I remember the words of J. Vernon McGee, when asked why he had left his denomination. In his decidedly slow southern drawl he said something like, "Why, I didn't le-ave my denomination, I believe the same thing I did seventy-five years ago. Why. . . they up and le-ft me!"

I have now been out of traditional ministry for twelve years. When I stepped aside, I was the pastor of a small community church in the northwest. The church was growing steadily, boasting about one-hundred and sixty members with an average weekly attendance of about two-hundred. My family and I were well received by the congregation. We had made many good, close friends. I was nearly finished with my doctorate degree, an end to which I had been studying and working for years. Things were perfect. Or rather, one would think things should have been perfect. The hindrance proved to be my conscience and my ever present idealism.

I had just finished preaching through the book of First Timothy, wherein the apostle Paul outlines proper ecclesiology. The apostolic pattern of church life had been nagging me for sometime and now, once again, it stared me in the face. I could not escape. Despite my clearly ideal circumstance, each day I grew increasingly concerned and confused over the generally accepted itinerary of the twentieth century Western Evangelical Christian Church. The more I researched, the more I came to realize just how far astray we had drifted from the apostolic prototype.

It concerned me that the leadership I was expected to provide was steeped in programs, meetings and traditions that had little to do with ministry and equipping the saints. Projects, such as the circulation of local or national political petitions. Endless meetings with the deacon's board in which we discussed such things as . . .well . . . well, we discussed . . . . Actually, I don't quite remember what we discussed. But I remember that it seemed very important and I had to be there for several hours every other week. Then there were the countless sessions with the board of trustees to discuss how and who could use the church properties. Or sometimes we would weigh the merits of yet another expansion project. Oh yes, and then the monthly business meetings with the whole congregation.

The role seemed far removed from the leadership exemplified in the New Testament. My aggravation reached its peak when I came to realize that I wouldn't even attend this church if I were not its pastor. Most disturbing was the fact that by Western standards this was not an undesirable or a negligent church. In fact it was considered to be a model church within its association. Other churches in the region look to it for leadership. It was the typical middle class Evangelical, fundamental, American Church. It had all the programs. An active youth group. A women's Bible study class. A mid-week prayer meeting. A choir. Deacon's meetings. Business meetings. A women's missionary society. AWANA, and Sunday school for all ages. A nursery. A generous missions budget. And even a gymnasium. The parishioners were committed to their beliefs and to the church.

But something was wrong. Something was wrong with this normality. Despite the outward activity within, it seemed a mere deficient, unbecoming organization, out of focus with the dynamic faith epitomized in the New Testament and practiced by the early Church. I began to feel distant from, and even adverse to the motif and activities that have become so common place to all of us. Overwhelmed and unwilling to cause a division in the church, I resigned the pulpit.

Whether my resignation was right or wrong has been and will continue to be debated. However, at the time it seemed the only thing to do. I have no regrets. Many of my Christian brothers and sisters will read this treatise and have no clue as to what I am discussing. I envy their bliss and sometimes long for those days of innocence. Or as the old country song says, "I found myself wishing, I didn't know now what I didn't know then."

The next few years were frustrating, even traumatic. At first I seemed unable to articulate or even clarify my concerns. It was like having someone's name right on the tip of your tongue but unable to say it. You know what it is, but your mind will not picture it. It will not cooperate. For a moment all communication is put on hold as your mind and tongue struggle to reestablish the verbalization link.

I busied myself with work. I would try to attend and participate in local churches, but it was always the same. I couldn't do it. It's not that I would not or did not want to, but I simply couldn't do it. That is, if I was to live with myself. In every church the same sense of exploitation returned. I still cannot explain the pain this causes in my heart. Although I agree with the core theological beliefs of the Western Evangelical Church, I simply cannot condone the worldly and material concerns that so dominate our traditional assemblies. I find that I cannot, in good conscience, be party to it.

In the years that followed I would learn much more about the Church than I could have had I endured my position. I have spent the last decade dealing first hand with a segment of the Christian population that is generally overlooked by the local church. Or more precisely, a segment of the Christian population that actively avoids the traditional Western local church setting. I have met, consoled, counseled and instructed many fellow believers, encouraging them to "stay the course" in their Christian walk. You might say I have served as a chaplain at large to many former pastors, deacons, Sunday school teachers and church members in general. I have dealt with numerous folks who were raised in -- or have devoted much of their lives to -- the traditional church settings, only to abandon it. But they have not abandoned their faith. And although some of them meet regularly in homes with small groups of fellow believers, most are completely cut off in despair and seldom commune with other believers. All of them have one thing in common. They are disillusioned by the material pursuits, petty squabbles and/or short sighted social-political dogma that has a choke-hold on Western Evangelical Church.

Alas, after these many years my good friend, a fellow pastor deeply rooted in the system of which I have concern, has strongly admonished me. "You have a responsibility . . . You have made an analysis, now take some action!" In other words, "get off the bench and back into the ball game." He is right. It is time to do something more "far-reaching" about the concerns I have burdened these many years. This article is just that. It is an attempt, feeble as it may be, to articulate and address the ideology of the twentieth century (now twenty-first century) Western Evangelical Church which has run amuck.

I know of no name for this ideology. It has a morphinistic appearance with many faces blending to form a common center. This center I shall call Western Evangelical Orthodoxy. The following pages will explain. It is materialistic, revolving around buildings and ordered with a businessman's mind set. In ways it is somewhat pharisaical with its demanding traditions and blanket condemnations. In other ways it seems almost mystical with its compulsion for empty prayers and orchestrated jubilation. Always, it is dogmatic, crusading a cause. Even when the cause is far from evangelism and its dogma born in ignorance.

Over the last decade, I have discussed these matters with many and various people. The most common critical response is, "But the Church is imperfect, made up of people who are growing spiritually. You cannot find a perfect church!" Such a response fails even to understand what I am pursuing. I am well aware of the membership's imperfections. Indeed, I am as imperfect as the next. My concerns have nothing to do with the individual church member per se; but with the general practical objectives that prevail throughout the society of Western Evangelical Orthodoxy and are fostered by its leadership. They transcend denominational lines and are deeply rooted in our heritage.

The second most critical response is, "But things are changing! Churches all over the country are having small group Bible studies, pastors are gathering for prayer, men are coming together to confront their responsibilities as fathers and spiritual leaders, etc." This, I do not doubt. I applaud such progress. But these are not the changes for which I strive. They are too little and too late. The infrastructure of the way the Western Church is ordered and the dogma that drives it remain untouched. Still, the best potential leaders in the local churches leave to be trained for service elsewhere. Still, millions are wasted on lavish cathedrals. Still, leadership positions are filled by a popularity contest. Still, churches see themselves as social-political watchdogs. Still, the basic mission of the Church is overlooked.

Changes of this nature are in the air from generation to generation. Eventually they are absorbed back into the main stream. Eventually they will structure themselves just as the rest of the Western Church has structured itself. These movements that appear from time to time are not unlike driving the frontage road instead of the highway. Both roads are going the same direction and lead to the same place, only one has more traffic.

Finally, please understand. I do not mean to sound as though the Western Church has apostatized and left the faith. It is not a point of proper theology with which I take issue. That is, the Deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; the sacrificial death and glorious resurrection of Jesus; salvation by grace; etc. It is a matter of practical theology. We have the proper theology; but when we unsheathe it and wield it about we have trouble keeping it untarnished by our grimy little fingers. This article is merely a critical inspection of the sword's condition. I am addressing the smudges left by the misdirected goals and traditions of Western Evangelical Orthodoxy. Smudges that draw attention to themselves and diminish the brilliance of the sword. To clean it will take a grass roots movement not unlike the great reformation itself. Well, maybe a little less dramatic.

Of great concern to me is the wide spread agenda within the Western Church for social and political reform. This popular movement is the product of passion and distorted truths. Without discussing particular social and political ideals let's consider the purposes of both the Church and the government. Each was instituted by God. Each has a different purpose.

The Mission of the Church

The Church has the responsibility to glorify God (Eph. 1:12; Phil'p. 2:15-16); to educate and train its members (Eph 4:12); to purify itself and to grow in spiritual matters (2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 5:26-27). But of equal concern, the Church has been given the task of evangelism. It is to spread the good news throughout the world. This is a mandate from the Lord (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1.8; 2 Cor. 5:19-20).

This task of evangelism is accomplished by proclamation and testimony. With the proclamation we have no trouble. It seems to be a Western trait to look for the opportunity to tell our point of view and to debate our beliefs. Indeed, this article is a prime example. But the mere proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ, the savior of the world is one thing, giving testimony is another. Here we (the Western Evangelical culture) fall short. Our testimony is corrupted by misdirected ideology. Our traditions, our legalism and our pharisaical dogma over minor temporal social and political issues overshadow our testimony, making it virtually of no effect. A message or warning is seldom heeded when the messenger is held in contempt or mistrust.

We seem not to grasp the reality that proclamation without effective testimony is mere empty words. The necessary testimony is love. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" (Jn. 13:35). People are in pain, spiritually and emotionally. They need to be loved. We need to be loved. We need God's love. We need God's love demonstrated through others. And just as important, we need to demonstrate God's love to others. The population is in spiritual darkness and needs to be enlightened by the Spirit of God. The Church universal is the environment which furnishes the introduction. This is the mission of the Church. To teach and proclaim the gospel and to exemplify God's love.

The apostle pleaded to the Galatians, who themselves were misdirected, "as we . . . have opportunity, let us do good to all men ..." (Gal. 6:10). This is the tender and loving spirit that Jesus demonstrated to the harlot at the well, to the repugnant lepers, and to the greedy tax collector. It is a spirit far different from that which insights picketing, sit-ins, public condemnation rallies and righteous terrorism. The mission of the Church is evangelism, carried out in love. It is not social reform inspired by bitter dogmatism.

While there are numerous occasions when Jesus chastised Israel for their sinfulness, and numerous occasions where an apostle chastised a church for its sinfulness; never will you find them chastising the unbelievers for their sinful deeds. Warned of their sinful nature and need for repentance, yes. But they are never admonished for not following godly precepts to which they are effectively dead. Don't fool yourself. Social and political evils are nothing new. They were just as prevalent two millenniums ago. In some ways even worse. Take slavery and the emperor Nero for starters. Yet the Church did nothing to stop it, or him. Why? Because it is not the mission of the Church to reform society or politics. If it were two things would certainly have happened. First, Jesus would have demonstrated it. He would have done a little social reform Himself. His rebuke of Israel was mere house cleaning. They are the chosen people of God expected to be holy. Secondly, He would have given us commandment to this regard. You would think at least one of the apostles would have mentioned something so important. But He did not. They did not. After all, what would be the point? As Jesus said so succinctly, "a dog returns to its own vomit."

Righteousness comes through Jesus Christ, not of self reformation. The world is dead in spirit. Severed from the only avenue of righteousness. You cannot animate a dead body. Any attempts to do so is not evangelism! Indeed, such efforts only hinder true evangelism. People are either offended and turn a deaf ear or they are inspired to self reformation. The result of which, as pointed out, is a stinky nauseous scene.

As stewards of evangelism our objective is to escort souls to an introduction with the one who bestows life and righteousness. It is not our role to hurl stones of righteous indignation. We are mere fellow sinners fortunate enough to be elected unto redemption. The reality of which should humble us to the point of tears. How can we look upon those in darkness with anything but sympathy. We do not have the right to reprimand them or their actions. For they are us. We are them. The only distinction: we have experienced the grace of God. Having received this grace, we are now the salt of the earth expected to bring forth and enhance the pathos and savor of life. We are not to be bitter herbs that turn a stomach in knots. We are the light of the world extending hope to those in darkness. We are not the judge giving sentence to darkness. Leave the sentencing to God. He is just. He is qualified.

The Purpose for Governments

There are three things to understand about governments. God has ordained them. He is in control of them. And, He has a plan for them (Gen. 11; Ps. 2; Eph 1.9-11). I believe this has been overlooked by the Western Christian culture. Certainly our actions show no consideration of it. Have we no faith in Him? Are we so foolish as to believe that He needs our help? Even our advice? "Oh," you say, "but He is using me to persuade and contain the government!" I think not. How arrogant. How self righteous. How misdirected. God has other means to persuade and contain the governments of this world. The Holy Spirit for one.

Just as the Holy Spirit works upon your consciousness, and mine, so too He works upon the consciousness of those in governmental power. He works as a restraining force against evil (2 Thess. 2:6). If He so desired He could shatter any and every government like a broken mirror (Am. 9.8). The only power they have is the power with which He has entrusted them (1 Ki. 16:1-4). What we seem to have forgotten is that God established governments for a purpose, even evil governments. They are working according to His plan. When the Church speaks ill and displays animosity toward the government, it is essentially displaying displeasure with the way God is orchestrating the course of the world.

There are many governments that have little or no Christian constituents. Our efforts of persuasion would be better spent seeking to birth them some. This is the mission. It is a mission with eternal consequence. Governments and societies are transient. They come and go like the seasons. Overpower this one and tomorrow you face another. It's a temporal and fleeting battle. Whereas souls are eternal. Let's leave the building and toppling of governments to God. After all, He's been doing it for a while and so far everything has gone according to plan. My wife is a wonderful cook. I'm not. So I suppose it is appropriate that when I walk into the kitchen half way through the preparation of a particular dish and give a few suggestions, she runs me off in an obvious array of irritation. Let's let God complete His project as planned. He doesn't need us straying into the kitchen and shaking the spices. He has commissioned us to a different project. Let's stick to the task at hand.

Misdirected Saints

It is a great mistake for the Church to be actively and overtly involved in social political reform. Politicians are as fickle as teenagers struggling with peer pressure. It is not wise for the Church to be yoked with them in any fashion (2 Cor. 6:14-18). Too many Christians in America confuse the personal freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights with their spiritual freedom obtained at rebirth. The two are not equivalent. They should not - no, they must not - be held with equal esteem. The first is a temporal issue of little consequence in the overall scheme of things. The second has enormous eternal import. A pursuit of the first does not fulfill the expectations or obligations of the second. Indeed the first often only hinders the second.

Effective Evangelism

The first rule of effective evangelism is to establish common ground. Find an issue upon which you and the one with whom you are attempting to share the gospel can agree. From here you lead into the presentation of Christ and salvation. When the Church becomes involved in the passionately heated battles of social and political reform it effectively negates many opportunities to establish common ground with the very society which it hopes to reach. You cannot establish common ground with one who will not listen to anything you have to say. And be assured, once passions are flamed over one of these mere temporal issues, deaf ears are turned to all who oppose them. I learned long ago, there is a standing rule in all debates over ideals. Passion is never convinced by logic. And once you oppose and enrage passion, you have effectively lost all credibility. You cannot infuriate a person's passions concerning one issue and then expect to persuade him in another.

While it may seem righteous, and even necessary, for the Church to cry out over social and political issues, in truth such actions hinder the true mission of the Church. Ironically, in principal this attempt to establish a false national holiness is doing the very thing that Moses refused to do. That is, to substitute the eternal for the temporal. In faith he refused to exercise his rights and privileges as an Egyptian citizen and aristocrat. "Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward." While it may not be sin for the Church to use its clout to openly and actively focus upon manipulating social and political issues; it is certainly an exercise of faithlessness. In faithlessness we are bent upon controlling temporal issues, disregarding the effect upon the eternal mission set before us.

A society in spiritual darkness being ruled by a society of moralists does not promote evangelism. And it simply is not the mission of the Church. When it is made to be so it has disastrous results. C. S. Lewis observed this with the wit we might expect:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience." [1]

Those who suffer under such tyranny comply only under duress. Always they are looking for an opportunity to rebel. They will never, in good faith, convert to the totalitarianism which they despise.

Well meaning, but misdirected, charismatic leaders are escorting us up the cliffs of Mt. Zion and we follow with intensity. Evangelist warned Christian not to be tempted by its appeal. But he too had to see for himself. In the end he was sorry for his misguided zeal. [2] So too will we. As long as the Christian Church continues up the path of social and political reform it shall continue to work against God's eternal design and it shall continue to forestall its Evangelical effectiveness. Of this I am certain.

One Body

Aside from the general charge to evangelism, the church - both universal and local - is to function as a single body. Jesus is the head, the mind. The church members are the organs, the limbs and even the cells. This, the apostle's illustration is most appropriate. The human body is a wonderful thing. So complex yet so simple. It is designed to pleasure and serve the thoughts and desires of its mind. Instinctively its blood and fluids nourish, cleanse and protect it. Always (when healthy) it responds to the desires of the mind. It walks, runs, talks, sits, laughs, cries and even seeks to reproduce as directed.

By design this is the function of the local church. Each member is to have a healthy relationship with both the head and the fellow members of the body. The church body is to respond to the desires of Christ the Lord. In the human body when the mind wants to express joy the facial muscles become tense making the mouth and eyes betray the emotion. In the church, when the Lord wants to express an action He may do it through one or many of the members of the church body. And also like the human body, individual members will respond to the needs of other members and visa-versa. When the foot needs to be scratched, the fingernails do it. When the body needs energy, the metabolic system begins working overtime to produce it. So too should the church body respond to its needs.

A Family

Another metaphor for the church is a family. The church is held together by healthy familiar ties such as loving, caring, nurturing, teaching, rebuking, encouraging, etc. It is to be a closely bonded family, not a fraternity or a business. The church is nothing like either enterprise. Yet we organize it like both. What self respecting church business meeting is not run according to Robert's Rules of Order? So marshaled are many church business meetings, an outsider might think he were attending a share holders conference with investors voting to protect their stock.

The nature of business is to make a profit in a competitive world. The church is to glorify God and make converts. Big business seeks investments in lucrative opportunities. The church seeks to save souls from such empty goals and to introduce them to real living. The purposes of the church can be well served without Robert's handbook and the useless meetings it generates. It is our desire to control the temporal materials of our temples that compels such meetings.

Nor is the church like a fraternity. A fraternity's singular purpose is to foster an imagined creme de la creme eliteness. This is not the church. The local church is a haven for the socially downcast as well as society's elite. Here the two meet as one. Equal in nature and equal in future glory. The social roles played within Western Evangelical Orthodoxy are abominable.

The Church is Not a Building

The local church is a family in every respect. It is the physical manifestation of the spiritual family joined by the union of the Holy Spirit. A great misnomer affixed in the minds of modern Western Evangelical Orthodoxy is -- at least subconsciously, for our verbiage betrays us -- to equate the building, the edifice, the temple, with the local church. However, the local church exists totally apart from the edifice with its steeple, pews, pulpit, stained glass and cross.

So engrossed has the edifice become in our Western world that most people (yes, even Evangelical Protestants), think of it as being holy. It is even called the "sanctuary." A place where God Himself dwells. A place to be revered and espoused with some mystical honor. It is even perceived as the place where it is one's duty to sacrifice time and money. This is an especially popular concept in our culture. It lends itself to our fast and busy lifestyles. For one can simply give a few dollars, spend a few hours listening to a sermon and, having done his duty, disappear for the rest of the week. The holy deed is done and there is no need to become personally or emotionally involved with the other "worshipers."

Consequently, it is not surprising that this "holy building" is at the center of much trouble in many local church bodies. Fortunes are spent to beautify it, to expand it, to control it, and to make it acoustically pleasing to the "spirit of worship." Yet every year any number of local church bodies argue bitterly and ultimately divide over the use of their particular "sanctuary" and its peripheral structures. Each faction has invested their time and money into this holy site and "sure as hell" they're going to stand up for their rights and their investment. "Let the family dissolve if it must, but don't lay a hand on my church." Once again the temporal has overshadowed the eternal.

But Christianity is not Judaism. We do not have sanctuaries and sacrifices. Our sanctuary is within our hearts and our sacrifice is love. These material "sanctuaries" only complicate and distract us from our mission.

If it sounds as though I am suggesting that we basically do away with local "church" structures, edifices, temples, etc. - good, I am. Actually the early churches got along just fine without them for the first four centuries or so. These "Holy Temples" have been a stone around the neck of the local church since the day they were introduced by the Roman emperor Constantine.

I believe the local church body would be far better served to meet weekly, in small groups, in private homes. As the group grows it divides. The new group being directed by leaders that have been trained and nurtured from within the previous group. Each month these small groups could come together at some predesignated site to join for testimony, baptism, ordination, and evangelistic services. The site could change each month. Under an oak tree in the summer. In somebody's barn in the winter. At the school gymnasium. At the community center. Anywhere large enough to hold the several groups. Think of the money a local church would have to support missionaries if it didn't have to feed the infrastructure of comfort. Instead of appeasing its conscience by giving $50 or $200 to five or twenty missionaries that it doesn't even really know, it could fully support missionaries sent out from within its own self. Imagine the dynamic between the missionaries and the congregation, the interest, the personal involvement, the desire to be a part of the work.

The church buildings of the Western Church are a materialistic embarrassment to the very gospel message. Yet we are compelled to keep building them as if they themselves were church growth.

The Elders

The church is to be as a family in every respect, even in its leadership. A family is directed by the parents, not the collective vote of the siblings. I am convinced that neither the congregational nor papal form of church government was the apostolic model. The entire model of early church leadership is far removed from any of our present forms.

In the apostolic model there was a select group of men who lead the church (we will call them elders). Actually there were three terms used in the Greek New Testament to identify them. They were called patros, episkopos, and prespreteros. That is pastors, bishops, and elders. These titles were used interchangeably. Each term denotes a certain aspect of leadership. The terms were actually borrowed from idioms of their day. Pastor speaks of a tender shepherd. Bishop signifies a business like function. And elder denotes a wise counselor. These leaders of the local church were a self propitiating, self nominating, and self disciplining body which instructed and protected the flock. It was not an easy thing to become an elder. To qualify for the appointment one had to be a man of proven character and spirituality. A man above any form of reproach, from both within or without the local church body. It was not a position to be taken lightly (1 Tim.3).

People were attracted to a certain church body because of its love for them and because of the character, spirituality, leadership and teaching ability of the elders. The meetings of the church were centered around the body and the leadership, not the physical structure. There was no investment in an edifice and therefore no "holy sanctuary" to protect. The only investment was in the souls of men and women. It was the task of the elders to teach, train and protect the church from heresy.

The training of future leaders was different as well. Here are a few of the major differences. From among those willing to commit, certain qualified men were chosen and nurtured for leadership. It was not a mere popularity contest. They had a core of qualified elders trained in theology and ministry. We have one. We call him the pastor. Rather than growing this leader from within the church we examine the resumes of outsiders and hire a smoking gun. After a few years we weary of him, or he of us, and the search begins anew. A primary function of the early church leadership was to guard against heresy and to equip the saints. The leadership not only exposed and denounced false teaching, it also concentrated on the teaching of correct theology. Modern church leadership is not doing this. It is too overwhelmed with administrative duties, program preparations, expansion strategies and building plans.

To illustrate this point I'll site a survey I did while doing doctoral work in seminary. I had been concerned for some time about the leadership roles within the modern Western Evangelical Church. Indeed, the title of my doctoral project was, "The Pastoral Neglect to Provide Leading Laymen with a Basic Foundation in Theology." To further research this topic I surveyed pastors and the leading laymen of their choice within numerous churches from a certain conservative and evangelical association throughout the states of Washington and Oregon.

The results were more staggering than I could have ever imagined. I had peeked behind the facade of neck ties, choirs, sermons, beautiful buildings and spirals reaching to the sky. I felt as though I had ripped the mask off a deeply rooted and shameful ugliness. I had revealed an aspect of Western Evangelical Orthodoxy that is generally shrouded by pretense. I had uncovered an area about which most of us would rather plead ignorance or make excuses. Not willing to confront it face to face, analytically and honestly, we choose simply to neglect it and don the superficial display that has become such a major part of our Western tradition.

What had I discovered? I found that although 97% of the leading layman regularly prepared and taught bible classes, and 78% believed they were qualified to provide spiritual counsel, only 3% of their pastors provided them with hermeneutical training. Less than one in five provided some form of theological training, and only 7% of the pastors provided some kind of training in spiritual counseling.

Although they admitted to very little training for these tasks, most of the laymen believed they were qualified for them. However, their expected ignorance betrayed itself at the end of the questionnaire. I asked them to answer three simple, but pertinent, theological questions. I didn't attempt to stump them by choosing particularly difficult topics. Rather I chose subjects that have a special concern to anyone who teaches biblical classes or gives spiritual counsel. Put simply, I chose subjects that anyone doing what they did should know cold. First, "Why does God allow evil?" Secondly, "Define total depravity." And third, "In what way is man created in the image of God?"

Nor did I expect lengthy theological treatises or even biblical references. I merely wanted to see if these teachers had a general understanding of things they were teaching. The results were astounding. Only 24%, were able to answer the question as to the image of God. A mere 16% correctly answered why God allows evil. And no one, not one, could define the meaning of total depravity. Overall these leading laymen, these spiritual advisors and pillars in their churches had only 13.5% correct answers and no one answered all three questions correctly.

Although not comprehensive or conclusive, this small research project illustrates a great and shameful display of ignorance within the leadership of our local church bodies. I believe our churches are filled with lay leaders who have little or no training for the task set before them. We might say they are modern Nicodemus'. "How is it, they are teachers of the church and do not know these things?" It is the responsibility of the trained leadership to nurture and train would-be leaders in the faith so they too can fight off the enemy. This means theological training as well as training of character and spirit.

Training Leaders

If indeed the leadership of the local churches were doing their job correctly there would be no need for seminaries. Everything that is essential for ministry and leadership can be and should be taught within the local body. But as another portion of the doctoral survey revealed, the trained leaders are too busy with program preparation, organization, and plant management to effectively -- or more precisely, even attempt to -- train their lay leaders in basic biblical theology. The majority of responding pastor's viewed their teaching responsibility to be low in the order of necessary weekly tasks.

This was not so in the early church. The future leaders of the church learned theology and ministry from within the context of the local church. They learned from their elders. When the local church reproduces and trains leaders from within its ranks, giving them the necessary skills to effectively exegete, teach, and preach the Word of God; the church is strengthened. There is no need for the most promising young men to leave to train and serve elsewhere. With this model they remain in their present ministries. They and the church reap the benefit of their studies as they put into practice that which they have learned. The student is able to retain his present means of livelihood, and the great expense of seminary is avoided.

"Who will teach them?" you might ask. That is simple. The pastors. After all, according to Paul that is their job.

"But are they qualified?" you ask. If not, they should not be pastors. If a pastor's only skill is to provide emotionally charged sermonettes then he should be in sales, not in the ministry. An elder, a pastor, is to be a scholar of the Word who teaches and trains others. This is a mandate. Theology is not something found in musty libraries. It is not a dead subject for theologians and scholars to research and debate. Theology is life. Every Christian lives his particular theology, whether it is Scripturally correct or incorrect. Church leaders must be trained in both biblical and practical theology. One does not thrive without the other. Paul charged Timothy to "entrust these things to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others as well" (2 Tim. 2:2). This is not the responsibility of some far off seminary. It is the responsibility of the local church, its leadership, its elders.

Training for ministry is two fold. It necessitates information processing (academics), and experiential learning (practical ministry). Without the scholastics we may fall prey to false teaching. Without the practical ministry we are impotent to serve. The two are best learned together within the context of the local church.

Popular Forms of Church Government

The popular form of Western Evangelical Orthodoxy government, congregationalism, has no elders. It is a democracy with figure heads called deacons. I am well versed in the congregational form of church government. Indeed I have been schooled and ordained in it. I have concluded that it is simply ludicrous. It is a system born of rebellion and mistrust. The very concept of a democratic form of government is absurd. To my knowledge there has never been a successful democratic society on earth. At some time, someone must take charge, make decisions, call a spade a spade. There must be authority. Decision making determined by the vote of the populace is divisive and too easily corrupted by the manipulation of the ignorant and indifferent.

For example, here is the scene played out time and again at a typical monthly business meeting of a typical Western church with a typical congregational form of government. It is Wednesday evening, 8:30 PM. The prayer meeting is over and business is about to begin. Thirty-five of the church's two hundred and fifty members are present for the business meeting. It takes a two-thirds majority to pass a motion that has been seconded. Three of the voters are new babes in Christ. They should no more be voting than a five year old should be voting for a president. Eight of the voters are members that if the truth be known, should be under church discipline - some even excommunicated. They are rebel rousers. Trouble makers, bent upon pursuing an agenda of their own. Another eight voters are meek and mild souls without opinions on most of the issues. They are easily swayed one way or the other. The rest of the voters are the deacons, the pastor and their families. Throw in a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and without doubt God's will is a done deal.

The truth is that in a democracy there is no authority. In fact, that is the reason for the democracy. So "no one" will be in charge. But in reality there must be someone in charge or there is no leadership. Leadership implies, even necessitates, authority. There has to be someone making decisions. There has to be somebody setting the course and taking responsibility.

The argument that the congregation needs to vote in order to keep the leadership in check is comical. The leadership is supposed to be the spiritually and theologically mature of the two. They are supposed to be keeping the congregation in check, not the other way around. Yet in the congregational form of government the leadership is so mistrusted that the "one pastor" doesn't even have a vote on the church board. He sits in as an ex-offico (that's a nice way of saying outsider) to lend technical advice.

In truth the sole purpose for the congregational form of government in the local church is to protect the investment. These folks have put their time and money into the edifice and they want their say so about it. If there were no physical buildings to protect and control there would be no congregational form of government in the local church. The sole agenda of congregationalism is to protect the investment.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the papal bull. A form of church government against which the congregational form was born in rebellion. The concept of the papal rule is just as absurd. This too is a situation centered around possessions. Many of them. However in this form of government the people have no say at all. All power is given to one man. But man is a sinner and absolute power in the hands of any one man is doomed for failure. As history records, eventually it leads to tyranny. Neither of these two extremes, congregationalism or the papal rule, were the apostolic model. They both fail miserably.

The Apostolic Model

By far the apostolic model for church government is the best. I need not take much time to explain it. Paul did that perfectly in his letters to Timothy and Titus. It consists of a group of godly men who are qualified, gifted and of unreproachable character. They are trained properly for the task. They are self perpetuating and self disciplining. Their purpose is to teach, train and protect the flock. Paul's model for church life was clearly the practice of the early local churches. It was followed for centuries until at last the holy edifice arrived. From that day forward began a downhill slide in church leadership. Soon the whole focus and purpose of leadership would change. From that day forward idolatry became a necessary part of church life. For some, a statue, an artifact, a painting or picture. For all, Catholic and Reformers alike, a mystical "holy sanctuary."

I say humbug! Away with it. Let's get back to the original. Let's do it the way the Apostles did. Let's set aside our twisted traditions focused upon rebellion and mistrust. Let's abandon the material temples that are only serving to distract us from our mission. Let's focus upon doing it the way we were told to do it in the first place. The way the early church did it before corruption set in from the Roman Empire.

Earlier I mentioned the various facets that have come to characterize present day Western Evangelical Orthodoxy. These characteristics blend together to form a prevalent morphenistic ideology. Let me identify some of the more troubled facets.

Materialism

The first problem I see with Western Evangelical Orthodoxy is its elegant luxury. We have grown fat. This is not a call to a monastic style of poverty, but a call to balance and perspective. Many Christians in America are more concerned with prosperity than discipleship. This is materialism. It permeates our society and has infiltrated the Church. Indeed, it consumes it.

In our culture a man's self-worth is conditioned upon his material success in life. Many leaders in the Christian community promote this image of wealth and material success. Television evangelists look and sound like Wall Street businessmen. Not long ago I saw one of our most prominent television evangelists giving financial investment advise to his listeners. He fielded one question after another. One would have thought he was a representative of Merrill Lynch instead of the Church.

I think of a conversation I once had with a young seminarian. I asked him if he was interested in a certain pursuit after seminary. His response was completely honest and without shame. "No, my wife and I are both too materialistic. We like fine clothes and expensive cars. I wouldn't make enough money at that." With leaders like this is there any wonder that the conscience of Western Christianity is seared in regard to its blatant materialism?

This materialism is not confined to the personal lives of believers. It is fostered and perfected within the local church itself. Millions are spent to erect lavish, gaudy buildings of "worship." These temples far surpass any claim of mere comfort. Yet we have Christian brothers and sisters in other countries who don't even know from where their next meal is going to come. We overlook them, placating our conscience every now and then by sending them a few dollars every time someone drums up a special relief fund.

Pharisaical Legalism

The second problem is one of belief; not doctrinal belief, but practical belief. What we teach on paper and what we practice are two different things. On paper we believe that everyone who receives Jesus Christ as his savior is a Christian. In practice we believe that only those who conform to our particular dogma are truly spiritual. All others are phony. Each circle has its own special bent on things. For some it is baptism in their church. For others it is some mystical babble. For another it is a certain day to worship. For others yet, it is a certain tithe of their income. And for others it is to be a social nuisance.

On paper we believe we are free in Christ. In practice we believe that those who participate in or practice activities of which we do not personally approve are no doubt spiritually inferior. This is legalism. It is suffocating the Church.

Legalism attacks the integrity of Scripture. Legalistic dogmas which are claimed to be Scriptural by church leaders cause many who have faith in the integrity of the church to doubt the integrity of Scripture. The leaders of the church say a certain activity is wrong, yet the conscience of the individual does not agree. Thus, the individual concludes that the Bible must not be infallible and cannot be interpreted literally, as the church leaders have supposedly done.

For example, I recall a middle-aged woman who once challenged me on the authority of Scripture and the process of literal interpretation. She was raised in a Christian home, had been taught this doctrine and had always accepted it as fact. But lately she had begun to question it. She was seeing a man who, although a Christian, sometimes had a beer and enjoyed square dancing. She had participated in these activities with him and felt no guilt. However her church, claiming biblical support, condemned such activities as evil. She was confused. She believed her church when it said the Bible teaches these specific activities are wrong. Therefore, she had concluded that the Bible itself must be wrong. Now I realize that she could have sought the answer for herself by searching the Scripture. But this is not the point. The point is that her church, and many others just like it, was teaching personal dogma as gospel truth. It discredits the true gospel.

This pharisaical legalism misrepresents the faith. It is more than rigidity. It is the overt outward display of presumed holiness. It is strangling the Church. It is a pseudo-spirituality for spiritual infants. It looks pious; but, as Paul said, it only satisfies the flesh (Col. 2:23). While it may impress others, it does not impress God. Man is forever trying to make his faith ornate and visible. Jesus chastised the pharisees for praying on the street corners. Modern day pharisees proudly pray over their meals in restaurants, eager to display their piety. Some construct idols. Some build temples. Some are forever marching and protesting a cause. While some order codes of conduct. It is all false. True faith is made ornate and visible through love. Love for God and love for one another.

Traditions

The third problem I see is rigidity of tradition. We have programs for everything. Programs that once had a purpose, today only serve to frustrate the committed. They frustrate because they do not meet needs. Yet everyone is expected to participate in them. This is traditionalism. It is restricting the Church.

Perhaps the most dazzling tradition in Western Evangelical Orthodoxy that leads us astray is what we call "the worship service." Unwittingly, if not purposefully, we have been taught to think of worship as a jubilant time for praise and song. Two of my professors in seminary even wrote a book about it. It is viewed as something a little more involved than simple jubilation. In Scripture, worship is portrayed as that point at which an inconsequential man contemplates who he really is and who God really is. There is but one response to this realization. He falls flat on his face, overwhelmed in humble submission to the awesome, powerful, glorious God. It is a time of silence before the King. This is worship. After the experience, his heart wants, needs, to sing praises. This is good, expected, edifying. It is the aftermath of worship. Or maybe it is the conclusion to worship. Nevertheless, songs and praises themselves are not the total sum of worship. It is a great misnomer and major theological error to presume so.

By calling our songs and praises worship we have effectively overlooked the most essential aspect of worship, the instinctive humble prostration before the Mighty God. So eclipsed is this concept that we no longer even have a term for it. And since we don't have a term for it, we don't speak of it, and thus we don't do it. As a result our singing and our praises are weak. Therefore we must hire an enthusiastic song leader to manufacture the "spirit of worship" for us. Every time I here the phrase "worship service," I cringe in dismay.

Coupled with this Western "worship service" is the Sunday morning variety hour. I mean side show and sermonette. No, I mean theatrical performance. No ... I guess I don't exactly know what to call it. But I do know it is not very edifying. That is why so many people sleep through it. Valuable time which should be used for training and teaching and fellowship is wasted on insipid monologs having to do with any number of contrived issues springing from "out of context" passages.

The "Wednesday night prayer meeting" is another good example. For generations a mid-week meeting in "the sanctuary" has been a mainstay for any given local church. But the truth is people don't want to come to it. Aside from the new converts, most see it as some kind of duty and sacrifice. I believe it is not the meeting itself they oppose, but the content. In general, it is yet another one man show for the congregation to sit and watch.

Why not have small groups meet within their respective neighborhoods. Give them opportunity to fellowship and commune with each other. Why not indeed? It would be sacrilegious. We cannot close "the Sanctuary." That would be a step toward liberalism. So, regardless of the fact that few people attend, the doors remain open and small in-home prayer groups are discouraged. They are not part of the program.

Over the last millennium the Western church has accumulated multiple useless and even pernicious traditions. Our conformity to them is viewed to be our adherence to the faith. But they are only traditions, made by man to satiate his lack of true inner holiness. They only serve to frustrate and confuse.

Mysticism

We are all aware of the mysticism of Roman Catholicism. But the Western Evangelical Orthodoxy also has a flare of mysticism about it. A prime example is what we call "prayer." The Western Church has incorporated a mystical form of prayer that is near superstition. I do believe our present prayer practices are far different from Scripture's intent.

In Scripture we are admonished to "ask and it will be given, seek and you will find." This indicates that true prayer will be answered. But seldom, if ever, are our frivolous requests granted. This should indicate that something is amiss. Something is out of order. Is the Bible mistaken? Is God deceiving us? I think not! If Scripture's promise is true (which I believe it is) then something is wrong with our prayers.

Could it be that we have misunderstood what prayer is? Could it be that we have fostered a distorted view of prayer's content? Could it be that what we think of as "prayer" is not? Listen to the requests at a typical prayer meeting. The leader stands to take one petition after another which will be something along these lines: grandma's arthritis, legislation for prayer in school, Johnny's co-worker's wife's uncle's bladder, the election of our desired politician, even "let us win" from the Christian athlete, ad infinitum. Someone volunteers to pray, and then another and another. Our culture is so hung up on this meaningless placation that we have little concept of what prayer really is. Yet we feel mystically compelled to participate. To call such activity "prayer" is akin to calling song "worship." It too, is a great misnomer that causes us to side step the real thing. Study the prayers in the New Testament. Somehow they seem quite different in content.

How did we ever get started with this meaningless placation? We learned it from tradition. It is been passed down form one generation to the next as some mystical necessity. Let's reevaluate our prayers. Let's learn to pray from Scriptural examples. Even the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray. I suggest that we are in need of the same request.

A Sorry State of Affairs

What I see is a Church equivalent to the Laodicean Church in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. A Church that is "neither cold nor hot . . ." A Church which is "rich, and increased with goods, and having need of nothing . . ." A Church that "does not know that it is wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:15-17). I see a Church that cloaks its lukewarm faith in the guise of pious legalism, religious tradition and mystical activities.

Time For Change

I believe the answer to our present dilemma is to return to the way it used to be. Many things are necessarily different now than in the days of the apostolic age. We are a different culture with vastly different customs and life styles. But some things need not have changed. Should not have changed. To these things we must return.

To begin with we need to return to the apostolic model of church government. We need to choose and train a multiple of qualified men for leadership roles within the church. These men need to teach, exhort doctrine and promote familiar life within the church body. Then they need to teach and train others to take their places.

We need to be de-programmed. We need to come to a new understanding of what the church is. Let me elaborate. The ultimate purpose of the Church is synonymous with God's ultimate purpose with creation. His glory. The Church, both universal and local, brings glory to God by teaching truth and building relationships (Eph. 4:11-16). We organize these events through various activities and programs. It is the truth of God's Word around which we rally. And, it is the dynamic of truth oriented relationships for which we exist as local assemblies.

Universally, all believers are united spiritually through their relationship with the Holy Spirit. However, interpersonal relationships in the local assembly bind believers together corporeally as co-workers and fellow servants of the Lord. When the gifts of the Spirit are exercised the local church is edified. Truth is taught and interpersonal relationships grow. Needs are met. People are satisfied. Spiritual growth takes place. Paul is referring to this when he says, "speaking the truth in love . . . the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, makes increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Eph. 4:15-16).

Now, while we cannot divorce the ultimate purpose of the Church from its present activities and programs, neither can we confuse them. When the programs are misunderstood to be the purpose of the Church, we are out of focus. Programs exist to facilitate the needs of the group. The group does not exist to facilitate the programs. Programs must come and go. They must remain in flux. Their purpose is simply to provide structure for the teaching of truth and the building of relationships.

Thirdly, we need to limit our dogma to that which is biblical. Scripture names several specific sins with which most of us have enough trouble. Let's not create new lists of our own. Man made regulations reflect individual preferences. Your preferences are not mine. And they are certainly not the world's. Don't try to force opinions on society. And don't look down your nose at those that don't comply with your personal standards. It is true that Paul instructs us to evaluate one anther's spiritual progress. We are to reprove the offender, restore the repentant, and encourage the discouraged. But these critical appraisals are to be based upon Scriptural, not personal, criteria. And they are confined to believers. We have no business correcting the unbeliever. To him we are to present the gospel of salvation, not a personal critique of his troubled life.

Give the Holy Spirit room to work. He speaks to every man's conscience. Let each believer establish his own personal preferences with the Holy Spirit's assistance instead of yours. His perspective is pure. Yours is clouded, discolored by personal bias. Don't presume upon the job that is reserved for Him. He does not need your help or mine. He is perfectly capable. John sums it up like this, "If our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God . . . those who obey His commands live in Him, and He in them" (1 Jn. 3:21-24).

If you feel compelled to speak against something that disturbs you, don't claim biblical support if none exists. Let's be honest. Don't promote holiness -- or rather, your own biased view of holiness -- through deception.

Finally, we need to look beyond our own selfish desires and remember the Psalmist's admonishment that material wealth does not redeem (Ps. 49:5-11). Nor does it give us personal identity. Nor in the end, as Solomon conceded, does it satisfy (Ecc. 2:11). We need to look beyond new cars, boats, luxurious homes and IRA's. Even beyond new "Holy Temples." We must set our sights on that which is permanent, that which is spiritual, that which will yield eternal benefit.

Am I dreaming? Am I speaking of ideals impossible to attain? I hope not. For our sakes, I hope not. For without these vital changes I believe the Western Evangelical Christian Church is doomed to major disappointment.

1. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Paperback - 346 pp.; Eerdmans, 1994), p. 292.

2. A reference to John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress (Paperback; Fleming H Revell Co., 1999)