stages of development that some
churches go through in the process of history as they grow from early establishment to
second, third and fourth generation leadership. These same stages can be seen in the
movement of the church in many situations throughout the world. As leaders, it is
imperative that we recognize which state of development the church is in for the
purpose of making adjustments for the future.
The time span of the following general case history is usually from twenty to forty
years in any given culture. The history usually begins with evangelists who are sent in
to initially establish the church. Throughout the history of growth, the newly
established churches usually go through a series of transitions that take the church from
birth to death, depending on the principles that were established in the initial year or two
of church planting. The manifestation of church growth principles of the established
churches usually begin to manifest themselves when the movement is between twenty to
thirty years old. After twenty to thirty years of growth to stagnation, the first generation
leaders, the pioneers of the movement, are usually in their fifties or sixties. These
churches are usually functioning upon the foundation of the initial works of the early
evangelists. However, it is during these times that some negative transitions begin to
take place in the movement. It is at this time that the principles or methodologies that
were embedded in the church in the early years of establishment begin to produce their
fruit.
A. Stage 1: Transition to a new leadership:
When the typical church is twenty to thirty years old, a second generation of
leadership has now moved into the leadership of the church. These preachers and
leaders are in their twenties, or early thirties. They have not fought the battles of the
first generation leaders, and therefore, have a different view of the nature of their work.
Because they “grew up in the church,” their perception of “church” is different than
their pioneering fathers. They have been the product of the first generation leadership,
and thus, some of the principles and methodologies of their fathers lingers in their
beliefs and behavior. However, they begin to learn new things, and thus view the church
from a different perspective.
The first generation leaders fought battles for survival. They fought the
denominations. They fought half-converted brethren who in the early years of the
establishment of the church brought into the church a host of churchian thinking and
doctrine. These early leaders fought for the faith and defended the truth. They usually
built the church on the strictness of a “proof text” concept of understanding the
Scriptures, since their battles centered around first principles with those who denied
such.
As a result of their intense debates with false teachings, their approach to
understanding the Bible is legalistically oriented. In the struggles of the early years,
doctrine was the primary motivation for learning the Bible rather than discovering and
applying principles of holiness and focusing the minds of people on Jesus. Doctrine, not
behavioral Christianity, became the emphasis of the movement. Church, not Jesus,
became that which had to be defended. Obession with the body over the head, not only
turned the thinking of the members upside down, it embedded within the membership an
introverted mentality that focused first on man, not Jesus. In those years of debate, a
legal oriented view of church was developed. The seeds for future discord were thus
planted that would eventually lead to squabbles in the body over an assortment of
issues.
In their defense against the forces of denominational error in order to establish the
“true church,” the early pioneers often developed a reactionary theology that was very
legalistic. This legalistic approach to Bible teaching molded the attitude of the early
pioners into developing a legalistic catechism of beliefs that were constructed in
reaction to churchain doctrines. When the denominationalists said “faith only,” a
reactionary theology was developed that said “works only.” When the churchianists
promoted “grace only,” those in the heart of the first battles unconsciously developed
theologies of “legal obedience.” When churchianists emphasized the work of the Spirit,
we developed a deistic concept of God who is somewhere off in the universe. As a
result of this reactionary foundation upon which our teaching was based, we too
developed our own churchianism, a focus that is primarily focused on preserving the
church rather than exalting the glory of Jesus as the head of the church and savior of the
world.
The extent of this reversal of the body over the head could be illustrated by an
experience I had in a class on the scheme of redemption in the latter 60s. The instructor
of the class was teaching the “plan of salvation.” He wrote on the blackboard, “hear,
believe, repent, confess and be baptized.” He looked at what he had written, and said,
“Brethren this is the plan of salvation, but somehow we need to put more Jesus into our
presentation of the plan.” At the time he knew there was something wrong with “our
plan.” But neither he nor the rest of us could at the time figure out what was wrong.
Now we have. The plan is Jesus. It is His death for our sins and His resurrection for
our hope. This was the gospel of God’s scheme of redemption. “Hear-believe-repentconfess-
baptism” was only the recorded response of people to the preaching of the
gospel. What we were doing back in those days was emphasizing the response instead
of the gospel, which was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. We thus converted
people to a legal code of obedience for which we had several passages of scripture. All
of us have since repented of this, but the legacy that was left is a generation of people
who were legally baptized, but were not added to the church by focusing first on Jesus
and His cross and resurrection. The cross was presented to them only after we had
preached “hear, believe, repent, confess and be baptized.”
Because of confrontational beginnings, legalism often became the the first
generation leaders’ approach to biblical teaching. Their hermeneutics became legalistic
because of their struggle for existence among a host of religious errors that were
promoted by churchianists. A balance was lost and a tendency to stand to the far right
was developed. In a churchian environment of legalism, members were regimented to
conform to those traditional shibboleths and interpretations that were constructed
throughout the years of conflict. This was the “Christianity” that was handed to the
children.
What happened in this first stage of church establishment was that the seeds of
discord were planted for the destruction of the church in the generations to come.
Whenever a legalistic approach to church is development, all is well as long as everyone
agrees on both doctrine, opinions and traditions. When everyone is cloned after the
same system of opinions and behavior, then there is peace and harmony. However, a
new generation begins to think, “Is this what the Bible actually teaches?” Questioning
matters of opinion or methodologies often brings discomfort and discord among those
whose focus first on perserving a system of church (churchianism), rather than Jesus.
If legalistic thinking is embedded in a church in the first decade of its establishment,
the seeds are planted for division in the decades to come. When legalistic Jews came
into the initial establishment of the early church, it took two inspired letters from the
Holy Spirit (Romans and Galatians) to solve the problem. It would be wise, therefore,
to thoroughly engraft the principles of Romans and Galatians into the thinking of newly
established churches in order to guard against division in the future.
In order not to implant negative seeds that will eventually grow into discord among
the brethren, evangelists should initially preach Jesus and the cross. If we preach
church instead of Jesus, a churchian religion will develop. Legal church doctrines will
be embedded in the thinking of the early disciples that will not bring forth fruit until
someone questions one of the “doctrines” that has no biblical foundation, but was
actually the expressed opinion of one of the early pioneers of the church. When a new
generation starts focusing on Jesus, churchians will say, “But doctrine is also
important.” It is. But the point is that Jesus has all authority. He is head of the church,
King of kings, and Lord of lords. He is our high priest at the right hand of God, and the
one into whom we must be immersed for remission of sins. This is the doctrine. If we
try to go legally through the New Tetament to first seek doctrine, then we will never find
Jesus, for in focusing on doctrine, we fail to fully see Jesus, because in our minds we
keep ourselves away from Jesus. But if we first seek Jesus and the grace He brought
through the cross, then our appreciation of what God has done for us through grace will
bring freedom and an appreciation for our salvation.
B. Stage 2: Transition to different opinions:
In the initial establishment of the church in any area, some of the first generation
leaders often develop a guardian attitude toward the movement they have begun. They
are/were the pioneers, and thus, there is a self-appointment of themselves to make sure
that the movement stays on their concept of a course of “sound doctrine.” There is often
an unconscious stealing of the church from Jesus and His word in order that their own
opinions and dictates be observed.

A psychological mold for the history of the church is thus established. Around this
mold emerging leadership has a very difficult time to think and act freely for itself
without the intimidation of the older leadership. Self initiative in Bible study is
stymied. Interpretations must be based on the Bible and in conformity with the
opinions of those who have become standards of biblical interpretation. Basing one’s
study solely on the Scriptures becomes difficult because of the intimidation of unwritten
interpretive opinions that hold the new generation of Bible students in check. And since
the thinking of the first generation of leaders was based on a legalistic view of Scripture,
the second generation of leadership that grew up “in the church” must conform to
opinions in interpretation and church behavior of the older generation. Because the first
generation of leaders have a difficult time determining the difference between Bible and
opinions, any change in opinion is viewed as a change in Bible teaching. The
foundation is thus set for division.
In this environment, the second generation leadership struggles. These leaders too
often over react to the intimidation of their fathers. The younger generation did not
fight the early battles of the movement. They have been the product of the foundation
of the early struggles in the movement. As a result, their perspective of the church is
different. They are of a different nature. They see things differently because they are
not the products of a reactionary theology. They often see some things from a different
perspective because they approach Bible study not in an effort to answer denominational
error or brotherhood apostasy. They want to enhance holiness rather than promote a
confrontational argument with some denominationalist. They search the Scriptures, not
to win battles, but to develop the spiritual growth of the now twenty to thirty year old
churches that were built on the foundation of the early pioneers. Problems arise because
they do not understand the nature of the pioneers of the movement and the pioneer
leaders do not understand them. There is a generation gap.
Because of this lack of understanding on both sides, the church enters into an era of
confrontation. Because of the often implanted legalistic thinking of the fathers in the
development of their reactionary theology, the new leaders on the scene see that many
sacredly held church practices are not Bible, but simply the behavior of an earlier
generation of leaders who fought the initial battles that established the church. The new
generation that “grew up in the church” did not fight these battles. They did not develop
a reactionary theology. And thus, their objectivity is not clouded by the smoke of a
heated battle with some religious error.
It is at this time in the history of a church that both the pioneer leaders and younger
generation leaders must be cautious. The pioneers must not seek to steal the sheep of
God. One steals sheep by becoming a lord over the flock. Peter saw this happening
among some churches of the first century (1 Pt 5:1-6). It happens today when leaders
seek to bind on the church their opinions, methodologies or ceremonies. Older leaders
must be very cautious about binding those things that are only traditional, and thus not
mentioned in the Scriptures.
Younger generation leaders must respect their elders. They must not become
arrogant when they discover a point in belief or behavior that is not in the Scriptures.
They too must guard themselves from reacting against the leadership of the church that
was handed to them. They must remember the early struggles of their fathers who stood
valiant against the wiles of the devil in all sorts of biblical ignorance in the churchian
world. Younger leaders must always remember that in all discussions about belief, the
Bible alone must be our final authority. Just because something is not in the Bible does
not mean that it should be changed. It should only be recognized as a tradition, a
tradition that is up for discussion between the older and younger generation leaders.
C. Stage 3: Transition into group tension:
Something almost tragic happens in some churches when they are twenty to thirty
years old. Two generations of church leaders often come into conflict with one another.
A contrast of opposites is set up in which Satan often does some of his best work in
church division.
The second generation leaders seek change. This change is often a change from
legalism to a more grace oriented faith. They also often seek a change in methods, not
the message. However, the legalistic nature of the older first generation leaders reacts
against the supposedly “liberal” nature of the second generation leaders. They react to
change, assuming that any change is liberalism and an apostasy from the “truth.” They
confuse method and message, assuming that any change in method is a change in
message. Any change usually threatens the icons of the older generation, and thus a
sense of insecurity is developed in the minds of the older generation. Therefore, they
assume that change must be liberal because that to which change is made is not how it
has always been done or believed in the past.
The new generation of leaders wants to do things in different ways. However, the
established way of doing things in the local church is now about twenty years old. Any
change in the established behavioral manner of doing something obviously brings
tension because the first generation leaders have by this time confused method and
message. They have allowed the traditional way of doing something to be the only way
it can be done, and thus a tradition has become a doctrine.
The first generation leadership has often led themselves to believe that they had a
hedge on understanding the Bible because they won so many battles with the
denominations. The truth they proclaimed was right and victorious. However, a subtle
attitude of arrogance crept in where they convinced themselves that there was nothing
else to learn. When the second generation leadership entered the scholars’ lounge, these
leaders were often challenged for their new approach or emphasis. Because of their
emphasis on other areas of biblical truth, and because they often expressed old truths in
a different way, they are often accused of being “liberal.” This is the beginning of an
era of confrontation that often divides brethren because no forum was ever developed
for open discussion. When lords rule, there are no round table discussions.
In an over reaction to the legal atmosphere of the first generation leadership, some
second generation leaders fly right through Jerusalem. They go from one extreme to
another. These leaders go “grace only” in reaction to legalistic works only. They lose
their biblical center of reference. In reaction to hardline legalism and hierarchal control
of some first generation leaders of the church, they lose their biblical perspective of the
unique nature of the church. They often consign the church to being just another
denomination. In fact, they sometimes join what they would consider to be just
“another denomination” when some dispute arises in the church. They become truly
“liberal” in theology, giving up the fundamental doctrines of the New Testament for the
sake of peace. Because the initial establishment of the church was not built on love of
the brethren, they are unable to agree to disagree for the sake of fellowship.
This is a time in the history of any church that the instructions of Titus 3:9-11 must
be obeyed in every detail. Paul wrote that some want to generate “controversies,
contentions and strivings.” But he reminded Titus that such disagreements “are
unprofitable and worthless.” Those who would persist in contentions over insignificant
matters are factious, and thus must be rejected. They must be rejected because
contentious people are perverted, and thus sin. They are self-condemned because of
their desire to argue over matters of opinion or things that are not significant in
reference to one’s salvational relationship with God. It is imperaive, therefore, that
leaders “not strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the believers” (2 Tm 2:14).
Once a leader perceives that a debate is about to insue over “words to no profit,” he
should “avoid profane and empty babblings” (2 Tm 2:16). This is a time not to show
up at the meeting of one who is seeking to be contentious and controversial.
D. Stage 4: Transition into reactionism:
At about this time in the historical transition of the church, some of the first
generation leaders also make a fatal mistake. Because they do not understand their own
legal approach to Christianity they do not understand why some of these second
generation leaders are reacting to some of their beliefs and behavior. They do not
understand why some are leaving the church. In their failure to see their own legalism,
they label as “liberal” everything and everyone who does not conform to their “position”
on the issues. More tragically, they intensify the situation by establishing a “watchdog”
mentality. Some make themselves the saviors of the church, often marching from this
city to that church, from lectureship to gospel meeting in an effort to stamp out the rise
of liberalism in the church. The emphasis of their preaching gradually turns from saving
the lost to saving the saved. The nature of their spirit gradually turns to bitterness and
mistrust in the younger generation of church leaders. They wake up one day and find
themselves alone in a theological circle they have drawn so small that they alone are in
it.
But there are those second generation leaders who have not gone off to the
denominations as some of those who have lost their center of reference concerning the
true nature of the church. This second generation of leaders also see the apostasy of
those who have fallen away to religions that have been created after the traditons of
men. However, they see the cause of this apostasy from a different perspective. They
see the legalism of some of the first generation leaders who have pronounced
themselves as guardians of the church. Christianity is viewed by this generation of
leaders more from a Christ-gospel perspective rather than a “doctrine-argument”
perspective. Because they do not close ranks with the first generation leaders who are in
a legalistic manner reacting to an apostasy, they are considered with suspicion in the
eyes of the first generation leaders.
The older, first generation leaders again react. They react with a religious nature of
legalistic argumentation against those in the church who do not conform to their
opinions. The brandishing about of terms as “liberal” or “doctrinally loose” is too often
heard. Such slanderous labelling and name calling only intensifies the conflict and
causes all involved to lose contact with the real issues. The issues are not over
fundamental doctrine. They are over attitudes, opinions and methods. In the conflicts
that ensue, there is a real loss of the fundamental doctrine of unity of the church and
salvation of souls. Men too often violate the fundamental doctrine of church unity for
the sake of propagating their own opinions. The weightier doctrine of unity is sacrificed
for the traditions of men.
The second generation leaders too often carelessly throw about terms as
“conservative” or “hard core” or “legalistic” because they do not understand the nature
of the older first generation leaders. The conflict between these two generations of
church leaders is most unfortunate and too often severe. Fellowship among preachers is
often lost. Fellowship among churches is lost. Good men’s reputations are slandered by
the slinging of labels and gossip. Men lose their direction by turning from evangelism
to church politics. The inevitable result is the loss of souls, both in the church and
outside the church, for evangelism ceases. Struggling Christians become disillusioned
with the conflict of senseless battles which should never have been fought. The
movement is now in a stage of self-destruction. It turns on itself.
Are there those among us who can find and maintain balance in times of conflict?
Church unity is a fundamental doctrine. Would we violate a fundamental doctrine over
squabbles in differences of opinion? Would we turn from evangelism of the lost by
turning on ourselves?
I write these words because of a biblical teaching which is too often neglected in our
preaching and teaching. It is the doctrine of the unity of the body. All Christians hold
different opinions and interpretations. However, we must maintain unity that is based
on fundamental doctrines. One evangelist in South Africa once said, “We are divided
over opinions, but there is absolutely no difference of understanding over fundamental
doctrines.” Our problem is trying to move our opinions into the realm of fundamental
doctrine. And in doing such we divide brethren. Do we know the Bible well enough to
know what is not there? Do we have the same fear about binding where God has not
bound as we do about loosing where God has not loosed?
E. Stage 5: Transition to a renewal for unity:
I was once in the country of Liberia immediately after the end of thirteen years of
civil war. As I moved through the city of Monrovia, the capital, I observed the
numerous bullet holes in houses and poles and every standing structure. The heat of the
battles of the war were intense. A quarter of a million people died and a country was
economically destroyed. Nothing was gained by power-hungry warlords who sought to
control the minds of men with the support of diamonds. But one good thing came from
the years of war. The people were totally disgusted with war. They could see what it
had done to their country. Leaders were driven to the negotiating table in order to have
peace instead of war. Countries that want true peace must come to this conclusion.
Churches that want peace must also practice peace.
After civil war in the church in any area there is a refreshing breeze for unity and
peace among those who are disgusted with the era of conflict that was perpetuated by
those who sought to maintain either power, positions or purse. After years of conflict
there rises within the new leadership a recognition of the foolish strifes of the past, and
thus a yearning to be brethren in a church that is more interested in saving a lost world
than slandering a good brother. This leadership looks forward to a time when members
of the church are known for their love of one another and not for being baptized in
vinegar in order to wage argument. In this stage of development, the church lives on,
never wanting to go back to the days of slash and burn.
It is a normal sociological phenomenon. All societies go through times of social
chaos. The chaos is generated because there are changes being made in beliefs and
behavior of the people of the society. What is actually happening is that the society is
struggling to give birth to a new generation. It is not enjoyable to go through these
times of chaos. Old beliefs are being challenged. Old behavior is being changed. The
older generation will always conclude that things are coming to ruin. In a way, an older
generation is being lost in order to give way to a new. The generation gap surfaces with
every generation, because in the chaos of change, the new generation is seeking to
establish itself with beliefs and behavior that they have determined.
Throughout the years of social chaos, everyone must keep in mind that this is a time
of change, a change to a new generation. In applying this principle to the disciples of
Jesus, it is a time to restudy the Bible in order to reaffirm that we stand on the Scriptures
and not on the traditions of the fathers. If the traditions of the fathers are allowed to
carry the same weight as the Scriptures, then we are in trouble. Out of the chaos will
come a new denomination, a new churchian movement that will lead itself further from
God, and thus create a religion after the traditions of the fathers. However, if the new
generation focuses on Jesus and His word, then the chaos will produce a new and
exciting generation of disciples who know how to relate the gospel to their
contemporaries.

This entry was posted on June 28, 2007 at 7:56 pm and is filed under MAKING DISCIPLES IN A GLOBAL COMMUNITY. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print