The Truth About Right Living - A Personal Observation

The first step towards right living in this present world is to close or eliminate the sin gap which exists between God and every individual. As was just seen in the previous two chapters, each person must take that step towards Him by exercising saving faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Once that has been done, then that person can go forward spiritually, really start to get a hold of God and really learn how to please Him by having the right attitude towards Him.

My opinion about how to have the right attitude towards God has come from twenty-five plus years of Christian experience. Of course, on that first night in December 1967, when I asked the Lord to forgive me for my sins, I did not know much about my newfound faith or about the One to Whom I had called. In the years since, I have observed and personally experienced much. When I began my spiritual journey, I was completely naive about the things of God, so I have had a lot to learn! Now, however, after so many years, I feel as though I might have picked up a few things which might be of some benefit to others. For one thing, it seems clear to me that many are going about this thing of seeking and serving God in the wrong way!

Many Christians are so entangled in complicated theological issues and debates that they seem to have missed the most important part of their Christian service. To use a clever expression, some seem to be so heavenly-minded that they are no earthly good and vice versa. Others seem to be so earthly-minded that they are no heavenly good. While I did not originate that catchy phrase, those words do seem to accurately capture the spiritual condition of a great many.

During my years as a Christian, I have been an active member of four different churches. Of those, only two were in the same town, which means that only once during all of those years did Linda and I ever become upset enough to actually quit one church so that we might attend and join another. We were members of the first church during the early to middle Seventies. The second came in the middle Seventies. The third was from the late Seventies to the late Eighties. And the last was from the late Eighties until the middle Nineties. Ironically, each of the four was slightly different than the others, yet from each, we were able to learn much - some good, some not so good! In this chapter, part of the evaluation will be to chronicle a few of our more significant observations while at those churches. The point will be to ultimately show others how to have the proper or right attitude toward God.

Our first church was a very good church, even an excellent church! The pastor was dedicated and highly learned, plus he was also an excellent role model, which at that time was especially important for someone like me. This man was probably the first Christian to ever really have a major impact on me directly. He taught me the facts of the Gospel. He shared with me the compassion of the Lord. He also emphasized to me, in numerous one-on-one sessions, the importance of having the right kind of attitude and service towards the Lord. In fact, even though we have been away from that church for well over twenty years, my wife and I still tend to use it as a way to measure other churches. More than that, we still tend to use our recollections of that pastor as our measuring rod for other pastors.

The pastor of that first church, hence the church itself, took a very strong position against sin. As a matter of fact, the denomination, as a whole, was like the strict, old fashioned, hard-shelled Baptists of a hundred years ago. The normal behaviors which drew fire from the pulpit were such things as the consumption of alcoholic beverages, committing adultery, gambling, not attending ALL church services, and not financially supporting the Lord's work with at least a tenth of one's gross income. Those offenses were normal. Most people were not and are not disturbed by such positions by the Church.

But in addition to those, even minor forms of misbehavior were treated as serious. The church and denomination, for example, frowned heavily on things like dancing, mixed swimming, attending movies, listening to secular music, and so forth. In short, this denomination based its platform on II Corinthians 6:17 and emphasized a very distinct and very strict separation from the things of this world!

When looking at the church's stern position on separation, one might conclude that my wife and I were not content with such strictness. After all, many normal behaviors were considered wrong. Yet, to say that either of us was dissatisfied would have been totally incorrect! We and a couple of thousand others loved the church, including its strict standards. For many years after we had left, she and I still openly wished that fate would somehow intervene and move us back to that town so that we could once again worship at that first "real" church. However, while the Lord has not done as we would have chosen in that regard, what we both learned and experienced during those few years has carried us from that day until now. Our overall conclusion was that that church and their pastor truly did know what this walk with Christ is all about!

Our second church, even though it was of a different denomination than the first, was one which initially seemed very dynamic and alive. From the beginning, Linda and I were drawn to the church's music program because they sang the old hymns which we knew and loved. Even the pastor possessed a certain enthusiasm and charisma which made us feel like we had found a good second church. We knew that finding a church such as our first would be difficult, if not impossible, so we were prepared to take whatever the Lord provided, fully realizing that we might have to down scope our expectations a little. And that is what we did! After a couple of months, we joined the church and then jumped right in to participate. Unfortunately, different things began to happen so that we soon could no longer feel so enthusiastic. In the beginning, we had been pleased, but in the end, we were greatly disappointed and decided to leave.

While attending our second church, though, I made an interesting observation! Basically, the preacher preached a belief which I, still a relatively young Christian, had not before encountered. It was called "once saved, always saved," and in nearly every sermon, he would somehow incorporate that same general theme into his message. As a result, I quickly learned what the whole issue was about. When one receives Christ as Saviour, as I had done in December 1967 and as was just discussed in the previous two chapters, the Bible teaches that the sin gap which exists between God and the individual is closed. At that time in my life, I had repented of my sins and literally turned to the Lord, and the result was an experience within my own heart which had changed me completely.

The "once saved, always saved" issue addresses the permanency of the closing of that gap. For instance, if through Christ the gap is closed, but the person then commits some terrible sin, will the gap be opened again? Those who would respond in the negative by saying "no" are siding with the crowd who believes in "once saved, always saved". They are effectively saying that the individual would not lose his or her salvation no matter how terrible the sin.

On the other hand, though, those who would say that the gap would or could be opened again are siding with people who do believe that one can lose his or her salvation. I learned, in this my second church, that some Christians are sharply divided over this one issue about salvation. Indeed, whole denominations exist simply because of how different Christians have chosen on this issue alone!

We stayed at that second church for just over a year, and when we realized that it was not the place for us, we left to attend another. Our third church was of the same denomination as the first, only it was much smaller. Instead of the normal two thousand which we had come to know and expect, the attendance at this new church was more like that of the second church. The number of Sunday morning worshippers was closer to two hundred than two thousand, and probably half of those were children who had been brought in on church buses. To say the least, Linda and I had had to make some adjustments, and so we did!

During our ten year stay at this third church, she and I both jumped in and worked. For the first four years, we assumed joint responsibility for one of the church buses. Each week, we visited our bus kids, plus tried to encourage others to come along with us to church. Four years later, when we were done with that ministry, we then both became Sunday School teachers. For the next six years, I taught an adult class, while she taught a young children's class. In addition to teaching, we also both sang in the choir, I became the church Treasurer and a Trustee, I led a Saturday night prayer and devotion service, she was leader and coordinator of a Wednesday night children's group, we both went on weekly church visitation, and we attended nearly every service without fail.

For those ten years and even dating back to the days at our first two churches, we were consistently where we felt we were supposed to be, doing what we thought we were supposed to be doing. We were in our place, doing our part, and the Lord blessed us, our marriage, and our family!

At the third church, though, like at the second, I also made some observations. For instance, where the second church had emphasized a "once saved, always saved" mentality, the third had chosen the exactly opposite side of that same issue. They believed that a person could turn from the Lord and walk away. Interestingly enough, when I had been at the second church, I could understand and go along with the "once saved, always saved" theme. In my mind, being once and forever pardoned by God did make some sense.

But then, when I got to the third church, I could also see where they were coming from with their belief about falling away from the Lord, even though the two beliefs were contrary to each other! Consequently, while I did not have a solution to the issue, itself, I did at least realize that I could easily be persuaded either way. Not only that, but from having carefully studied the Bible from each point of view, I could also see how different people might interpret different verses in different ways and arrive at each of those respective conclusions.

Another Christian issue which I encountered during those years was something called "free will versus election". Free will proponents believe that anyone can come to God and close the sin gap with Him. They see such a movement towards Him as one of personal choice rather than a heavenly one. Romans 10:13 is a verse frequently used to support that belief.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, is the belief of election, which teaches that God has chosen some people to come to Him but has literally chosen others not to come. Those who have been chosen are called the "elect," while those who have not been chosen are simply left out! Yet, even though the two sides of this issue are also opposites, I once again felt that an individual could interpret certain portions of Scriptures and be persuaded either way. Romans 10:13 supports free will, but Romans 8:29, for example, specifically talks about some as having been predestined or chosen to be conformed to the image of Christ. Other verses also seemed to refer explicitly to God's elect. Therefore, while I did not decide either way on the issue, itself, I could at least once again easily see and understand both sides.

As an adult Sunday School teacher, I was drawn into both of the above debates. However, I was drawn into one more so-called Christian issue, as well, and this one, called "speaking in tongues," was and is very big! In Acts 2:1-8, the unlearned, unintelligent disciples of Christ were seen speaking the Gospel to those who had come to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Ordinarily, speaking to a foreigner in his or her native tongue may not seem like such a big deal, but in this case, the disciples were speaking to others about Christ, in languages which they did not know!

Try to imagine yourself in such a predicament! Someone from another country has just come to visit. You meet with that individual. Neither of you share a common language, yet you somehow find yourself able to share Christ with that foreigner. He does not speak your language, and you do not speak his. Nevertheless, you are able to speak to him in his very language, in words which he can easily understand. Such a circumstance sounds incredible. However, according to Luke, this event really happened! Not only that, but the practice of "speaking in tongues" occurred at other times, as well. Sometimes, the speaker was talking to God in an unknown, heavenly language. Sometimes, it was to other people. But according to the Bible, those events still happened frequently enough to get people's attention and to attract a good-sized following.

"Speaking in tongues" is a big issue in many of today's churches. As one might imagine, Christians who do speak in tongues prefer to worship with others who do, and vice versa. Those who do not tend to worship with others who do not. Despite such a division, though, how I or anyone else really feels about this issue is irrelevant and unimportant. Through the years, I have listened to and studied both sides of this issue, and once again, I can understand how each group has arrived at their respective conclusions. Yet, none of the arguments matter! What does matter is that the devil has used, is using, and will continue to use silly issues just like these to divide and conquer even those who genuinely want to serve the Lord.

These comments were made in Chapter Two, and the very existence of all of these different Christian issues is enough to prove that point. In my opinion, these real-life examples, where Christians are literally being divided by various theological issues, are far more tragic and far more significant than the simple dilemma of trying to determine who is right or wrong.

Our fourth church was totally different from the other three. The denomination was different, the focus of the sermons was different, and the attitude of the people was different. Having experienced various strains of the Baptist faith for almost twenty years, Linda and I chose for our fourth church one which was a complete departure from everything we knew. We decided on an interdenominational church. This type of church meant that the people were not Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or of any of the other traditional Protestant Faiths. The church defined itself as one which could cater to all people and one which could try to meet the needs of all or many, rather than those of just a segregated few. Linda and I had felt that it was time for a change, plus we had also wanted to see how others of the Faith worshipped and lived. So, we took the plunge!

Our first sensation at this fourth church was one of amazement, an amazement which had come mainly from the uninhibited nature of the congregation. We had always attended churches where formal dress was considered appropriate, yet at this church, informal attire was almost the order of the day. During summer services, for example, some young people actually wore bermuda shorts to evening church. We could not believe our eyes! But in addition to a more lax dress code, the sermons were also very different. The preacher did not yell and behave in an angry or emotional fashion. Instead, he talked to that congregation of about two thousand, in three separate services of six to seven hundred each, like one friend might talk to another, and the impact on us was incredible!

After about twenty years of the other type of worship, Linda and I both felt a newfound sense of freedom! For the first time in years, we did not feel like someone was looking over our shoulder. We were not being bombarded by negative sermons from the pulpit, the people seemed refreshingly and genuinely happy, and the church was ministering to its community. As a result, we were very pleased with our fourth church. I might also add that not much, if anything, was ever said about such things as "once saved, always saved", "free will versus election", or about "speaking in tongues". I fact, no one even seemed to care about such issues! Consequently, we were very pleased about everything.

Over the years, I have often thought about the above four churches, especially the first and fourth because they were the best for us. Between the two, both had active congregations of about two thousand. Both had dedicated, well-educated, and highly organized pastors and staffs. Both made major contributions to their community. Both emphasized spreading the Gospel abroad. Both offered a lot of activities for its congregation. And both, in my opinion, were and are excellent churches! Yet, the two were as different as night and day, especially in terms of sermon delivery and focus on standards.

The second and third churches, by contrast, were more like the first in terms of sermon delivery and standards, yet neither of those two measured up nearly so well. Thus, the obvious question to me was why. Why did churches two and three, which were so similar to church one, not do so well? Why was church four able to do quite well, and why was it so gratifying to us, when it was completely different from the first church which we had loved so much? Was it because the standards were eased? Was it because the preacher talked rather than actually preach? I have given considerable thought to all of these questions, and I believe that I know the answer. But my answer has nothing to do with different preaching styles or standards! Instead, it has to do with something as simple and as basic as focus!