Nonconformity (part 3) What is Worldliness?

Years ago, a non-Mennonite pastor friend shared some concerns he had about his church’s youth group. He said he rarely let his children go to any of their youth events because the youth group and the youth leaders had such a “worldly mindset”.

His words caught me by surprise. He and his family were not “plain” and I wondered what a non-Mennonite considered worldly. I was even a bit surprised that he was worried about how worldliness might affect his children. By the standards that I had been raised in, his entire family was very “worldly”.

However, I have since learned that no Christian—regardless of denomination—wants to be considered worldly or to have a worldly mindset. So, what is worldliness? What does it look like? What does the Bible say about worldliness?

1 John 2:15-17 “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.”

John 15:19 “if ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”

Romans 12:2 “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.”

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Worldliness is clearly something God wants to keep us from.

We are all born with a worldly nature. Though I was a born a Mennonite child and looked differently than the rest of the world, I was still worldly. I wanted my own comfort, pleasure, and needs met more than anything or anyone else. I wasn’t willing to wait for God to meet my needs on His timing; I took things into my own hands. I made my decisions according to what made me feel good or look good. How I appeared outwardly to others mattered more to me than who I really was inside.

Galations 4:3 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.”
Ephesians 2:2 “wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.”

After salvation, God put within me a different spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:12 says, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”

Salvation changes desires. I began to want to obey His commandments and to do what I knew to be His will. Jesus says in Matthew 22:37-40 that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. The entirety of the rest of the commandments hang on these two commands.

Does that mean we aren’t tempted to be worldly after salvation?

Apparently not. Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:10 “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed…” Jesus, in the parable of the sower, spoke of seed that started growing, but the “cares of the world” choked out its life.

We need to avoid worldliness, just like any other sin.

Worldliness is a mindset of living in the flesh rather than being led by the Spirit.

1 John 2:16 defines a worldly mindset as being the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

Paul similarly describes walking according to the “course of the world” in Ephesians 2:2-3. He says before salvation our conduct was that of living according to the lust of the flesh and we fulfilled whatever desires our flesh and mind wanted.

Before I was born again, I didn’t do everything I wanted in the flesh. I knew there were consequences for some things. But I did as much as I thought I could get away with. Things that were forbidden were only out of reach if there was a strong likelihood of getting caught.

After salvation, the Holy Spirit changed those desires. I quit trying to live according to what my flesh wanted even when no one would see. But the temptation remained. Those desires didn’t go completely away. Peter warns us as “strangers and pilgrims” in this world to abstain from fleshly lusts because they “war against our souls”. (1 Peter 2:11)

James 4 gives a description of what the lust of the flesh within us looks like and how it plays out. He describes it as being a friend of the world and says it is “enmity with God”. He also refers to it as spiritual adultery. I like how the ESV puts it in verse 5, “…He yearns jealously over the spirit that He has made to dwell in us”.

Just as Jesus said that a lustful look is equal to adultery, the same is true in the spiritual sense. Worldliness is spiritual adultery, but we can commit spiritual adultery by gazing lustfully after worldly things.

Instead of following after the flesh, we need to be led by the Spirit. We can’t be led by the Spirit unless we draw near to God and allow Him to draw near to us.

Worldliness is focusing more on the outward than the inward

This is a point that we as conservative Anabaptists know best. The world is so focused on their outward appearance that they rarely think about what their inward man looks like. But do we really understand what all that entails?

1 Peter 3:3-4, “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel, but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

The world judges by outward appearance. Clothing is meant to make a statement. Sometimes clothing gives a message of how much money people have—or how much they would like people to think they have. The world likes expensive name brands and the latest fashion. The opposite is also true. Panhandlers will deliberately wear clothing that makes them appear poor—whether they are or not.

Clothing can also draw attention to the person. The world likes clothing that is provocative and showy. People want to stand out and get attention.

Do Anabaptist people struggle in this area? Or are we just automatically exempt because we have clothing regulations?

No matter how many rules or regulations churches have about clothing, you can usually still pick out the ones that have a bit more money than others and want to display it. You can still tell which ones are trying to draw attention to themselves or to their body.

Sometimes we think dressing shabbily or attempting to look poor is equal to humility. When people focus on appearing “poor” to show how humble they are, they are still focusing on the outward—not all that differently than what a panhandler’s does.

Worldliness is a heart problem, unfortunately.

When our focus is to dress differently from the world, we are still focusing on the world’s clothing. And in our attempt to dress differently than the world, we are still focusing on our appearance. Even when we look exactly right in our clothing choices, only God truly knows our heart motives.

What if our focus was on the other part of those verses? When we truly care about the “hidden man of the heart”—having meekness, caring about others more than ourselves, etc.—we might find outward clothing choices mattering less and less.

I think we as Anabaptists have failed in our focus of outward appearance more than many other denominations. In our determination not to become obsessed with appearance like the world does, we have become just as fixated as they are.

The world says how you appear to others is of greater importance than who you really are.

So do Anabaptists.

If you think this isn’t true, ask yourself what kind of person is more likely to be confronted? Do we confront the man who follows church regulations for dress but is known to be angry, neglects his family, or hoards his earthly riches? Or are we more concerned about the ones who don’t dress exactly according to church standards? Who is more likely to have communion denied to them?

We are warned repeatedly not to allow worldliness regarding dress creep into our homes and into our churches, but it seems it has crept in like a wolf in sheep’s clothing and we have been deceived. We seem to be unable to recognize the worldly motivation in much of our outward appearance.

There is nothing wrong with dressing differently than the rest of the world. But that can’t be our focus and motivation in the clothes we choose.

There is nothing wrong with dressing differently than the church next door. But if we feel a bit more righteous in our clothing choices and look down on those that we think look too much like the rest of the world, we are the ones imitating the world in judging others by outward appearance. We become the ones that need to repent of worldly attitudes of outward appearance.

Worldliness is seeing this present age more than eternity

Probably one of the most well-known verses in Mennonite circles is Romans 12:2, “And be not conformed to this world…”

Many verses that have “world” in it, are from the Greek word “Kosmos”. In this verse though, it is from the Greek word “aion” which carries a different meaning. It means more like an age, or a course of time.

That means this verse carries a slightly different meaning than what I used to think. Rather than not being conformed to “kosmos” (the world, its inhabitants, and the arrangement of it), it is talking about not being conformed to this present age.

The prodigal son is a good example of what this might look like. His mindset was on the “here and now” rather than the future. He didn’t want to wait for what would eventually be his. He didn’t want it on someone else’s terms. He wanted what he thought should be his right now. His world view was life “in the moment”.

Today we hear the term YOLO (you only live once) as an excuse to do whatever appeals. Having this present age as our focus without keeping eternity in view can cause us to set ourselves as our own idol. If all I care about is what I have right now, what I deserve, and how to be happy, I will do whatever I have to make that happen. My relationships, food, looks, money, everything will matter a lot more about how it makes me feel now.

Think of how many sins come from this mindset. Our strife and fighting with each other comes from this. We’re not thinking of waiting to see what God wants to do in us through a hard situation. Rather, we look at the circumstances and how they are affecting me right now and then react to the person that we think is causing our present distress.

That is being conformed to this present age.

When Satan tempted Jesus, he tempted Him with things that appealed to the “here and now”. But Jesus turned down those temptations because His mindset was not of being conformed to this “present age”. He remembered His greater purpose and kept eternity in mind.

If we would always keep eternity in mind, we would be more willing to be patient with the “sufferings of this present time” because of the future glory that will eventually be revealed (Rom. 8:18).

That is the opposite of being worldly.

Worldliness is caring more about myself than others

Jesus said in Mark 12:30 that the greatest commandment was to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. He followed that by saying that the second greatest commandment is to love others as we love ourselves.

When our focus becomes more about myself and looking out for “number one”, we become like the world. The world says, “Look out for yourself because no one else will”. How willing am I to trust God to supply exactly what I need and then also to be willing to give as He directs?

Many plain people are known to have plenty of money. We are taught to work hard and to be good stewards. This is important, but what do we do with that money? If God asked us to sell all we had like He did the rich young ruler, would we do it? Or would we go “away sorrowful”?

Shouldn’t we be concerned about our needs though?

When Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 6, He says we should “take no thought” about our needs. He follows that with, “For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Mat. 6:12)

The Gentiles were the pagans—they were the “world”. If we want to do the opposite of the world, then our focus needs to be first seeking the kingdom of God and our needs will be met. Worldliness is focusing on seeking my needs and not my neighbors.

We as Anabaptists tend to take care of our own pretty well, but what about those outside our circles? I know a minister whose family has for years taken care of a widow in his neighborhood though she was never part of their church. Do we turn away from people that are not part of our plain circles or do we love them as we love ourselves?

James 1:27 “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

In conclusion

Worldliness might not be what we have always been taught. No matter how plain I may dress, or how different I make myself look outwardly, I might still be a most worldly person. And just because I’m Mennonite doesn’t mean I’m not worldly any more than it means that I’m automatically born again.

 

 

 

Nonconformity- (part 2) When Does Transformation Happen?

“Why do you dress like that?” “Why are your clothes so different than those around you?” “Why do you all dress alike?”

Most of us who were raised in a conservative Anabaptist/Mennonite homes have probably been asked at least one, or maybe all, of these questions at some point in our lives. People don’t always give the same answers, but here are some of the answers that I have heard given through the years:

-This is how my church asks me to dress
-We don’t want to be worldly, so we don’t dress like the world
-We believe in nonconformity to the world
-We want to have unity in our church
-We believe in dressing modestly

These are all short easy answers that most of us have been taught. Yet, in some ways they are such insufficient, unsatisfactory answers. I wonder if we would have better answers if we were pressed? What if we were then asked questions such as:
Would you still dress that way if your church did not have that rule?
Do you believe that anyone who does not dress like you is of the world—even those of other churches?
Does dressing differently keep you from being conformed to the world?
Since you all dress alike, do you now all have unity of the Spirit?
Do you consider all those that are dressed differently than you to be immodest?

Romans 12:2 and nonconformity

When a sermon is preached with Romans 12:2 as the main script in a typical Anabaptist church, we already have a general idea of what we will hear. Nonconformity is very important to our people and has been focused on for many generations for well over a hundred years. We’ve been taught how important it is to look differently than the world.

We tend to look at other denominations with a bit of condescension. We feel we are at a little higher level on the holiness ladder. After all, they seem to just ignore this verse.

What if other denominations aren’t ignoring this verse, but are looking at it from a different angle than we do?

What is the most important part of this verse? Is it to avoid being conformed to the world or is it to be transformed by the renewing of our minds? We know both are important and both must happen in the life of a born-again Christian.

Maybe another question to ask would be, do either of these directives depend on the other? In other words, must you be “nonconformed to the world” before you can be “transformed by the renewal of your mind”? Or do we need to be “transformed” before we can be “nonconformed to the world”? Which should happen first?

Though we might not hear it emphasized, transformation must happen first; or nonconformity is worthless.

Have you ever tried to make a caterpillar act like a butterfly? No matter what you do, it will by nature crawl on its belly and eat leaves. You can attempt to put it on a flower, but it will not drink nectar. Its nature has not changed. When a caterpillar is transformed into a butterfly, who tells that butterfly to act like a butterfly rather than a caterpillar? Must they told constantly to stop crawling and to do what butterflies are supposed to do?

A caterpillar has within itself everything needed to become a butterfly. And yet, it will not do anything that a butterfly does until it transforms. During the cocoon stage, everything that is caterpillar literally dies and becomes a soupy ooze that is used as fuel for the rapid cell division that takes place to make a butterfly. After that its very nature changes.

There are some ways this analogy does not work, but it makes a point. It is not worth our time to try to force someone who has not been born again to act like a saved person. Their nature has not changed. We can not make them want to do what has not been instilled in them yet.

After salvation—or transformation—our minds are renewed, and we think differently.

Are we Anabaptists focusing too much on not conforming to the world? Instead of conforming to the world, we are to be transformed by the “renewing of our minds”. What if our focus would be on that first? Would we see the other happening more naturally?

In Ephesians 4:22-32, we see the concept of putting off and putting on. Put off lying, put on speaking truth; put off stealing, put on laboring and giving; put off corrupt communication, put on edifying communication.

Instead of trying not to lie, we need to just speak truth. Instead of reminding ourselves not to steal, we need to work to provide for our needs and others. Instead of trying our hardest not to let bitterness, wrath and anger spew out of us onto others, we need to be kind and tenderhearted to others.

Instead of trying not to conform to the world, we need to be transformed by having our minds renewed.

If there is no difference between us and the world, perhaps it’s because no transformation has taken place. We should be different. Our minds, our very motivations for every choice we make should be different than an unsaved person. What we feed our minds on should look different than it used to. There should be a hunger and thirst for righteousness that was not there before.

We should not have to make rules to try to keep our people from being “conformed to the world”. Should born again Christians look differently from the world? Possibly. But if the only reason they do is because the church rules are there, that is not transformation. It is more like strapping wings on a caterpillar and calling it a butterfly.

Did the disciples look differently than those around them? There is nothing in Scripture to prove that they did. But I doubt that the world around them looked like the world does today. Paul warns believers in both 1Tim. 2 and 1 Peter 3 to dress modestly and to focus on adorning the inward man more than the outward. We should want to put on ornaments of a meek and quiet spirit more than outward ornaments. We should want to dress simply and modestly.

But we should want to do this because of a transformation that happened within and we want to do what God wants, not because my church has a list of dress rules I must follow to look differently than the world.

Just looking differently than the world, does not mean that I am not conformed to the world any more than strapping wings on the back of caterpillar means it is no longer a caterpillar. It’s not about looking differently from the world, it’s about not being conformed to—or patterned after—the world. And the way to keep from being conformed is by a transformation—a metamorphosis—in our minds.

If our hearts/minds have not gone through any transformation, looking differently will do us no good.

Jeremiah 17:9 speaks of the heart (mind, will, feelings) being “deceitful” and “desperately wicked”. It’s been said that this is why we need rules. We are fearful that our hearts will betray us if we don’t set extra guidelines. However, is this verse speaking of a heart that has been transformed, or is it speaking of an unregenerate heart?

Can God transform our hearts and give us clean hearts that aren’t “desperately wicked”? If He cannot transform our heart/minds, then what is the point of Rom. 12:2?

When David sinned with Bathsheba, we see him crying out to God in Psalm 51, confessing his sin, and asking God to blot out his iniquities. Then in verse 10, David says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.”

When God created the world and everything in it, He made something out of nothing and said it was good. When God creates a clean heart, He makes it good. When our heart is transformed, our desires and our thoughts patterns are no longer wicked and deceitful. That doesn’t mean we are perfect, but what we hunger after is changed.

If there is something in me wanting to conform–or pattern after—everything the world does, if my desires are not different than the world, perhaps I need to do like David and ask God to create in me a clean heart. Perhaps my mind/heart has not gone through the transformation of metamorphosis into renewal.

Nonconformity- When Did it Start? (part 1)

If you identify as a conservative Mennonite, what is it exactly that makes you a conservative Mennonite? Maybe you don’t like the term Mennonite and prefer to call yourself Anabaptist, so what is it that makes you Anabaptist? Denominations are usually set apart from each other because of some belief that they hold to strongly or some belief that they refuse to have part of.

Mennonites have had so many different church splits and schisms through the centuries and the number of groups and subgroups that are out there are often hard to keep track of—even when you grow up in it. But what is it that makes them keep identifying as Anabaptists or Mennonite rather than some other denomination?

When someone says they aren’t going to be Mennonite anymore, what does that mean to us?

In asking some of these questions, I have found that most Mennonites generally will either answer something about the way one looks, or about nonresistance, or both.

In reading about our more recent history, nonconformity and nonresistance seem to be the key issues that Mennonites tend to focus on. To most of us, it is a normal part of being Mennonite. Members meetings, business meetings, and conferences often revolve around our dress and outward appearance. Nonresistance is important but isn’t focused on as much as it once was when America was directly involved in specific wars.

Nonresistance seems to have always been a part of the Anabaptist movement, but rules and regulations about dress and clothing were not always what our people focused on.

When did we become so focused on our outward appearance?

If most of our identity as a denomination is in how we look, doesn’t that sound like a rather shallow identity?

Of course, that isn’t our only deeply held belief, but since it is the one that is often focused on more than others, that is what my next series will be on.

A Brief History

Mennonites today get our term “nonconformity” from Romans 12:2, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (NKJV)

Another verse that is often used in correlation with this is 2Cor. 6:17, “Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” (NKJV)

If you were raised in a conservative Mennonite home, these verses are most likely very familiar. Most of us, if questioned, would tell you that these verses are the reason we are to dress and live differently than the world.

The earliest Anabaptists also spoke about clothing, but their focus in their teaching was not the same as ours today. “Nonconformity”—in regard to dress—was not something spoken of much. Rather, admonition about clothing was focused more on simplicity, and guarding against pride.

When the Anabaptist movement began, the upper classes liked to display their wealth in the kind of clothing and ornamentation they wore. Menno Simons and some of the other earlier Anabaptist writers wrote against this practice, calling for modest, simple apparel that was not “prideful and pompous”.1

Through the centuries, Anabaptists were not the only Christians speaking out against this. Leaders such as Adoniram Judson, Charles Finney, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and others also spoke against costly display in dress and wrote in support of simplicity of dress rather than extravagance and display.2

For four centuries, Mennonites did not teach about nonconformity or separatism from the world in dress. The Amish were the only ones within the Anabaptist movement who had very specific clothing rules. Jacob Ammon made his rules about dress much like the world at that time did and he conformed to the world’s view of how the poor class should be clothed. His rules were not about being “nonconformed”, but rather focused on conforming to the lowest worldly class of people. You can read more about this here.

Clothing styles did not change as rapidly during those four centuries and Mennonites did not look much different than those around them–other than keeping their clothing simpler and not having as many frills, etc. However, they were often somewhat slower in acclimating to the styles of those around them.

In the 1800’s, mass production of clothing during the industrial revolution brought a more simple, cheap, and utilitarian style of clothing. As clothing became cheaper, and much of the extravagant and outlandish styles were dropped, society began to dress more alike with less distinction between the classes. With cheaper dress, however, the styles began to change more rapidly.

This brought concern to Mennonite leaders for several reasons. Since clothing was made more cheaply with less frills, Mennonites didn’t really look different than others around them. Transportation and communication had become easier and Mennonites came into more contact with urban society. Mennonite leaders became concerned that their people would lose their distinctiveness. They had already lost much of their distinctiveness in language and geographic isolation. With the rest of the world no longer dressing with as many frills and ornamentation on their clothing, they worried that would no longer be set apart from others.3

It was at this point in the late 1800’s that Mennonites began to speak of nonconformity, uniformity, and being separated from the world in dress. Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 6:17 became key verses for Mennonite living. Between the years 1865 to 1950, more resolutions were passed regarding nonconformity than any other subject. At least 230 resolutions were passed during that time.

Nonconformity or just wanting to hold on to cultural distinctiveness?

As I read the history of Mennonite nonconformity, I found myself questioning if it really was nonconformity to the world that they were desiring, or if they were just attempting to “be different” in order to preserve their culture.

Each group of Mennonites that came to America brought with them their own language and culture. They tended to live together in their own communities and speak their own language. But as transportation became easier and they had more contact with the outside world, they lost that distinction.

It is not an unusual phenomenon to want your children to keep the culture that you grew up in. It happens in most cultures of people who come to America. Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, etc., want their children to remember who they were and where they come from. Sometimes there are particular traits and traditions that they are able to keep, or a language they still speak at home, but most of the time the children assimilate to the culture around them as they integrate into society.

While it’s not wrong to want to safeguard your culture, should a people group’s main objective be to keep their culture and do this by calling things pertaining to other cultures a sin? Is it right to call things sin that God does not?

Is Nonconformity important?

Does that mean that I think nonconformity does not matter? Should we just give up our culture and join the world around us?

Not at all! What I would like to do is take a deeper look at biblical nonconformity, worldliness, and being in separation from the world. I want to study what it is and what it is not. My next couple posts will be on that subject.

 

 

1. Gingerich, Melvin, Mennonite Attire through Four Centuries, pg. 14
2. Ibid, pg.145
3. Ibid, pg.28 and 148

 

Emotional Worship

There are many warnings and admonitions against emotionalism in worship today. Much is said against people thinking they must experience some emotion during worship to truly have a worship experience. And there is truth in this.

But the opposite extreme are the people who think no emotion should be shown during worship times. Any emotion shown is viewed as fake, or simply an attempt to draw attention to oneself.

I have been part of Anabaptist churches all my life. I have seen Amish, Beachy, Eastern Mennonite, and Conservative Mennonite church services, and the one thing that always stayed consistent was sitting still and somber during church services. I don’t recall ever feeling emotional during our “worship songs”. I don’t remember seeing others in the congregation showing much emotion during worship, neither do I recall any longings on my part to show any. The few times that certain people raised a hand in worship, it drew the attention of everyone around them. I remember thinking I wouldn’t never do that because I wouldn’t want everyone staring at me.

I learned immense amounts of biblical knowledge and applications during church, and I don’t regret any of that. Quiet, non-emotional churches often seem to excel in this area. However, now that I’m older, I have wished that I would have learned that feeling and showing emotion is okay during worship as well.

Is it possible to learn both?

Feeling Emotions—good or bad?

Is it wrong to want an emotional experience during worship? Is it wrong to feel overcome by emotions during worship and to show it? Does God care about what our emotional state is when we worship Him? Would He rather that we would not act emotional?

These are all questions that I have been working through in the past few years.

In Ephesians 5, the relationship between husbands and wives is compared to Christ and His church. That made my mind go to marital emotions. When we are first married and in the honeymoon stage, emotions are crazily wild and passionate. There is no attempt to suppress how we feel for each other, and we both feel and show strong emotions with abandon.

Through the years, those emotions level out a bit and we tend to be less emotional but love more deeply. But still, deep within, there is often a longing to feel those wildly crazy, passionate emotions and get lost with each other. Is it wrong to desire or pursue that?

That desire can lead to pursuing a deeper intimacy with each other, or it can lead to wanting just the experience itself so much that it leads us into temptation and sin. In other words, the desire itself is not wrong, but what you do with that desire can be. If we allow that desire to become an obsession and an idol, it can lead to false intimacy, such as pornography or affairs.

Pursuing that desire in a legitimate way would mean you pursue the person, not the experience. That might be candlelight dinners, soft music, slow dancing, reminiscing together, or whatever is a special time for each couple.  Rarely would someone try to claim that enjoying an emotional intimacy together as a couple is wrong.

Does it always happen the way we think it should? Does it always look the same?

Sometimes we go through the motions and feel nothing. Does that mean we give up on the relationship or the pursuit of that emotional connection with each other? It shouldn’t!

Could we not also apply some of these same principles to our relationship with God? Have you ever been overcome with emotions during worship, whether at home or in public? Is it wrong to want to feel emotions in worship?

Maybe the same rule could apply…If the desire causes us to pursue a deeper intimacy with God, rather than just pursuing the emotional experience, it can be a good thing. If we allow the desire to become an obsession for just an experience we want to have again, rather than pursuing the One we wish to experience it with, it could lead to sin.

Does that mean we will always experience deep emotions during worship?

No, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong to desire it. When I don’t feel emotions during worship, does that mean I’m doing something wrong or that I should just not bother worshipping? Just as there are times in marriage when you just don’t feel the strong emotions, it doesn’t mean you aren’t “in love” or that you should stop showing love.

Showing Emotions

If desiring and experiencing deep emotions during a worship time with God is not wrong, what about showing emotions? There are those within my Anabaptist heritage that would say it is wrong because all emotions should be kept in check and under control.

Again, my mind goes to the marital relationship. If a spouse never lets emotions show and very woodenly keeps herself/himself in check while methodically going through the motions of showing love, it steals the joy right out of the moment.

There is something about knowing that the one you love is crazy about you and loses all inhibitions when you are together. Proverbs 5:18-19 speaks of men “rejoicing with the wife of your youth” and it goes on to say he should be “ravished” or “intoxicated” in her love.

Wild, intense emotions of joy and pleasure are not wrong when they are within God-given relationships. They are a beautiful gift from God.

Does God expect or want us to quench emotions we may feel when we are in His Presence? The psalmist speaks of there being “fullness of joy” in His Presence and “pleasures forevermore” at His right hand. (Ps.16:11)

1 Thess. 2:19 says, “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming?”

1Peter 1:8, “Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.”

If what we feel while in His Presence is Him evoking in us fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore, why should we quench those feelings or refuse to show them? Aren’t we warned in 1Thess. 5:19 that we should not “quench the Spirit”?

Have you ever sat in a somber assembly and sang “It is joy unspeakable and full of glory, full of glory, full of glory…” wondering all the while why everyone is so expressionless and subdued? I have. And I’ve wondered what God’s response is?

Should an emotional response be reserved for only times of private worship?

Some people have never felt an emotional response during church or in their personal quiet time. If your quiet time consists of praying only for needs and wants, and you don’t enter His Presence or understand what “being in the Presence of God” is, you won’t feel “fullness of joy” or understand what it really means.

And if you don’t experience it in your quiet time with God, I doubt you are truly experiencing it while in the assembly of believers either.

If you often are overcome by emotions during your quiet time because you feel the touch of God upon you, it’s no surprise that you feel those same emotions while worshipping with other believers and God’s Presence is strongly felt. Why would you quench those feelings or try to hold back? We were made to worship Him in solitary worship, but also in solidarity with fellow believers while we worship in an assembly. We are one body, why can we not show an emotional response together to our bridegroom?

Psalms 111:1-2 says, “I will praise the Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, an in the congregation. The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” (emphasis mine)

In Luke 19:37 it says “…the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen.”

If you keep reading, you find the Pharisees asking Jesus to rebuke His disciples and He says, “If these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

There are times God expects rejoicing and praising in a loud voice–with your whole heart!

Does God have or show emotions?

We are made to be image bearers of God. Sin has tainted the reflection that we give, but Jesus tells us in Matt. 18:3 that we need to convert and become “as little children” and says “of such is the kingdom of God” in Matt. 19:14. Have you ever noticed that children do not hold back their emotions? They don’t hide what they are feeling.

Could it be that they are more of a true image bearer in this area than we are as adults?

In the Old Testament, God shows emotions to His people. He shows when He is jealous, when He rejoices over His people, when He is overcome by love, etc., through the words He sends by His prophets.

In Zephaniah 3:17, it says, “The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness; He will quiet you with His love; He will exalt over you with loud singing.”

That doesn’t sound somber or like a non-emotional relationship to me.

Jesus said that if we see Him, we see the Father. Did Jesus show emotions? I’m remembering Jesus weeping when Lazarus died, and weeping when He prophesied about the fall of Jerusalem. Over and over we read, “And Jesus, moved with compassion…” followed by a miracle. He showed anger in the temple and spent His last night with His disciples telling them of the joy that would follow the sorrow they would soon be feeling.

God is not against emotion. He feels emotions, shows emotions, and speaks of emotions. Why do we feel that we must quell them?

Judgment of others

I have seen a harsh reaction from those of our Anabaptist heritage towards people who show emotions of any kind during worship. There is scorn and even contempt at times written on faces and they are spoken of in disdainful whispers.

This can put a hesitancy in us to worship freely. Perhaps we have once been one of those scornful people.

David was someone that worshipped freely and joyfully. The Psalms show many of the emotions he felt. In 2 Samuel 6, there is an account of him being so excited about the ark of the covenant (the Presence of God!) being brought into the city of David that he danced before the Lord with all his might. And not only David rejoiced—it also says that “David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.”

And Michal, Saul’s daughter saw him “leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart.” She spoke scornfully to him when he came home and her consequence for this reviling of his worship was being childless all her life.

God didn’t approve of her scornful judgement.

In Luke 7, there is an account of a woman who weeps as she stands by Jesus, washes His feet with her tears, then wipes them with her hair. She then kisses His feet and anoints them with perfumed oil. Does that sound emotional? There is no doubt what her emotional state is here.

The Pharisee, in whose house they were in, didn’t say what he thought out loud–and yet Jesus answered him in rebuke, defending her actions for all to hear.

Jesus did not approve of even silent scornful judgment.

In Matt. 26 and in Mark 14, there is another account of a woman who poured expensive perfume on His head. When the disciples voiced their disapproval, Jesus rebuked them and said this woman would always be remembered for what she had done.

Scorning the emotionally charged activities of those acting out of love and worship of God garners rebuke from Him. Scorn is never a positive quality in a person—much less when it’s shown to someone who is openly worshipping God in love.

Ask for it

What if you genuinely don’t feel emotional during worship? What do you do if the desire is there for that experience, but you’ve never encountered God in such a way?

Ask Him for it.

James 4:2 says “ye have not, because ye ask not”. If you feel fearful or unsure about it, remember the lesson Jesus taught in Luke 11:13. “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (ESV)

When it comes to worship and the deepening the relationship we have with Him, He’s not going to give us an evil gift when we ask for something He already desires in us.

Just ask Him.

The Third Person in the Trinity (Holy Spirit-part 1)

Years ago I sat in a Mennonite church service and a visiting preacher preached about the Holy Spirit. I don’t really remember much of what he preached, but it is the only sermon that I distinctly recall hearing teaching about the Holy Spirit. What made an impression on my young mind at that time was that the bishop got up afterward and refuted everything the visiting preacher had preached about. He basically said, “We don’t believe like that in this church.”

I often wondered after that, “What do we believe about the Holy Spirit?”

I noticed that asking about or speaking about the Holy Spirit always seems to make Mennonites very uncomfortable. I don’t particularly relish the thought of writing my own thoughts and discoveries simply for the reason that it upsets many Anabaptists. I also am only learning and feel like I am a novice and am limited in what I can teach or write on this subject. But I will share what I have learned and experienced in the last few years and hope that it will help someone else.

Why we are so against Holy Spirit teaching?

The older generation remembers seeing a movement that wasn’t always very accurate in it’s teaching and brought about some pretty crazy stuff. Because of this, they put their guard up to protect their congregations from the wrong teachings that are out there.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Pastors do need to protect their flocks from teaching that contradicts Scripture. But instead of avoiding the teaching and saying what all is false, they need to replace wrong teaching with right teaching. We can’t throw it all out because of there is bad mixed in with good.

Suppose someone gave me a large bag of money that was filled with one hundred dollar bills. If I was told that some of the bills were counterfeit, what would I do with that bag of money? Would I throw the entire bag away? What if I would, instead, just simply set the whole bag aside, realizing that while it still had value, I probably should not take the risk of attempting to use it?

This is what many of us have done with teaching on the Holy Spirit. We either throw out teaching about the Holy Spirit altogether or we realize there is value there to some degree and just “set Him aside” because we are afraid we will possibly do the wrong thing or are afraid our discerning skills may not be good enough.

If someone would truly see the value in that bag of money, they could study some real one hundred dollar bills to know what to compare it to. They could get help from others who were more knowledgeable and begin to throw out the bad while keeping the good. People who are in need and desperate enough won’t even think twice about using that money even if it means there is some extra work involved.

How desperate and in need are we for the Holy Spirit in our lives? Most of us Anabaptists are viewed as being self-reliable and self-sufficient. We have orderly lives and we run our communities in a systematic fashion. Our culture appears to be better than other cultures around us as we see lives falling apart in chaos and disorder.

Could this be why we don’t even see a need to teach much about the Holy Spirit? Are we not desperate enough? Do we see ourselves as being so self-sufficient that we do just fine on our own with our tightly knit communities and rule-governed lives?

But what about when it’s not enough?

What about those hundreds and thousands of men and women in our communities that live secretly addicted to porn and other vices? What about those families with molestation hidden from the eyes of others? What about those parents who are only able to “control” their families by anger and physical abuse? What about those husbands and wives who go from counselor to counselor trying to find help for a marriage that just doesn’t seem to get any better? Worse yet, what about those husbands and wives who have given up because there doesn’t seem to be anything more that they can do except to live as two separate lives under the same roof?

Do we just keep on pretending that we don’t have problems because our rules and the way we do things are good enough to at least keep up appearances?

How are we any different than the Jews in Jesus’ day? We have a different set of rules that we abide by than what they did, but many of us don’t seem to have God’s law written in our hearts any more than those of Jesus’ day did. Instead of making sacrifices in the temple for the sins we keep committing, we hide them until we can’t anymore, then we do our penance by making a confession in public and being “put on probation” for awhile.

Why aren’t we able to help those that can’t walk in victory over sin no matter how many guidelines and fences we erect? We simply can’t because that is the work of the Holy Spirit. The whole point of the law was to show us that we cannot do it on our own. Without the Holy Spirit as a living, breathing entity in our lives, we are left to fight the flesh alone with the help of only our rules pointing out all that we are not doing right.

“But we believe in the Holy Spirit! Of course we have the Holy Spirit– all Christians have the Holy Spirit!”

Every Christian has access to the Holy Spirit, but with no teaching about Him, we are like a gardener with a hose in his hand trying to water the garden with the spigot turned off. Why can’t we teach our people about the power that is available? Could it be that our leaders themselves don’t know either? How can they teach what they have not learned?

Jesus spoke of the blind leading the blind and when a leader’s solution for sinful addictions is to proclaim more laws and/or judgement because that is all they can offer, they are only leading them into another ditch.

Is it possible to know whether that “spigot” is turned on?

For most of my life, the little teaching I received about the Holy Spirit was that He was just a quiet influence– much like your conscience. I always wondered how I would know when it was my conscience and when it was the Holy Spirit. And my salvation experience did not bring any change in the voice of my conscience. I felt guilt when I sinned just as I had before salvation, but that “quiet influence” was so quiet, I could not have shared what the Holy Spirit actually did differently in my life.

I remember hearing a missionary ask his audience if they would even notice or be able to tell if the Holy Spirit had left. That question haunted me because I didn’t know how to tell if He was there or not. Maybe sin or lack thereof would be the telling factor? But if I couldn’t tell when He came, how would I be able to tell if He left?

It was years later before I experienced a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Trying to talk about my experiences to other Anabaptist believers brought mixed reactions. I saw doubt, disbelief, and outright scorn; but in the past few years, I have found many others who have also found something–or rather Someone– different than any teaching we received in our Mennonite upbringing. And these with whom I talked to, now lived drastically different lives than they did before this experience. Many found freedom from bondage, but all found life and joy in the Christian walk rather than a life of struggling to obey rules. The Christian walk was no longer a hard thing void of all pleasures. Praying was suddenly different than it had been before. No longer was it a discipline to pray, but rather a time of pleasure and joy– something to look forward to. Feeling His Presence in a real way is “fulness of joy” and “pleasures for evermore”!

How will we know what is real and what is counterfeit?

There are many counterfeit teachings out there. Every time God gives us something good and pure, Satan loves to twist it into something that looks similar and uses it to entrap people into bondage and sin. So how will we be able to tell what is the good and perfect gift from God and what is Satan’s counterfeit? Are we better off just rejecting all things pertaining to the spiritual world altogether?

Satan would like us to think so.

But the fact of the matter is, we were created as spiritual beings who happen to have a physical body. We tend to forget that and think that we are physical beings who just happen to have a spirit. Though we may not understand everything, we can not discard teaching about our spirit or the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said that God is a Spirit and those that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. How can we do this if we have no idea how to?

The Bible is not silent regarding the Holy Spirit. Read it and check to see if any teaching you hear or read is lined up with Scripture or not. Feel free to give me feedback if you feel something I write is contrary to Scripture. I want to speak Truth and write nothing that contradicts God’s Word.

I realize I have probably raised more questions than I have given answers in this post. But for the sake of easier reading, I am once again planning to divide this study into segments. So be patient, more is coming.

Why I Have Not Left the Anabaptist Faith

On occasion, readers will ask me why I don’t just “leave the Mennonites”. Some of them ask from the viewpoint of, “Why would you stay in a denomination that is doing all these things that are so wrong?” This group of people has already walked away because of some of these very reasons.

Another group says, “If you don’t like the way we do things, why don’t you just find another denomination?” Many in this group are the older generation that believes “the way we do things has worked well for us so far, why change anything?” This group of people do not like when others point out things that are viewed as discrepancies within our culture. They prefer to have those that disagree with any Anabaptist practices to just leave. Who wants to have someone in the midst of our controlled environment that keeps speaking out of turn and pointing to things we don’t like to have pointed out?

Then there are others who, like myself, see a hope for change and stay with an idealistic expectation that if enough of us speak out and pray for change, change will come.

Often when people leave the Anabaptist faith, they leave because of one of the following two reasons. Some leave because they feel there are too many things wrong within our culture and they see no hope for change. Others leave because they spoke up too much and are pushed out.

Years ago, I found myself leaning into the first category. I seriously considered walking away from the Anabaptist heritage altogether because of the very things I write about on this blog. But in attempt to find some answers to why we do some of the things we do, I began to read a lot of our history. Reading and researching Anabaptist history because I want to know was very different than being in school or in some Anabaptist conference and being forced to listen.

As I read, I found myself agreeing with so many of our core beliefs. For example, I am more of an Arminian than Calvinist.

I also believe in believer’s baptism. In other words, belief in Jesus as the Son of God and repentance should come before baptism.

I believe in loving my enemies, returning good for evil, and also refusing to take up the sword to fight and kill. We call that “non-resistance”.

Conservative Anabaptists believe that everything in the New Testament is for us today. We believe it is the Word of God and we do not believe that parts of it don’t apply to today. That is why we still practice the head covering, we don’t ordain women, and we will not endorse homosexuality. I agree with this.

There are also many things within our culture that I love. We believe in hard work and we keep our family life and marriage as a high priority. We notice needs of others and believe in meeting those needs– whether that means giving our time and physical labor, or whether that means giving to meet a monetary need. We believe in living a simple life so that we have extra to give. We don’t attempt to follow the world in all its sin and wrong desires, but we would rather live a lifestyle that follows Scriptural principles.

We have traditions of loving to sing and teaching our children to sing. We believe in studying the Bible and knowing what it says. We teach it to our children and have Bible memorization as a high priority. We believe in discipleship and helping those who desire to learn.

Do we always do these things perfectly? Obviously we don’t. We are a fallen people. Despite our best efforts, we stray from the original intent of our cultural habits and have a tendency to become a rigid works-oriented people. We have even allowed some of our good traditions to become more important to us than Biblical commands.

Does that mean I should walk away because I see things in our culture that are being done wrongly? Should I leave and try to find another denomination that is a little closer to perfect than ours? That is a question that each person must ask themselves.

For me, I found the answer to that question to be no. Yes, I could probably find groups that have at least some of those core doctrines to be the same. But probably not all of these same core beliefs would be there.

Some of our cultural traditions could probably also be seen in other denominations, but they would likely also have other traditions that I would not agree with. Just as we can never find a perfect church, we will never find a perfect denomination. We must know what our core beliefs are and be a part of the denomination that reflects those. We must also be a part of a church within that denomination that has traditions and a culture that is most like our own.

Does that mean we must accept every tradition and belief? If there are things that are not aligned with the Bible, we cannot turn a blind eye to it. We cannot allow our love for our people and culture to blind us to discrepancies within our groups. No matter how much God loves us, He will not overlook sin in our lives. In fact, God chastens those He loves.

So if we love our people and culture, why would we not also then desire change in those areas that are causing others to stumble instead of pretending we are without fault?

Every Anabaptist writer that dares write anything negative about our traditions finds themselves under fire from our people. We face ridicule, anger, scorn, and people suggest that maybe we should leave. Sometimes we are even blatantly told that leaving should happen soon. We are accused of causing dissension, we are told we are losing our faith or falling into heresy.

Many have left. Many more will leave. How stubborn will we be? Why can we not stop being so defensive and consider that since we are not a perfect people, our churches will not do everything perfectly and our denomination may not have everything perfectly aligned either?

If God had the apostles writing to the early churches to correct them and address things that they were falling away from within the first century, how much more are the churches today susceptible? We can easily see beliefs and practices that have gone amiss in other churches and denominations, but are we unwilling to even consider that we may have areas that need to change as well?

Instead of taking a stubborn stand against any writer or preacher that dares question or point to discrepancies, why can’t we humble ourselves and take a deep inward look? If our beliefs and practices have strayed from Scripture, we need to know it. And we need to change if we do see areas that we have strayed in.

We want to be known as a people that walk in humility and are willing to take correction and reproof. But how willing are we really when it is something that has been ingrained in us for the past century or more? Are we really willing to humble ourselves and pray, asking God to reveal it to us if there is something we need to change in the way we do things? Are we willing to turn from it if He reveals it to be true? Some of the most deplorable sins in our midst are a consequence of these areas that we refuse to even consider that we may be wrong in.

How long will we stiffen our necks and refuse reproof? How long will we judge unjustly those who differ slightly from us in traditions? How long will we accept teachers that teach in opposition to God’s Word by twisting Scripture to make it fit our traditions?

It is time we take a stand for Truth.

 

 

“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?– unless indeed you are disqualified. But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. Now I pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that you should do what is honorable, though we may seem disqualified. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”

2Cor. 13:5-8 NKJV

The Imperfect Process

The current method of Anabaptists in ordaining ministers by the use of the lot is not without flaws. Is there a flawless method that we could use instead that would fix all the problems that come with the use of the lot? I doubt it.

Anytime you work with non-perfect humans in a non-perfect world, you will have problems. So if I criticize things and share about painful things that people have experienced during the use of the lot, it’s not that I think some other method will erase all problems in ordaining men to leadership. But I do think we need to be made aware of issues that men and their families face because of the lot. That said, I do believe there are other biblical methods and that we should recognize that we don’t hold the on candle on the only or the best way of doing things.

It does seem that we use a method that many don’t really believe in– though we claim to.

The Calling

When a church announces that they will soon be ordaining a new minister, people begin to discuss who they think will make a good leader. Rarely are men asked if they feel called to the ministry. But in our culture, even if a man feels called, to tell someone would be equated with being proud. So even when a man feels a calling, he will try to “humbly” deny that he does because to admit that you have a desire and feel called is viewed as being proud. So it is hard to know who actually feels any kind of calling.

Herein lies the first problem. Sometimes men’s names are put into the lot who feel no calling and are perfectly content being a lay person. Other men who do feel a calling, but are not the charismatic, outgoing, popular type are often overlooked. I have heard from both types. For those who do not feel called, it is hard to refuse the lot because people say things like, “How do know for sure this is not God’s will for you?” Or, “Maybe you are supposed to be in this lot to affirm God’s will in affirming the other brother”.

It seems to me that a man should be able to tell whether he has a calling to preach or not. There should also be some way of acknowledging that calling, or lack of calling, honestly. And for those men that do feel a calling, why could we not encourage them to begin to take some steps in training and developing that calling? We have no problem when those of other callings take steps to prepare themselves for the job God gives them.

The Timing

After the names are given for the lot, within a short amount of time the church makes a new minister. Often the time is from Friday night to Sunday night. In two days time, the life of several men can take a complete turnaround. For someone who does not feel a calling, it can feel like the longest weekend ever experienced– filled with dread.

For another who feels called, it can also be dread. How do you completely prepare your heart to possibly step into a leadership role that is only a few days away, but at the same time also completely prepare your heart that the lot may not fall on you?

One brother described his time in the lot like this, “We don’t believe in crucifixion, but we come pretty close when we take a contented lay brother and within a couple days make a preacher out of him. It is extremely hard on the mental and emotional well-being of the individual.”

Some churches have attempted to put a longer time frame on the process of the lot. They have a time of waiting for a week or more after the names are announced. But this only brings more problems.

During the waiting period, if anyone has concerns or questions for those whose names are in the lot, they can bring them to the individual. This can also be an emotionally trying time.

You will never find a perfect preacher with a perfect family, but there is a tendency to put more expectation on a preachers than on others. Then for those in the lot, we take those same expectations and inspect every element of their life– maybe even more than we do for those already in the ministry. Every past sin (whether five or twenty years prior) is brought up to make sure it’s been completely taken care of. Their children are brought up and any wrong deeds or mischief done– past or present– is mentioned and discussed. Things that didn’t matter as a member suddenly become a huge deal. Splinters now seem like planks as their lives are looked at with magnifying glasses. One wife described it like this, “It seemed like our family was knifed open, inspected, then left bleeding and then we were still expected to carry on as though nothing had happened.”

The Night of and Months After..

Families who have been in the lot tell me that the lot had such an impact that their lives were changed forever. That’s a pretty huge statement. Several have said it was the hardest thing they ever faced. And yet this is not something you hear spoken of much. Too many of us come to watch the proceedings out of curiosity without even considering that these lives have been impacted and will continue to be impacted by things that are often very painful.

When a man feels called and the lot falls on him, the struggle that happens after the lot is not something he will ever face. Because of this, leaders cannot identify with those struggling and rarely address the issues that follow.

When a man does not feel called and the lot does not fall on him, there is a sense of relief. But still in the days and weeks that follow, he may still question some of the same things that men who felt a strong calling do.

When a man feels called and the lot does not fall on him, he questions why God put him in there to begin with. He questions why he was not chosen. He wonders if there is something in his life that is lacking. Was he not fervent enough in serving God? What does God see in him that is deficient? He wonders what God saw in him that disqualified him. He begins to take a second look at his life and even at his wife and children. Is there some area of sin in their lives that he missed? Are they the reason God “rejected” him? What is it that God saw that made Him reject his service? He begins to question his calling and wonders if he misunderstood altogether.

Not Good Enough

Attending church feels different than before. People watch his family through a much more critical eye. All mistakes and negative traits in him, his wife, and his children are magnified and every fault is pointed out. Remarks are made such as, “No wonder the lot didn’t fall on him.”

His family may not look or act any differently from anyone else at church, but people want something to blame for why God rejected this man’s leadership, so every fault is pointed out.

To my shame, I have been guilty of this. Who of us have never taken a second look at the one who didn’t “get the lot”? It’s easy to see other people’s glaring mistakes and when you are looking for something negative to blame the “disfavor of God” on, you will find it. We become like Job’s friends and point accusingly rather than just walking alongside to be a friend in a much needed time.

“I felt completely alone, like all my friends did not want to associate with us anymore.”

Why do we withdraw during the times in people’s lives that they need support the most? I think sometimes it is mostly because we feel awkward and don’t know what to say. This is also how we feel when there is a death in the family of people we care about. But yet we still try because we know that to withdraw from someone in pain could be devastating. Could we not do the same when someone we care about experiences the death of a vision they had?

I have a strong sense of justice. Admittedly, it may be too strong at times. When someone shares an injustice with me, something in me wants to come to their defense and make it right. I mentioned in a previous post that I have seen men and their families hurt by the lot. This is not usually shared publically by these families or talked about much because to do so could cause them to be viewed as sulking about the outcome of the lot.

Most men in the ministry have not faced what these families face simply because most have not ever been on that side of the lot. Most of the time these issues are overlooked and not addressed at all. So I write because I have never heard anyone address this problem.

I have also been told of several men who ended up leaving congregations they stood ready to lead just a few years prior. While the lot may not have been the only factor in it, it was a large part of the reason.

I realize that no method of ordaining leaders is entirely free from causing rejection and pain. I have also heard a similar story from a man regarding election. I write about the lot because that is the method I am familiar with. My reason for writing is simply to point out to something that is not often addressed and ask that we as Anabaptist people consider those brothers and their families and begin to care about them.

And in all fairness, not every single person that is put into the lot will identify with this. In one of my previous posts regarding the lot, a man commented that he had been in the lot four times and it was not a negative experience. He did not elaborate, but apparently he has not faced what a majority of others have.

Changes

Personally, I would rather see our method of ordaining change than just bringing reformation to our current method. I think our reasons for thinking we must use the lot are not a good argument. However, Anabaptists are not known for accepting change well. We like our methods that we have been doing for a long time and we tend to view change as being a threat to our existence.

So for those churches who will not even consider changing the method of ordaining, it is time we repent of those areas that are not right. It is not right to treat our method like a ouija board and ask, “Who will God favor, and who will God reject?” and then wait for the ax to fall. Let’s not forget there are real people involved.

Make sure the men that are put in the lot actually feel a calling to the ministry. Find a way to prepare those who do feel called. Some churches do classes on spiritual gifts. That can help determine which men feel called without making them feel they must deny a calling out of false humility.

And most of all, don’t expect that those men who didn’t “get the lot”, to be able to just go on as if nothing ever happened. They have just faced one of the hardest things they will ever face. Acknowledge their pain and questions. Minister to their needs. Don’t stand back with judgment and blame– adding to their burden.

And maybe, just maybe, could we consider that the reason we are even having this issue is because this was not how God intended for men to be chosen for the ministry?

 

The Way We’ve Always Done It?

In the New Testament, the method for ordaining of leaders is not always clear cut, nor is any specific way of doing it commanded. Anabaptists through the past centuries have used the process of election, the laying of hands by leaders, and the use of the lot for choosing leaders.1  In most Anabaptist churches in America today, especially the more conservative ones, the lot is the prescribed method, with many believing it is the only way.

Most Anabaptists have been using the lot as the chosen method for ordaining men to leadership positions for centuries. Some groups have been using it longer than others-the Mennonites apparently practicing it much longer the Amish. The Amish in America used election, as those in Europe did, and only began using the lot since the 19^th century. Its use in Europe was not common, so some theorize that they began to eventually use the lot because the Mennonites in America did. 2

There is no documented evidence that the earliest Anabaptists used the lot to ordain their leaders. There is also no reference made of it in any of the earliest Mennonite Confessions of Faith. However, there is mention made in some early documents of the Swiss Mennonites that infer that the lot may have been used throughout the 17^th through 19^th centuries.

Some Anabaptist groups, such as the Dutch, North and East German, and Russian Mennonite groups in Europe, never used the lot at all. Neither did any of their descendant groups elsewhere in the world. 3

Staying in Control

While it is certainly true that we have been using the lot for a long time, I have come to question whether very many of us truly believe that God reveals His will through the lot? It seems to me that many churches either do not really believe in it or else they don’t trust God entirely to be able choose the right man.

We say we believe God works through the lot, but we do whatever we can to keep control over the lot. For example, we like to “stack the odds” by putting a requirement on the amount of votes a man must have to be in the lot. We then argue that God will make sure the right man is put in by putting the name on enough people’s hearts. But couldn’t the same be said about election? Why not just use a popular vote?

If we really believe in the lot, all elements of human interference should be eliminated.

What if the men we have chosen are not who God desires to have in there? Maybe we should be willing to have an extra book that means “none of these at this time”? We don’t like that idea because it might make us start all over with the process. We are usually pretty sure that the names we have in there are the right ones.

Besides, we want to stay in control.

But people don’t always get it right. Even when Samuel went to the house of Jesse to anoint the next king, the one whom he was sure was the right man was not who God had chosen. God’s response to Samuel’s choice was,”…the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” (1Sam. 16:7b)

Why Only for Ordaining?

Why are we so determined that the use of the lot is the best– if not the only way– to ordain ministers? We are not willing to use it in any other areas of life. In the Old Testament it was used to decide where the tribes’s land boundaries should be. How many of us would we also be alright with using the lot to decide how much land we could own and where at?

In Joshua 7, the lot was used to determine that Achan was guilty of stealing. Jonah was also found to be the cause of the storm by lot. Would we also be willing to use the lot to determine guilt or innocence in a man?

Would you be willing to have your marriage partner chosen for you by the lot? There were some adherents of the lot that used it for that purpose. Some used it for this purpose still in the 19^th century.4

Using a lot for these purposes today seems a bit over the top. Most of us would not be willing to use it for these.

I once heard a joke told about a man who was in anguish because of things in his life being so hard. So he turned to the Bible for direction. He let the Bible fall open and put his finger down, hoping God would show him some direction. He found his finger on Mat. 27:5 with the story of Judas hanging himself.

He decided to try it again. This time his finger landed on Luke 10:37 and he read, “Go, and do likewise. In trepidation he tried it for the third time and he opened to John 13:27. This time he read, “That thou doest, do quickly.”

We may laugh at this, but most of us would think it’s dangerous to use this “random procedure” as a discernment tool. Yet it carries with it the same idea as the lot. Hebrews 5:14 speaks of those who have “their powers of discernment trained by constant practice”. Using random procedures do not train our “powers of discernment”.

Is the reason we use the lot because we are too lazy, or not willing, to train our powers of discernment? Is the reason that we can’t trust God to direct us by the Holy Ghost because we don’t even know His voice?

The Only Way?

Still many insist the lot must be used as the only way we can truly know who God wants put in as a minister. Some people complain about ministers who have not been ordained by lot. They feel that ministers can’t be considered truly ordained in God’s eyes if their name is unanimously given by the church and the lot is not used. They claim those that are ordained by lot have been “chosen by God”, but others have only been “chosen by men”

How can anyone feel so strongly that this is the only prescribed way when Scripture does not command it? Have we added to Scripture and taught it thus?

The New Testament lists three different ways leaders were chosen.

– The lot (Acts1:20-26)

– men chosen by the congregation (Acts 6:1-6 ) This would sound more like the process of election

– leaders appointing other leaders  (Acts 14:21-23, Titus 1:5-7)

If men are following God’s will, seeking to hear the Holy Ghost, and are truly open to whatever His direction is, God will show His will. However, when self-seeking men take things into their own hands, God may give them what they want, but it may not be what His perfect will is.

An example of this would be when Israel demanded a king. God gave them what they wanted, but it was not what His perfect desire for them was. When their king turned away from God, it did not negate his authority. They were left with the consequences of the insisting on their own way.

All three of these methods have the potential of self-seeking men abusing the method and forcing their own way. The lot is not any more “foolproof” than the other two.

We tend to avoid the other two methods because we don’t trust that the Holy Spirit could lead the church directly or through the leaders to directly appoint another leader. There have been times when congregations have appointed men to leadership without the lot simply because only one name was given. But I personally don’t know of any conservative Anabaptist churches that allow the ministry team or elders to just appoint another leader. Yet, that is a New Testament method that is mentioned twice.

Are we afraid that our leaders are not full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom?

Maybe we are afraid that it would get misused because we have seen abuse in our “strong hierarchical power structure” too often in other ways. But even the lot is not entirely safe from this. All three methods are open to abuse if power-hungry men are left unchecked. But if a church has leaders that are led by the Holy Ghost and meet the criteria of leaders, then why could they not discern God’s will to know which leaders to appoint?

When the Lot is Used

If we don’t believe that God can guide us directly through the Holy Ghost, then that does leave us with only the lot. But even with the lot, we often question and doubt the names that are given and pick apart even those that the lot has fallen on. Do we actually believe in that method? Is our problem just wanting to stay in control as much as possible?

God does not condemn the use of the lot and I won’t either, but if we are going to claim God is directing us through it, then let Him direct.

 

 

---

1. Margory Warkentin, Ordination: A Biblical-Historical View, pg.64, 65

2.  Paton Yoder,   Tradition and Transition: Amish Mennonites and Old Order Amish, 1800-1900, pg. 64

3. Bender, Harold S. “Lot.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1955. Web. 16 Sep 2016

4. http://bdhp.moravian.edu/community_records/register/marriages/marriageslot.html

 

 

 

I am planning to write one more post on the lot. I will be sharing the experiences of some that have been in the lot. Names will not be used. If you wish to share your experience (positive or negative), please email me at simonfry88@outlook.com

Is the Lot the Only Biblical Way to Ordain?

If you grew up in an Anabaptist setting, ordinations were the height of suspense and anticipation. Every church in the surrounding area for miles knew whose names were in the lot and when the ordination would be. Churches were packed with visitors who came to watch the proceedings whenever there was an ordination.

As a curious child, ordinations were an entertaining event to attend. It was rather like a Mennonite version of the TV show Survivor and we got to see “who will make it” and “who will get picked off”– all in live studio. The air crackled with suspenseful solemnity. Adults cried and children stared.

In adulthood, that entertainment factor ended. Men that I knew well and respected were affected deeply by the outcome of the lot. Sometimes the things that happened during and after the lot were deeply painful for those whose names were in it.

There are aspects of the lot that I really don’t like. Some of it is because of those close friends who have shared some of their painful experiences, and some of it is because I have begun to question if it is really the prescribed New Testament practice.

Using the lot to choose our leaders is one of those things that is not questioned by most because just like many of our other practices, it’s “the way we have always done it”. But what is the most common way leaders were chosen in the New Testament?

Anabaptists base their practice of using the lot from the account found in Acts 1:20-26.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.  21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,  22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection.  23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.  24 And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.  25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.  26. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The only other account we have of the lot being used in the New Testament is found when soldiers cast lots for Jesus’s clothes. In all the other instances when leaders were ordained, there is no mention of a lot being used. I realize that is not necessarily evidence that the lot was not used, but it is also not pointed to as being the method, nor are we commanded at any point to use the lot.

Since the New Testament does not give a clear directive regarding the method for electing leaders, we can only look at the examples given in Scripture and draw our own conclusions for what is the best way from those examples and from experience.

The first thing that stood out to me in looking at the appointment of leaders is that when the lot was used to choose Matthias, it was done to fulfill an Old Testament prophesy and the method used to find God’s will was a method that we find spoken of frequently in the Old Testament. The second thing that stands out is that it occurred before Pentecost and before the Holy Ghost had fallen upon the church. After the Holy Ghost came, there is no specific mention of the lot being used again.

The first instance that we have of men being appointed to leadership positions after Pentecost is found in Acts 6:1-6.

1 And in those days, when the number of disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.  2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.  3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.  4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.  5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:   6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

In this account, the multitude simply chose seven men that they knew to be honest and full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. The apostles then prayed and laid their hands on them. Nothing is mentioned about lots.

In Acts 14:21-23, we see Paul and Barnabas ordaining elders in every church they planted.

21. And when they (Paul and Barnabas) had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium, and Antioch,  22. Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God  23. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Again, nothing is really mentioned of the method used here except that it was done with prayer and fasting. It is also evident that the church planters were part of the process. In my Strong’s Concordance, this word “ordained”(5500) is defined this way: 1. To vote by stretching out the hand 2. To create or appoint by vote: one to have charge of some office or duty 3. To elect, create, appoint

This doesn’t seem like the process of a lot.

 

In Titus 1:5, Paul gives Titus instructions to ordain elders in every city.

5. For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

This word “ordain” is not the same word that is used in Acts 14. This word (2525) means “to set, place, put”. Again, there is no evidence of the lot being used. There is only instruction from Paul to Titus to ordain leaders in the same way that Paul had “appointed” him.

The last verse that I want to point out yet is found in Acts 20:28

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

In this verse we see the Holy Ghost as being involved it the establishing of overseers. Anabaptist tend to view the work of the Holy Spirit as being a subtle, not really noticed, influence in the lives of mankind. Regardless of how you view the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of man today, this is not an accurate description of how the Holy Spirit worked in lives of the apostles, disciples, or the early church.

Throughout the New Testament, when mention is made of the Holy Ghost revealing anything to the apostles or disciples, it’s not ever through a lot. The Holy Ghost revealed things to them in a very direct manner with words, pictures, visions, and dreams. In other words, they did not need a lot to show them what God wanted them to do. The Holy Spirit was a real Person to them and led them clearly.

I don’t believe it is wrong to use the practice of the lot to ordain a minister. That may be the only way for churches who do not hear the voice of God through the Holy Ghost to have the will of God revealed. However, I do not believe it is the method that men that are “filled with Holy Ghost and power” use to appoint leaders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Has the use of the lot impacted your life? I have heard from four different families who have gone through some pretty negative things as a result of the lot. What has your experience been? Positive or negative, I would like to hear it. I am planning to share some of these things in a later post. If you wish to share confidently, please email me. No names will be used.

When Culture Takes Precedence Over Evangelism

The early church was described in Acts as adding to their numbers daily. While I realize that some of the dynamics were different then, we should still have the same heart of spreading the Gospel and wanting to reach those that are lost. Anabaptists have been accused of not being evangelistic enough. Our numbers seemingly increase more by reproduction than by adding converts from the outside world to our numbers.

I’ve heard of many churches across the world growing to have thousands of members. But I have never heard of any mega-churches in conservative Anabaptist circles. (That said, I can’t say that I’ve ever hoped for mega-churches to start showing up among our people.) What is it about our churches, though, that tends to keep others out rather than “bringing them in”? What needs to change for us to make an impact on the harvest waiting to be gathered?

Anabaptists tend to have smaller groups that know each other well and have a close “brotherhood”. This closeness is often noted by outsiders and looked on with envious admiration. But often it is our close brotherhood, much like an exclusive social club, that keeps out the very ones that we should be bringing in. Is it possible to evangelize without losing that closeness and even our culture (the customs of a particular nation, people, or group) that we guard so zealously? And if it is not possible, which is of greater importance –culture and close brotherhood, or reaching the lost?

Mat. 10:34-38 ESV   34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

What are the most important things to us about our culture? Is it our dress rules? Our work ethic? Our disciplined lifestyle? The way we help each other? Our a cappella singing? Our good cooking? Our non-emotional approach to worship? Our facial hair (or lack thereof)? Our large families?

These are all things that we value and guard within our culture. Many of these can be of good value. And while each of these are loosely based on a scriptural principles, most of them are not commanded by Jesus or any of the apostles. So why do we hold our cultural standards higher than specific Biblical commands?

For example, we have the Great Commission as the “last will and testament” (so to speak) of Jesus Christ. We are preach the Gospel, baptize those who believe, and teach what Jesus taught. Yet, we are more likely to stay separate from all nonbelievers; our baptisms generally consist of young teenagers that have grown up in the Mennonite church; and we are more likely to teach our culture than the words of Jesus.

We are to love others as much as we love ourselves. We are also told to share Communion with other believers that are part of Jesus’s ONE body in “remembrance” of Jesus. But we are more likely to confront, refuse Communion, and even excommunicate people among us for dress standards not being up to our man-made codes than for disobeying direct commands given by Jesus and the apostles. Why is that?

Could it be that we hold our culture to be more important than Biblical commands? What is our opinion of other cultures or denominations that have things that contradict the Word of God (regardless of right intentions)? Think of denominations that accept homosexuality because their application of the Biblical principle of showing love to others.

Even those churches that ordain women bishops believe it’s about culture and that culture is more important than direct commands in the Bible.

We are quick to point fingers at other churches, but excuse our own tendency to do this in other areas. We believe our culture is the best culture without noticing that this is also what many others believe about their own. When we refuse to baptize those who “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” and refuse to take communion with other believers (who don’t dress exactly as we do) we are no different. When our culture does not evangelize much because we cannot assimilate people into our culture, we are holding our culture higher than a direct command of Jesus.

If our cultural hard work ethic (application of 2Thess. 3:10) contradicts the command to love our wives and train our children, we must choose which is more important. If our cultural disciplined lifestyle causes us to turn away those that don’t have the same amount of discipline that we do, we need to decide whether Paul’s command to “esteem others better than” ourselves is more important(Phil. 2:3-4). When our cultural rules of dress, with prescribed colors and numbers and shapes and lengths, are more important to us than comprehending the “breadth and length and height and depth” of the love of Christ (Eph. 3:18-19), do we need to rethink things?

And most importantly, when our cultural applications of the Biblical principle of “separation from the world” contradict the Great Commission, we must choose which is more important. What good is salt if it never leaves the shaker?

But what about unity? Aren’t we to have unity?

Unity is mentioned twice in Ephesians 4. Verse 3 speaks of the “unity of the Spirit” and verse 13 speaks of “the unity of the faith”. I don’t find either of these speaking of a need to all dress alike. Dressing alike does not create unity, nor does it keep unity. And uniformity does not equal unity.

With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit– just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call– one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Eph. 4:2-6 ESV

We are to be eager to maintain the unity of the spirit. Does that come by our many dress rules or does that have a tendency to cause divisions in the larger body of Christ?

When Jacob Ammon first started making very specific dress rules for his followers, it was to identify with the people of the poor class.1 Today, a lot of those same dress rules are more likely to keep out the very ones for whom those rules were created to identify with. It’s much more expensive today to buy material and make your own clothing than it is to go to Walmart or a second hand store, and just buy simple, modest clothing.

There are also aspects of our culture that accept only certain personality types and reject others. We tend to be, and produce offspring that are, disciplined, self-reliant, hardworking, non-emotional people. Occasionally, though, there are some artistic, flamboyant free-spirits who love odd things and bright colors that seemingly pop up out of nowhere. In our culture of discipline and sameness, this personality type is not considered a good thing. They don’t fit in well and we do our best to either get them under control or get rid of them altogether.

We then lose out on a personality type God created for a reason. What are we missing out on in our churches because we don’t allow the flamboyant, creative types? They are the “free-spirits” that have the potential to inspire us to glorious beauty. They bring vision and inspiration. They see and feel things that we may not. They often have a heart connection to God that we may not. The emotion they show that feels so uncomfortable to us, may be just what we need. Why do we squelch emotion? God created it for a reason!

We feel and show emotions to our spouses (or at least I hope we do) that sometimes may be extravagant and unrestrained. Think of Song of Solomon! Why do we think that God does not want any emotional response from us in our worship of Him? When we get rid of the very ones who could help lead us in that direction of exuberant worship filled with emotion and fervor, we lose out on an important aspect in our relationship with God.

Which personality type is better? Don’t we need both to help each other? Rigid, self-disciplined people bring stability, but they need “free-spirits” to help them not to become so self reliant that they think they don’t need God as much as others. Free spirits feel God move and are often more open to hearing His voice speak to them. They don’t feel so bound by traditions and are more open to change. They need self-disciplined people to keep them from being moved by every wind of change and to stay anchored in the Word.

Churches that allow differences in personality, temperament, social status, and dress style will have a church with a greater potential of growing. Think about it, if a doctor, a farmer, a trucker, and a redneck all attend church together, (no this is not leading into a redneck joke) that is four different types of people that could be reached by evangelism by these individuals. If we all look alike and only allow certain types of people to be accepted, we are very limited in our evangelism.

When a visitor sees a variety of dress styles, they will be more likely to feel they will fit in somewhere than if there is only one accepted dress style. When only those who feel comfortable in one particular style are accepted, new additions are very limited.

If a the church has both women who wear head coverings and women who don’t, new converts feel welcomed. Don’t chase away the women who God has not yet convicted to wear head coverings. Perhaps He has other things that He deems to be of greater importance that He wishes to work on in their lives first. We cannot put limits on God. Preach the Word faithfully and allow Him to work at His own pace. His timing is always better than ours! Perhaps He waits because there are some others He wishes to bring into the church that would never come if they were the only one who did not wear a head covering. If we truly believe that God can convict someone, than why don’t we act like it? Forcing people to do something by rules enforced by using communion as a hammer never changes anyone’s heart. Only God can change someone’s deepest heart beliefs.

For those who are fearful of “losing our culture” if people aren’t all dressing alike, is that really all that holds our culture together? Must we look alike to care about each other’s needs and help each other out? To study the Bible together and disciple new believers? To worship God together? To host people in our homes? To sing for the elderly? To work hard and teach our children to do the same? To cook good food and share it together? To have the same goals as a church body?

Having “unity of the Spirit” is so much more than dressing a certain way. So why do we think we must look and believe exactly alike on every application if it causes us to not fulfill the last words given to us by the One we claim to follow? Our unity of faith and the Spirit should be evident by our common goal to seek sinners, tell them about Jesus and baptize them– just as the early church did.

---

 

1. For more reading on this, Dwight Gingrich has an excellent article here:

“The Holy Scriptures Must Be Our Ruling Standard”