Marks of an African Indigenous Church

Beginning somewhere around the early 1900’s Africans began forming their own congregations outside of the official denominations of the Europeans. Historians and missiologists now classify this group as the African Indigenous Church (AIC). These independent assemblies have become the most common expression of African Christianity. Sometimes these assemblies are a denomination (the ZCC or the AFM) and sometimes they are independent (The Crossing Bridge to Heaven or the Glory Barn International, two churches I have known).

The average AIC is marked by most or all of the following marks although it is difficult to classify all the congregations together because they have not agreed on a unified doctrinal statement. (See problem #2 below). Nor does every church started and run by Africans have all these marks, but many have four or more. These marks have been observed in my own personal experience as well as numerous sources like Christianity Today, Conrad Mbewe, the ZCC, and websites of churches around my village.

  1. Started and run by Africans without control from other cultures.
  2. Never or rarely follow a confession of faith or doctrinal statement.
  3. Usually led by a single, strong personality.
  4. Does not practice church discipline on sinning members.
  5. Often teaches the prosperity gospel and Word Faith charismaticism.
  6. Often syncretistic combining Christianity with acceptance of polygamy and / or elements of spiritism.

Obviously, 4-6 are more serious issues than 1-3, but if a church has any 4 of these 6 marks it has compromised the Gospel and many are the assemblies with all of them. In light of that, here are some loosely connected thoughts about ministering in a society with this kind of religious atmosphere.

Many people claim to be Christian, but they are ignorant about the core doctrines of Christianity because of these AIC marks. That means before you can evangelize, you must often convince the person that he is not saved. This requires humility for the man to acknowledge that even though he thought he was converted, he was wrong. All men must be convinced of this before they are converted but it is especially difficult for someone who thought he had already found the light to humble himself. Of course, this is not a strictly African difficulty. In a similar vein, because the AIC talk about “prayer” it is easy for sinners who think they are saved to pray with you as you are trying to evangelize them. You will then think they were just converted and they think they prayed with you just like they pray every week at their church.

If a visitor comes to your church after having been familiar with the AIC, he might be disinterested in listening to your expositional preaching.

People who have attended an AIC might be surprised to find out that your church practices church discipline. You may be looked at as “too strict” or merely “Western.”

Some people are truly converted in an AIC for which all believers must rejoice, but it is difficult to find a strong Christian because of the lack of doctrinal, theological, expositional preaching. Discouragement easily sets in because other churches grow so quickly while yours is very slow. It can be frustrating to work on a particular man for months only to find him going to an AIC that does not teach the Gospel.

Africans planting churches is in itself a good move as long as those churches love the Gospel, the 5 Solas, expositional preaching, evangelism, and church discipline. May Christ build His church on this continent to the embarrassment of false teachers and the glory of His Word.

Posted in Lists, Missions | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ravi Zacharias on Pleasure

Any pleasure that refreshes you without diminishing you, distracting you, or sidetracking you from the ultimate goal is a legitimate pleasure. … Any pleasure that jeopardizes the sacred right of another is an illicit pleasure. … Any pleasure, however good, if not kept in balance, will distort reality or destroy appetite.

Ravi Zacharias

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Who’s on the Offensive? A Preliminary Discussion in the Worship Wars

Deciding who has the burden of proof can sometimes be a dicey task. By calling for fairness, equal time, or a spirit of mutual acceptance, this question can be twice complicated because it works on our feelings. And in the same category as asking who must prove their case is determining exactly who is on the offensive in a given argument. If a given side is on the offensive, then they are labeled as the pugnacious ones who struggle with unity, tolerance, and generally being nice. Several examples come to mind readily.

Advocates of homosexual marriage make their case based on fairness. “We’re not trying to take away any good heterosexual marriage rights. We just want to add more societal norms to what we already have.” If you follow this line of argument, then those who support traditional marriage are the hate-mongers. These haters are on the offensive.

Pro-choice activists argue the same way. “Babies are good for some people, but we just want the right to also choose. We’re not taking away your right to have children.” Again, the conservative position is mocked as the fearful, unfair meanies.

Charismatics argue that they are not trying to take away anyone’s spiritual gift, but they are trying to give others freedom to practice their own spiritual gifts. Cessationists could thus be categorized as being on the offensive while those who want to practice the sign gifts are merely defending freedom as best they can.

Historically, Baptists were perceived as introducing dangerous schism to the church. In a footnote of John Owen’s catechism (Chapter 23, question 2) he said that he wasn’t sure if the Catholic error on baptism was worse than the Baptists’ or the other way around. The argument levied against the Baptists came from the fear of other denominations that this group would influence society and possibly grow in popularity. Well, their fears were well-founded. The Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans who weren’t happy with the dippers were clearly on the offensive; they wanted to restrict the liberty of some even in their private homes and worship. Yet weren’t the Baptists on the offensive in a very real sense? Weren’t they actively trying to add more people to their churches to the necessary shrinking of the other assemblies?

Working out the idea of homosexual marriage: by redefining marriage, they are not merely adding some extra freedoms that are totally independent of a heterosexual couple’s choices. They are intentionally and radically attacking cultural sensibilities about the nature of morality, family, gender roles, and even the goodness of children. Like cold seeps into a house on a winter morning, society’s cultural norms creep into the shared consciousness at the very least by dulling our ability to hate sins that have been accepted on a broad scale.

Alexander Pope’s classic lines still carry currency,

    Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,

        For to be hated, needs but to be seen,

    But seen too often familiar with her face,

        We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

The homosexual agenda is to work through each of Pope’s three phases until the society at large actually embraces what they previously had seen as monstrous. They want to so condition the next generation that either choice is seen as valid and all moral stigma is removed.

And now, to apply my illustrations. The worship wars can fit in here as well. (If anyone is outraged over this comparison, please read this first.) I have heard those who advocate contemporary styles say that we should just stop fighting because all styles can glorify God. As if, the ones who are fighting this battle are the dreary, 1950’s-loving conservatives. From the contemporaries’ viewpoint, we are the problem because we are the ones fighting to exclude certain styles from worship. “You conservatives can keep your music, but we also want the privilege to continue with ours. We’re not denying anything to you or changing your freedoms at all, but we want those same freedoms.”

Are the worship wars, therefore, one-sided? Does the blame for musical tension fall on the conservatives alone? I think not any more than the tension over the definition of marriage comes from the traditional side. In each of the four examples above, both sides have an agenda. Both sides want to create particular likes and dislikes in the larger society. Both sides want their views to prevail. It is propaganda to promote the idea that only your opponent is on the offensive because he desires some restrictions. Rather, both sides have weapons drawn or they would allow the other side to gain the ascendency.

I have not made any arguments regarding the material issues involved in the worship wars. Rather, I’m trying to arrange the presuppositions that should govern the discussion. If there are ever calls for abandoning the worship wars, then the one making that call, should be willing to give up his style of music and accept his opponent’s. If he claims that he is merely advocating the right to continue his own personal freedom, then he is still on the offensive in this discussion because music (like every area of culture) will certainly effect the mood of all the people involved. He is trying—even if unwittingly—to be able to make his impact on the atmosphere while claiming to not be impacting the atmosphere.

Every cultural form sends a message whether it be the definition of marriage, or the style of music. Admittedly, some messages can do greater damage than others, but the fact remains that our customs communicate. All of them—not only the conservative, traditional ones. So, let’s stop asking to do away with the worship wars, and start asking questions about the message of any given style so that we can grapple with which of the offensive sides in this scrimmage is right.

Posted in Orthopathy | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Five Reasons I am a Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalism argues that without the Christian God logic, morality, and science are impossible. Therefore, a rational debate cannot even take place without certain gifts that the one true God gave. It is the height of folly to take those gifts while ignoring their Giver and the specific rules He laid down for using them. So, we should expect unbelievers to reject clear evidence because they have a fundamental commitment to sin. The solution is to graciously and patiently show them the absurdity of their position, and skillfully preach the gospel to them.

Though these five points really deserve a book-length treatment, it may be helpful to have a summarized list. Here are five reasons I am a presuppositionalist.

1. It produces necessary results or absolute certainty rather than mere probability.

Probability is not what the Bible calls all men to feel toward Jesus Christ. This level of certainty means at the least that there is a possibility that there is no God, Jesus was a liar, the cross was not significant, and the resurrection never happened. Such conclusions are not worthy of the reality of the Christian God.

2. It takes account of the noetic effects of sin in contrast to other apologetic systems.

In light of the heavy Scriptural evidence demonstrating that sin hampers the right use of the mind, will, emotions, and even memory, an apologetic approach that ignores this category of data is especially suspect whereas presuppositionalism depends upon it.

3. It concludes the Christian God rather than general theism or even polytheism.

Isn’t there a distinctively Christian way to prove that God exists rather than a method that could be accepted by Muslims or even Hindus?

4. It returns the Bible to its rightful position of authority in all our intellectual endeavors.

Since the inerrancy of Scripture and the primacy of the gospel are two of the foundational starting points of presuppositionalism, the lion is unleashed rather than held at bay until his lawful time to perform.

5. It begins the discussion with epistemology rather than the evidences.

By starting with a discussion of how we come to know and believe things, presuppositionalism demonstrates that there is a battle of worldviews from the very beginning. Even the way an unbeliever views evidence is tainted by sin, and one apologetic method recognizes that.

 

Posted in Lists | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Advice for Hearing Sermons by John Newton

Excerpted from the entire letter:

Some persons are so curious, or rather so weak, that, if their favorite minister is occasionally absent, they hardly think it worth their while to hear another. A judicious and faithful minister, in this case, instead of being delighted with such a mark of peculiar attachment to himself, will be grieved to think that they have profited no more by his labors; for it is his desire to win souls, not to himself, but to Jesus Christ.

And:

Entreat the Lord, who knows better than you do yourself, to guide you where your soul may be best fed, and when your choice is fixed, you will do well to make a point of attending his ministry constantly, I mean at least at the stated times of worship on the Lord’s day.

These quotes are from John Newton and published over at the Protestant Pulpit.

Posted in Pastoral, Quotes | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Is Music Immune?

If Christians recognize anti-biblical values in just about every cultural matter, why do they assume that music alone is immune from this cultural decay?

Ken Myers as quoted by Scott Aniol

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Six Work Periods and One Rest Period”

The pattern is six work periods and one rest period.

Hugh Ross’ explanation of Exodus 20:11

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

According to Ross, the 7 days of the creation week were of unequal and extremely prolonged length. If the analogy is merely 6 to 1 regardless of length then I guess we could work for 6 months and take 1 day of rest. Or maybe better yet, 6 active periods of work for a minute each, and then 1 month of rest. After all, the length of Genesis’ days (I speak as a fool) could be any indeterminate and unequal amount because the text is so opaque.

It really is difficult to interpret the Bible when you have an opposing view that you also hold to and about which you care more than the plain meaning of the words.

Posted in Hermeneutics, Inconsistency, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Correction for Discourse

Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism.

Blaise Pascal

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Good Furlough Visit Illustrated

We bless God that He has graciously yoked our family with like-minded churches and pastors. With nine supporting churches and about a dozen families, we have been able to spend around a week with each church. I don’t think this is ideal. Probably, 2-3 supporting churches and a month at each one would be the best, but that is an argument for another series of posts.

This post follows the previous one introducing in brief a philosophy of missions regarding furlough. Knowing the way people scroll through blog posts reading just a few sentences of each, I feared this illustration may get lost unless it was published separately.

So, here is a step in the right direction—a brief illustration of the way a great church made a great week for an average missionary.

In Iowa, we arrived at Grace Baptist Church on Saturday afternoon where we were to stay until the next Friday morning. They had a missionary house near the church where we stayed which gave us a little privacy while also keeping us accessible to the church.

Sunday morning, our family went to Sunday school as normal students. Many of the people in a church of 250 or so greeted us before the morning service. The pastor graciously allowed me to preach in the morning and show my slides in the evening. For the evening service I was given 45 minutes to show pictures and talk about our ministry and philosophy.

Sign up lists were placed—at the pastor’s initiative—on the back table so that we could have dinners with the church members throughout the week. There was no spot for lunch so that we could eat by ourselves without exhausting our kids too much. Tuesday-Thursday, I had four chances to speak to the young people at junior camp. They also closed camp with a question answer time between the missionary and the kids. After they asked me questions, the pastor even gave me a chance to ask them questions!

Before arriving, I had asked the pastor if I could meet with him and the church leadership for a time of accountability and prayer. Rather than have a meeting behind closed doors, he asked me to address the entire congregation again on Wednesday night where he set up a little panel of question and answer time for nearly an hour. He also thought to ask Amy to answer questions as well.

The pastor took the initiative to talk and pray with me even though I know he was busy. He was humble enough to listen, but bold enough to say at least once, “You’re wrong. That is sin.” Such friends are rare indeed.

By the end of the week, we felt sad to leave. We had answered (and asked) so many questions about family, homeschool, ministry, and Africa that conversations had naturally and repeatedly been spawned. At the end of time we may see that heartfelt conversations were the greatest tools to engender prayer for missionaries. I certainly doubt that eternity will reveal classy prayer cards, brilliant DVD’s, or a well-polished missionary sermon vying for first place as the greatest impetus to praying for missionaries.

The week was invested in eternity because relationships were built to the glory of God. The only problem was that seven days was too short.

Posted in Missions | 2 Comments

Furlough to the Glory of God

The last two verses in Acts 14 record the first furlough visit by the first two foreign missionaries of the church. If they are good examples and worthy of imitation (which I believe they are in their missions philosophy) then missionaries should return at intervals to “rehearse all that God has done with them.”

But the last verse of the chapter reads, “And they remained no little time with the disciples.” (Acts 14:28) Why would they do this? Was Paul wasting time? And when it comes to application, how could missionaries today do this when many of them have 30+ churches supporting them, and many churches have just as many missionaries?

Why did they stay a long time?

At least two factors seem to be logical answers to that question even though the text is not explicit. They may have been looking for the next place to minister as they planted churches. Logistical questions like this are valid reasons to spend time on furlough at a supporting church.

Perhaps Paul also saw the need to strengthen the relationships with his brothers and sisters that were so close to him at Antioch. The last chapter of Romans is an extended list of people with whom Paul had formed friendships. Throughout his epistles we read of around 30 other people who at one point or another labored together with Paul in his missionary travels. Could the man who wrote the “love chapter” in 1 Corinthians be disinterested in relationships with those who were holding the ropes for him?

At certain levels, time alone can join hearts. Though all believers enjoy the unity of the Spirit whereby they have a closer bond because their deepest loves are the same, David-and-Jonathan friendships require years of melded experiences and conversations. Thus, the “no little time” of Acts 14:28 provided for Paul and Barnabas to live, minister, grow, and refresh themselves among their friends and peers who could more effectively pray for them not only because the church now knew the missionaries better but also because they now had a more significant heart investment.

How could modern missionaries follow their example?

At this point, let’s try to apply this aspect of missions philosophy. Suppose a missionary wants to spend “no little time” at a supporting church, so he sets his sights at merely a week-long visit with each of his supporters. With over 30 churches, he’ll be on furlough for somewhere around a year. That’s something close to the time frame of the average furlough now, with one key exception: most missionaries do not stay at a church longer than one service. Maybe they’re traveling; maybe they’re not welcome; maybe they’re exhausted from traveling; maybe they don’t agree with the church and if they stayed longer, their disagreements would be brought to light potentially threatening further support; maybe they’ve simply never thought to ask.

Of the pastors who support our family, most of them said it is rare to have missionaries who stay for more than one service and definitely unusual for missionaries to stay longer for accountability and in order to form friendships with the people.

As a missionary, I can only imagine how stressful and tiring it would be to pack and unpack the van for 37 different churches. And with nearly two score independent churches how could you hope to agree with them all? Pragmatically, a lot of missionaries would be afraid to open up if it lengthens their time on deputation, and so the downward spiral continues where both parties kind of quietly agree to work together in a very modern and business-like state. And all the while, relationships wither along with any healthy fruit that could spring from such useful plants.

From the missionary’s standpoint it would be difficult with a plethora of churches, but from the church’s standpoint, it would be a huge weight. If each missionary on furlough plus those coming in for support all wanted to stay for a week or more of meaningful relationships, how could the church get anything done? The pastor would have a week’s schedule interrupted once a month or so from another one of his missionaries hoping to pray with him and talk with him about accountability. The people would wear out of cooking extra meals, cleaning their oft-used guest rooms, signing up yet again after church, and trying to seriously remember how many kids “this one” has now.

I once visited a church of several hundred with nearly one hundred missionaries. How could they possibly allow each of them to spend “no little time” with them? Down the road was a church of less than 50 with about a dozen or so missionaries. Those 12 would probably wear on that little assembly just like 100 wears on an assembly of 450.

If missionaries and churches tried to follow Paul and Barnabas’ example in Acts 14, the week would probably include a public presentation, question and answer times, meals with families, and discussions before and after regular meeting times. However difficult that may be for churches with a lot of missionaries or for missionaries with the reverse problem, if furloughs are worth doing, then missionaries should find time to forge and strengthen friendships with (and within) their supporting churches.

Posted in Missions | 1 Comment