Author: Berean Baptist

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. (Isaiah 9:2)

            Although Christmas is a time of celebration and happiness, the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the coming of Christ were often born out of depressing times. When Israel needed some glimmer of hope because of oppressing conquering armies, God had the prophets remind them that He had not forgotten His promise to them.

            I have chosen as the subject for this article a passage from Isaiah that is quoted in the New Testament upon the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. Isaiah 9:2 says, ”The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” This reference is to the land of Galilee where Jesus grew up and spent most of His time preaching, healing, and giving hope to a sin darkened people.

            At the time of Isaiah’s writing some seven hundred years before Christ, this area of Israel had been overrun by the Assyrian army and the people were living in a war-torn nation. There was great anguish and distress as we might well expect when people were completely helpless to remedy their ills. The northern kingdom of Israel had been warned by the prophets for many years what would happen if the people did not return to God. God would have protected them from these armies if they would repent, but they did not, and so now they were reaping the just reward of their sins.

            However, we must remember they were God’s chosen people and despite their sin, God was gracious to promise restoration. Verses 6 and 7 promised the coming of the Messiah who would deliver Israel from their oppression. These two verses form a sweeping prophecy that encompass both the first and second advents of Christ. A child would be born—this is the first advent—and this child would bring the light of the gospel to Galilee. This is the reason we find verse 2 quoted in Matthew chapter 4. The prophecy then moves forward more than two thousand years to a date still in the future when Christ shall return the second time to begin a kingdom upon the earth. At this time, the promise to Israel will be fulfilled that a king shall sit on the throne of David forever. King Jesus will be ruler of a kingdom no longer gripped in the throes of war, but one in which peace reigns over the whole earth. Israel’s oppression will be forever ended and God’s people will always dwell in peace and safety.

            This is a wonderful promise given by the prophet. It speaks of a loving and gracious God who is willing to forgive sin and restore the penitent to His divine favor. Though these verses are primarily a promise for Israel, we must remember that God has promised to make Gentiles a part of His kingdom. The light has also shined upon us and this is the reason we celebrate Christmas today.

            This is good news for us all because in our deepest despair when there seems to be no hope we can find refuge in our merciful and gracious Saviour. My hope and prayer today is that you have met your King and surrendered your life to Him. Christmas is far more festive when you truly know the one for whom it is named.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            In this article, we make a brief examination of the second of the church ordinances which is the Lord’s Supper. The name of the ordinance is derived from the last Passover supper Christ ate with His disciples just before His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane followed by mock trials and His horrible crucifixion. This was the Passover meal that since the time of Moses and Israel’s deliverance from Egypt represented the sacrifice of Christ for our sins and His deliverance of us from our bondage of corruption. Paul affirmed this connection in 1 Corinthians 5:7.

            Throughout church history, the Supper has been variously referred to as the Communion (1 Cor. 10:16), the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:21), and the Eucharist. The last of these refers to the consecration of bread and wine in the observance of the ceremony. Eucharist means “thanksgiving.” It is celebrated in thanksgiving for God’s gift of His Son to die for our sins. As Baptists, we generally do not refer to the Supper as the Eucharist because of its connections with Catholicism and High Protestantism in which priestly intercessions are necessary attendants to making the elements themselves a means of grace or for changing them into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. We regard this practice as blasphemy as this supposed consecration is rehashed crucifixion each time the communion is observed. This Roman Catholic perversion of the Supper is called the Mass, one of the most heretical doctrines in false Christianity. The practice of changing the elements is called “transubstantiation.” It is the transformation of them into the flesh and blood of Christ with only the appearance of bread and wine remaining. With these connotations, I think you can understand the reason we stay away from the term “Eucharist.”

            In Protestant theology, there are various opinions largely differentiated by the Lutheran/High Anglican and Presbyterian Reformed positions. The Lutheran and High Anglicans support consubstantiation in which the body and blood of Christ coexist with the substance of the consecrated elements. The substance is not literally transformed but the bread and wine remain naturally bread and wine with Christ present in them. The Presbyterians and other Reformed churches favor a sacramental view in which the sacraments are termed “the means of grace.” This view says the sacraments are God’s appointed instruments by which the Holy Spirit enables the believer to receive Christ and the benefits of His redemption. In our understanding of the Supper, this requires difficult distinctions between the signification of the communion and the realities they signify. We deny God uses human activity to dispense His grace. Human actions such as observance of the communion, baptism, prayer, etc. are outgrowths of grace already bestowed. Admittedly, these distinctions are muddled and difficult to understand. In all my years of study on this subject, I am not sure I state their position correctly. It seems the give and take of grace and works gives grace but takes it back. I have yet to see the clear distinction between grace and works in this view. It is best to stop here on this point and leave it to some other time and better investigation.

            This brings us to our view of the Supper. We believe the Supper is a remembrance or a memorial. You often hear me read the scriptures in which Christ commanded the apostles to partake. He said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). Indeed, these very words are engraved in the Communion table in front of the pulpit. Further, this symbolic representation is seen in Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11. He told the church that in the Supper they showed (remembered, symbolized) the Lord’s death until He comes. This supports the memorial view. While these verses to do not categorically refute the other opinions, the absence of scripture to tell us otherwise does. We cannot go beyond scripture to firmly establish our practices.

            These are just a small part of the controversies. Among Baptists and baptistic groups, other questions such as permission to the Supper and the proper elements also divide. One article does not suffice to answer all questions. This is not my intent in this article. Further investigation which I must mention reveals the church as the appointed administrator of the ordinances and is the only place authorized to dispense them. We stand firmly on the belief that only true New Testament churches may administer the ordinances. Take time to investigate which church is authorized.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Psalm 23

            Last year when ending our study of 2 Thessalonians, I took a few minutes to explain 2 Thessalonians 3:17 in which Paul wrote, ”The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.” Paul needed to authenticate his letters because there were false teachers that forged letters in his name and claimed they were from him. Paul usually dictated his letters to an amanuensis which was no validation that the handwriting was his. To circumvent this problem and prove he had indeed written the letter, he would write one section in his own handwriting. This would authenticate the letter was truly from him as the addressee would recognize his writing.

            I thought about this as I sat down to write this article. Each week I write hundreds and sometimes thousands of words in my own handwriting. I find that pen and paper enable my thoughts to flow more freely rather than staring at a computer screen and tapping them out on a keyboard. In my office closet, there are years’ worth of composition books, page upon page filled with scribbled blue ink. Most of it is illegible (and probably unintelligible) to you.

            One day a few years ago, I was thinking of my mortality and getting closer to wondering how to dispose of so much I have accumulated. My oldest daughter Clarissa told me long ago that she wanted all the books in my library. I thought about the closet and the composition books and wondered if I should throw them away or ask her if she would like to have them. She eagerly replied I should not dispose of them because they would be a special remembrance and be valuable to her. I can well relate to this because one of my treasured possessions is a large box of handwritten sermons belonging to my father. Long before computers became the normal method of preserving manuscripts in readable form, my father would write them longhand and place them in a large cardboard box. Each was saved and dated with some having multiple dates because they were preached several times over his long 40-year career of pastoring churches. His handwriting was worse than mine but through years of reading it, I became an expert in hieroglyphics. Most preachers have their own preferred methods of organizing and recognizing their notes as they preach. His was at best difficult, so you will rarely hear me preach one of his sermons. The exception would be some of his notes on the Tabernacle. I considered him the foremost expert in all things Tabernacle, so I could hardly do better than emphasize his understanding of the scriptures.

            I have been told numerous times that my preaching is like my dad’s. It is a grand compliment, but I hardly see how this is determined when looking at our notes yields highly dissimilar approaches. There may be a subconscious connection because we both believed preparation is paramount. Never be content to give the people watered down versions of the word or believe the sermons are too far above the crowd’s intelligence to understand. Dumbing down the word just leaves people dumbed down.

            These thoughts are on my mind as I contemplate the sermon for this week. Consistency in the presentation of Bible subjects is paramount. Attending the services is also paramount to good understanding of the subjects at hand. Our preaching is usually in series format which requires attendance at nearly all instances of multiple sermon parts to get the comprehensive picture of the current topic. You would not have a complete understanding of nuclear fission if you missed the lecture on atoms! Often the most vital part of the sermon is the one you missed.

            Perhaps to get it all, you might want to request the written manuscript. Good luck with that—I give them away because I can’t read them either.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            Several months ago, while preaching on the doctrine of the church, I took time to brush up and hone my skills in this critically important doctrine. I have never made apologies for being a Baptist and have often said if others who disagree are right, I will gladly abandon my dogmatism to be right as well. We should favor no doctrines or insist upon any teachings that cannot be supported by the scriptures.

            As I was studying, I was reminded of an old book I have had for years. It was passed to me by my father when I inherited his library. This book was written by one of his professors in Bible college and is entitled The Church and the Ordinances. The author was Buell H. Kazee, a well-respected churchman who was born in 1900 and passed away in 1976. I barely remember him, but I do remember visits to his home and his church. Through the years, his book has been a great help in understanding some of the nuanced issues of the church and how it was formed. I cannot say I agree with all his conclusions, but I am impressed by his willingness to arrest his dogmatism on points of scripture that are not inarguably clear. There are times he expresses an opinion from the preponderance of evidence but still admitted there is room to adjust and accept better arguments. I must be clear, however, that none of his unsure positions affect major doctrines of the faith. These are more of the sort that we cannot know as all the practices of the church were in the developmental stage in the New Testament. Not until the New Testament canon was complete was the church fully formed without apostolic oversight.

            Many who have attended Berean for years know that I have long been a student of Baptist history. While studying Kazee’s book, I did further research as I found his book was also posted on the Baptist History homepage maintained by the John Leland Baptist College. While visiting this site, I read through some of the offerings and found a link to Baptist periodicals and journals written in the 19^th century. With curiosity, I opened a link to a scanned copy of one of these journals published in the year 1810. This copy was a British journal that began with a history of Baptists in England. Prominently displayed was the outright rejection of Roman Catholicism’s claim that they were the first to bring the gospel to the British Isles. Three headings caught my attention: The First British Christians Were Baptists, The First British Martyrs Were Baptists, and The First British Protestants Were Baptists. Obviously, the early 19^th century Baptists did not believe the Reformation was the beginning of people called Baptists. Although not known by this name until the 17^th century, all notable church historians agree that Baptist doctrine is found in every century to the first. The gospel of Christ reached England before the end of the first century and thus churches of England held Baptist beliefs more than 300 years before Augustine began persecuting Baptists in the 4^th and 5^th centuries.

            When Augustine arrived, he tried to convince and convert the Saxons to Catholicism. The Saxons would not give up their pagan practices, so pragmatic popery sanctioned their idolatry. To pull the Saxons into the Roman church, Pope Gregory issued an order to Augustine. The Baptist journal quotes Gregory with alarm: “Whereas there is a custom among the Saxons to slay abundance of oxen, and sacrifice them to the Devil; you must not abolish that custom, but appoint a new festival to be kept either on the day of the consecration of churches, or on the birthday of the Saints, whose relics are deposited there; and on those days, the Saxons may be allowed to make arbors round their temples, changed into churches, to kill their oxen, and to feast as they did while they were yet Pagans!” The journal commented, “Nor do we consider it at all impossible, that Austin (Augustine), to secure his popularity, might now and then sit down with his disciples, and eat at the devil’s table.”

            The article then comments that church and state sanctioned these pagan feasts and thus Roman Catholicism became the state church. Further, as a reward for his meritorious services, Augustine was made a saint. “If anyone should observe, that at this time Popery was not arrived at the full measure of the stature of Antichrist; we reply, that in its earliest infancy, Popery was a Mystery of Iniquity.” (emphasis in the original)

            I will spend more time perusing these periodicals. We are aghast that the accepted history of the church by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike is that Rome was once the true church. Read this testimony of the early Baptist churches again. From “…its earliest infancy, Popery was a Mystery of Iniquity.” These Baptists did not buy the fantasy of imagined Roman Catholic history and still had congregations extant from the earliest days of the gospel to refute it. We Bereans steadfastly refuse to have our history defined by 16^th century Protestantism. Did we protest? Yes, but not from within Catholicism but apart from it in its earliest days as it sucked up pagans under Constantine and formed them into the murderous monstrosity of the Dark Ages and the corruption-riddled perversion of the present.

            These historical observations are pertinent to the identification of the true New Testament church. Christ promised His church would prevail—never apostatizing and never needing a complete overhaul of reformation. Not reforming, but always conforming to the doctrines of Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone, and the prophets and apostles in whom the foundation was laid.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Last year in April, I was quarantined at home due to COVID concerns. In the early part of this year, I was at home recovering from back surgery. I did not have the opportunity to preach although I prepared several messages for future series. Preparing outlines and manuscripts for future sermons is not the same as being prepared to step into the pulpit at any moment. When the last words are typed, the sermon is not ready as I must contemplate, meditate, adjust, and finesse what I want to say and have it settled in my mind. Too often it may not sound as if there is this much preparation, but I assure you it is quite time-consuming. In 20 years behind this pulpit, I have never preached a spur-of-the-moment sermon.

            Some years ago, I heard a pastor explain the different types of sermons. He indicated there are times when he would stand to preach that he did not need to study or prepare. He claimed the Holy Spirit would inspire him as needed and the sermon would flow from the Spirit through Him. I recognize there are times we must speak spontaneously as Peter encourages us to be ready to answer those who inquire about our faith (1 Peter 3:15). I can also imagine Paul the missionary probably did not carry a suitcase filled with sermon manuscripts for every occasion. Yet I believe spontaneous preaching should never be the normal course for a pastor in the pulpit of his church.

            In the Forum Class, I answer questions on many Bible topics without preparation but rarely is any of it organized in a structured format that fits the description of a sermon. There are some with highly organized brains that may speak extemporaneously, but I have never claimed to have such a gift. There are days I sit at my desk preparing a new sermon and thoughts flow quickly in rapid succession. The sermon goes down in minimum time. This is not normal and most require hours of reading and sifting information and organizing to bring the message to you. I admire the gift in others, but I am content to be the plodding preacher. My days at home recovering were not vacation days. When able, they were spent plowing and painstakingly hoeing the rows of future sermons. Precisely because I am not spontaneous, I must work ahead to be ready for unusual occurrences that may interrupt study time.

            I believe a preacher might be able to fake his way through a few simple subjects but eventually, lack of study will show up in the growth of his people. Paul encouraged Timothy to read and meditate on doctrine and scripture. He would profit from it and so would those who heard (1 Timothy 4:13-16). I am most pleased when I hear that what we do in Bible exposition at Berean is not common among area churches. I am pleased for us that we try to give a good in-depth analysis of scripture, while I am displeased that others receive only a few Christian platitudes that are the milk of the word and not conducive to making them skillful in the word of righteousness (Hebrews 5:12-14). This explains the lack of holiness and sanctification among most Christians.

            None of this I write is to applaud me. The Lord knows I have much to learn and have not attained the stature of many of my peers. I write to encourage you to make knowledge of every Bible subject your quest. Spend the necessary time. Our dearly departed Brother Lew often said, “Fake it until you make it.” He was not talking about the Bible! If I can assist in your spiritual journey, praise God for allowing me to have a part. “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” (3 John v. 4).

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

(2 Thessalonians 3:16)

The closing words of Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians are a final appeal to the stability of a troubled church. They are appropriate for us as these two letters are instructions concerning the Lord’s return, renewed hope in the promises of the gospel, and restoration of peace in the discouragements of living in a sin cursed world. Peace is Paul’s final plea for the Thessalonian church.

                Typically, Christians believe peace is based on our feelings at the time and is determined by the circumstances we face. With this understanding of peace, we believe we are in control by making changes to our circumstances and turning them in ways that will best accomplish our desires. Our text verse disproves the method that how we think will accomplish the peace Paul desires. In Paul’s mind, peace is not subjective but rather depends on the actions of the Lord of peace who will give peace by all means—all means He Himself provides.

                I must admit that in the past year I have struggled to find peace and contentment. Circumstances have been awful and as much as I would like to change them, I have no power over them. I fail especially when my peace is disturbed by the disappointments of politics and the declining moral values of our country. I despair with the nightly news that applauds every decadence of the culture and celebrates every insane wickedness pushed on us by this ungodly administration. It is obvious the peace Paul speaks of is much less connected to government and societal activities than our own since Christians in Paul’s time were without hope of modern democracy to affect a change (assuming enough godly people would ever be gathered to agree). Neither does our dissatisfaction have the added dimension of intense persecution.

                The peace Paul advocated is discovered in the Hebrew word shalom. It means to be whole and sound—to be safe and secure. His prayer for peace is that it would come in all the ways God alone provides for the church which are often termed His means of grace. These means are greatly diversified as we have found one of the least expected ways recently in our articles on church discipline. Peace is restored when wayward church members are brought back through the discipline of rebuking sin. The wholeness and wellbeing of peace comes to the church when all parts are in harmony with the others.

                Primarily, peace in the New Testament conveys the reconciliation made by God through the reconciling work of Christ on the cross. This is God’s action as described in Colossians 1:19-20: “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” When I think of this peace, I am drawn to two cherished lines in one of my favorite hymns, His Robes for Mine. This thought is striking: “He as though I, accursed and left alone; I as though He, embraced and welcomed home!” This is peace obtained by Christ being rejected by the Father so that we might take His place as the Father’s own. Truly it is peace that passes all understanding. Likewise, Stuart Townsend in his hymn, How Deep the Father’s Love wrote this compelling line: “Why should I gain from His reward, I cannot find an answer; but this I know with all my heart, His wounds have paid my ransom.” This line reflects a meaningful exposition of our theology. Christ’s reward is the promise made by the Father to give Him a people for His name. Those that are ransomed, redeemed, and reconciled to God receive from Christ’s reward the benefit of perfect peace with the Father.

                Thoughts of present circumstances and earthly disappointments fade into oblivion when the incomparable peace of God is rightly considered. Reconciliation is the fountain of our peace in which God showers many simultaneous streams. These are beyond our ability to analyze. “The Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means.” It is the apostle’s simple ending, but no doubt carefully considered overcomes all disappointments.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

My past few articles were focused on discipline in the church which might very well be the first subject of discussion in how a church works. We function as Christ’s body in the world as we are sanctified for His service. He will not use us unless the requirement of holiness is met. Paul explained to the Corinthians that he needed to restrain his sinful impulses lest he should be disqualified from the ministry (1 Corinthians 9:27). Discipline is an appropriate segue into the other workings of the church.

Paul was unquestionably a church man who concentrated his missionary efforts upon the establishment of churches throughout the Roman Empire. His major reason is quite clear from many examples in his letters, such as Ephesians 3:21 where he wrote that Christ receives glory through the church. A careful reading of Ephesians shows this glory is not achieved through a mystical ethereal, impotent invisible entity but through the concrete efficient means of local, visible assemblies. Accordingly, he writes in chapter 4:11-13: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; [12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ…” This perfecting of the saints is obviously the church considered in 5:27 that glorifies Christ and is presented as spotless, holy, and without blemish. This is accomplished through the work of ministry entrusted to the leaders of local congregations to which individual Christians make their commitments for fellowship and instruction.

We must be careful not to believe the work of Christ can be satisfied by an invisible entity that cannot preach, cannot participate in ordinances, cannot send out missionaries, nor effectively do any of the ministry ascribed to the church in the word. Least of all can an invisible entity be the support pillars of the truth as envisioned by 1 Timothy 3:15: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” What could Paul have meant by “behave thyself in the house of God” unless his meaning is the visible assembly of God’s people? This is the church of the living God and the church that is the pillar and ground of the truth.

The visible church (as opposed to the nonentity invisible church) cannot be minimized, ignored, nor considered inconsequential for the development of God’s people. I must come back to Paul’s inspired proclamation concerning the glory of Christ. As noted, the critical nature of the local visible church is found in scores of New Testament references. The apostle’s doxology of praise in Ephesians 3:21 is the expression of church’s worth to Christ: “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” To this we add our hearty approval—AMEN! We too are churchmen and church women.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

My last blog post was prompted by a series of four messages preached in March and April of 2021. These messages were from the last part of 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 entitled Order in the Church. Primarily, our focus was church discipline and the importance of the holiness of God’s people. Discipline is a tough subject and one that most churches strenuously avoid. The lack of commitment to it is the driving impetus behind the shameful lives of many of their church members. Not only does it affect members personally and individually, but every bad practice in the church can be linked to someone’s failure to address sin with a biblical response. Whether we speak of the sin of unholy worship, of heresies in the pulpit, or sin in personal lives, it stems from bad discipline. Sin is not abstract, but rather all sin is committed by someone. It is concrete refusal to heed God’s word in any area.

          I believe failure of church discipline is failure to recognize God’s viewpoint of sin. This is a serious illogical error by anyone redeemed by the grace of God. Dr. R.C. Sproul was fond of calling sin “cosmic treason.” And yet, I think very few see their sins as a terrible affront to God’s holiness or see that it constitutes turning their back on the extreme payment made through Christ our Lord to satisfy the penalty of sin.

          Before we came to Christ, we were in the darkness of sin not understanding its consequences. We were not motivated to forsake sin because we had not been enlightened by the Holy Spirit to the danger of it nor to the cost of God’s provision of grace to save us from it. While there are many who profess salvation but do not possess it, the only true believers are those who before their salvation were enlightened to their fast track to the awful fires of hell. They realized they were guilty before God and justly deserving of it. The truth of our condition is that God’s kingdom was shut to us. The door was locked and could not be pried open. It was our sin that shut us out of God’s kingdom. Once we are saved, the heinous nature of sin does not change. In fact, for those enlightened to the gospel, sin after salvation should incur more punishment because we are more stubborn in consideration of our knowledge of what God did for us. The only way eternal punishment is averted for those who know Christ is by Paul’s declaration that “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” In other words, when we sin, we impose more upon God’s grace after we are saved than we did when we were lost.

          Now consider that we should have a church filled with people who are so callous about God’s work of redemption that they continue to live in sin. How do we judge ourselves superior to the worst criminal on death row? I think this helps us understand why Paul was distraught with sin in the church. In his own life, he said he beat his body into submission to keep from hindering God’s work.

          When the church practices discipline, I hope you see it is a sincere desire not to be judgmental, but to do as Romans 12:2 commands. We are not to be conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of our minds. A pure heart is the same as a renewed mind, and Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” Thank the Lord He does not reward us according to our iniquities. Otherwise, no child of God would survive the taxing of God’s grace.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

           

Many consider church discipline as one of the most unpleasant acts a church can do. It is a scary thought to some as it conjures up thoughts of church councils, trials, judgment, and torture. We speak of discipling our children and most of the time we mean we have given them some sort of punishment to modify their behavior. This is not the way the Bible uses the term.

Discipline is related to disciple which in its verb form means to teach. In the noun form, it is a person who is taught. The purpose of discipline is to instruct and to correct through instruction. It is not necessarily a form of punishment. In fact, as a church exercise, discipline is not punishment at all. The goal of church discipline is always to correct, to restore to fellowship, and to bring an offender back into harmony with the Lord and his fellow church members. Thus, discipline is not considered punitive but formative.

We become confused about discipline when it must be stepped up to the next level. Sometimes we must protect the church by removing members that are involved in serious sins. We always remember that each of us is sinful, but there are some sins that are categorized as too harmful to the testimony of the body to let them go unanswered. These offenders must have their membership rescinded until they repent of their sin. There is no greater temporal judgment we can pass than to remove someone from fellowship.

We learn this biblical and effective method from Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 5. A man in the church was guilty of a sexual sin and had to be removed. Paul was concerned about the reproach on the name of Christ and how it would harm the church’s testimony. Later in 2 Corinthians, we learn the discipline worked. The man repented and was restored to fellowship. This is the expected result when a believer is confronted with his sin. If he does not repent as a response to this serious action, we are to assume he is an unbeliever. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to draw His people to Him. If this does not happen, what are we to assume but that they do not belong to Christ?

Removing members for sexual sins should not be a point of contention between us. The scriptures are clear what needs to be done. However, some offenses may not seem as serious, but they too warrant excisive discipline. We remove members for non-attendance which is often seen as an inconsequential action. It is merely procedural and does not carry the same weight as removal for other reasons. Is this true? I do not believe so.

The reason for removal does not change the eternal weight of the Lord’s most important institution. Non-attendance shows contempt for the Lord’s work. This contempt is also a sign of unbelief. We cannot love Christ if we do not love His church. The church is not helped by members that do not attend. Often, they are involved in a deep sin of which we are not aware.

Our duty is to protect our church. The Lord expects the purity of the body. Therefore, we will follow the instructions in the Bible. When we obey, we reflect the proper understanding of discipline. Christ wants only dedicated people in His church, and so do we.

                                                                        Pastor V. Mark Smith