Thinking About Think
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
When Think magazine set forth its mission statement, many of us welcomed what they wanted to accomplish. The following was presented in the February, 2006, issue:
Our mission is to encourage men, women, and children to train their minds to meditate on that which is good. We want to help people focus on matters of eternity. We earnestly desire to promote spiritual development and strengthening of faith among Christians. We fervently pray that our efforts will prompt people to consider the eternal destiny they are fashioning by the lives they are leading today (inside front cover).
Many excellent articles have been written and published since then that fulfilled those goals. Although brethren have access to publications that deal very well with church problems (Contending for the Faith and The Defender), it is also helpful to have a publication that has a positive emphasis. Dealing with various aspects of error does have positive benefits to it; in fact, the beautiful passage of Philippians 3 grows out of a division caused by Judaizing teachers. But it is also good to have reading material that is uplifting, and Think has been filling that niche—with one exception.
We cannot say if adding new editors has contributed to the change or not, but something is different that violates part of what Jim Palmer and Brad Harrub wrote on the same inside cover page of the February, 2006, issue. They affirmed: “We are committed to producing sound material that is easy to read and relevant to Christians living today” (emph. gws). Again, these sentiments are commendable, but they have been violated by an article in the June, 2011, issue and a response following in August. The article in question is titled, “Where Are the Future Leaders?” It appears on pages 20-21. The author of the article will be discussed later. This review begins with his main question.
“Why have so many young people been in our church youth groups but not remained faithful to the New Testament church?” (20).
This is actually a good question, but the answer is complex. Those in denominations are experiencing the same problem; Ken Ham and Britt Beemer have written an interesting analysis of the loss of so many young people in a book that is titled, Already Gone, first published in 2009. Its subtitle is: “Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it.” Many different reasons for leaving were cited—only two of more than a dozen reasons received as much as 12% agreement. In other words, one cannot really cite any reason that applies even to 25% of young people’s leaving, let alone to 50% or more of them.
Before making suggestions regarding solutions to the problem, the writer says that many churches do not ask why the losses are occurring. Perhaps such blasé leaders exist, but most brethren have been concerned for many years. For that reason Ham’s book was appealing to this reviewer. After making this broad statement that brethren do not seem to care, the writer then relates an anecdote involving himself, in which he called for brethren to evaluate the reasons for young people departing from the truth. He claims that they responded to him: “Worship is not entertainment, and we don’t come here to be entertained.” One might think this is a strange response, but in light of what he writes later, the reader will understand that his analysis of our losses is due (in part) to not enough entertainment. He practically shouts out loud the next sentence: “If I’ve heard this response once, I’ve heard it a thousand times” (20). Readers may wonder why he so despises this truth. He says that brethren use it for a stock answer to “avoid any discussion of improvements….” Is it really the case that brethren do not care about losing young people and that they have spent no time in prayer and analysis, praying for wisdom?
All churches have their shortcomings, but it is difficult to believe that so many congregations are so unfeeling, as he alleges. The writer claims that congregations do not keep track of their young people after they graduate. Is that so? Perhaps keeping a record is a good idea for those not doing so, but it will not keep someone from falling sway to an atheistic professor or getting in with the wrong crowd. Young people must be prepared before they leave home so that they know what to expect.
He also argues that younger men should spend more time with the older men in various spiritual endeavors to see a good example in operation. We could not agree more with this suggestion, but again we question the assumption that it is not frequently done.
Next, the writer asks what the church has to offer those in their 20s. Here begins the wrong emphasis. The church’s responsibility is to preach the Word to the lost, edify members, and exercise benevolence as we have opportunity. Where is the passage that declares that our job is to attract people? He wants to know if we are singing newer songs. No one has an objection to newer songs, so long as they are Scriptural. He insinuates that it is important to use technology during the service. PowerPoint can be effective, but hundreds of thousands have been converted without it. The more important ideas he expresses involve having a class for each age group and making people feel welcome.
The next argument is one which is a key word that liberals always use—he claims that the church is not being relevant to today’s world. Apparently the antediluvian world did not consider that Noah’s preaching was relevant, either. However, nothing could have been more relevant. The problem is that many do not have a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), and therefore they may well be lost. Trying to build a more elaborate and attractive ark would not have saved any more souls. It was the content of the message they rejected.
Out of Touch
Since McDonald’s has changed its appearance, the Lord’s church should, too. This argument is silly. Are more people eating at McDonald’s now because they have modernized? Many brethren have erected modern buildings, but people do not attend because of it. The very first building this author attended was a storefront, which vandals had broken into and then written a vulgar message on the blackboard. Were people so shallow as to say, “I won’t go back there again”? No, the Gospel (Truth) was being preached, and that was the attraction. Is our culture so superficial that we need the right décor to attract visitors? (This is not to say that we should not have as much “eye appeal” as we can or that no classroom should have a fresh coat of paint in twenty years, but those looking for a soul-saving message will not be offended if we are not thoroughly modern.) The writer claims that many congregations are out of touch.
He alleges that they are doctrinally sound but just irrelevant. He says: “The world (through Satan) is very good at meeting social needs” (21). He suggests having softball teams and basketball teams. Many brethren thought that building gymnasiums would boost their numbers. Theoretically, members would invite non-members to participate in these activities; then Bible studies would ensue, and people would be converted. In practicality, people who play basketball are interested in basketball—not Bible studies. Participation in a social activity is not the same as spiritual fellowship.
The writer also includes inviting a visitor to go on a mission trip. Really? Someone who is not a member of the church? He also mentions a benevolent project, which is good, but again, this is asked of a visitor? While engaging in social activities together may have some value in assisting a few individuals to become Christians, nevertheless it is the study of the Bible and worship that develops the greater bond. It is true friendship that means the most to others.
Doctrine Versus Relationship
The writer asserts that churches are more concerned about being doctrinally correct than helping people have a relationship with God. They know all the Scriptures about the woman’s role in the church. They know how to defend against instrumental music. He asked a class “to give a reason of the hope that is within” them, as per 1 Peter 3:15, and no one had a clue. The problem is that it is not an either/or situation. If what he says is true, then those brethren have been taught properly in one area but not in another.
The need for sound doctrine is essential, since so many congregations have gone into apostasy. In the area where this writer lives, two congregations within a 50-mile radius have added instrumental music. Another moved in the direction of appointing deaconesses but has stopped for the time being. All of these congregations are larger ones. Others have departed in less noticeable ways; one wonders how it is in the state of Tennessee where the writer of the Think article lives. If Biblical teaching on these subjects had been emphasized properly, these departures would not occur.
On the other hand, if brethren cannot explain their hope, there is a weakness in the realm of apologetics. Christians ought to be able to deal with the Word of God’s being inspired and Jesus’ being the hope of our salvation. Jesus and His atoning work on the cross are the basis for our salvation. Surely brethren knew the answer to that question—even if no one spoke. We might do a better job of explaining that the Bible is true—the only inspired Word of God, but how could anyone who confessed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God not know that He is the hope of our salvation?
One wonders why the editors of Think published this article. Perhaps they thought that the emphasis on good things outweighed the bad. Or did they just not think about the implications brought out here?
Rob Hatchett
The man who claimed in an e-mail that he wrote this article spells his name with two t’s, although Think spelled it with only one. Rob Hatchett owns his own realty company in Chattanooga and is a member of the Clear Creek Church of Christ there, which was formerly the Hixson Church of Christ. A check of its website will reveal its liberal affiliations. Its daily bulletin provides an accurate profile about its view of the church. Although much could be cited from these items, all that anyone needs to know is that Clear Creek enjoys associating with the most liberal speakers available. They recently hosted, for example, Randall Harris, who co-wrote with Rubel Shelly, The Second Incarnation (which we reviewed in this publication in the summer of 2005). Therefore, the writer of the article is not a member of a sound congregation who is expressing helpful insights to brethren about leadership and church growth. Do any of the editors of Think know this man? Are they aware of the liberal reputation of Clear Creek where he worships? If he was asked to write this article (and many of them are assigned), then the question would be, “Why?”
A Reader Response
Did anyone object to this article? June was a busy month for many; this writer overlooked seeing the article until the end of July. Hopefully, this is the case with other readers as well. But in the August issue, a response was published that is far more bone-chilling than Hatchett’s original piece. Someone going by the name of A. (possibly a middle initial) Shadel wrote to praise (!?) the June article (all citations are from page 6). This individual said the article resonated with him.
The letter-writer comes from a family who had been members of the church four generations, but he left it while a student at Harding. Notice these words very carefully.
“I did not leave Christianity, but simply took my faith to another Christian fellowship.”
No, A. Shadel, you left the Lord’s church, the body of Christ, and Christianity. If you had been taught doctrine (which Hatchett thinks we have overdone), you would have known better than to make such an obvious error. No denomination is authorized by the Lord. And what exactly does that other “fellowship” teach regarding salvation? How do they worship—with instrumental music? You left the Truth, and you know it.
Shadel says that the situations described in Hatchett’s article were the same for him, and therefore he left. Does that mean that Harding’s buildings were not modern enough? On a campus with all those young people, were there no social activities or mission trips? This is simply preposterous, and Shadel has no credibility whatsoever. Deserters usually do not.
Shadel prays that “God will guide Think and others who read this article to change the church before it is too late.” There is a far better prayer than that—that readers of Think will abide by the Scriptures rather than the advice of liberals and apostates. The church will not go wrong abiding by the teachings—all the teachings—of the Scriptures. Possibly, part of the church’s problem is that in many locales, some are not preaching the whole counsel of God. This writer and many other preachers often hear, when they preach in certain locations, “We have not had preaching like that here in years.” All of us know congregations like that—where in ten year’s time the brethren have not heard one sermon on true worship or a message about the distinctive nature of the church. Very likely, in some of those churches, they seldom mention baptism as necessary for the forgiveness of sins, either. Maybe that is the reason that some leave and go to other “fellowships.”
The church does not need to be changed. It was designed by God, paid for and built by the Lord Jesus Christ, and provided doctrine by Jesus and His apostles (Acts 2:42). It is the kingdom prophesied about in Isaiah 2:2-4 and Daniel 2:44-45. It consists of the redeemed and has a spiritual purpose; it is not a social club or an organization of men. Jesus is only going to save the body over which He is Head. He does not recognize different man-made “fellowships.”
After all these insulting comments about the Lord’s church, A. Shadel has the temerity to say, “I write this letter as someone who loves the church of his youth.” He further audaciously informs the reader that he has no intention of returning to “the fold.” How is this attitude any different from a man divorcing the wife of his youth and then marrying a younger woman but insisting, “I love the wife of my youth”? And members of the church are supposed to give serious consideration to what this man says? Why not advise Peter to take advice from Judas?
Finally, Shadel closes with a prayer that God might guide the Lord’s church that he left “to hold to Biblical truth and to, also, adapt where needed and never compromise.” First of all, Mr. Shadel is probably not even qualified to approach the throne of God in prayer since he has left the church that Jesus built. Second, we are already very conscious of the fact that the Scriptures teach us to avoid compromise.
Now, how did the editorial staff of Think respond to this outrageous letter? Did they clarify, in harmony with their goal to be sound, any of the points made above? Did they take issue with the idea of leaving the Lord’s church for another “fellowship”? No. They wrote thus:
This letter is a reminder that we can’t compromise the Truth, but we need to examine how effectively we are communicating God’s Word.
Seriously? Shadel is a compromiser who is in no position to advise others. One wonders what the editors of Think were thinking. Perhaps they will yet correct the matter and proceed no further down that road.