Colonial Submission and Resistance to Higher Powers

Jonathan Mayhew of Massachusetts on January 30, 1750 published a sermon called: Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers with Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I. The American colonies were abuzz with discord and debate against mother England for her oppressive rule. Mayhew's sermon text was taken from Romans 13:1, in which he said, “It is the duty of Christian magistrates to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning the nature and design of their office. And it is equally the duty of all Christian people to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning that subjection which they owe to the higher powers.”

In expounding the passage, he continued, “Since, therefore, magistracy is the ordinance of God, and since rulers are by their office benefactors to society, by discouraging what is bad and encouraging what is good, and so preserving peace and order amongst men, it is evident that ye ought to pay a willing subjection to them…Ye are under an indispensable obligation, as Christians, to honor their office, and to submit to them in the execution of it…And here is a plain reason also why ye should pay tribute to them, - for they are God’s ministers, exalted above the common level of mankind, - not that they may indulge themselves in softness and luxury, and be entitled to the servile homage of their fellow-men, but that they may execute an office no less laborious than honorable, and attend continually upon the public welfare.”

Mayhew, a Tory, went on to stress that civil disobedience to appointed rulers was not merely a political sin, but a heinous offense against God and religion. Obedience was required under all forms of government, which has been instituted for the good of society. The question Mayhew then asked was this, “To what extent is that subjection.”  Some have said disobedience is authorized under certain conditions, such as great oppression when humble remonstrance fails to have beneficial effect; and when the public welfare cannot be otherwise provided for and secured because of tyranny.  Others have said that Scripture in general and the Romans 13 passage in particular makes all resistance to princes a crime.

Colonial America at the time had debates over the meaning of Romans 13. The “argument by comparison” that some colonials presented in order to prove that blind obedience to government statutes and sovereign rule is not biblical stated the following reasons:

(1)    If Scripture commands children, wives, servants to obey, it is not in total submission, but in accordance with the principles of God.  Obedience is never blind, but in concurrence with the Word of God.

(2)    Servants are told to render good service to the Lord, and not to men (Eph. 6:7) and masters are to do likewise and to give up threatening their servants (Eph. 6:9). Civil magistrates and kings are masters and are to rule for the Lord, especially if they claim Christianity. Violating scriptural principles leaves them open to correction.

(3)    The apostle Paul never intended to teach children, servants, and wives to blindly submit in all cases.  Although Eph. 5:24 tells wives to submit in everything, Paul did not intend for them to break commandments in so submitting. If this argument could be made in the case of family authority, then it should also apply in the case of governmental authority.

Mayhew also commented on absolute statements, “The use of absolute expressions is no proof that obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or resistance in all cases a sin.  I should not have thought it worthwhile to take any notice at all of this argument, had it not been much insisted upon by some of the advocates for passive obedience and non-resistance; for it is in itself perfectly trifling, and rendered considerable only by the stress that has been laid up it for want of better.”

Other colonials offered what was called an “argument in opposition” to complete subjection to the British authorities. They qualified the directive of Peter to submit to every ordinance (1 Peter 2:13) by saying that if the statement was an unequivocal decree, then the same could be said of wives submitting to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:24). Submission, however, is qualified by submitting as to the Lord. Peter in the next verse says that the reason governors are sent by the king is for punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right (1 Peter 2:14).  This qualification puts a restriction on “every ordinance.”  Submission must be consistent with the ordinances of God.  Obedience and non-resistance therefore is not an absolute duty of a citizen.

The rulers of whom Peter speaks are rulers whose laws and enactments benefit society. They deserve the complete submission of the people. Therefore, Peter says to act as freemen, and not to use freedom to cover evil. Freedom suggests that the people live under a beneficent ruler who has the common good in mind. Mayhew compared a worthless preacher to a worthless magistrate.  “Suppose,” he says, “that the preacher doesn’t do anything, but demands thousands per annum, should he not be told plainly that he is low-esteemed and will not be given the just reward of a faithful minister of the gospel? Should he not be removed?  In like fashion, a civil magistrate who performs counter to the design of his office in that he is injuring and oppressing his subjects when he should be defending their rights and doing them good should not be honored, obeyed, and rewarded.”  He then confirmed that Paul’s exhortation to submit to leaders was “built wholly upon the supposition that they do, in fact, perform the duty of rulers.”

Mayhew reasoned that it was blasphemy to call tyrants the ministers of God.  Whether they know it or not, they are appointed to their position by God and therefore rule under His hands.  God may use magistrates as an instrument of judgment, but to say that the evil ones sit as God’s ruler for evil is to say God is the creator of evil. “Rulers have no authority to do mischief,” he declared. If rulers do evil, they are serving the devil and not pleasing God.  To interpret Paul as saying that resisting authority opposes the ordinance of God, bringing condemnation on oneself (Rom. 13:2) was akin to saying that serving the Devil is what God wants when the rulers are evil.

Mayhew asked, “Is resisting those who resist God’s will the same thing with resisting God?”  The qualification comes in verse 3 of Romans 13 in which Paul says that “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.”  The inference is that the rulers are fair and just and are serving the common good, thereby serving God. Verse 4 says that the magistrate is a minister of God for good.  If he is doing evil, he is not God’s minister, but Satan’s.  God may still be sovereign and in control, but a distinction must be made between the evil ruler pleasing Satan and the good ruler pleasing God.  To submit to evil would be serving Satan.  So submission is not absolute, but rather conditional. Submission is first to the Lord and secondarily to those appointed as our rulers.
Much of the American pulpit prior to the American Revolution was known as the "Black Regiment" because while draped in black, they preached their congregations to resist the tyranny of King George. They were a formidable cadre of  men preparing their sheep for the struggle that lay ahead.

Federalism

The word “federalism comes from the Latin “foedus” meaning covenant, compact, or treaty.  One of the arguments that the United States was a Christian nation comes from the concept of federalism being derived from the teaching of Scripture. Heavily influenced by John Knox and his Book of Order, America may have been founded under the principles of “covenant” with the God of the Universe. It was to be a government by representation as indicated in Deuteronomy 1:13. Here, Moses reminded the Israelites of choosing wise and discerning men to represent them. The government of the United States would be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Without wise and discerning men to represent us, we will become as bait for the wolves. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." In other words, an ignorant people have never be free.

The three divisions of government sound very similar to Isaiah 33:22, which describes God as a judge, lawgiver, and king.  Hence, the judiciary, the congress, and the executive branch of government reflect various aspects of the character of God. The Scottish Covenanters had a great influence in the founding of American government. Part of it came through the teaching of John Witherspoon who was President of Princeton during the Revolutionary War period of America. He influenced two thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and many others who became part of the integral founding and ruling of Colonial America to include James Madison, a Virginian sent to Princeton to be educated under Witherspoon.

The dual nature of government in obeying God and magistrates was a Covenanter principle. The principle was derived from Matthew 22:38-40 in which Jesus said that the foremost commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Since Jesus was King over all peoples and nations, subjects answered to Him. Obedience was to God and the men that were appointed by God to run the nation (Rom. 13:1ff). The idea of Church and State coexisting for mutual benefit was derived from the Covenanter principle known as the “Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ.” It could be diagrammed as follows:

                                          CHRIST

                                                         (over)

                                   CHURCH      (and)         STATE

                                                         (over)

                                                      PEOPLE

God in Christ is the ruler of all nations (Psalm 47:8). Christ does not cease to rule over the state because governments fail to recognize Him.  He is the King of the Universe and laughs at unbelieving nations, holding them in derision (Psalm 59:8). The State exists because of Him who is no respecter of nations (Isa. 40:17), but He does rule over them; and those who are magistrates have an obligation to rule under Him according to His dictates, which are found only in Scripture (Rom. 13:1ff). The State therefore exists to rule for the common good and to protect the Church and its teachings about Christ and religion. The Church exists to teach the State how to rule for the common good in accordance with the principles of Scripture. The Church is charged by Christ to teach the values and morality of the Christian religion and the State is to protect the right to do so. Civil government therefore is a divine institution and is subject to the law and authority of Christ.  Nations claiming to be Christian have by covenant declared so.  Christ has authority over nations, governors, and legislatures, and it is their duty to serve and obey Him.  Ignorance of the Word is no excuse.

It is sad that our own United States no longer recognizes Him who is King over all nations. We may pay a price for relegating the Lord of the Universe to a position of scorn and disparagement. A lion has gone up from his thicket, a destroyer of nations has set out; he has gone out from his place to make your land a waste; your cities will be ruins without inhabitant (Jer. 4:7 ESV).

Religious Influence in the Early History of our Nation

If the atheists and progressives had their way, God would be eliminated from all facets of life. However, they are content to have God eliminated from the public forum. These same people quote the Constitution, pointing out that there is complete separation of Church and State. This is the law of the land since Hugo Black’s decision in the Case of Everson vs. The Board of Education in 1947. We may argue the rationale behind the decision, but we will become mired in polemics. The Law of the Land is anything the  Supreme Court adjudicates it to be. But was that the intent of the Founding Fathers? Did they want God completely out of government? History says they did not!

God was not to be removed from the daily operation of government. Prayer was a constant activity during the Continental Congress. The Constitution, itself, implicitly regards Sunday as a day of rest by excluding Sunday from the days to be counted in the period that the President has to veto a Congressional bill.  And by common consent, Thanksgiving and Christmas are recognized holidays although they are under attack in our post Christian culture.

Christian mottoes on coins, currency, public buildings, and monuments were also accepted.  “In God We Trust” is stamped on all our coins and is etched over the south entrance to the Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol.  Over the west entrance is engraved “Annuit Coeptis” meaning that God has favored our undertakings. Judicial oaths ended with, “So help me, God.” Court decisions also pronounced the place of God in the early growth of our nation.

In People v. Ruggles, an 1811 Supreme Ct. of New York decision, Ruggles was indicted for calling Christ a bastard and his mother a whore.  He was fined $500 and served a 3 month imprisonment term.  Part of the prosecutors argument was that while the Constitution of the State of New York preserved the right of conscience and has allowed for the free discussion of religion, it has nevertheless left the principal engrafted in our common law that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.  Justice James Kent said that, “Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, that to declare such profanity lawful…We are a Christian people and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].”  Basically he said that cursing Christ is cursing the State of New York.

In Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, an 1824 Pennsylvania case, Abner Updegraph on the December 12, 1821, with intent to scandalize, vilified the Christian religion by saying, “That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.”  He was found guilty of blaspheming and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld it.

In Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844) the U.S. Supreme Ct. stated that Christianity was not to be openly and maliciously denigrated. Stephen Girard, a native of France, died in 1831 leaving $7 million dollars to the city of Philadelphia to construct an orphanage and college where the “purest principles of morality” are to be instilled.  He also stipulated that no clergyman or missionary shall ever hold any positions in the college nor were they allowed on campus as visitors.  Although the plan of education was anti-Christian and repugnant to law, the court ruled in favor of the city keeping the money, for it said that lay people could teach religion, outside of which there were no purer form of morality.  Justice Joseph Story in his opinion for the Supreme Court said, “Christianity…is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against…It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of…Deism, or any other form of infidelity.  Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.” 

In Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) an immigration law was interpreted to an absurd degree by the U.S. Attorney’s office to accuse the church of hiring a foreigner as pastor.  The Supreme Court ruled that “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” The reasoning in this case cited the above three cases.

In Davis v. Beason (1889) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against bigamy and polygamy among Mormons. Justice Stephen Field (a Lincoln appointee who also sat for the Holy Trinity Case) delivered the Court’s ruling by saying, “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries….” By commenting so, he virtually declared that America was a Christian nation. Such a declaration was also made in U.S. v. Macintosh (1931) in which the reasoning said, “We are a Christian people.”

Other Early Supreme Court Justices made statements and rendered opinions supporting the notion that the United States was a Christian nation. Note the following:

(1)    John Jay (the First Chief Justice) said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

(2)    James Wilson (signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) articulated that “Christianity is part of the common-law.”

(3)    Joseph Story (in his Commentaries on the Constitution) noted, “Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendments to it…the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”  He also said, “It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.”

(4)    John Marshall (served on the Supreme Court for 34 years. As a captain, he also fought during the Revolutionary War, serving with Washington at Valley Forge. Later in life, while staying at a road side tavern, he politely listened to arguments for and against the Christian religion by younger men from 6:00PM to 11:00PM.  Finally one of them turned to Marshall and said, “Well, my old gentleman, what think you of these things?”  Marshall then proceeded to talk for an hour answering “every argument urged against” the teachings of Jesus.  The listeners were captivated by his eloquence and energy.  Some thought him a preacher and were astonished to find out he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Love the One You Hate

           “Forgive and forget; that’s the Christian way!” Don’t you hate this reminder? Forgive and forget? No way! Revenge is sweeter. “Don’t get mad; get even!” That sounds better to the sinner’s ear. Harboring hatred appeases for the moment, for our mind acts out our vengeance. We imaginatively slay the person, think ill of him, and wish bad to befall him. Yet, we are Christians and a mark of a disciple of Jesus is forgiveness, for the Savior did say in Matthew 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you.” Forgiving the dastardly is proof that we are sons of God, for only true believers can really love the one they hate (Matt. 5:45-46). Furthermore, Jesus said that if we harbor anger in our hearts toward our brother, we have basically murdered him and are guilty before the court (Matt. 521-22).

            When conflict arises in churches, sin increases and leaders either add to the problem or become soothing balm in healing the hurt. Hatred of those that cause the conflict will only stir up more strife, but loving them will cover their sins and ease the controversy (Prov. 10:12). In such situations, leaders must be strong, yet humble; steadfast, yet understanding; and decisive, yet loving. If they the shepherds have sinned, then they must model what confession and forgiveness look like, for the sheep (i.e., true believers) will follow their lead and seek reconciliation with others. Those who fail to admit their sin and who harbor an unforgiving attitude will in all likelihood leave the church and retain their bitterness.

            I once served a church that had a major split over worship and direction of the church. The senior pastor resigned, but many of his supporters remained in the church, causing disquiet among the elders. After preaching a number of sermons on forgiveness and leaving the past behind, I asked the congregation during the confession time of the service to bow their heads, close their eyes, and raise their hands if they had transgressed God’s law by sinning in any of the ways I described. I then mentioned a litany of sins that broke fellowship and strained relationships with one another. Just about every hand went up. I then asked them to lower their hands, keep their eyes closed, and confess their sins silently before the Lord, asking for His forgiveness and the power to forgive others that have hurt them. With eyes open I had them look around the sanctuary. If they saw anyone in the congregation with whom they had strained relationships and about whom they just prayed to forgive, then they were leave their seats and approach the person or persons that they had sinned against in their minds or held bitterness towards in their hearts and ask the person’s forgiveness.

            The Lord’s Spirit was moving in that church and people stood up and approached those they harbored bitterness toward. I heard the buzz of confession and the sobbing of joy as the Lord brought peace and unity to a torn congregation. I kept an eye, however, on two key families that were centrally embroiled in the conflict. They remained in their seats and were shocked when a number of people approached them, asking forgiveness for the bitterness they had carried toward them. Their hearts, however, remained hardened, for they refused to surrender their self-righteous attitude, thereby locking themselves in the darkness of unforgiveness.

Lewis Smedes (1921-2002), former professor of Fuller Theological Seminary once said, “When you forgive a person who wronged you, you set a prisoner free, and then you discover that the prisoner you set free is you.”[1] How right he is! Without forgiving the person who has seriously offended us or harmed our family, we allow the bile of bitterness to eat us up. And when we are bitter, that acid is not hurting the one we are angry at, it is hurting us. Freedom is in forgiving; bondage remains for the impenitent.

---

[1] Lewis Smedes, "Five Things Everyone Should Know about Forgiving," 30 Good Minutes (Program #4101 - First air date October 5, 1997), Chicago Sunday Evening Club http://www.csec.org/csec/sermon/smedes_4101.htm (Accessed January 22, 2011).

Dead Churches Fear Change

             Within churches looking for new pastors are leaders who fear change because it represents insecurity to them. They don’t know what type of relationship they will have with the new pastor and they certainly don’t want to lose their influence and position of authority in the congregation. Fear is an emotion that causes people to hide from or avoid their problems. It is a core issue in human beings that has plagued man since Adam hid from God. In answer to the Lord’s question, “Where are you?” Adam replied by saying that he became afraid at the sound of God because he was naked and so hid himself (Gen. 3:9-10) Fear causes us to retreat and circumvent issues that should be dealt with. And mausoleum (i.e. dead or dying) churches certainly have many issues confronting them; but they must “wake up” from their deadness and refusal to change!

            As a transitional pastor, I have had elders warn me not to make any changes because change would be viewed as condescending to the prior pastor whom they loved dearly. This was not the prior pastor’s view; only those who devoted themselves to his vision and ministry style. Just tweaking an order of service was tampering with the ‘holy grail.’ The retired pastor didn’t mind his replacement changing things; so why should the elders feel so insecure? They were weak leaders who did not prepare themselves or their congregation for change. They were content living in a mausoleum and thought the sheep felt the same way.

            Fear of change is a definite symptom of weak and failed leadership. What makes matters worse is leadership being possessive of a church that really belongs to Christ! “It’s been this way for a long time and we like it this way. We want no changes to our church.” Such attitudes keep the church encrypted; and the only new comers that stay after one visit are other dead people who are comfortable hanging around a cemetery.

Change is good

            For many leaders, change is frightening because it represents the unknown – something they can’t control. Whenever there is conflict in a church and a pastor has resigned or been forced to leave, change in vision and ministry direction is inevitable. There is no avoiding it! Change also represents the loss of something dear to us whether it is our job, a loved one, our health, our traditions, our pastor, our comfort, or our stability.

            From the beginning in the Garden of Eden to the culmination of Scripture in Revelation God has ordained change. Why then do we fight against it, demanding our own wills, and desiring the status quo? Change is what the Lord uses to grow us spiritually, to help us understand him more fully, and to prepare us for the final and perfect change when at the last trumpet, the dead will be raised and transformed into the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:52-53). Since change is part of God’s decretive will, it must be good.

            Conflict and transition in a church may be forced change, but is to be seen as occurring within God’s providence. And if God is at work in us willing and working his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13), which is always for our best, then change must also be good for God’s people (Ps. 73:1). Understanding this assures us that all things will work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28), even the bad things that may have happened because of church conflict. Leaders therefore are admonished “to wake up” to the fact that change is good because it comes from God.

The Mausoleum Church

            Where did the phrase, “dead as a door nail” originate? In 1590 William Shakespeare used the term in his play about Henry VI.[1]  The character John Cade said, "...and if I do not leave you all as dead as a door-nail, I pray God I may never eat grass more." In 1843 Dickens used the expression to describe Scrooge’s old partner Marley as being dead as a doornail.

In Medieval days when doors were built using only wood boards and hand forged nails, the spike fasteners were long enough to dead nail the vertical wooden panels and horizontal stretcher boards securely together. This was done by pounding the protruding point of the nail over and down into the wood. A nail bent in this fashion was not easily pulled out and therefore dead for future use; thus the expression – “dead as a doornail.”

            The Mausoleum Church is “dead as a doornail.” It may as well post a sign on the door that reads “Closed due to Death.” There may be parishioners inside, but they have no life in them. The church building may be architecturally attractive, but it serves more as a tomb for those who have lost the Spirit and trampled afoot the truth of Scriptures. What these churches have become are good-looking sepulchers. The people that occupy the tombs are nothing more than zombies, thinking they are alive, but in actuality are dead. They are the church of lost hope because they forgot the purpose of their existence, which is to reach the culture with the gospel of Christ.

Church at Sardis

The Church at Sardis in Revelation 3 was dead as a doornail. It protruded into the community, but was bent over dead. The Lord addressed the church, “I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead (Rev. 3:1). The worse thing that could be said to a church is: “You have the reputation of being alive, of being a great church, but in actuality, you are dead.”  What makes a dead church? Failed leadership! Leaders frequently fool themselves into thinking their church is vibrant when in actuality it is much like the Church at Sardis.

Churches become dead because leaders sleep on duty. They are called to be watchmen and shepherds; but when they fail to be vigilant in keeping the church alive for the sake of Christ, the people become lethargic, set in their ways, and centered on self and not on the gospel reaching their community. When leaders snooze, their spiritual muscles atrophy. Like muscular dystrophy (MD), a physical disease of progressive weakening of the body’s skeletal muscles, spiritual dystrophy is the progressive decay and weakening of the muscles of scriptural truth. The church becomes a mausoleum in the community, for spiritual growth ceases and deadness takes over. It is difficult to maintain the power of godliness when a universal deadness and declension prevails.

When the spirit decays within, our outward devotion becomes merely form without substance. We look good on the outside, but inwardly we are rotten. Poor leadership causing dead churches was affirmed by Jesus when he accused Pharisees of being whitewashed tombs (Matt. 23:27) – all dressed up and looking good on the outer surface; but full of corruption, decay, and deadness on the inside. When the spirituality of leadership degenerates, the church reflects the atrophy in becoming ingrown and gospel irrelevant to the community.

Christ exhorted the Church at Sardis to wake up and strengthen the things that remain (Rev. 3:2). Evidently, there was some breath left, which needed resuscitation. But are leaders willing to do CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation)?  In other words, are they willing to make the changes necessary to resuscitate life into a dying church and inject gospel truth into their local ministries?

---

[1] Act 5, Sc.10, l. 40-1

The Constipated Church

          Pride and Prejudice, a novel by Jane Austen, is a classic study in the haughtiness of man. In 1995 the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) created a miniseries from the book that starred Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. In one scene Mr. Bingley confronts his friend, Mr. Darcy, about seeing Jane Bennet in London and unabashedly asks, “You tell me now that she was in London all those months, and you concealed it from me?” Darcy’s reply, “Yes; I can offer no justification. It was an arrogant presumption based on a failure to recognize your true feelings. And Miss Bennet's!”

Arrogant presumption is an issue in some churches because leadership thinks too highly of what their church is and fails to recognize what Christ wants for the congregation. They assume they are a strong and influential church when in reality they are constipated – that is, so full of their history that they bloat their own importance. They reside in the past, resting on ancient laurels rather than being steadfast in the present for what God desires them to be now.

            I was once told by a pastor that his church was a leadership church. He and a few of his supporting elders prided themselves on the fact that their church formed many ministries and was highly influential in the area. I thought to myself, “What is a leadership church? Does it mean that it is setting a trend that other churches quickly follow? Or does it mean that the church was so progressive that other churches looked toward it for direction?” Although I believed the church had many fine qualities, it was far from a “leadership church.” In fact, the leadership was conflicted in vision and direction; and really didn’t have a pulse on the true needs of the sheep that had started wandering to other pastures. In other words, the church was in decline some five or six years after its high point and leadership refused to recognize it.

            Constipation makes us concentrate on “me” and when we do, we forget that the church is not ours, but Christ’s. How soon we forget that the church is an assembly of professing Christians who come together to worship Christ, obey his word, and promote his gospel (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15)! As a people of Christ, we are the body of the redeemed, for we are part of all the elect given to Christ by the Father (John 10:29). The Church belongs to Christ, for he is the Good Shepherd who surrendered his life for the sheep (John 10:11). And if the Church is Christ’s, then leadership must get off their high horse and submit to the lordship of Jesus, for he is the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23).

            When leadership fails to see the stages of decline in their church, they actually participate in its downfall. For the most part, they wear rose colored glasses and see a wonderful church, a family church, and an active church. But like the person who has cancer growing on the inside of his body and yet seems very healthy at the moment, the local church may seem fine but internally a disease is eating away and will eventually surface causing debilitation and possible death. That disease is for the most part “failed leadership.” Leaders are to see through the lens of Scripture and rule the local church as appointed by Christ.

The Church at Laodicea

            The Church at Laodicea is an example of the constipated church. They were rich in material goods and so wealthy they had need of nothing, but spiritually were wretched, poor, and blind (Rev. 3:17). Laodicea was a prosperous banking center; so, proud of its wealth that it refused Roman disaster relief after the earthquake of A.D. 60, and was therefore rebuilt from its own resources. It was also known for its textiles (especially wool), for its medical school, for its production of ear medicine as well as the highly reputed Phrygian eye salve.

The church though wealthy became complacent in the spread of the gospel. They thought they needed nothing and didn’t realize that their spiritual condition was one of misery and poverty. Whatever we have as individuals or as a church really belongs to the Lord. What we do with it belongs to us. The problem is that we have the tendency to hoard our capital and keep it for a rainy day. Ironically, being a wealthy church may be a deterrent to spreading the true gospel, for it keeps our focus on the earthly rather than the heavenly. For instance, during the 1980’s there was the push toward the mega church. Bigger churches had the money, the people, the programs, and the reputation. They concentrated on technique and expansion and acted like the gurus of the “here and now” church growth movement. Pastors of some smaller churches became envious of those who had huge churches. They too became constipated because of their worldly desires enticing them to be bigger and greater. But money can’t buy love, particularly the love of Christ. In fact, riches could easily be detrimental to spiritual growth, especially if we claim the Lord blessed us with it, but do nothing for the enhancement of the kingdom on earth.

When we don’t grow spiritually, we become lukewarm just like the Laodiceans. Christ knew their deeds like he knows ours. They were neither cold nor hot, for either condition would have been pleasing to the Lord (Rev. 3:15). Laodicea was located on the Lycus River in the same province with Hierapolis and Colossae. Hierapolis was where hot springs were located to the north above Laodicea. Colossae was located to the south, but at higher elevation than Laodicea; it had fresh pure water that flowed from it. The hot water from Hierapolis met the cold water from Colossae at Laodicea on the Lycus River; and there the mixture became lukewarm.

To be hot would be like hot springs, acting as healing waters to those who were hurting. To be cold would be like bringing cool refreshment to people in need of encouragement. Jesus commended either condition, but to be lukewarm meant that the Laodiceans were tepid in their spiritual life and thought more highly of themselves than they should have. So, because they were neither hot – acting as healing balm – nor cold – spreading the refreshing taste of the gospel – Jesus would spew them from his sight (Rev. 3:16).

            There are many Laodicean churches today. They stand on their past record and continue to be rich through the legacies left by appreciating donors or by money bestowed by present influential people. I have known a few churches that had magnificent edifices and little financial worries. They lived on their past reputations and maintained that they were still relevant in their community. The honest truth was that they were blinded by their own ignorance, inflated with their own self-importance, and had ceased being relevant years before.