The Homosexuality Debate Cannot Escape A Moral Argument: A Letter to Straits Times

Note: I have submitted this letter to The Straits Times concerning the homosexuality debate, which was published on 26th July 2007 (see ST Forum online version). I shall put the letter on my blog for the benefit of those who have no access to the ST archive; the forum is only available for one week, after which all letters are archived.

One of the issues being hotly debated today in Singapore is whether S377a of the Penal Code should be repealed, and whether consensual gay sex should be decriminalized. My objective in this letter is to contend that the homosexuality debate cannot escape a moral argument if our legislature is to respect the moral values of the majority of Singaporeans.

It is a known fact that multiracialism and multi-religiosity form the social fabric of Singapore. Indeed, as a multi-religious community, Singapore cannot ignore the religious component of its society. In its deliberation of the homosexuality issue, the government is obliged to give due consideration to the majority voice. According to Statistics Singapore (1), the majority of Singaporeans are not atheists, agnostics, or secular humanists without religious affiliations. In this country, the majority of Chinese are Buddhists (53.6%), the majority of Malays are Muslims (99.6%), and the majority of Indians are Hindus (55.4%). Within our multi-religious society, a common consensus on this issue can only be achieved by being mindful of the morality of the religious majority. As Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee had pointed out, "the attention given to fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens by retaining S377A in its entirety strikes the right balance." (2) Therefore, the disregard of moral values of a large population of Singaporeans who subscribe to religious faith is not the solution to the homosexuality debate.

I recognize that the Singaporean government has been gracious by giving credence to viable opinions of various minority groups. As homosexuals in Singapore are a minority, they should all the more avoid the disparagement of other minority, albeit opposing, views. These include those from the conservative sectors of various religions in Singapore. In his recent letter to the Straits Times forum, Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee hinted that "the prejudice of a small number of church leaders" should not dictate the position of other Christians. (3) How Mr Chua arrived at the conclusion, that a minority group of church leaders had indeed imposed their views upon the Christian majority, is baffling. Neither do we have any reproducible evidence to support his hypothesis. By applying the rhetoric of Mr Chua, I sense that the small minority group of homosexuals in Singapore is essentially promoting an agenda that would eventually dictate the conscience of the majority. Is it then reasonable to pressurize the religious majority to go against their moral convictions, and to accept homosexuality as being morally correct? Therefore, just as homosexuals cry out for tolerance and desire their voices to be heard, they should likewise encourage other minority groups within the nation to express their opinions, be they conservative or not.

The singling out of a minority group of conservative Christians or extremists Muslims, and to put them in a negative light would do little in our journey towards a common consensus concerning the homosexuality debate. The social fabric of Singapore depends upon mutual understanding and tolerance between various religious groups, and the intolerance of any religious minority would inevitably lead to disharmony, social fragmentation and religious apartheid. Furthermore, Muslims in Singapore are generally moderate in their theological perspectives. We are likewise not living in the time of the medieval Crusades. Christians do not form a majority group in this nation, with only 16.5 % of Chinese and 12.1% of Indians professing to be Christians. Pro-homosexuality writers like Dominic Chua would have done better if he had addressed the statistically more significant religious groups, for example the Islamic community, in his assessment of the influence of religions within Singapore’s society.

We must admit that the homosexuality issue ultimately cannot escape a moral argument within an inherently conservative and multi-religious society. Various writers had attempted to argue for the decriminalization of homosexual acts from a pragmatic perspective. For example, Consultant Therapist Anthony Yeo, had challenged the traditional definitions and values of the concept of family based upon pragmatic and experiential observations. (4) Some of his questions were, "Is there an ideal form of family life," and, "Are parents from heterosexual marriages any safer for children?" Anthony Yeo’s thought-provoking questions should perhaps result in more fundamental questions being asked concerning the definition of a family. For instance, "Who should possess the authority to decide what constitutes an ideal family?" "Should pragmatic considerations be used to redefine the family structure, apart from moral considerations?" And, "Should we follow the majority consensus of what makes up a family, or should we allow the cognoscenti to decide for us?"

Certain gay rights activists had attempted to assert their unalienable right to homosexual intercourse based upon two arguments. Firstly, homosexual acts are private, consensual activities between mature adults; and secondly, such activities do not cause harm to other people within a society. Taking morality out of the equation, are we therefore to allow the private, consensual sexual activities between family members (incest), adult and children (pedophilia), humans and animals (bestiality), or human and cadavers (necrophilia)? After all, such sexual activities may be private, consensual, and confer no harm to other people. Furthermore, should we allow polygamous marriages as viable family units in Singapore? Taking the assertion of such unalienable right to the logical extreme, are we consequently obliged to legalize incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and polygamy?

Finally, I conclude that the religiosity and morality of Singaporeans cannot be ignored in the homosexuality debate. Pragmatism alone cannot provide a satisfactory resolution to the discussion. Truth cannot be determined by merely the practical consequences of belief. Besides, a proposition that works does not necessarily mean that it is morally right. If pragmatism is allowed to be the sole consideration in the legislation of laws, then several criminal activities might even be justified based upon various pragmatic bases. For instance, the poor might be justified to steal, or to embezzle his company for financial gains. I therefore urge the government to seriously consider the moral value system of the majority in its derivation of a common consensus concerning the homosexuality debate.

Footnotes:

1. See <http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/religiousaff.html>
2. Yvonne C. L. Lee, Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error, ST May 4 2007.
3. Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee, Singaporeans need to be more historically conscious and reflective in debate on homosexuality, ST July 21, 2007.
4. Anthony Yeo, Let's debate without prejudice, judgment or condemnation, ST July 13, 2007.

Confrontation and Confession of Sins within the Local Church

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matt. 18:15-17 (ESV)

I shall now plunge into a brief discussion concerning the responsibility of the believer with regard to church discipline. Specifically, I shall look at the passage from Matthew 18:15-17. While deliberately avoiding a detailed discussion on corporate church discipline, I would like to focus upon the individual responsibility each believer has towards his brother-in-Christ. The subject of excommunication will be left for another day.

I have stated in my previous post that, contrary to common secular perception, love is not a lovey-dovey sentimentalism, or the uncritical acceptance of sinful behaviors and erroneous doctrines. Our Lord in this passage of Scripture has given us a mandate to lovingly confront (Gal. 6:1) a brother who wrongs us. Verse 15 does not give us the detail concerning the kind of sin, but rather a general and broad description - "sins against you." Although there are some textual considerations with regard to the words "against you," which are missing in a few early manuscripts, we shall accept the translations of the KJV and the ESV as being accurate here. As the ingressive aorist subjunctive of hamartanō is used in verse 15, it would literally mean “if a brother commit a sin against you.” Such a sin is obviously a personal offense, but the verse does not specify what kind of offense. It could be in word or speech, or in some form of action. Also, such an offense can include grievous sins, or doctrinal errors. The reader is advised not to restrict such an offence to petty grievances.

Stage one of such a corrective confrontation is fairly straightforward. Blomberg laments that, "How often personal confrontation is the last stage rather than the first in Christian complaints! It frequently seems as if the whole world knows of someone’s grievances against us before we are personally approached." (Craig Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 278). The essence of such a confrontation is that it is personal and private. It is in fact sinful if we choose to gossip about our brother who has offended us, rather than approach such a brother to tell him his fault - provided that he is indeed at fault. Of course, there are cases whereby the brother has not committed any viable offence, but has only committed certain acts that are wrongly perceived as being offensive. These include, but are not limited to, matters of Christian liberty, or miscommunications and misunderstandings. In such cases, a private confrontation provides the offended person an opportunity to resolve the misunderstanding quickly and confidentially.

For example, in my previous church, certain young brothers were offended by another group within the church simply because those men were active in sports. The youths felt that Christians should not appear too athletic or physically fit (believe me; some Christians can be offended by many things!). The offended youths alleged that those men should have spent their exercising time on other "more" fruitful activities. But I reasoned with them that there is no biblical mandate for one not to be physically active or fit. Of course, a Christian’s priority should not be exercise or sports, but exercise per se is not sin. However, an obsession with physical appearance can become sinful, both for the man and woman. The youths were apparently put off by the men’s muscular and well-built physique. Ironically, the offended youths spent much of their time on computer games, shopping, and television, and had acquired a sedentary lifestyle. Such matters of Christian liberty should not be the cause of offense, but with that being said, we should be careful - out of compassion and Christian responsibility - not to offend our weaker brethren, or those with a weak conscience (Ro. 14:15-16). Likewise, with regard to matters of Christian liberty, those with a weak conscience (and in fact, all Christians) must avoid judging the motives of a person based upon mere superficial details or hearsay.

However, Matthew 18:15-17 has also been misused by others in order to avoid the correction of the sinning brother. Wrong doctrines being perpetrated by false teachers in Christian organizations, books, seminars, or the Web often go uncorrected by certain church leaders. Some have the erroneous notion that, in order to correct such a false teacher, we must follow the injunctions provided by Matthew 18:15-17, that is, they allege that we ought to confront the false teacher in a private capacity prior to correcting his false teachings publicly. This approach represents a gross misunderstanding of the meaning of the Matthean text.

Firstly, the false teacher is not a member of the local church of the offended brother. In this regard, we cannot fulfill the third stage of discipline i.e. "tell it to the church (Matt. 18:17)." Also, we are not the members of the false teacher’s local church. There is no possibility that the final stage of discipline can be performed if we are to understand the passage in this manner. Secondly, the Matthean passage elaborates how we should approach a personal, private offense. It does not specify that heresies or public sins ought to be dealt with as such. For example, if an adulterous couple’s sin is known to the church, the leaders of the church should exercise corporate discipline. The pastor should not come down to the member and say, "It is you who are offended. You should approach him privately, and only if he does not repent should you proceed to stage two and three of the Matthean text (Matt. 18:15-17)." The couple is committing adultery publicly; the man is showing inappropriate physical affection to the wife of another man. The elders of the congregation ought to confront this couple immediately, and not wait for some members to confront them privately. Furthermore, elders that are grievously or incessantly sinning should be publicly disciplined (1 Timothy 5:20).

The second stage of the confrontation would involve at least another brother in the discussion, thereby creating a group consisting of two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15). It is wise to acquire the assistance and advice of a mature Christian in good standing, or perhaps even an elder. The witness would provide a balanced assessment of the allegations brought against the offender, and at the same time, prevent unnecessary propagation of the confrontation to uninvolved members of the church. If private and loving confrontation at this level does not bring about the repentance of the offender, the issue is eventually brought before the church. The church now acts corporately in urging the offender to repent. Wiersbe rightly commented that, "The motive for church discipline is love: we are seeking to help a sinning brother. Since Christ is in the midst of the church (v. 20), it is also important that the church be obedient and pure. Our attitude should not be that of a policeman out to arrest a criminal, but rather that of a physician seeking to heal a wound in the body of Christ, a wound that will spread sickness and death if left alone." (Warren Wiersbe, Wiersbe's expository outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books), 68).

While such discipline is not infallible due to the fallibility of man, and even cults such as the Jehovah Witnesses use similar methods of confrontation, the Christian must remember that he is indeed his brother’s keeper. True Christian love is exhibited by genuine concern for a brother’s spiritual well-being. Churches often emphasize the physical aspects of providing for one’s brethren, but many have failed to highlight the greater urgency and priority of spiritual welfare and mutual accountability. A Christian simply cannot claim to love his brother-in-Christ if he chooses to keep silent upon learning about the brother’s unrepentant sins. True Christian love is manifested by one who has a heart after God; he loves what God loves and hates what He hates. The true Christian cannot love both the brother and his sins. He must hate those sins enough to reprove his brother. He must love God enough to obey the mandate of Matthew 18:15-17. Otherwise, he is just a liar and a hypocrite; he is a deceiver and a deceiver of self. He claims to be loving and understanding, but all the while he is but a murderer of souls. He fails to understand what God demands of him, and follows the way of Cain who hates his brother, saying, "Am I my brother’s keeper?"

Do you take the time and courage to speak to your brother about his sins? Or do you choose to remain silent? If you do not lovingly confront your brother about his trespasses, you are doing him a disfavor. You are allowing him to slip deeper into a downward spiral of spiritual misery and disease. You have failed to care for his soul as a fellow Christian. Most of all, you will be accountable before God Almighty for his failure, because you are indeed your brother’s keeper.

From the perspective of the offending or sinning brother, it is paramount that he must continue to take Christian fellowship and accountability seriously. A backsliding or sinning Christian may withdraw himself gradually from fellowship and church activities. Conversely, a church leadership that fails to fulfill its roles as overseer, teacher, counselor, and encourager may inadvertently contribute to an exodus of its flock. But the sinning brother must remember to avoid any form of isolationism or social withdrawal. One danger of spiritual isolationism is the propensity it has upon the sinning Christian to isolate himself further from other believers.

Sin is shameful, and it inevitably propagates a self-perpetuating cycle of sin, avoidance and isolation for the Christian man who is already withdrawn from the community of believers. Sin is ultimately prideful, and sin causes the Christian man to establish himself as the final authority such that no other man can judge him. Sin and pride reject the discipline and reproof of fellow brethren-in-Christ. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his little book Life Together, speaks of the need for Christians to dwell within the spiritual community of believers, and to confess their sins to one another. Within the context of Matthew 18:15-17, every offending brother who is genuinely sinning must consider confession as his spiritual responsibility whenever he is confronted by the church or individual believers (James 5:16a).

Let me end with the following words from Bonhoeffer:

"Sin demands to have a man by himself. It withdraws him from the community. The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation. Sin wants to remain unknown. It shuns the light. In the darkness of the unexpressed it poisons the whole being of a person. This can happen even in the midst of a pious community. In confession the light of the Gospel breaks into the darkness and seclusion of the heart. The sin must be brought into the light. The unexpressed must be openly spoken and acknowledged. All that is secret and hidden is made manifest. It is a hard struggle until the sin is openly admitted. But God breaks gates of brass and bars of iron (Ps. 107:16)…"

"The root of all sin is pride… I want to be my own law, I have a right to my self, my hatred and my desires, my life and my death. The mind and flesh of man are set on fire by pride; for it is precisely in his wickedness that man wants to be as God … In the confession of concrete sins the old man dies a painful, shameful death before the eyes of a brother. Because this humiliation is so hard we continually scheme to evade confessing to a brother. Our eyes are so blinded that they no longer see the promise and the glory in such abasement. …"

"Since the confession of sin is made in the presence of a Christian brother, the last stronghold of self-justification is abandoned. The sinner surrenders; he gives up all his evil. He gives his heart to God, and he finds the forgiveness of all his sin in the fellowship of Jesus Christ and his brother… Now he stands in the fellowship of sinners who live by the grace of God in the Cross of Jesus Christ." (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together.)

Note: In church discipline, I would like to understand the exegetical basis for extrapolating the meaning of the word "church" in Matthew 18:15-17 to include the Presbytery and the General Assembly. Any takers?

The Homosexuality Issue in Singapore: A Deeper Legal Problem

Singaporeans are well aware that our Minister Mentor Lee had questioned the homosexuality ban under S377A of the penal code. Is it true that some people are genetically destined to become homosexuals? According to Reuters, MM Lee said, "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that’s the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalize it?"

Therefore, according to the Minister Mentor’s analysis, if there is a genetic predisposition for sexual preferences i.e. homosexuality, the question which remains for us is this: "Why should we criminalize sodomy and homosexual activities?"

In line with this rationale for the decriminalization of homosexual acts based upon a tenuous genetic basis, should we then likewise decriminalize the following?

1. Violent acts, grievous hurts, manslaughters, and murders secondary to allegedly "genetically predisposed" violent or aggressive behavior. (1)

2. Pedophilia and related sex offences. Likewise, if pedophilia is a psychiatric illness due to predisposed genetic factors, should it then be decriminalized? (2)

Bringing such reasoning to its logical conclusions, should we therefore decriminalize all legal offences with any probable underlying genetic pathogenesis i.e. manslaughter, murder, causing hurt, pedophilic sexual activities and materials, as well as statutory rape?

There is another issue that might be pertinent in our current discussion. Should alcoholism and alcohol dependence be used as a mitigating factor in drink-driving offences? (3) In other words, if Tommy drinks and drive, and kills Harry on the road, should psychiatrists and clinical geneticists be called in to serve as expert witnesses i.e. to assess Tommy’s genetic make-up and mental condition? This is definitely not done in Singapore. If a genetic predisposition indeed serves as a viable factor in determining the legality of consensual homosexual acts, why should not this reasoning extend into the area of drink-driving legislation?

My points are simple. Firstly, the legislation of law cannot escape a moral argument, and therefore, the argument of a first cause. Assistant Law Professor Yvonne Lee, in an article defending S377A of the penal code, wrote, "Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Allowing an aggressive homosexual rights agenda to dictate law reform ignores the nature of Singapore's multi-religious, multiracial community. Such an agenda would be divisive. Therefore, the attention given to fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens by retaining S377A [of the Penal Code] in its entirety strikes the right balance." (4)

If the law of the country must consider the moral and ethical values of its citizens (in this case Singaporeans), what then determines such moral values? Is it not the religious affiliation of its adherents i.e. God? To relegate the intrinsic morality of the conscience of man to chance - such as random mutations and natural selection - is similar to saying that, "Rape and murder is wrong simply because we had evolved that way." It is turning the value of morality against itself by stating that there is really no right or wrong. Right and wrong are determined by chance itself. And chance had determined that right is probably right, and wrong is probably wrong. But there is really no right or wrong, except that our genes and genetic history had somehow arrived at a conclusion - that criminal acts such as rape and murder are deleterious to our survival. However, these moral concepts may continue to evolve and change. If conditions are such that rape and murder are beneficial to the survival of Homo sapiens, such acts may then become morally right.

Therefore, unless a country’s legislation is grounded upon immutable values of right and wrong, the law may indeed change in the future in view of the evolving moral climate and values. Such a time may come whereby the criminal acts of rape, murder, and terrorism may be decriminalized simply because the majority deems such acts as being morally right. If moral values are evolving, should the law of a country also evolve to accommodate the moral climate of the times?

Secondly, attributing the etiology of sinful acts to the arena of medical genetics is like leaving the legislation of law to the whims of cultural preferences and the majority vote. Genetics alone cannot justify a criminal activity. In fact, science can never be valid for the justification of what God had called a sin and abomination. If medical genetics can indeed be used to justify various criminal acts, and if this rationale is extrapolated to a variety of criminal offences, is the court of law in Singapore ready to accept its logical conclusions? Should psychiatrists, clinical behaviorists, medical geneticists, and psychologists be trained to identify those with genetically predisposed criminal urges (e.g. aggression, sexual violence, pedophilia etc)? Should we start determining the karyotypes of all our criminal offenders in order to search out predisposing genes? Should the court of law therefore accept these "genetic predispositions" as viable mitigating factors in criminal trials?

If the law of Singapore must respect the moral values of its citizens, I believe the legislature should begin exploring more objective ways of determining what constitutes morally acceptable behavior. If Neo-Darwinism is accepted as unadulterated truth, then should criminal law change in accordance with the moral evolution of the country? God forbid, but if such criminal genetic aberrations become dominant within the population, should the law be changed to accommodate the majority opinion i.e. what the majority thinks is right or wrong?

Therefore, law professors such as Yvonne Lee ought to begin pondering upon the following question: Should the legislature pander to the "fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens?" Or should there be a more objective method of evaluating the morality of such widely accepted moral values of the majority?

For the Christian reader, I submit to you that the Bible will be, and must be, the objective truth whereby all laws of the country are to be evaluated. If the stand is taken such that the morality of the majority must be served in the legislation of law, it is not far remote that there might come a time whereby the history of ancient Israel might repeat itself, "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; cf. 21:25)." The law of the land would be determined by the capriciousness and mutability of genetic, cultural and moral evolution, and not by the righteousness of God’s Holy Word and His law. Surely, we would rather submit ourselves to a theocracy, than to an ochlocratic society.

Footnotes

1. See Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt T, Mill J, Martin J, Craig I, Taylor A, Poulton R (2002), "Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children," Science 297 (5582): 851-4; Brunner HG, Nelen M, Breakefield XO, Ropers HH, van Oost BA (1993), "Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A," Science 262 (5133): 578-80.

2. See Langevin, Ron, "A comparison of neuroendocrine and genetic factors in homosexuality and in pedophilia," Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Volume 6, Number 1 / March (1993), pp 67-76; Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt Jr CW, Berlin FS, "Pedophilia," JAMA 2002, 288(19):2458-65; Renshaw DC, "Medical research in pedophilia," JAMA 2002, 289(10):1243; Dressing H, Obergriesser T, Tost H, Kaumeier S, Ruf M, Braus DF, "Homosexual pedophilia and functional networks - an fMRI case report and literature review," Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2001, 69(11):539-44; Mendez MF, Chow T, Ringman J, Twitchell G, Hinkin CH, "Pedophilia and temporal lobe disturbances," J Neuropsych Clin Neurosci 2000,12(1):71-6.

3. See Nurnberger, Jr., John I., and Bierut, Laura Jean, "Seeking the Connections: Alcoholism and our Genes," Scientific American, Apr 2007, Vol. 296, Issue 4; William Sherman, "Test targets addiction gene," New York Daily News, 11 February 2006; Ulf Berggren, Claudia Fahlke, Erik Aronsson, Aikaterini Karanti, Matts Eriksson, Kaj Blennow, Dag Thelle, Henrik Zetterberg and Jan Balldin, "The TaqIA DRD2 A1 Allele Is Associated with Alcohol-Dependence although its Effect Size Is Small," Alcohol and Alcoholism 2006 41(5):479-485.

4. Yvonne C. L. Lee, "Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error," The Straits Times May 4, 2007. Emphasis mine. Does the political philosophy of Singapore advocate majoritarianism?

The Importance of Christian Fellowship (Local Church Part 4)

Our first responsibility towards fellow Christians is fellowship. But this fellowship is not the mere getting together for fun, laughter, and Starbucks coffee. Some say that "fellowship" is simply the gathering of a few fellows in the same ship. But contrary to this frivolous saying, true Christian fellowship cannot be achieved by putting a few fellows on the same ship. In fact, we can have different ships or stations in life, but we must have "like-minded fellows" - that is, Christian fellows with a similar passion (e.g. love for God), similar directives (i.e. the Bible), and most of all, the same Savior and Lord.

Let us first define the secular understanding of the word "fellowship." Fellowship (Greek: koinonia) means sharing, communion, association, or partnership. For unbelievers, the gathering of a group of friends in the bar or nightclub, or the coming together of ex-classmates for a movie marathon is considered excellent "fellowship." Some others believe that studying for exams together, or just gossiping about life and people in some secluded corner of Orchard Road is considered close "fellowship." Christian fellowship, however, means much more. The Old Testament alone speaks much about such fellowship. For example, Christian fellowship is exemplified when:

1. True believers take counsel from the Lord’s Word together (Psalms 55:14);

2. True believers keep intimate friendship with those who fear the Lord, and with those who keep His precepts (Psalms 119:63);

3. True believers dwell together in unity (Psalms 133:1-3) of doctrine and practice;

4. True believers speak to one another in the fear of the Lord, and pray for one another (Malachi 3:16);

5. True believers strengthen the faith of one another in the Lord (1 Samuel 23:16), just as how Jonathan encouraged David by reminding him of the trustworthy promise the Lord had made to him earlier i.e. "you will be king over Israel" (1 Samuel 23:17).

Fellowship takes place in a variety of ways in the New Testament churches. The early church met together for the fellowship of breaking of the bread and prayer (Acts 2:42). The breaking of bread consisted of eating a fellowship meal - called the love feast - which was followed by the Lord’s Supper. There was also a great emphasis on the fellowship of prayer (cf. Acts 4:24-31; 12:5, 12; Phil. 1:3-4); believers often prayed together as an assembly. In the New Testament, fellowship also involved material means, e.g. monetary contributions in helping to spread the gospel (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; Phil. 1:5). It may even mean the sharing of rejection and persecution through identification with Christ (Phil. 3:10) and with one another.

Believing on Christ restores fellowship not only with God but also among fellow believers. The Last Supper that Jesus had with his disciples illustrated the relationship between the vertical and horizontal dimensions of fellowship (Mk. 14:22-25). In that upper room, the Lord shared with his disciples a sacred love feast. The hearts of the Lord and his followers were knitted together by a deep sense of love and commitment. We find that later on, the disciples’ hearts were strongly united due to their common faith in the risen Lord. After the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the New Testament church was born. It is a society of people in fellowship with God and with one another. Therefore, in direct contrast to the secular fellowship amongst non-believers whereby fellowship with the Creator is broken, genuine Christian fellowship is primarily with God (Psa. 16:7; John 14:16-18, 23; 1 Cor. 10:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 2:1, 2; 1 John 1:3; Rev. 3:20), and secondarily with those whom God had chosen in His Son Christ Jesus.

Dear brethren, one of your responsibilities as a Christian is to fellowship with and build up other believers in a local church. We must understand the fact that all genuine believers belong to the Body of Christ, and that each local church is in fact a microcosm of the universal, visible church militant. Believers belong together, not apart. Paul emphasized this through his use of "one another" (for example Rom. 12:10; 13:8; 15:7; 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; Gal. 5:13; 6:2; Eph. 4:2, 25, 32; Co. 3:13, 16; 1 Thess 4:18; 5:11). Because of their fellowship in Christ, Paul exhorted and commanded that believers are to accept one another (Rom. 15:7), love one another (Eph. 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2), build up one another (Rom. 14:19), be unified (Rom. 15:5), and admonish one another (Rom. 15:14). This Christian relationship with one another is important in the keeping of the unity of faith (John 17:11b; Phil. 2:1-4).

Furthermore, each true believer within the local church have different gifts according to God’s sovereign will (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:1ff.; Eph. 4:7-12). And due to the fact that each of us has differing gifts, we must all the more serve the Body of Christ within the context of the local church. "And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you (1 Cor. 12:21)." Each of us believers as true members of the Body of Christ is needed for the edification of the saints, and ultimately, for the glory of God through the work of the local church. All of our gifts are needed within the local church.

Within the Bible, we do not read of individual Christian mavericks attempting to change the world for Christ, or challenging contemporary Christendom to adhere to one’s brand of theology. What we read of are communities of believers - assemblies of Christians united in heart and spirit, and worshipping and praying together for one another in various cities and locales.

Christian fellowship can sometimes be discouraging and even stumbling. In fact, I was recently very discouraged by certain allegations that fellow brethren had raised against me. We must nevertheless endeavor to be members of a local church for Christ sake. We ought not forsake the privilege of serving Christ in a local church just because some of our brethren had hurt us or discourage us. More importantly, we must also be careful not to "put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [our] brother’s way (Ro. 14:13)."

If you profess that you know Christ, and has been "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Ro. 8:21)," I urge you to serve in a local church in whatever capacity or country that the Lord has placed you. It does not matter whether you are in Singapore, or New York, or New Delhi, or even Iraq. If the Lord has delivered you from the bondage of Satan, and has opened your eyes to spiritual truths in Christ Jesus, you have the responsibility to serve your brethren-in-Christ as a local church member. And the first thing you should do is to fellowship with fellow believers. "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching (Heb. 10:24-25)."

Note: In later posts, we shall explore the responsibilities of the local church member in view of the specific functions of the local church.

The Importance of a Personal Library for the Christian Student

Ever since I placed the "partial catalog of my library" (powered by Library Thing) on this blog, I had my fair share of ridicule and discouragements. The truth is, I had received numerous criticisms concerning my character, integrity, and motives based upon the simple fact that I own over a thousand Christian books in my personal library. Some of the readers might find it perplexing, "Why would someone have something to say against Vincent just because he owns a personal Christian library?"

This post is an interruption to the series of posts I am working on concerning the local church. It may also come as a surprise, but before anyone dies of a heart attack, let me elucidate further. I was absolutely taken aback that Christians could make such sweeping allegations.

Some of the accusations were:

1. Vincent is self-centered, selfish, worldly, and extravagant. How can he own so many good books at home? Maybe he should put them in the church library for the benefit of others.

2. Vincent is probably a rich man’s son who spends all his time buying, collecting, and reading books at home. This is his idea of a Christian ministry.

3. Vincent, why do you need so many commentaries on the Bible? I study the Bible too, and I don’t own any commentaries. Commentaries can be dangerous; it may warp and mould your thoughts against the direction of biblical teachings!

I never knew that reading Christian books could serve as a source of discouragement for others, much less providing fodder for criticisms such as these. For the record, I am not a rich man’s son. Although my father had little trouble raising my sister and me up, toys for my childhood were always a luxury. My medical education was partly made possible due to a bursary from an Irish university. My parents are now financially dependent upon me, as I have to pay for their housing loan, their daily expenses, utility bills, and various miscellaneous expenses. They do not have any savings of their own. Do you call that "a rich man’s son?"

I had started buying Christian books since I was in junior college (17 years old). While my classmates indulged themselves in CDs, VCDs, and fashionable clothes, I saved up all my money to buy Christian books. I was hungry to know God, and I had many questions to answer. Reading good Christian books answered my many questions, and quenched my thirst for bible knowledge. I still remember that I bought Francis Schaeffer’s complete works, after saving up for more than a year, from the Bethesda Book Center in Marine Parade. In fact, I know Mr. Robert from that bookstore since I was a junior college student. He will always send me an email or call me up to tell me when the next great book sales will be held.

When I was a medical student, the Lord placed in my heart an even greater thirst to know Him more. I carried the Bible in my white coat wherever I go. And in my internship year alone (1999), I had read the Bible cover-to-cover for more than 10 times and had memorized more than 100 verses from the Bible. At the end of my internship, I fasted and prayed for many months seeking the Lord’s will for my life. I had a great desire to serve Him, but I do not know how and where. I knew I wanted to preach the Word, and I am willing to do it even if I live in hunger.

By the grace of God, I am currently a medical doctor, and had been a part-time seminary student studying at my own expense. I have plans to study formally in a seminary next year. When I was still a member of a local Bible Presbyterian church, I was ministering to a group of youths (12 to 29 years old) through preaching and teaching appointments. I was also giving lectures and seminars on "Creation and Evolution," as well as other topics in the realm of Apologetics. As such, I needed much resource on preparing sermons and lectures on many topics. During those years of service, I bought books on a regular basis. The books I purchased were mainly commentaries, theological tomes, and Christian textbooks. Even now, I’d rather spend my savings on books, rather than on beautiful furniture, entertainment, sports, or other less important priorities.

For the serious Christian who wants to know God’s Word, and especially the seminary student, Christian minister, or theologian, I believe that a good collection of Christian resource in a personal library is of utmost importance. It is a well-known fact that many godly pastors and preachers such as Charles Spurgeon, Albert Mohler, and John MacArthur have huge personal libraries. Albert Mohler’s personal library alone contains more than 30,000 books (see this video). But why do these preachers need such a large number of books? The Bible is a very rich and complex collection of 66 books. A complete understanding of these books of the Bible requires a thorough knowledge of systematic theology, biblical theology, experiential theology, the biblical languages, Ancient Near Eastern history, and so on. Furthermore, the minister would be required to furnish himself with a sufficient knowledge of homiletics, apologetics, and Church History. Proper exegesis of the original texts requires reference books such as lexicons, grammar texts, and the critical apparatus.

When a minister is preparing for a sermon, a bible study, or a counseling session, he needs direct access to good Christian resources. Unless the pastor stays within a large Christian public library (there is none in Singapore), he needs to purchase such books for himself. Furthermore, a good student of the Bible should never be satisfied with his current biblical knowledge. He will be constantly studying and learning from the Bible and from other godly men through books, articles, and journals. Albert Mohler once lamented, "Is this person a Christian intellectual, feeding the mind and soul by reading? For too many pastors, the personal library announces, "I stopped reading when I graduated from seminary.’" This should never be the case. A minister of God can never complete his study of the Scriptures. Our knowledge will never be perfected in our pilgrimage upon this earth.

Perhaps some might feel that, surely it is better to sell all those volumes of books, and give the money to the poor. Or perhaps we can give all our Christian books to the church, and allow public access to those books. In like manner, we can sell our cars, our beautiful houses, or even our insurance policies, and share the money from the sales of our possessions with the church (Note: I do not own a single personal insurance policy at this point in time). Firstly, Christians should never be avid supporters of Communism. It is unquestionably not a sin to own a car, a house, or a personal library. In fact, all my previous pastors own personal libraries much larger than what I have. Some of the pastors I know even have their own cars, private houses, and insurance policies. Should they then sell what they have, and give the money from the sales of their possessions to the church? Some would say that the New Testament Christians did exactly that: "for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need (Acts 4:34b-35)."

We must understand this passage against the background of the infant New Testament church. Firstly, there was a "need (Acts 4:35)." We recall that under the preaching of the apostles, many pilgrims to Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost were converted. They had obviously chosen to remain in Jerusalem as members of the local church rather than return home. Some converts lost their livelihood due to persecution. There were, therefore, needy brethren within the local church of Jerusalem.

Secondly, we must understand this passage of Scripture in the light of the rest of Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does God mandate the communistic manipulation of the possessions of church members. James stressed that, "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit (James 2:15-16)?" Likewise, John says, "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1 John 3:17)?" The emphasis is on a believer’s compassion for a fellow believer in need. If a brother refuses to work and is lazy, or he simply refuses to buy his own food when he can afford it, there is no biblical mandate for a fellow Christian to sell his possessions and give to this brother. In like manner, if a Christian man refuses to invest in good books, but rather spends his money on entertainment, movies, sports, and dating, there is no obligation for a fellow brother to buy Christian books for this man.

John MacArthur elucidates further, "Some have seen in this passage [Acts 4:32-35] a primitive form of communism or communal living. As noted in the discussion of Acts 2:44-46 in chapter 7, however, that is not true. As in 2:45, the imperfect tense of the verbs indicates continuous action. They did not at any point pool all their possessions. Also, it is clear from Acts 12:12 that individual believers still owned houses. Further, Peter’s words to Ananias in 5:4 show that such selling of property was strictly voluntary. The singling out of Barnabas also implies that the selling was voluntary. If it were compulsory there would have been nothing commendatory about his actions. Finally, Acts does not record that any other church followed this pattern of selling property."

Finally, I am absolutely amazed at how someone can come to my blog, see the library catalog that I displayed on this blog, and arrive at the conclusion that I am a selfish, self-conceited, worldly, extravagant, and spoilt rich man’s son! Can you fault me for being so discouraged by such criticisms?

For your edification, Albert Mohler discussed the significance of personal libraries in this post of his. He wrote:

"When truly read, a book becomes a part of us. That is why we are afraid to part with even the physicality of it. The book becomes an aid to memory and a deposit of thought and reflection. Its very materiality testifies that we once held it in our hands as we passed the pages before our eyes.

Parini observes that libraries are mirrors into our minds and souls. The books we collect, display, and read tell the story about us.

This may be especially true of Christian ministers. Books are a staple of our lives and ministries. When the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to bring the books and the parchments, he was writing with the kind of urgency any preacher understands.

To a great extent, our personal libraries betray our true identities and interests. A minister's library, taken as a whole, will likely reveal a portrait of theological conviction and vision. Whose works have front place on the shelves, Martyn Lloyd-Jones or John Shelby Spong? Charles Spurgeon or Harry Emerson Fosdick? Karl Barth or Carl Henry? John MacArthur or Joel Osteen?

How serious a Bible scholar is this preacher? The books will likely tell. Are the books all old or all new? If so, the reader is probably too contemporary or too antiquarian in focus. Are the books read? If so, the marginalia of an eager and intelligent mind adds value to the book. It becomes more a part of us.

Is this person a Christian intellectual, feeding the mind and soul by reading? For too many pastors, the personal library announces, "I stopped reading when I graduated from seminary."

When I think of my closest friends, I realize that I am most at home with them in their libraries, and they are most at home with me in mine. Why? Because the books invite and represent the kind of conversation and sharing of heart, soul, and mind that drew us together in the first place.

By their books we shall know them. And by our books we shall be known."

The Lone Singaporean Cowboy (The Local Church Part 3)

In relation to what we had been discussing, Harry A. Ironside once related the following account:

"When Pliny was governor of Bithynia, he wrote a most interesting letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan, asking why Christians were being exterminated, and added: "I have been trying to get all the information I could regarding them. I have even hired spies to profess to be Christians and become baptized in order that they might get into the Christian services without suspicion.

Contrary to what I had supposed, I find that the Christians meet at dead of night or at early morn, that they sing a hymn to Christ as God, that they read from their own sacred writings and partake of a very simple meal consisting of bread and wine and water (the water added to the wine to dilute it in order that there might be enough for all).

This is all that I can find out, except that they exhort each other to be subject to the government and to pray for all men."

Even amidst persecution, true believers in the infant New Testament local churches would come together for worship, fellowship and the breaking of the bread. How many Christians today would eagerly gather to enjoy sweet communion and fellowship with each other "at dead of night?" But some might retort, "Times are different now. We live in the age of technology, and we do not live in caves. We have bills to pay, children to feed, work to do." Surely, the New Testament scholars ought to know that Paul lived in the stone-age, Titus and Timothy lived in caves, Aquila and Priscilla had no bills to pay, and recent research had shown that having children is a twentieth century phenomenon.

Most certainly, compared to New Testament believers, Christians today believe they have more important events to attend to. In fact, it may even be a matter of life and death, such as catching up with certain assignments, meeting deadlines at work, taking the children out because they have been busy all week at school, meeting Spiderman in the cinemas, or simply filling those poor starving abdomens with essential vitamins and minerals which cannot be done at other occasions. But whatever the reasons, Christians today are too busy for church commitments. They are living in the real world.

The truth is, it is quite impossible for the Christian to grow spiritually and to mature without the mutual exhortation and support from fellow believers. Furthermore, no matter how dire the circumstances are (these include the reasons we give for not joining a local church), pastoral oversight is paramount. Without proper accountability and church discipline, it is spiritually lethal for the Christian pilgrim to walk alone amidst fleshly temptations, worldly attractions, and false doctrines.

Sometimes we wonder, within the comfortable and peaceful setting of Singapore, coupled with governmental protection and freedom of worship, what grounds could there be for Christians to refuse formal church membership and commitment?

There are indeed numerous reasons that Christians refrain from church membership. From the more frivolous to the more weighty reasons, we can observe a few recurring factors for avoiding commitment as church members.

The More Frivolous Reasons

The church does not meet my felt needs.
The church is not accessible from my home.
The pastor cannot heal my sickness, or make me wealthy.
The preaching is boring.
The worship is too traditional and unprofessional.
The church members are too aloof and unfriendly.
The church is so small; I feel everybody is looking at me.
The pastor wants to interfere with my life; who does he think he is?
I want to live my own life. Who needs accountability?
The pastor does not listen to my opinions.

The More Weighty Reasons

I cannot agree with the major doctrines of the church.
I cannot join a church that does not exercise church discipline i.e. the pastor does not rebuke sin and worldliness within the congregation.
The Pastor is not faithful to the Word i.e. the pastor is purpose-driven, money-driven, but not God-driven.
The church does not adhere to the Regulative Principle of Worship.
The church teaches false doctrines.
The church is apostate.
The church is not Reformed, but claims to be.

Among the more well-read Christians, there is a growing tendency for what Mark Dever calls "lone-rangerism." Here, we find a professing Christian who has a certain level of biblical knowledge, and is more concerned with the simplicity of worshipping and serving God according to his own notions and understanding of Scripture. Sometimes, such a professing Christian may be a genuine believer who has become disenchanted with his previous church experience. He may have encountered pastors or church leaders who are not biblically qualified, or are abusive and unfaithful to Scripture. On the other hand, there are those who choose to be lone-rangers simply because of the ease and lack of accountability with which such a lifestyle would accord them.

But no matter how disenchanted we are with our previous churches, we must accept the fact that there is no perfect church. Every church has its weaknesses, and every pastor is a redeemed sinner just like us. But the Word of God requires us to be under the oversight of a plurality of elders (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet.5:2), and exhorts us to have godly fellowship with other believers (Heb. 10:24-25). For these reasons alone, we ought to commit ourselves to a faithful, gospel preaching church as serving members.

In the meantime, these are some questions for the readers to consider:

Are you a member of a good, Reformed church? If not, why not?

What are the reasons you would accept as being legitimate for you to leave your existing local church?

In the next post, we shall discuss the importance of Christian fellowship within the context of a local church.

The Local Church (Part 2) - Marks of a Healthy Church

The Biblical Functions of the Local Church Determine its Minimum Number

As I had stated earlier, I will approach the "local church" issue from a Reformed perspective. The true church must be able to perform its most fundamental functions as a local church. These include worship, evangelism, edification of the saints, and biblical church discipline. Furthermore, every local church pastor must preach the Word - that is, all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27) - and administer the sacraments. With those basic functions of the local church in view, it is not difficult to solve the scenarios presented in the previous post.

The minimum number of members is also dependent upon the circumstances and situation whereby the church is established. In scenarios whereby a missionary is sent to a foreign land as a pioneering pastor, it is often difficult for the newly established church to fulfill all its functions adequately. On top of leading the worship, preaching the Word and administering the sacraments, the pioneering pastor must do the work of an evangelist, groom believers to fill the church offices of elders and deacons, and oversee the young congregation. Sometimes, the home church may be able to send helpers or elders to assist the young missionary church. But this help is not always available. Oftentimes, the missionary pastor has to work alone. Tent-making may even be needful.

I once attended a missionary Baptist church while I was in Ireland (for those who do not realize, I was a Baptist then). Although the Baptist church was essentially a congregational church that did not believe in a plurality of elders, I had the privilege to labor with the pastor’s family, which was an excellent testimony for the Lord in the small county they were in. The family had to endure much hardship and persecution in order to witness to the local community. That Baptist church was a very small church. It was basically made up of the Pastor, his wife and children, and a handful of members. Despite its size, it was able to perform all the required functions of the local church. There were pastoral oversight, good church discipline, administration of the sacraments, faithful preaching of the Word, worship, evangelism, and warm Christian fellowship.

We must also consider the local churches in countries that persecute Christians; these are often located within the 10/40 window. In such countries, it is quite impossible for the faithful church to worship or evangelize openly. Despite the intense persecution, such local churches are not always small. On the contrary, some underground churches in countries such as China are quite sizeable. The spiritual health of these churches is sometimes even better than the best in so-called "Christian" states or countries.

By now, the reader should realize that the spiritual state of a local church is not related to its size. We cannot choose a local church based upon the size of its congregation, its architectural ingenuity, its sound system, the professionalism of its choir and musicians, the eloquence of its pastor, the number of communal facilities it has, the accessibility of its lavatories, or its proximity to one’s lodging. What, then, should we look for in a local church?

Marks of a Good Local Church

Please note that I will not be writing in any detail - except in passing - concerning the question of, "What constitutes a good, faithful church?" This issue is adequately addressed in Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004).

1) Doctrinal Faithfulness: First of all, we should look for doctrinal faithfulness to the Scripture in the local church. In my humble opinion, the old time Reformed evangelicalism known to Spurgeon, Whitfield, and the Great Puritan preachers ought to be greatly treasured. The veracity of the pulpit ministry and the church’s Sunday school are some of the things we should consider.

2) Expositional Preaching: There must be the courageous, expositional preaching of the whole council of God. The pastor should pay particular attention to the systematic preaching of the books of the Bible. He should seek to unfold the meaning of the Word, and apply it to the lives of the congregation. This is contrasted with topical preaching, whereby the pastor picks a topic to speak on, and uses certain Scripture texts to support his point of view.

3) Godly Leadership: A good local church should have godly leadership formed by a plurality of elders, with an emphasis on pastoral visitations and church oversight.

4) Godly Worship: There must be worship according to God’s standards and requirements. This is also known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. The reader should be aware that there is much debate concerning what constitutes true worship, and what constitutes an abomination to the thrice Holy God. For example, should worship be anglicized? That is, are we to use only English-sounding melodies in worship? Does God mandate the usage of only anglicized hymns and melodies? For those who advocate absolute psalmody, is it mandatory for the psalms to be sung with anglicized tunes and melodies? What about different chord sequences, rhythm, dissonance, etc?

5) Godly Church Discipline: There ought to be scrupulous church discipline, not to destroy the flock, but as a true manifestation of godly love for the local church. Sins, and in fact, all sins are to be rebuked and discouraged. Sinning members should be disciplined according to scriptural injunctions, and publicly sinning members should be publicly disciplined. Besides ethical and moral issues, doctrinal errors should also be dealt with. The leadership should have sufficient knowledge, wisdom, integrity, and love so as to be able to protect the flock against false doctrines and philosophies that are so prevalent in contemporary Christendom. Sometimes, the leadership may have sufficient knowledge, but lack the moral courage or integrity to rebuke such false teachings. This is the reason why aberrant doctrines are having a foothold in so many evangelical churches.

6) Sacraments: There must be the proper administration of the sacraments. Again, this is an area of rabid disagreement amongst brethren-in-Christ.

7) Evangelism: There should be a passionate concern with reaching out to the unbelieving world around us, and I am not referring to social work or political involvement. The church should be making disciples of all nations. It should not only be inward looking, but outward looking as well. The needs of the flock are paramount, but a lack of concern for the lost indicates a serious weakness in the local church members and leaders.

We shall explore some of the aforementioned points further when we consider the responsibilities of the individual church member. Furthermore, it is beneficial for us to study in passing what some evangelical leaders are saying concerning the marks of a healthy, local church.

John MacArthur, Marks of a Healthy Church (Chicago: Moody, 1990).

Marks of an Effective Church (p. 23)

1. godly leaders
2. functional goals and objectives
3. discipleship
4. penetrating the community
5. active church members
6. concern for one another
7. devotion to the family
8. Bible teaching and preaching
9. a willingness to change
10. great faith
11. sacrifice
12. worshiping God

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994).

Twelve Signs of a More Pure Church

1. biblical doctrine (or right preaching of the Word)
2. proper use of the sacraments (or ordinances)
3. right use of church discipline .
4. genuine worship
5. effective prayer
6. effective witness
7. effective fellowship
8. biblical church government
9. spiritual power in ministry
10. personal holiness of life among members
11. care for the poor
12. love for Christ

Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004).

1. expositional preaching
2. biblical theology
3. biblical understanding of the good news
4. biblical understanding of conversion
5. biblical understanding of evangelism
6. biblical understanding of church membership
7. biblical understanding of church discipline
8. biblical understanding of church leadership
9. concern for promoting Christian discipleship and growth

In my next post, we shall consider some of the reasons why certain Christians are not committed to faithful church membership.

The Local Church - An Introduction (Part 1)

A brother in Christ asked if I could express my views concerning the local church and the responsibilities of the church member. There is actually much literature from the Evangelical scene concerning the responsibilities of the church member, and what constitutes a true church of Christ. Mark Dever, the senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D. C., had written two good books - “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church” and “The Deliberate Church”, which are extremely concise and useful for the young pastor building a local church to honor Christ. However, this good brother of mine is correct to point out that such books from a Reformed perspective are by far very few.

So, instead of reiterating the points already made in these excellent books, I would rather attempt to discuss the responsibilities of a church member based upon the salient functions of the local church. The phrase “local church” is not an uncommon baptistic theological term. While the terms “Church Universal and Invisible (WCF XXV:1)” and “Church Universal and Visible (WCF XXV:2)” are often used to discuss the Reformed view of ecclesiology, little emphasis is made by Reformed theologians with regard to the specific roles of the “local” church. From a Reformed perspective, the local church can rightly be defined as the “church visible, local, and militant.” The New Testament often uses the word “church” to designate a group of professing believers that is identified as a local assembly or congregation. For example, local churches can be found in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1; 11:22), in Asia Minor (Acts 16:5), in Rome (Rom. 16:5), in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), in Galatia (Gal. 1:2), in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1), and in the home of Philemon (Philem. 2). All of these local churches are part of the Universal, Visible Church.

A local church in a specific geographical locality can be correctly understood as a microcosm of the universal, visible Church. While a true child of God can never be separated from the Body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23, cf. Col. 1:18, Eph. 4:2-6) or the universal, invisible church triumphant, he can choose to segregate himself from an existential and experiential participation with the visible, local church militant. As such, the Christian can erroneously choose to neglect the obligations of church membership, submission to a plurality of elders, or godly fellowship with other believers.

Before we proceed further, the reader should be aware of the most elemental differences between the baptistic and the non-baptistic views of the local church. Mark Dever, expressing the baptistic view in contrast to the Presbyterian and the Episcopalian views, wrote, “The idea of the [local] church being a covenanted community of believers - and not just for everyone who lives in a particular locality - is an important contribution that Baptists particularly have made to our nation’s religious liberty. The church is not finally something that’s for you and every member of your family by physical, natural descent, or that is yours as a citizen of this nation. No, the New Testament teaches that the church is for believers, for those to whom God’s Holy Spirit has given the new birth and who join together in a covenanted community.” (Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 150.) The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, seems to contain a broader nuance when compared with the aforementioned description, “The visible church … … consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children …” It must, however, be emphasized that no matter which view one adheres to, the functions of the local church as a local community of professing believers remain the same.

The Minimum Number

Throughout the history of the Evangelical community in Singapore, there have always been pockets of Christians who are disenchanted with the New Evangelical church establishments in this little nation. I know of Christian brethren who had left their New Evangelical churches for a myriad of reasons, and had refused to commit themselves to any local church thereafter. According to them, it seems adequate to listen to downloaded sermons from the Internet, worship and study the bible in some “parachurch” fellowship groups, and evangelize every once in a while with a booklet or tract. Some of these brethren had defended their actions by stating that, “God is with us wherever there are two or three believers gathered together in His name to worship Him (Matt. 18:20).” They do not feel the necessity of joining any “man-made” religious institutions.

The first question I would like to address is this, “Is there a minimum number of people that is required to form a church?” I am not asking this question in conjunction with the local socio-legal context. There is, indeed, a minimum number required by the Singapore Registry of Societies in order for the church to be recognized by the state. And that minimum number is ten. What I am asking is this, “For God to recognize a church, what is the required, minimum number of professing believers?”

For those who are confused, do allow me to rephrase the question. If the local church is a gathering of a local community of professing believers, what then is the minimum number of members so that the church can still be called a “local church?” In other words, can a church consist of only two or three persons?

Instead of giving the reader a didactic, straightforward answer, I would guide you through a series of hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario One:

Let us take for example a church with a hundred members. It is called the Peace and Tranquility Historic Evangelical Trinitarian Independent Church (P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.). Due to certain unforeseen circumstances e.g. emigration, natural disasters, deaths, and particularly, worldliness, the number of church members dwindle to ten. There are now 2 elders (including the pastor) and 8 church members. There are now no deacons, no musicians, no choir, and no laughing kids. Is this congregation of ten still considered to be a local church?

Scenario Two:

Within the same church (also known as P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.), one of the two remaining elders apostatizes, and draws some of the members with him. There is now the faithful pastor, and three remaining members. Can this congregation of four be called a church? Should they dissolve their church, and join a bigger church?

Scenario Three:

There is a solitary, lonely Christian with very strong and peculiar doctrinal convictions. In fact, he will only join a church which agrees with him 100 percent of the time. He subsequently declares himself to be some kind of “elder.” This is because he considers himself to be a mature Christian due to his extensive theological knowledge. He worships God from his home; he listens to sermons downloaded from the internet (perhaps from Sermonaudio.com or Grace To You); he celebrates the “Lord’s Supper” with his Christian friends from other churches. But he refuses to join any local church. Is this practice viable or defensible?

Scenario Four:

In another case, there is a Christian missionary who finds himself laboring in a remote island in a foreign land. His family was sent there by his church in Singapore. There is no Christian church in that area within 1000 km diameter. In fact, there is not even a cult in sight. The only breathing creatures beyond 100km are the squids, dolphins and an assortment of crustaceans. He decides to start a mission church in this island so as to evangelize the local tribesmen. He and his family of three listen to downloaded sermons and worship the Lord together. Can he start a local church as a lone pastor with his wife and two children?

Note: This post is the first in a series of posts on the local church.

The Christian and Controversies

We all love to win. In fact, there is nobody who loves to win more than the theologian. The history of theology is all too often a long exhibition of a desire to win. - Francis Schaeffer

The following post is a reflection based upon the book by Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976).

What is the distinguishing mark of a true child of God? According to Francis Schaeffer, "Love - and the unity it attests to - is the mark Christ gave Christians to wear before the world. Only with this mark may the world know that Christians are indeed Christians and that Jesus was sent by the Father." (p. 35) At first glance, it seems that Schaeffer is simply regurgitating the same definition of love as propounded by the ecumenical, syncretistic wing of Evangelicalism. The world likewise is inclined to define "love" as a romantic, deep inner feeling - more like a kind of sentimentalism or emotionalism. This "love" is all encompassing and all embracing. It transcends every breed of false philosophy, worldliness, and loose living. But are Christians indeed commanded to show before a watching world this sort of "love?"

I believe Schaeffer clearly elucidated the biblical meaning of love when he dealt with the question of, "What happens, then, when we must differ with other brothers in Christ because of the need also to show forth God's holiness either in doctrine or in life?" (p. 25) In other words, when faced with controversies - be it doctrinal or experiential - how are true brethren-in-Christ supposed to react and respond (cf. John 13:34-35; John 17:21)? When confrontation becomes necessary so as to uphold the holiness of God and the truth of the Word, what should be the Christian’s attitude and reaction to such situations?

I shall now reiterate the following points as observed by Schaeffer. "First, we should never come to such difference with true Christians without regret and without tears. Sounds simple, doesn't it? Believe me, evangelicals often have not shown it. We rush in, being very, very pleased, it would seem at times, to find other men's mistakes. We build ourselves up by tearing other men down. This can never show a real oneness among Christians." (p. 26)

Loving confrontation is sometimes necessary, but nevertheless, such confrontation might become the bedrock for further bitterness and controversies in the future. A Christian man does not come to such controversies with an appetite whet by the prospect of blood and claw. A peaceable man approaches such controversies with a distaste that is rightly contrasted with the eagerness with which the moth dances around the candlelight. It is no pleasant task to rebuke or to correct error, and such correction must not be done apart from the sincere desire to edify and build up the brother-in-Christ. But it must be emphasized that a genuinely loving Christian will love his brother enough to drag him away from the fire of self-destruction. The godly pastor will love his congregation enough to risk reputation, popularity and offerings so as to lead his flock to safe pastures and clear waters. And woe is the man who, seeing his sheep running astray, keeps his peace and usher the flock to the wolves. Woe is the man who is unable to find the courage to rebuke error, and yet maintain a façade of holiness, peace and unity before his flock. Such is the cause of ruin for many Christian churches. Nevertheless, we will do well to follow Schaeffer’s admonition, "The world must observe that, when we must differ with each other as true Christians, we do it not because we love the smell of blood, the smell of the arena, the smell of the bullfight, but because we must for God's sake. If there are tears when we must speak, then something beautiful can be observed." (pp. 26-27)

Secondly, we must have the maturity to discern the gravity of the differences that separate brethren-in-Christ. Not all differences hold the same measure of importance within the Lord’s church. Some are only matters of preference, while others may even be soul-damning errors. But in all areas of differences, Christians must possess "a practical demonstration of love in the midst of the dilemma even when it is costly." (p. 28) Schaeffer elucidates further, "The more serious the wrongness is, the more important it is to exhibit the holiness of God, to speak out concerning what is wrong. At the same time, the more serious the differences become, the more important it becomes that we look to the Holy Spirit to enable us to show love to the true Christians with whom we must differ. If it is only a minor difference, showing love does not take much conscious consideration. But where the difference becomes really important, it becomes proportionately more important to speak for God's holiness. And it becomes increasingly important in that place to show the world that we still love each other." (p. 27)

Love must never be confused with an accommodating spirit towards error, or an attitude of indifference masquerading as an appearance of peaceable unity and comradeship. This is not biblical love. This is the devil’s lie. It is the devil’s way of removing all forms of correction and rebuke by imposing a charge of bigotry and hatred against the one who raises an opposition against error. And how else would the devil deceive the church into capitulating with error unless such godly corrections are silenced, and better still, redefined as anti-Christian pride and intolerance?

Is the true mark of the Christian merely "love?" Many religions and cults preach about love. Buddhists and New-Agers are able to exhibit love in the form of philanthropy, kindness, accommodation and tolerance. So how does such "love" distinguish the Christian man from adherents of other religions? Of course it cannot! Biblical love is holy love. It is the form of love that must hate evil, sin and worldliness. This love is first and foremost directed towards God and His Word, which is subsequently manifested as obedience to his commandments. As the Apostle John has declared, "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him (1 John 2:5)." We must, therefore, never attempt to create an antithesis between holiness and love. The Christian who claims to love God and his brethren must first be exemplary in his Christian life. His walk must be marked by godliness, holiness, and truth. Only then can he claim to love his brethren, and not by giving in to error, but by an active and loving confrontation of such worldliness, sins, and untruths.

As Schaeffer emphasized, "So often people think that Christianity is only something soft, only a kind of gooey love that loves evil equally with good. This is not the biblical position. The holiness of God is to be exhibited simultaneously with love. We must be careful therefore, not to say that what is wrong is right, whether it is in the area of doctrine or of life, in our own group or another. Anywhere what is wrong is wrong, and we have a responsibility in that situation to say that what is wrong is wrong. But the observable love must be there regardless of the cost." (p. 28) True Christian love can only be demonstrated with power when there is moral courage, godly integrity, and biblical obedience to God’s Word. A coward who pussyfoots around crucial issues, and is unable to find the nerve to rebuke sin within the congregation might appear to be a loving, patient, and understanding leader. But in the eyes of the holy God, such "love" is abhorrent, impotent, and characterizes the spirit of the blind watchmen of ancient Israel (cf. Isaiah 56:10).

Finally, we must accept Schaeffer’s proposal that the proper way of resolving differences amongst Christians is to adopt a problem-solving mind-set. He writes, "[One] way we can show and exhibit love without sharing in our brother's mistake is to approach the problem with a desire to solve it, rather than with a desire to win. We all love to win. In fact, there is nobody who loves to win more than the theologian. The history of theology is all too often a long exhibition of a desire to win." (p. 29)

It is a fact that personal pride may grip the heart of the Christian man, and such sinful attitudes are often manifested as a lustful desire to win. It is a carnal desire to win every debate and argument, not for the edification of the saints, but rather for the puffing up of one’s pride. We must rather approach the sinning brethren with an appeal towards correction and reformation. True Christian concern and love stems from a heart which is yielded to the Word of God, and this submission to Christ’s Lordship is subsequently extrapolated to a godly longing for the building-up of the brethren. The Christian who is obedient to Christ would want to see similar obedience and submission in the lives of his fellow brethren. As such, such a Christian man has mastered his impetus to win. He seeks to edify, to build-up, to reform.

While we agree with Francis Schaeffer that the mark of a Christian is love, we must be reminded that such a love is radically different from the "love" as perceived by the world and other religions. It stands in contradistinction from the lovey-dovey, mawkish sentimentalism as propounded by the pagans. In times of confrontation and differences, the Christian is reminded to balance godly love and holiness, "without which no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14)."

Quote of the Day: Tozer on the Church

"A religious mentality characterized by timidity and lack of moral courage has given us today a flabby Christianity, intellectually impoverished, dull, repetitious and, to a great many persons, just plain boresome. This is peddled as the very faith of our fathers in direct lineal descent from Christ and the apostles. We spoon-feed this insipid pabulum to our inquiring youth and, to make it palatable, spice it up with carnal amusements filched from the unbelieving world. It is easier to entertain than to instruct, it is easier to follow degenerate public taste than to think for oneself, so too many of our evangelical leaders let their minds atrophy while they keep their fingers nimble operating religious gimmicks to bring in the curious crowds."

A. W. Tozer, "We Need Sanctified thinkers," God Tells the Man who Cares (Cumbria, UK: OM Publishing, 1994), 124.

I believe Tozer, in his essays on the contemporary Christian church, had rightly captured the essence of the "Evangelical problem." His elaborate and deliberate usage of adjectival phrases gives us an accurate, albeit prophetic, description of Christendom as it is today. And it is amazing that he was able to discern these issues decades ahead of our time.

As I am of the Reformed persuasion, I will speak of evangelicalism as it is epitomized by the Reformed churches in Singapore today. My observations and opinions might be representative of Reformed churches elsewhere in the world, but only the reader can affirm my suspicion. Nevertheless, it is thought that Evangelicalism today is characterized by "timidity and lack of moral courage." Instead of the fiery sermons exemplified by the Sermon on the Mount, some churches today resort to a euphemistic paraphrasing of offensive terminologies, coupled with the additions of somnolent chants and Victorian English which are supposed to be an intellectual rendition of Reformation sayings and discourses. Instead of preaching and bringing forth the Word of Christ in an attempt to trouble the conscience of the listeners, the sermons are designed to tickle the carnal intellect and interests of the church-goers. Such a form of Christianity does not bear any resemblance, if at all, to the religion of our Lord and the Apostles. The church has successfully stripped the content of the Bible of all its exhortations to challenge the soul, and the commandments of our Lord for a radical reformation of life fit for the Kingdom of God. Those who hear the sermons seldom feel the necessity for reform or change. This is because those sermons only serve to persuade the intellect of its hearers, but never manage to get their conscience into trouble with God. And unless the preacher is able to get the listeners to re-examine their lives on bended knees, Evangelicalism and Reformed Christianity must remain to be "flabby," "intellectually impoverished, dull, repetitious and … boresome."

This is not due to the ineffectiveness of the Word to divide asunder the soul and spirit (Heb. 4:12). But the Word coupled with moral cowardice cannot bring forth the intent of the Holy Ghost. The face of many preachers light up whenever there are discussions on the various elements of proper homiletics. But here is an element that requires diligent adherence: the Word must be preached faithfully, courageously, and as it is. There is not so much as the dearth of the Word, but rather the cowardly, lily-livered preaching of the Word in Reformed churches today that is eating away the biblical foundations of the Reformation. Instead of entreating and challenging the pew-warmers within our churches to live holy lives according to the high standards of the Bible (and mind you, the standards of the Bible are high), they are treated to the chaff, wood and stubble of community activities, fellowship fun, and coffee breaks. And all of these are done in the name of love, peace and togetherness. There is little wonder that believers today know so little of the cross-carrying, self-sacrificial, and world-denying lives of the first-century Christians.

We cannot and must not replace the homiletical challenges to holy living with the fun, games, and joy of community activities. For without the testimony of the saints, the disciplinary oversight of the church, and the purity of Christ in our lives, the church will inevitably denigrate herself to the level of a community centre or a public amusement park. If the church fails to challenge her members - who would in turn challenge the worldly zeitgeist - how can we ever call ourselves the salt and light in this world? Unless the church is able to shout to the world, "We are holy as God is holy", what differences then lie between us and them? Are we so conformed to the world such that we are indistinguishable from the world?

Tozer summarized the issues succinctly - "It is easier to entertain than to instruct, it is easier to follow degenerate public taste than to think for oneself." Furthermore, it is easier to be the peace-maker, than to be the faithful preacher; it is easier to keep ourselves looking busy, rather than to be holy; it is easier to be the coward, than to be the martyr; it is far easier to be Pilate, than to be John the Baptist, to be Balaam, rather than to be Micaiah. And while we keep ourselves busy keeping the people together so that the church will look larger and warmer, the souls are starved for spiritual food and true communion with the living God. In the meantime, the financial planning and church activities must go on. But how many of us are able to perceive the spiritual blight that is devouring the church like a canker?

One such man is Aidan W. Tozer.

Transcending the Anathemas

My dear brother-in-Christ, Daniel, recently asked a very interesting question in his blog. In essence, he was inquiring whether it was appropriate to pronounce "anathemas" upon heretics, especially in view of the early church councils that had previously declared the same upon the likes of Arius. He queried, "Since these early church leaders [unanimously] passed judgment on all who follow these heresies, are we to follow their lead and [anathematize] all who follow those same heresies, i.e. Arianism, Sabellianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, monothelitism, monophysitism etc.?"

In response to Daniel’s question, we may be quick to give a reply according to the Fourth Teaching of father Kosmas, but again, would we want to do that? The father had taught,

"Be careful, my fellow Christians, never pronounce anathemas, because anathema is separation from God, from the angels, from paradise, and leads to the devil and to hell.

It was for that brother's sake that Christ was crucified, to get him out of hell; and you, for an insignificant thing, pronounce an anathema against him? You put him into hell to burn forever? Are you so hard-hearted? But just think how many sins you have committed from the day of your birth; how many sins have you committed with your eyes, your mouth, or in your mind? Do you think you are sinless?

The holy Gospel tells us only Christ is without sin. We human beings are all sinners, so don't pronounce anathemas. This is why, my fellow Christians, if you wish God to forgive you of all your sins and to put you into paradise, let your nobility say three times for your enemies: "May God forgive and have mercy upon them.’"

Although we do not have the time to argue against the theological errors found within the writings of father Kosmas, we must nevertheless take a little time to study what it means to anathematize someone, especially in the context of the Second Council of Constantinople. In the context of the New Testament (Rom 9:3, 1 Cor 12:3, Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 16:22), the Thayer’s Greek Definition defines "anathema" as "a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction; 2a) a curse; 2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes." Furthermore, we also know that "the non-Attic form [of the word "anathema"] was adopted in the Septuagint as a rendering of the Hebrew herem, and gradually came to have the significance of the Hebrew word-"anything devoted to destruction" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)."

But to the early church fathers, the meaning of "anathema" had adopted the nuance of a "major excommunication," even to the extent of condemning the subject to eternal damnation unless the subject repents. As stated in the ISBE, "Whereas in the Greek Fathers [the word "anathema"] -as herem in rabbinic Hebrew-came to denote excommunication from society."

We realize that there were no official pronouncements of "anathema" within the first three centuries of the early church. Also, anathemas were not mentioned in the well-known creeds, for example, 1) The Nicene Creed (Council of Constantinople (381AD), 2) The Definition of Chalcedon (451AD), and 3) The Canons of the Council of Orange (529AD).

However, after the first three hundred years of the Christian Church, anathemas such as those of the Second Council of Constantinople (553AD) started to appear. Timothy George in his paper, "Dogma Beyond Anathema: Historical Theology in the Service of the Church," notes that "the first official mention of "anathema" is from the Council of Elvira, held about 306." After this, the pronunciation of anathemas was a mean of excommunicating heretics. In "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. III," we find the anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria issued against Nestorius in 431AD. By the period of the Second Council of Constantinople, the excommunication of a church member meant cutting off a person from the Lord’s Supper and attendance at worship, while "anathema" meant a complete separation of the person from the Church.
So, in answer to Daniel’s question, can we as Christians pronounce anathema upon a heretic in view of previous church council decisions?

This question must be answered in two aspects. Firstly, we must discuss the spirit and intention of such a pronouncement. There is a Particular Baptist hymn that reads as follow:

We are the Lord’s elected few,
Let all the rest be damned;
There’s room enough in hell for you,
We won’t have heaven crammed.

When we consider the hymn, we realize that Christians are indeed the Lord’s elected, that those who are not elected are damned, that there is truly enough room in hell for all the reprobates, and that heaven will not be crammed. But any God-loving, soul-winning Christian will not find this hymn edifying to the sanctification of the redeemed man. My question is: In what spirit do you think this hymn was written? In a spirit of Christian love for the lost?

In like manner, we should consider these questions: Why do we want to pronounce an anathema upon a heretic when it is enough that we can identify, mark, and separate from him? Why must we pronounce a curse and damnation upon such a man when we can warn the flock, protect the Church, and publicly denounce such a false teacher? I believe we ought to be careful with any spirit that seeks to pronounce such a judgment upon any man. As Francis Schaeffer had elucidated in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster, we must seek to balance our pursuit of holiness and doctrinal purity with love. Even a heretic deserves at least our correction and kindness. We do not know if such a man will ever repent. We do not know if he is simply misled or misunderstood. Most of all, we can never know whether such a man is elect or not. Can we say with absolute certainty that a heretical scholar will never be illuminated by the Holy Ghost and the light of the Truth?

The second problem we must address is the issue of ecclesiastical authority. In church history, anathemas were pronounced upon heretics and heretical groups by Church Councils. Within the New Testament, where the word anathema occurs in four places, it was the Apostle Paul who pronounced the anathema, and that was with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. When we consider the contemporary context, even the excommunication of an individual, let alone the official pronunciation of "anathema," is decided upon by the church’s session consisting of a plurality of elders. If a lone pastor or bishop cannot make an arbitrary decision to excommunicate anyone, how much more a church member?

But here we are discussing the appropriateness of anathematizing a heretic in a private capacity, albeit based upon prior decisions made by historic church councils. My humble opinion would be this: historic orthodoxy as defined by the early church is definitive and authoritative for us today as far as it is according to the Holy Scriptures. Evangelicals should be guided by the historic, Christian faith in their judgment of what is, and is not heresy. Nevertheless, when making decisions concerning the excommunication of heretics, the church’s session should be made the final arbiter, especially in cases when there is no classis or synod to appeal to. Therefore, in the pronunciation of anathemas - which is a more severe form of judgment compared to mere ecclesiastical excommunication - individuals cannot and must not possess the authority to make any such decisions.

Furthermore, we must realize that there is indeed a difference between saying, "The Council of X has pronounced an anathema against the heresy you hold," and, "I hereby pronounce anathema upon you, the heretic. Anathema sit!" The former sentence recognizes the authority of the early church councils, while the latter seems to emphasize the personal authority of the one who made the pronouncement. Unless one is backed by the decision of a church council, it is understood that one may not make such a pronouncement.

Within an ecclesiastical milieu, we must agree with Timothy George that, "There are times in the life of the church when it is necessary to say "Be accursed, be delivered up to the wrath of God and destroyed," for that is what anathema means in the original Pauline sense: "If anyone preaches another gospel, let him anathema!" The condemnatory clauses of the Nicene Creed are an expression of the church’s response to identify forms of teaching which if carried out consistently would have threatened the truth of divine revelation itself." (Timothy George, "Dogma Beyond Anathema: Historical Theology in the Service of the Church," Review and Expositor 84: 704, emphasis mine).

Made by the collective representatives of the Christian Church, such an official pronouncement serves to warn the flock against the soul damning heresies of the false teacher. On a private basis, the church member may write, teach, or verbally warn fellow Christians with regard to public false teachings and teachers, particularly heresies. This, however, does not relief him from honest, in-depth research and study prior to making any judgment against the alleged false teacher. The church member should also discuss his concerns with the church leaders. This is to avoid unnecessary paranoia and erroneous judgments.

Finally, "the church should avoid the use of anathema as an instrument of eternal coercion and use it only as a decision of faith in its proclamation of the whole counsel of God, the word of judgment and damnation as well as the word of grace and deliverance."(Ibid.)

(Note: One is advised to be cautious when attempting to utilize 2 Peter and Jude to make the case that all heretics are indeed damned. But this is rightly the content of other posts.)