A storefront for 20 people, a massive church for 50,000—such is the range of one of the most important forces in American religious life: the independent church movement.

Variously called innovative, hidebound, faithful, or divisive, independent churches have multiplied at an unparalleled rate during the last 25 years. How many are there? No one knows. But their number surpasses the count of congregations in the largest denominations. Some estimate 50,000 such churches, most of which are not included in the annual tally of about 331,000 reported by religious bodies in the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.

How can we define an “independent church”? It is an assembly of believers that does not belong to a denomination. Neither does it have any organizational connections that bind it to the control of an outside hierarchy or authority.

We cannot enlarge this definition without encountering problems. An independent church may be a settled Bible fellowship in a middle-class neighborhood, an inner-city storefront church among the poor, a more-or-less continuous revival meeting in an old movie house, or a Bible study-oriented assembly in a rented hall.

Independent church government may approximate that of denominational churches. It is usually a hybrid, emphasizing democratic congregational control. However, in many independent churches the pastor himself is the government. Independent church theology has not led to lengthy creeds. Local church doctrinal statements generally follow “The Fundamentals” of 1909, or they are modeled closely on those of respected independent institutions. They emphasize the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the sinfulness and lostness of man, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, his bodily resurrection, his second coming, and the necessity of personal repentance and faith for salvation.

In most recent years, independent churches have beefed up their doctrinal statements by adding strictures against divorce, speaking in tongues (if they are not Pentecostal), and by defining specific eschatological convictions about the Rapture of the church and the tribulation period.

Independent churches have generally not emphasized the theology of the church and sacraments. However, they have clearly stated the autonomy of the local assembly, and they have usually insisted on baptism for believers only.

In the last quarter-century, independent churches have grown so rapidly that they now boast some of the largest congregations in the country. The First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, has 52,255 members. The pastor, Jack Hyles, preaches to 13,000 in Sunday morning services. The Highland Park Baptist Church of Chattanooga, Tennessee, whose pastor is Lee Roberson, has nearly 55,000 members, with an average worship service of 7,000 people.

Independent church growth often has been attributed to church splits, with the disenchanted members packing off to start their own church. In many cases, pastors who have lost favor with church leaders have simply resigned and started new churches. But in recent years, probably the most significant factor in independent church growth has come from old independent churches giving birth to new ones. It is not unusual in some localities to count six or eight thriving churches in different parts of town that were assisted at the outset by a large independent church.

Some independent churches owe their birth to hard pioneering evangelism. That is the story of Akron (Ohio) Baptist Temple. It was founded in 1934 by Dallas Billington, a factory worker with an eighth-grade education. He did not gather disgruntled denominational people, but decided that people he had won to faith in Christ needed a local congregation. He started as an independent and has remained one over the years. Today attendance tops 6,000.

Typical of most recent independent church growth is Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas. Meeting the needs of the black community from a strongly biblical yet independent base was the vision that brought this church into being in 1976. Under the pastorate of Anthony T. Evans, Oak Cliff has grown from 10 to 325 people.

Following his Sunday morning sermons, Evans invites questions from the congregation. Believing that personal understanding of Scripture is the key for every Christian, Evans incorporates a high level of participation into each service, including a regular time of sharing and prayer.

The burgeoning independent church movement has been matched by the growth of nondenominational schools and such religious organizations as missionary societies, literature ministries, and youth agencies. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that without the independent Bible institutes, Bible colleges, liberal arts colleges, and seminaries, the independent churches could not have thrived as they have.

Many pastors of independent churches came from schools such as Moody Bible Institute, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University), and Dallas Theological Seminary. More recently, a new crop of independent schools is attracting thousands of would-be pastors of independent churches. These include Hyles-Anderson College, Liberty Baptist College, and Criswell Institute of Biblical Studies. While many private colleges have foundered and died in the last quarter-century, many others have been born in the past decade. It is hard to tell whether the new schools came as a result of new independent churches, or whether the establishment of so many new churches brought a corresponding urge to start new colleges.

Not too long after the battle between modernists and fundamentalists split the major denominations, the same thing occurred in missionary societies. Many independent boards were founded. They were called “interdenominational” rather than independent, because missionaries came from, and were supported by, denominational churches. The trend has changed significantly, with the rise of independent churches. When it came to finding outlets for their missionary zeal, they naturally turned to independent boards, such as those that comprise the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association.

In literature, publishing houses such as Scripture Press, Gospel Light, Union Gospel Press, and David C. Cook have prospered in tandem with the strong emphasis that independent churches put on Sunday school work. Independent churches repudiated the old International Uniform Lesson Series and found the independent publishers quick to provide biblical, closely graded curriculum materials.

The same pattern has been followed in specialized ministries. Independent churches have grown not only with independent publishers, but also with independent organizations for children and youth, some of them working in the churches (Christian Service Brigade, Pioneer Ministries, Awana Clubs) and some of them outside (Child Evangelism Fellowship, Youth for Christ, and Young Life). Again, during the past 25 years these movements have fed both leaders and programs into fast-growing independent churches.

Explosive growth has brought problems. Leaders of independent churches, laymen and pastors alike, have discovered that by itself independence does not solve problems of church government, outreach, and doctrine. Many independent churches have split several times over picayune matters centering in personality clashes. They have suffered from the ego trips of pastors subject to no authority other than their own.

Few checks and balances restrain independent churches. Some have been run for years by an inbred governing board of deacons or elders, with no constitutional provision for new blood. Many independent churches have struggled with constitutions and bylaws. As pioneer pastors have approached retirement, they have quickly rammed through constitutional changes. Some have refused to retire, taking a small flock with them.

Slipshod financial policies have hampered independent churches. Pastors have been short-changed because of insufficient pensions and hospitalization plans. Missions and benevolences have become battlegrounds, because elders and members sometimes only want to support pet projects. There is little room for hard-nosed evaluation of independent missionaries, schools, and publishers.

At the same time, independent churches are the fertile hunting ground for college and mission board recruiters and for prospective missionaries. They could fill their pulpits throughout the year, Sundays and Wednesday nights, with all the people, organizations, and ministries seeking support.

Obviously, one of the hardships of independence hits when the church needs to find a new pastor. There are no denominational files or recommendations to draw upon. It is everyone for himself. It is not easy to get significant data about candidates’ qualifications and experience. Many times, pulpit committees from independent churches scour the country for a year or more, looking for pastoral candidates. They are being helped somewhat by the placement offices of some independent seminaries.

The care of theological students and missionary candidates is a weak link in independent church life and development. Each church basically has its own doctrinal and ordination standards. It is no secret that in some cases unqualified candidates for the ministry are quickly ordained. Likewise, missionary candidates are thrust upon independent churches, having been approved by independent boards, but the churches have nothing to say about such appointments.

For years denominational executives and pastors have categorized independents as reactionaries and fighting fundamentalists. Too often it has been an apt description. Independents have rationalized their way around biblical injunctions for church unity by emphasizing “spiritual” unity and the unify of the “invisible church.” Plainly, they have had trouble working with themselves and with denominational men on the local level.

The growth of independent churches has been so significant in some areas that pastors of these churches have organized their own fellowships. They have done this for mutual prayer, support, and continuing education, as well as for insurance programs. Nevertheless, independent churches have been limited in cooperative evangelistic and social outreach. Some have cooperated with mass evangelistic crusades, but others have refused to join any common efforts, even local charitable projects for the poor. Some independents have not been able to find common ground with other independents.

However, some associations of independent churches have functioned for years. The Independent Fundamental Churches of America counts over 1,000 member churches. The Bible Baptist Fellowship of Springfield, Missouri, offers a cooperative program in missions, education, and publishing for 2,800 independent Baptist churches. The Southwide Baptist Fellowship includes 1,400 churches.

None of the problems cited above has deterred the flourishing independent church movement. A recounting of the drawbacks of independence should not obscure the vitality of the movement and the strength of independent churches. Doctrinal distinctives and separatism have not prevented congregations from meeting the needs of people.

A fact of denominational history in the last 25 years is that many people abandoned their churches for lack of orthodoxy, biblical preaching, evangelistic zeal, and missions. They found these things in independent churches. They also found stability in independent churches, as well as a freedom to innovate and support a variety of causes.

In recent times, independent churches have pioneered in areas abandoned by some large denominational churches. They have fostered church growth by backing families to start new churches in outlying suburbs. They have started to minister to minorities, to immigrants and refugees, to the poor and the handicapped. They are using television, radio, films, and literature effectively.

What is ahead for independent churches? More growth seems a safe prediction, because the public’s hunger for solid, understandable, practical Bible teaching shows no sign of abating. As long as independent churches major on Bible teaching, evangelism, and strong Sunday schools, their future seems bright.

Elmer L. Towns is dean of Liberty Baptist Seminary, Lynchburg, Virginia. The Complete Book of Church Growth (Tyndale, 1981) is the most recent of his many published volumes.

Delores is a young woman in trouble. At 31 she presents the outward marks of success. She is a Christian and belongs to a large evangelical church. Despite her accomplishments, however, she is miserable. Past sorrow and present loneliness create great emotional weight for her. She does not believe she could go to her pastor with her problems because she sees herself as a living example of his sermons, an illustration of how far short of the mark believers fall. Her two attempts to talk with others in the congregation have prompted (1) an injunction to be less self-centered, and (2) a hasty suggestion to read a popular Christian author.

Delores’s story is not rare. My counseling work often brings me into contact with struggling saints who are frustrated and alienated from their brothers and sisters in Christ. Such experiences prompt me to share some thoughts about our need to rediscover intimacy among Christians.

The intimacy I refer to means close association with another person in such a way that we are motivated to change or subordinate our own immediate wants for the privilege of getting to know the other better. This definition applies not only to relationships with one another, but with the Lord Jesus Christ as well.

Our Need For Intimacy

God created us, I believe, with a deep, instinctive need for intimacy. Infants and children thrive in the context of human warmth and physical affection. Studies have shown that when these things are absent, the result is arrested development, even death. Adults are no different. Reports from concentration and prisoner-of-war camps indicate that people who had had meaningful relationships with even one other person stood a far better chance of survival than those who shut others out. The Bible is clear that God invites, even commands, us to fulfill our deep needs for intimacy, first with himself (e.g., Jer. 31:31–34; John 15:14–15), and second, with others (John 15:12; 1 John 2:10). God would neither invite nor command something to which he has not given us the capacity to respond. We can conclude, therefore, that we do not need to acquire the capacity for intimate friendship; it is something we already have.

When I was in college I heard the idea that God had created humankind as a sort of “younger sibling,” a protoplasmic little brother with which to amuse himself in order to take the edge off his loneliness. The God of Christianity, however, created not out of need but out of fullness of joy (Heb. 12:2; Prov. 8:30–31), though Christians affirm that the biblical God could have enjoyed complete fellowship among the three persons of the Godhead for eternity without creating another thing. Such is the depth of intimacy in relationships among the Trinity. We are created in that image (Gen. 1:26). My observation of clients who develop intimate relationships with others is that they are continually surprised at the depth of joy they experience in the context of their Christian friendships. Those friendships often heighten their productivity and creativity. They have discovered a quality of relationship that derives from the very God head.

We Must Seek Intimacy

But why, if we have such a great capacity for intimacy, do we need to be encouraged to seek it? I believe the roots of the problem are recorded in Genesis 3: the grasp of the fruit was the first willful rupture in intimate relations between humanity and God. The rift was deepened as Adam spoke with God (Gen. 3:12): “The woman whom thou gavest me … gave me … and I ate” (NASB). With this statement, Adam effectively walled himself off from both God and his mate. Each of us is prone to isolationism of this sort.

We know that as Christians we continue to struggle against our individual manifestations of the “old man,” the “first Adam.” When we gather in groups we are collectively susceptible to the problems that plague us individually. Our American culture produces people who more closely identify with characters on a weekly TV series than with their next-door neighbors. It is this context that the church must assume a role of leadership and example in fostering and maintaining truly intimate relationships among its members. What I often find is that the church has been sidetracked by society. The wedding of personal faith with societal “rugged individualism” seems to prompt a “Jesus and me” approach to Christian experience. At a congregational level, this approach can sanctify isolation and lock people into casual acquaintances with one another that are barely satisfying. When these acquaintances fail to meet deep needs for intimacy, a more emphatic scramble for personal experience may intensify the isolation.

Three Fallacies About Intimacy

There are three fallacies I believe have inadvertently developed in many congregations. Left unchecked, these fallacies seem to have simultaneous and systematic abrasive effects upon the development of intimate relations.

First, there is a tendency for Christians to mistake frequency for intimacy. Many of our weekly calendars include Sunday morning and evening church, choir rehearsal, Wednesday service, Thursday small group Bible study, and volleyball league on Monday. While these involvements are probably good, the fallacy comes in believing that we are intimately involved in the church because we are frequently involved in it. But frequency is not an indicator of growing, deepening relationships with God and fellow believers. It may, in fact, create static, superficial relationships.

The second fallacy is based on an assumption that the marital relationship is the only intimate human relationship deserving of full attention for development. This belief may arise from our rightful astonishment at the decline and breakup of the family. It has produced a veritable mountain of literature on marriage enrichment. Much of this is solid material, and it is needed. But it fills the shelves of our bookstores, and by its sheer volume, it overemphasizes the marital relationship as a sole fulfillment of all human intimate needs. This can create unrealistic expectations for the people of the relationship, for when it fails to fulfill all needs, they begin to wonder what ails their marriage. While the marital relationship is of central importance, it must not be overloaded with the burden of fulfilling all a person’s needs for intimate relations. The experiences of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Paul and Timothy, Jesus and John suggest that friendships can be a vital means for fulfilling the needs for intimacy. Recent research by Daniel Levinson of Yale indicates that difficult adjustment periods—such as midlife—are more successfully negotiated by those who have strong same-sex relationships that supplement their marriages.

Singleness also affords a great potential for the development of same-sex friendships. As I talk with unmarried people, however, I often find they are oblivious to their need to develop present-day relationships in church, at work, and elsewhere. Their emphasis seems rather to be on fun than on depth of relationships. Many expect the “deep” part of themselves to “come out” only when they find a suitable marriage partner. But some may never many, and even for those who do, intimate friendships can provide a training ground in which to knock off selfish, rough edges.

Whether a person marries or not, the hard work of an intimate relationship can make an individual more tolerant, more sacrificial—in short, more Christlike. Singleness is more than just a “great void between Mom and Dad and marriage.”

A third fallacy, I believe, is more subtle. It is that intimacy and sexuality are somehow inevitably intertwined. I find this idea to be a concern more frequently among men, who seem to fear that a deepening sense of attachment for another male may suggest homosexual tendencies. Such beliefs seem to be perpetuated by the current societal mindset that equates intimacy with sexuality. Sexual contact is indeed intimate contact. But sexuality is only one aspect of intimacy. Society equates the two because sexuality is the most accessible, least time consuming, and least emotionally risky aspect of intimacy. Healthy adults who have a biblical understanding of love need not fall prey to the fallacy of thinking that any degree of intimacy between persons must culminate in a sexual relationship.

Marks Of An Intimate Relationship

I have had the privilege in my work of observing and talking with many people who had, or were developing, intimate same-sex relationships. With their helpful input, I have established the following eight marks of an intimate relationship.

1. Intimate friends can share openly about themselves. Both can listen, and there is no need to impress one another. In my premarital counseling, I check the quality of same-sex friendships that each one of the couple has had. Such friendships have not had the “guy-girl” factor that often includes a need to impress someone with sensitivity, wittiness, strength, and so on.

2. Intimates feel a sense of acceptance by one another in a variety of situations and moods (Prov. 17:17).

3. Intimate friends feel a sense of reciprocity in the relationship. They know their relationship is not all give or all take. They have grown past being worried about who is giving more in the relationship (Prov. 27:17).

4. Intimates have times of sharing about past events in their lives. This may take on a quality of mutual confession. It often gives meaning to the present relationship as it builds trust. It can also give meaning to the pain of the past as a person feels known and understood (Prov. 18:15, 19).

5. Intimate relationships seem to include the freedom of not worrying about making sense all the time. It allows its participants to show some of the “craziness” (quirks and fears) we all have, and still be accepted.

6. Every truly intimate relationship seems to include accountability of the participants to one another. This is willful accountability to report progress in spiritual growth, in battles against pervasive sins, and so on (Prov. 28:13).

7. An intimate relationship allows people to disagree and get hurting angry, with the expectation that when the smoke clears, the other person will still be there (Prov. 27:6; cf. Eph. 4:26–27).

8. True intimacy results in a willingness to share the other person with others. It results in nonpossessive caring. The ultimate model of such caring is our God “who spared not his Son …” (Rom. 8:32). Many relationships that are thought to be intimate break down here. The result is two persons isolated from others, instead of only one.

The choice to pursue intimate relationships is decidedly an individual one, but the church can encourage such choices. Preaching that emphasizes community, and church projects that underscore service and caring within the context of a small group can help. Also, developing cross-generational small groups for the purpose of mutual support and encouragement can increase the likelihood of people drawing on their capacities for intimacy in relationships. By so doing, they gain a spiritual perspective that deepens their desire and potential for intimacy, first with God (Phil. 3:8), then in meaningful relationships with each other (1 John 4:7–8).

Delores’s problems are repeated many times over in my office and others like it. Will the church lead the way in the quest for intimacy? Will our Lord’s words, which begin, “A new commandment I give unto you …” (John 13:34) be enacted in relationships that reflect the One in whose image we are made? God is willing and able; we have only ourselves to ask.

Steven A. Hamon directs the Peoria, Illinois, office of Michael Campion and Associates, a group practice in psychology.

Epitaphs often make stimulating reading—and challenging writing. How would you begin to summarize in a sentence, for example, the life of King David? Would you herald his conquests and bravery in battle? Ought you to report his deep repentance and intimate walk with God? Should you spend your single sentence to tell of David’s hearty piety, cultivated as it was in nature’s nursery, then honed by daily dependence on the Almighty?

I am fascinated by the way the apostle Paul encapsulated David’s greatness. This man after God’s own heart, said the apostle in his synagogue sermon at Pisidian Antioch, “served his own generation by the will of God, and fell asleep” (Acts 13:36). A mere dozen words, yet they convey one of the highest verbal laurels awarded any person in all of Scripture. They also disclose one key to David’s greatness: he made good use of that priceless treasure called “today.” Today. It is, after all, the only day we ever have. It is our handle on eternity, an elusive and invisible bit of time of whose species our whole lifetimes consist. It is all God holds us accountable for. Very shortly it will be gone, recalled by its Maker and sealed for his final reckoning, not to be repeated or altered forever. That is the ever-timely significance of David’s epitaph spoken at Antioch. Its message still rings true and clear, amid the competitive din of so much clamor and clatter. Ours is no day of still, small voices. The person who inhabits today has many neighbors. David names three groups of them in the first Psalm.

First are the scoffers, the outright rebellious, those who flagrantly challenge all that is right and true. They are few in number, but they are frequently strong of voice. Further disguising their real weakness, these hostile hustlers often make megaphones of the mass media, turning Gideon’s ancient trick into a ploy against the people of God. David, too, lived among such scoffers.

More numerous, but serving the same cause, are those of the second group, whom David labeled the sinners. These people are far from being persecutors. They are moral lemmings. They abandon themselves to “what feels good,” and follow wherever their lusts may lead.

The psalmist’s third category is the ungodly. They comprise the godless majority. They do not consciously oppose God; they do not think of him at all. They are not licentious or profligate. They are often ideal neighbors, model citizens of whom the whole community is proud. But their very civility often poses the greatest danger to the progress of faith, for we see the “practical atheists” prosper.

Yet not all our neighbors are as happy as they appear. If we listen, we will hear occasional cries for help from screen and stage, from literature and art, sometimes from the man or woman next door. Scattered among today’s godless, sinners, and scoffers are some who know they have a problem. These people sense a universe that is overwhelmingly vast, and they are hopelessly without direction. They feel very little and very lost. For such people there is infinitely good news: God knows where they are all the time, and in Jesus of Nazareth he has come right down to their place. That is the miracle of the Incarnation: God has found us and become one of us, to lead us out of our lostness and back to himself. This is the word for our time—as surely as it was for Paul’s.

“Our time.” How we are bound to it, even when we chafe under the limitation. We live now. We cannot live in the past, which memory generally paints in misleading pastels anyway, and which romanticism, left unbridled, distorts beyond all recognition. Nor can we live in the future, a time as brutal as it is imaginary. The future has always been unmerciful to dreamers, shattering their utopian visions without pity when it finally comes to power. No; like it or not, we live now, today. We have no choice in the matter.

The authors of Scripture knew this well. Its heroes and heroines all had a sense of time. They had a sense of their time. Paul urges believers to be clever in the marketplace where minutes are the wares (Eph. 5:16). Evil days cannot excuse our failure here, he warns. Bad times only make obligation plainer, duty more pressing.

And what is our duty? To meet the scoffers head-on, answering their accusations with holy lives, turning their scorn into praise by continual good works (1 Pet. 2:9–11). We are to live the daily life that befits God’s new creation in Jesus, convicting sinners of their dark ways by turning on the light (Eph. 5:1–14). We are reverently to “work out” the salvation God “works in” us. Such personal discipleship is to be reinforced by local fellowships of the redeemed, model communities that demonstrate the way of reconciliation even as they hold it out in word. To the ungodly, such lives will shine like stars on a dark night (Phil. 2:12–15).

Our duty is to fill David’s prescription, found in Psalm 37. He challenges us to trust in God—and keep on doing what is good; to pursue the greatest pleasure—not in lust, but in the Lord; to commit ourselves to God himself, rather than to the pursuit of perishables; and then to wait patiently for God’s day of reckoning, knowing we have served him well in our own day. We do not need new instructions. We just need to follow the ones we have had all the time.

Here as always our greatest exemplar is the Lord Jesus. Keenly conscious of the divine purpose, Jesus always acted in keeping with the needs of the moment. Over and over again John tells us that Jesus spoke of his “hour.” Our Lord did not despise any time or belittle any opportune moment. No occasion was unworthy of his attention, or his loving service. The result was that he “always” did the Father’s will (John 8:29).

Let us not be deceived by the sophisticated trappings of our time and place. Even with our plethora of plans and programs, of gimmicks and gadgets, of technologies and bureaucracies and ministries and methodologies, God’s call remains the same. It is the same to us as it was to David, or to Paul, or—in this respect—to Jesus. The question is clear and to the point. Do we serve our own generation by the will of God? We can really do no more. Surely we can attempt no less.

Edward Fudge—publisher, evangelist, and author of numerous books—is a lay evangelical scholar, and active in the Evangelical Theological Society. He resides in Athens, Alabama.

It happened in one of those countries whose leaders deny the existence of God but allow the church to exist under a secretary for church affairs. In this case, the secretary was not only a brilliant pastor, he was a medical doctor as well.

One day he was called on the carpet by the authorities. Knowing there would be a new crackdown on the Christians, he started right in: “I know you gentlemen wish to interrogate me,” he began. “But first, may I say something?”

Permission granted, he continued. “You know I am a medical doctor. As a doctor I know the importance of salt in the human body: it should be maintained at about 2 percent. If it is less, a person gets sick. If it is eliminated altogether, he will die.

“Now, Jesus Christ has said Christians are the salt of the earth.” Then he paused.

“That is all. And now, gentlemen, what is it that you wish to say to me?”

“Oh, nothing, nothing …” they agreed. And he was dismissed.

We do not know when salt was first discovered, but Numbers 18:19 refers to the “covenant of salt.” The Greeks had a saying, “Trespass not against the salt and the board.” An Arab saying went, “There is salt between us.” In Ezra 4:14, the expression “to eat the salt of the palace” is used. The modern Persian phrase, namak haram, “untrue to salt,” means to be disloyal or ungrateful. In English, “the salt of the earth” commonly describes someone who is both loved and trusted.

Salt is indispensable to man’s health and is fed to livestock for the same reason (see the Encyclopedia Britannica). It is also used as a preservative and for seasoning, as well as in curing hides and as brine for refrigeration. But there is another fact about salt that is worth considering: salt makes a person thirsty.

Do we Christians make people thirsty for the Water of Life?

Thirty years ago, the notorious gangster Mickey Cohen attended a meeting in Beverly Hills addressed by Billy Graham. He expressed some interest in the message, so several of us talked with him, including Dr. Graham, but he made no commitment until some time later when another friend urged him—with Revelation 3:20 as a warrant—to invite Jesus Christ into his life.

This he professed to do, but his life subsequently gave no evidence of repentance, “the mighty change of mind, heart, and life.” He rebuked our friend, telling him, “You did not tell me that I would have to give up my work!” He meant his rackets. “You did not tell me that I would have to give up my friends!” He meant his gangster associates. He had heard that so-and-so was a Christian cowboy, so-and-so was a Christian actress, so-and-so was a Christian senator, and he really thought that he could be a Christian gangster.

Recently, people were intrigued by the announcement that a notorious pornographer professed to be “born again.” But he has given no evidence of repentance, and it has been forgotten that the only evidence of the New Birth is the new life. His first editorial said he now followed the spirit of Jesus and Buddha.

The fact is, repentance is a missing note in much modern evangelism. The appeal is not for repentance, but for enlistment. Birth defects are not only medical, but spiritual. Many ills of the Christian life are due to handicapped beginnings. Too many people are preaching a warped or truncated gospel, and spiritual birth defects are the inevitable result.

This has become a national scandal. Evangelistic enterprises are claiming the response of multitudes. A national poll has announced that 50 million Americans state they are “born again,” but a national newspaper observes that this evangelical awakening (so-called) seems to have little effect upon the morals of the country, as murder, robbery, rape, pornography, and other social evils abound. The fault is in the message. Holy Scripture calls upon new recruits of the Christian church to repent.

Many earnest Christians have raised the question, “But doesn’t Scripture teach that only believing is all that is necessary? Didn’t the apostle Paul simply tell the Philippian jailer to ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’?” Quite so. But to whom were these words addressed? To a jailer who had cruelly beaten his prisoners, but was now so frightened that he had fallen on his knees to cry, “What must I do to be saved?” Had he repented? Of course; he had changed his attitude. So the apostle reassured him that all he needed to do now was to put his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved.

Some mistaken people have the strange notion that the apostle Peter preached a message of repentance to the Jews, while the apostle Paul preached “only believe” to the Gentiles. And it is said that when Peter first preached to the household of Cornelius, he did not use the word “repent.” A cursory reading of the story suggests that this was so. Cornelius, a captain of the Italian regiment, was “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God” (Acts 10:2). He obviously was a God fearer rather than a proselyte to Judaism. The account of Peter’s ministry and the whole company’s conversion contains no reference to repentance in word or deed.

But in the next chapter, after Peter had explained to the church at Jerusalem his questionable conduct in disregarding the rules of segregation, they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18). Whatever Cornelius did, the Holy Spirit designated it repentance. But wherein did Cornelius change? Did he cease to be devout? Did he cease to fear God? Did he stop giving alms? Did he quit constant praying? No! However, up until he heard the message of Peter, he was struggling for salvation by his good works. After the message, he put his trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ. That was a change of thinking.

Likewise, when the apostle Peter reached the climax of his first great sermon at Pentecost, and his hearers cried out in conviction, “Brethren, what shall we do?” He recalled the parting instructions of his Lord and told them to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of your sins”—exactly what he and his companions were told to declare (Acts 2:37–38). In his second great sermon, Peter said the same thing in slightly different words: “Repent, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). That Peter continued to preach repentance is clear from the dozen citations of the word in the Book of Acts.

Did the apostle Paul preach that same message? It is recorded that he was converted on the road to Damascus and began to preach, though the content of his message was not immediately recorded. But many years afterward, Paul himself declared what he had preached from the beginning, “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance” (Acts 26:19–20). The clear implication of the context is that he received a commission to preach repentance just as much as did the disciples earlier. And in the other references in Acts, it is quite clear that he preached repentance to Jews and Gentiles alike.

The word “repentance” or “repent” is used in the writings of Paul to the Romans, the Corinthians, and to Timothy, and by the writer to the Hebrews as well as by Peter. It occurs 10 times in the Book of the Revelation of John. In all of the New Testament it appears more than 50 times. Hebrews lists it as an elementary doctrine of Christ, a foundation. How serious then is the condition of a professing church where repentance is missing from its elementary evangelism or church growth?

There are some who make a distinction between the Good News of the kingdom of heaven and the Good News of the kingdom of God. It is recorded in the first chapter of the Gospel of Mark that after John the Baptist was put into prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. But the message was the same, for after saying, “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand,” the Lord stated emphatically, “Repent and believe in the gospel.” Also in Mark’s Gospel, our Lord’s calling and coaching of the 12 disciples is reported, after which “they went out and preached that men should repent” (Mark 6:12).

Some may suggest that perhaps this first word of repentance gave way to some other exhortation as the ministry of the Lord and his disciples fully developed. Yet the Good News according to Luke, after reporting the initial use of the word “repentance,” records it 10 more times in verbal or substantive form, always in the preaching of the Lord Jesus, whether impassioned or compassionate.

Of most significance is the fact that in the last discourse of Jesus with the disciples as recorded in the last chapter of Luke’s Gospel, he stated plainly that the whole purpose of his death and resurrection was “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” This was as certainly the Great Commission as was the divine commission in Matthew 28.

The three parables of our Lord recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Luke’s Gospel are often called the “Gospel Parables,” the parables of evangelism. They are the well-known stories of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. The ending of each has a peculiar significance. The shepherd called together his friends, inviting them to rejoice with him that he had found his sheep that was lost: that is the end of the story. But the Lord quickly added, “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” Why such an explanation? If he had not done so, someone would have insisted that, as the sheep did not repent, there was no need of repentance for salvation.

The woman who lost a coin likewise called her friends together, that they might rejoice with her that she had found her lost coin. That is the end of the story. But the Lord quickly added, “Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Why the explanation? Some theologians might have insisted that since a coin is incapable of repenting, repentance is not needed for salvation. But the story of the lost son has no such explanation attached to its ending. Why? Repentance is clearly stated in the narrative when the Prodigal Son declared, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.”

After all, there is no question that it was the Lord Jesus Christ himself who said, “Repent and believe in the gospel.” Some immediately react by supposing that this contradicts the “only believe” of the Christian message. Does “repent and believe the gospel” imply that the sinner must do two things to be saved, and not one only? The exhortation is really only one requirement. The instruction, “Leave London and go to Los Angeles,” sounds like a two-fold request, but it really is only one: it is impossible to go to Los Angeles without leaving London.

Likewise, it is impossible to believe truly without repenting. The difference between true faith and what the Scripture calls false faith is simple: it is the lack of repentance. Without a doubt, many who seek to win sinners to the Savior without specifying repentance in their presentation nevertheless hope that true repentance, a mighty change of mind, heart, and life, will ensue, and rejoice when it happens. But their disappointment when it does not happen should compel them to reword their message so that there can be no misunderstanding whatever.

Not only does the average Christian seem unaware of the first word of the Good News, but he apparently does not know what the word means. To the average man, the word “repent” means “to feel sorry.” Show him an item from the press about a murderer who has shown no repentance whatsoever for his evil deed, and he explains that, “The man is not a bit sorry for what he has done.” The Greek scholar, Richard Trench, archbishop of Dublin, defined repentance as “That mighty change in mind, heart, and life, wrought by the Spirit of God, which we call repentance.” Trench’s last phrase would not be accurate today. The word “repentance” as used by modern Christians simply does not signify a mighty change in mind, heart, and life.

The Greek word metanoia is composed of two parts—“meta,” meaning change, and “noia,” meaning mind: therefore “a revolution of thought.” But the meaning does not stop there. It has a moral as well as an intellectual impact. This is best summed up by the declaration of the apostle Paul that he was commissioned to urge both Jews and Gentiles to revolutionize their thinking, turn to God, and perform deeds worthy of their change of heart. True repentance affects thinking, behaving, and feeling—as it was then applied to Nicodemus, the woman dragged by Pharisees before our Lord, or the rich young ruler. It clearly denotes a revolution in a person’s entire “state of mind,” including intellect, will, and emotion.

How, then, did the meaning of repentance shift from “a mighty change of heart” to a lesser sense of regret? Repentance is a Latinism, derived from penitentia, or a sense of pain or suffering, hence grief for an act that might demand satisfaction. It might mean sorrow looking back upon something amiss. Unfortunately, the word “repent” is also used in the English Bible to render a Greek verb property translated “regret.” In the Prayer Book, the words repentance and penitence are used interchangeably, causing endless confusion. The confusion is multiplied to this day.

Strange to relate, many Christians do not realize that the word “repent” is also a word for the continuing Christian life. Not only is “repent” the first word of the gospel, but it is an exhortation of Christ himself to the believer. The Lord committed the success or failure of his gospel to the faithfulness of “The Young Churches,” little groups of believers meeting in homes. Before the demise of the last surviving disciple, the apostle John, Jesus appeared to him on the Island of Patmos. His first concern was for the young churches, in his letters to the churches (Rev. 2 and 3). It is significant that the word “repent” occurs seven times in the seven letters (not once in each letter, but a total of seven times).

Of what were the churches to repent? A cursory glance at the first and seventh letter gives the answer—anything not according to the will of God. The church at Ephesus had a reputation for orthodoxy, but had lost its first love for God. The Laodicean church, on the other hand, suffered from lukewarmness. Both were told to repent. If this is understood to mean to change their mind, heart, and life, the message is simple. It is significant that in the apostle Paul’s plea for total commitment as given in Romans 12:1–2, commitment is maintained by a continued transformation, “by the renewing of your mind”—here a cognate for repentance, the renewing of your mind rather than the changing of your mind as in conversion.

In other words, whenever a believer realizes that his life falls short of the standards of the gospel, he must return to his change of mind, heart, and life, as at the beginning. A renewed believer thus becomes equipped to preach a message of repentance to his friends and neighbors, and to share in the repentance for national sins.

J. Edwin Orr, author of some 35 books, retined at the end of 1981 as professor in Fuller Theological Seminatry’s School of world Mission, Pasadena, California.

The next time you feel compelled to study the history of the calendar, don’t. Instead, jump into a cold shower, or start doing your income tax in Roman numerals. Why clutter up your mind with embolismic years, the metanomic cycle, sansculottides, and intercalary days? And avoid those incendiary words “Julian” and “Gregorian” lest they plunge you into hopeless depression.

It all goes back to the fact that Pope Gregory wanted his name, and not Julian’s, on the calendar. So, Gregory made January 1 New Year’s Day, and promoted October, November, and December from the eighth, ninth, and tenth spots into the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth spots. He obviously did not know his Latin too well or he would have changed their names as well.

This change didn’t go over too successfully with some nations. In fact, England didn’t accept it until 1752. When they did make the change, the people lost 11 days. I mean, overnight the date jumped from September 2 to September 14! As a result, we’ve all been behind schedule ever since. Suppose you were planning to get married on September 10, or suppose the Rapture had been scheduled for September 13? That’s one for Hal Lindsey to think about while he is counting his royalties.

The French made even more of a mess out of the calendar. After the Revolution, they adopted a new kind of calendar that was a lulu. They planned 12 months of 30 days each, but the weeks were 10 days long. The extra five days were smuggled into September and called “Festival Days,” dedicated (I kid you not) to Virtue, Genius, Labor, Opinion, and Rewards. Fine way to spend a day off. Then they asked a famous poet to rename the months and give them some aesthetic value. He named them such things as Mist, Frost, Snow, Wind, Blossom, and so on. Imagine telling somebody you were born on the fifth of Blossom!

Well, fortunately, that didn’t last. Napoleon switched everybody back to the Gregorian calendar, which may well be the only good thing he ever did. He couldn’t tolerate those 10-day weeks, and all the meterologists in France protested the names of the months. The poet who had named them clung tenaciously to his revised calendar, but poets never know what day it is anyway.

Calendars are important to the Lord’s work. Every school, radio program, and mission board sends one out to its “friends.” So do many insurance agencies and funeral homes. Even with all these calendars around, I still have a hard time meeting my deadlines. Maybe I should consult the one from the funeral home more often.

I doubt that Jesus carried a calendar, but he still managed to live on the schedule his Father had set for him. We today have calendars and watches and clocks of all kinds, and still manage to be too busy to do the Father’s will. I’m sure he often quoted Deuteronomy 33:25 to himself and found strength for the day. Anybody can live a day at a time, which is the sermon every calendar preaches.

Well, anyway, Happy New Year—a day at a time.

EUTYCHUS X

Too Close to See

Sometimes I wonder if the scientifically disciplined mind, theistic or nontheistic, has eyes so close to the problems at hand as not to see their magnitudes. This comes from reading about the debate between Duane Gish and Russell Doolittle concerning creation and evolution [News, Nov. 20].

I conclude that God’s ways of creating this mysterious universe are so far beyond human comprehension that biblical authors—humanly speaking—and modern scientists ought to behold in silent awe and wonder before they begin to dogmatically judge one way or another.

DONALD E. KOHLSTAEDT

Spokane, Wash.

Compassionate Appeal

Two comments on “A Tribute in Praise of Pastors” [Nov. 20]: To the author, a return song line: “Wish you were here”; to the subject: what a deep and compassionate appeal to all of us who preach to be exactly the kind of pastor she describes. I am determined …

REV. GEORGE C. WESTEFELDT

Zion Congregational Church

Lind, Wash.

Misunderstood

I am responding to your editorial, “The WCC Finances Violence to Combat Racism” [Nov. 20]. It is obvious from its tone that you do not appreciate or really understand the World Council and the denominations “for whom it purports to speak.”

The water is not shallow at all where the church enters the work for social justice to serve the needs of our neighbor. I suggest you write to someone in the deeps. You might gain some new insights as to what was done with the money sent to Zimbabwe and now to Namibia for the refugee camps. You might be enlightened to know that 60 percent of the citizens of Namibia are Lutheran Christians. I don’t believe the United States is 60 percent Christian.

The concerns are about how to feed our enemy and our neighbor. My New Testament talks about that. I cannot imagine Christ discouraging any group that seeks to do that.

CHARLES V. BERGSTROM

Lutheran Council in the U.S.A.

Washington, D.C.

Deflating Pastoral Counseling

I was surprised at some of Dr. Ockenga’s comments [“Harold J. Ockenga: Chairman of the Board,” Nov. 6]. His deflation of the pastoral counseling ministry seems opposed to scriptural teaching.

Love is the basis of all fruitful Christian ministry as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 13. The pastor (and every other Christian) who tries to preach without manifesting love in such concrete ways as close interpersonal giving is setting out on a difficult path for having a mature, effective ministry.

TERRI WILLIAMS

Portland, Oreg.

With all due respect to Dr. Ockenga for his insights, service, and contributions, I am concerned about his comments regarding pastoral counseling. A balanced approach, combining strong, relevant, biblical preaching with skilled pastoral counseling, offers the greatest potential for facilitating the spiritual well-being and maturity of God’s children.

JOHN SHULTZ

Ashland Theological Seminary

Ashland, Ohio

“Para-Congregation”

If I were a dedicated Christian who took my whole view of independent mission boards from the article “Parachurch Proliferation: The Frontier Spirit Caught in Traffic” [Nov. 6], I probably wouldn’t want to support those agencies that are doing the most to evangelize the world today. The term “parachurch organization” itself is a misnomer. We are not alongside the church any more than the apostle Paul was. We are as much a part of the church as any local congregation! Perhaps the term “paracongregation” ministry would be more accurate, but hardly descriptive. By virtue of that term, every denominational work should be considered a “parachurch organization.”

I agree, no thoughtful Christian should make it a policy of answering distress appeals if the organization they are supporting sends them out on a regular basis. This sort of appeal corrupts the integrity of otherwise good organizations, and makes the hearts of donors calloused to real needs.

It is important to support your local church and any ministry that can be done by the local church first. After that you give to independent mission boards and groups on the basis of what you want to see accomplished in the world.

MOISHE ROSEN

Jews for Jesus

San Francisco, Calif.

This article probes the roots of the parachurch problem. Parachurch ministries do a lot of good. But wherein they deviate from the biblical norm they produce tension. Let us get back into the church and honor Christ’s body instead of exploiting it.

REV. J. W. JEPSON

Assembly of God

Oregon City, Oreg.

Concerned Responses

In response to certain comments made by Jerry Falwell in his interview, “The Lone Ranger of American Fundamentalism” [Sept. 4], I am a Jewish-born Israeli citizen, living in Israel since 1953, a follower of Jesus Christ and copastor of an indigenous congregation of Israeli Christians. It is true that Jews suffered in the past at the hand of so-called Christians, but can that be construed justification for Christians suffering at the hands of the Jewish people today? I would have thought it should rather be a lesson to us all to safeguard each other’s liberties, not to deny them!

I would like to know where Dr. Falwell has preached—the streets in Israel? to Jews anywhere in Israel? I am confident that had he attempted to do anything of the sort he would have “had problems.” I and many of my Jewish fellows in the faith testify to this from personal experience. The issue seems not so much the extent to which he is or is not subject to harassment in Israel, but rather how Israel as a state treats its small but faithful Jewish Christian minority.

I am confident Dr. Falwell does not mean that Israel can ever be safe so long as it persecutes—or allows persecution of—its minorities, let alone the fact that Israel’s security is at least in some way related to its attitude to Jesus Christ. America’s greatness is due to the fact that “there has been absolute freedom to preach whatever religious conviction one might have, without impinging on the liberties and freedom of others … ‘living by God’s principles promotes a nation to greatness; violating God’s principles brings a nation to shame.’ ” Can this be true of America while untrue, or irrelevent, in relation to Israel?

REV. BARUCH MOAZ

Rishon, LeTsion, Israel

With this issue we begin a new year, with new goals, new hopes, new enthusiasms, new joys, new victories—and, of course, new problems, new fears, new sorrows, and even new defeats. All are a part of the kaleidoscope of life. But, thank God, we do not enter the new year alone. We approach it boldly and joyfully with eager anticipation to share the future with our God and, by his grace, with each other. So, at CHRISTIANITY TODAY, we wish for each one of you a truly happy and blessed new year.

We begin this new year with the story of a great Christian of our time: John Perkins. You will find your heart warmed and your mind edified as you read about this man of godly common sense who would not let his soul be warped by the pressures of the world around him. As Will Norton, Jr., tells the story and conducts the interview, you may more than once find the tears welling up near the surface. The interview reveals how far we have come in America toward racial equality. It also reveals, however, how much farther we still have to go to erase racial injustice, to protect the dispossessed, and to demonstrate a truly biblical attitude and concern for the poor and handicapped of this world.

Our masthead for this issue lists Carol Thiessen as associate editor. Carol joined the CT staff three years ago as copy editor. In this role, she has done much to keep the magazine readable and to catch the mistakes all the rest of us make. Carol will remain as CHRISTIANITY TODAY stylist and in charge of all copy editing. Diane Egle from the news staff will assist in editing news copy.