“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17).

Dedicated to Charlotte Beveridge
School of Law
University of Sussex

The freedom and rights enjoyed by many people today in Western society are taken for granted. They are increasingly understood as being the result of a secular government capable of meeting every need. Rarely is consideration given to the fact that individual liberty and human rights are derivatives of the Judeo-Christian worldview and its impact upon civilization. This brief essay will seek to demonstrate some of the ways in which Judaism/Christianity has left its mark in the courts and law-making institutions around the world.

The Ten Commandments

The decalogue is perhaps the most well-known legal code in the world today. The Ten Commandments form part of the legislation originally given to the prophet Moses on Mt. Sinai. He engraved them on two tablets of stone and presented them to the community of Israelites as the divinely ordained code of conduct they were to follow. The law of Moses stands out from other ancient laws codes, such as The Code of Hammurabi (1750 B.C.), in both its content and its influence. No other extant ancient law code has had such an impact on different civilizations across the world. To this day, the image of Moses and the Ten Commandments adorn the buildings of many of the most powerful courtrooms and legal institutions in the world, most notably the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., indicating that many of the principles found in the Mosaic Law are fundamental to the Western legal tradition. Historian Max Dimont said that the Mosaic legislation was:

“The first truly judicial, written code, and eclipsed previously known laws with its all-encompassing humanism, its passion for justice, its love of democracy.”¹

Undoubtedly, the Judeo-Christian faith shaped many of the assumptions in the Western legal tradition. Will Durant saw the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and your mother” as a statement that set apart the family unit as the foundational, sociological institution. He states:

“The ideals then stamped upon the institution marked throughout the medieval and modern European History until our own disintegrative Industrial Revolution.”²

Other parallels can easily be deduced; the commandment against adultery protected and sanctified the marital relationship, and by extension, the family. Schmoeckel comments that “even the concept of ‘family law’ itself was coined around 1800 due to the influence of Neo-Lutheran protestants.”³

Still further, the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal,” set precedent for private property laws, the ninth, “you shall not bear false witness,” guards against perjury and sets a religious moral precedent for legal procedure.

This ancient law code was carried around the world by the spread of Christianity and has influenced almost every culture in the world in some way.

Natural Law & Human Rights

These two concepts are closely related and have a long history within the western legal tradition. Although natural law theory has a history stretching back to Greco-Roman philosophers, it really came to fruition in Western Christendom. Natural law is the belief that morality can be seen in the natural order of creation and accessed through human reason.⁴ Christianity provided natural law theorists a way of permanently grounding natural law as an unchanging foundation for human laws. Based on the understanding that human beings are all created equal in the image of God, and therefore possess inherent worth dignity and value (Genesis 1:26-27). This understanding operates as a foundation for all theories of human rights – a standard of conduct based on moral principles that express the dignity of humanity. The apostle Paul expressed this position clearly when he said that Gentiles show “the work of the Law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15). Theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas, two people responsible for shaping much of Western thought, continued in this natural law tradition.

Years later in the 17th century, the political philosopher John Locke (1632-1703) applied the natural law concept to government. He developed the idea that life, liberty and property are inalienable rights. Locke argued that governments exist to protect these natural rights. In his classic work Two Treatises of Government (1690), he argues that these natural rights did not exist merely in some Platonic Realm, but rather they were derived from the creation account in Genesis and the doctrine of Imago Dei. The legal scholar Sir William Blackstone, the person responsible for systemizing common law and author of the multi-volume Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) said, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”⁵

The Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence

During the 13th century, the nobles and barons of England, dissatisfied with the tyrannical rule of King John, signed a written agreement between the king and his subjects that would limit the scope of his power. The document, proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton (who is known for dividing the Bible into the chapters we have today), would be called the Magna Carta. This document is influenced by Christian principles and acknowledges God in the Preamble. This Charta secured a number of historic rights for the individual that did not really exist before. Perhaps the most important result was the institution of trial by jury, something taken for granted in British and American law today. Judge J. Wapner pointed out where this principle was first found, “That’s right, in Leviticus. To be precise, in chapter 19, verse 15: ‘In righteousness shalt thou judge thou neighbour.’”⁶ It also set into law the principle that no one is above the law – not even the king. These principles from the Magna Carta still remain in the UK statute book today, clauses 39 & 40.⁷ This is what made Lord Denning, a leading English judge of the 20th century claim that the Magna Carta is “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”⁸

Years later in 1776, Thomas Jefferson penned the American Declaration of Independence. The roots of the Declaration are often traced to the Magna Carta. The founders drew heavily upon the writings of William Blackstone, whose statue sits along constitutional avenue not far from the U.S. Capitol building. The Declaration utilizes the natural rights philosophy of John Locke. The phrase “the law of Nature and of Nature’s God” along with the concept of “inalienable rights” found in the Declaration prove this. The Christian roots of the Declaration are summed up by Gary DeMar:

“The Declaration is a religious document, basing its argument for rights on theological grounds. Rights, the Declaration maintain, are a gift from the creator; ‘We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.’ The logic is simple. No Creator, no rights.”⁹

Liberty and Justice for all

Although we have merely scratched the surface, it is clear that wherever Christianity has had a pervasive influence, it has always moved society in the direction of greater freedom and rights for the individual. The countries that are still dominated by non-Christian religions and governments, built upon non-religious ideals, display a marked lack of individual freedom and often a lower standard of concern for human rights.

Enjoy the rest of this “Christianity & Culture” Series!

_NOTES:

_{¹ Max Dimont, “Jews, God and History,” quoted in: Sara Robbins, ed. Law: A Treasury of Art and Literature. New York: Hugh Levin Associates, Inc. Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990, 20-21.
² Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, Vol. 1. The Story of Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954, 333.
³ Schmoeckel M. (2016) “Christian Influence on Modern Family Law.” In. di Renzo Villata M. (eds) Family Law and Society in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Contemporary Era, Vol. 5. Studies in the History of Law and Justice. Springer, Cham.
⁴ Jeff Myers, Understanding the Culture: A Survey of Cultural Engagement. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook. 2017, 336.
⁵ Marshall Davis Ewell, ed. “Essentials of the Law, Vol. 1,” A Review of Blackstone’s Commentaries with Explanatory Notes for the Use of Students at Law, 2nd ed. Albany, New York: Matthew Bender, 1915, 3.
⁶ Joseph A. Wapner, “From a Judge’s Study,” Guideposts, November 1988, 3-4.
⁷ “Magna Carta, Celebrating 800 Years: Its Origins, Influence and Importance for Today.” Accessed at christian.org.uk.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Gary DeMar, America’s Christian History (1995 edition), 114.}

Pastor Jeff Jackson will be a workshop speaker at the 2017 CCCM Pastors & Leaders Conference on June 26-29. For more information, please visit the website.

The book of Daniel contains some of the most incredibly accurate, predictive prophecy found in the Bible. But that isn’t the only reason the true and living God included this amazing book in His written Word. The book also unpacks real, life-tested, essential truths and principles that can help equip a follower of Jesus to glorify God, regardless of the environment they live within or the government that God permits them to live under.

In fact, I some times refer to this unique book as the Daniel Manual for God-glorifying cross-cultural living.

The book of Daniel is the true story of Daniel and three other teenage Jewish boys that were specially selected and forcibly removed from their own people and their own country. They were resettled to the capitol city of the Babylonian empire, immersed into a three-year indoctrination program, and then assigned to serve in different capacities within the king’s palace for the good of the empire.

The first point of conflict with a government-approved cultural practice came soon after their arrival.

The three-year intensive indoctrination program that was designed to produce highly educated and kingdom-perpetuating monarchy officials, included the royal diet that the king himself and his closest advisors had the pleasure of eating. The king and his advisors believed that since they were brilliant and wise and their diet helped contribute to them being so, then by graciously providing their trainees with the same diet, they would increase the likelihood that these future leaders would also be brilliant and wise and as useful as possible for the good of the kingdom.

When Daniel and his friends were told about the diet they would be required to eat, they immediately recognized that the diet included food and drink that their God had forbidden them and their people to eat. Daniel and his friends resolved in their hearts and minds that they would not eat the diet that was required, regardless of the consequences of that decision.

Daniel then humbly asked their program overseer for permission to not eat the required diet and told him the reason why. He wanted the overseer to know that by eating the prescribed diet, he and his friends would be defiling themselves in the eyes of their God. He requested the overseer to permit them to eat an alternative diet for 10 days and invited him to compare the results produced in them, with the results produced in those that ate the required diet. The overseer agreed, and at the end of the 10 days, discovered Daniel and his friends were in better shape to accomplish the end game purposes of the diet, granting them freedom to eat in accordance with what their God dictated for them to eat.

The bottom line is that because Daniel took the time to figure out what the ultimate purpose of the specific practice was, he was able to offer an alternative that was actually more effective at accomplishing the end game purpose than the practice that already existed.

If the cultural environment we find ourselves in, and the laws of the government we live under continue in the direction that they appear to be moving…

Here are a few cross-cultural ministry principles derived from this incident that I believe God wants us to learn from this specific incident:

1. Our relationship with God and obedience to His clearly understood commands must be our highest priority, regardless of the consequences.
2. When we either recognize or are required by law to participate in a specific, cultural practice that is a violation of God’s will, we must not forget that the majority of the people we live among DO NOT have the same conviction about the practice.

3. We must take the time to understand the end game purpose that the ungodly-specific cultural practice was created to produce, and how it expresses a fundamental value that those in that culture hold.

4. We must trust that with the wisdom and understanding God will give to us, it is possible to create and offer an alternative that BOTH respects the endgame purpose/foundational value that the ungodly-specific cultural practice was created to produce, AND that may actually accomplish it in a more effective manner.

5. We should be confident that the interaction and the relationships we have with those who are not His people, are by His design, for His glory and for the ultimate good of those He places us in contact with.

6. We need to offer them the alternative cultural practice He has shown us, in a humble and loving way that avoids as much as possible, bringing harmful consequences on those who don’t yet know Him.

7. We must be mature enough to know that even though a few people will choose the alternative He has revealed to us, and a comparison will be made with the existing practice, many will still be unwilling to choose the alternative we live by and invited others to take.

As a final example, when these Biblically-based, cross-cultural missionary principles are applied to the accepted cultural practice of abortion, the more than 2,500 Crisis Pregnancy Centers, (compared with 1,700 abortion providers), that now exist in the U.S. are what is produced.

Jeff Jackson will be leading a workshop at the 2017 CCCM Pastors and Leaders Conference, June 26-29.

The Bible is full of admonitions for God’s people to be an expression of His love for the poor and oppressed. This includes caring for the fatherless, the widow and the “strangers” that live among us, (Deuteronomy 10:17-22 being just one of dozens of examples). But does the Bible have anything to say about the strangers who now live in the midst of God’s people because of their craftiness and ability to circumvent the laws that a sovereign people have in place? How should His people interact with them? Is there an example of a situation like this recorded in God’s word? If so, are there any principles to be derived that might apply to the situation followers of Jesus in the United States find themselves in at our moment in history? I believe there are.

Let’s consider those pesky Gibeonites!

I believe that one of the reasons God may have recorded the whole story of the Gibeonites and their interaction with His people way back then, was so that His followers in America more than 2,500 years later would have guidelines on how to represent Him properly in our context today. Without expositing the texts in detail, let me give here are a few key points from the story of Israel and the Gibeonites that I believe contain principles for us today.

God permitted the Gibeonites to deceive Joshua, peace was made with them and a covenant agreed to that would permit the Gibeonites to not only live, but to live among His people (Joshua 9:15).

When they discovered they had been deceived, they didn’t give them what they deserved, which is one of the ways mercy is expressed. A commitment had been made to them, and Joshua wouldn’t permit God’s people to break that commitment…even though the commitment was actually the result of the Gibeonites deceptiveness. This decision was not popular with the majority of God’s people and caused them to complain against their spiritual leaders (Joshua 9:18).

The Gibeonites agreed to be woodcutters and water carriers, (jobs nobody else really wanted to do, like so many of the undocumented that live among us), to live among and be blessed by the blessings God was going to pour out on His people (Joshua 9:21-27).

The “long day of Joshua,” when the sun stood still, was triggered by God’s calling His people to protect the Gibeonites that were living in their midst (Joshua 10:6-15). The Lord fought for Israel in a unique way as Israel was His tool of protection for the “illegals” that lived among them.

Even generations later, mistreatment of the Gibeonites by Saul and some members of his house in their zeal for their own ethnicity brought serious consequences on members of their own family at a later point in time. And David even permitted the Gibeonites to determine what form the justice should take (2 Samuel 21:1-9).

The following are my thoughts based on these principles:

Personally, I’m not commissioned by my government to enforce immigration law, but I am commissioned by my God to love the stranger, the poor and the oppressed, regardless of their immigration status. I don’t view the changing ethnic make-up of our neighborhoods and our country as a threat to the American “way of life.” I view them as an amazing opportunity for me personally and the members of my church and God’s true followers nationwide, to be able to obey the “great commission” (Matthew 28:18-20) and have a direct, participatory role in helping Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 a reality….what a privilege!

If those I serve and share Jesus with are here illegally, and they are apprehended and deported, I will weep with them, encourage them to stand strong as they face the justice of deportation that they deserve, view them as missionaries being sent to a needy mission field, and then maintain communication with them and pray for them as they represent Jesus in their cities and among their own people. And no, I don’t believe any country’s borders should be eliminated. I believe it’s every government’s responsibility to have immigration laws and enforce them. I don’t have a problem with a border fence, national ID cards, or any other reasonable steps a government takes to try to ensure the safety and success of it’s own people.

But none of those things are the responsibility of the kingdom of God. Its priorities, the King’s priorities, are usually quite opposite.

I thank God for those pesky Gibeonites and what we can learn about Him and our responsibilities to those He brings in to the sphere of our lives, regardless of the path He permitted them to take to get here.

Pastor Jeff Jackson will be a workshop speaker at the 2017 CCCM Pastors & Leaders Conference on June 26-29. For more information, please visit the website.

“Nevertheless the centurion was more persuaded by the helmsman and the owner of the ship than by the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 27:11).
“Now when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest beat on us, all hope that we would be saved was finally given up” (Acts 27:20).
“And now, I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship” (Acts 27:22).
I believe it was Plato that first used the phrase “ship of state” to refer to a country and the way its government carries out its affairs; including the impact of the decisions made by those that govern on those who are governed and ultimately on themselves.

With that metaphor in mind, and referencing the facts about the journey of an actual ship recorded in Acts 27 and 28, I’d like to unpack eight truths every follower of Jesus should keep in mind when those with governmental power over our lives make decisions that we not only disagree with, but that could also endanger our lives.

EIGHT NAVIGATIONAL TRUTHS

1. Like the two ships Paul and his companions were forced to board, God places His people on board a “ship of state” that they didn’t choose, that has leaders who don’t navigate according to our beliefs and values, and that forces us to live in community with people that we probably wouldn’t have chosen to live among.

2. The American “ship of state” that God placed us on grants us the privilege of sharing our opinions with those in power and to even exert a measure of influence in regards to the direction we believe the “ship of state” should be moving–and we should gracefully exercise this privilege.

3. But we should also recognize that God may permit those at the helm of our “ship of state” to ignore our desires and influence and move it in a direction that we’re convinced will bring disaster and possibly death upon every one on board and maybe even the destruction of the “ship of state” itself.

4. Regardless of our concerns about the direction the “ship of state” is now heading, our God calls us to live as salt and light, engaging in meaningful relationships and sharing His truth and love with fellow believers and even more so with those who don’t yet know Him–magnifying His greatness and glory through good works.

5. When it becomes obvious that our “ship of state” has been guided in to a massive storm that was probably avoidable, we should follow Paul’s example of fasting and praying for the safety of every one on board.

6. Yet we also need to recognize that it may be God’s plan for the storm to be so destructive that no adjustments, either minor or major, are capable of bringing safety or peace of mind–provoking all on board to lose hope that they will survive.

7. We need to be ready, as Paul was, to testify to all that will listen that there is a God who longs to preserve their lives even as He permits the “ship of state” that He placed them on to be destroyed in the process.

8. When the disaster that destroyed the “ship of state” has passed and people hearts and minds are overwhelmed by what they’ve gone through, we need to be the ones who do the small, practical acts of self-sacrificial service that express God’s love to our fellow community members.

As our country’s leaders continue to sail our “ship of state” in to unknown waters, taking us along with them, the need for followers of Jesus to understand and navigate according to these truths will be essential for representing Him properly to those whose greatest need is to know Him.

This article is part 2 of a 3 part series written by Michael Chaddick. You can find part 1 here: calvarychapel.flywheelsites.com

In our previous article, we explored the fact that for the first 300 years or so of Christian history, the Church had no official place or say in politics. But even so, Christians through the power of prayer, personal influence, and the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, began to influence the world around them, including the emperor of Rome! But as we will see in this week’s article, for better or worse, things would never be the same.

The Road Our People Have Traveled: The Middle Years

In 313 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine issued the edict of Milan, which granted Christianity a legitimate social status for the first time in the Church’s history. And later, in 380 A.D. the Roman Emperor Theodosius went so far as to make Christianity the state religion. This meant that for the first time in history, a faith that had little or no say in the temporal, political processes suddenly became an integral part of that process. This set the stage for the major doctrinal controversies in church history. One reason that many theological points were argued with such vigor was not simply because of the spiritual significance of those points (which is still a partially valid reason I think), but also because those points now represented political persons or entities, and thus religious belief became almost equal to political opinion in some cases. [For example, one of Constantine’s three sons, Constantius, might have supported the Arian belief system, not simply due to sincere theological belief that the Son was a created being, but also because he ruled the East where there just so happened to be a large constituency of Arians. It is no accident that his two brothers were what we would call “orthodox” in their Christology, and would soon go to war with each other over consolidation of the Empire.¹]

Christian opinion within the Church differed as to whether or not this new political development was a good thing. Some believed that by becoming political, the church had stopped being an otherworldly institution, and became just another worldly political institution–albeit with better morals. (In fact, this is what caused some to seek refuge in monasticism. Monasticism became a viable alternative to a Church perceived to be infiltrated by the world.) In fact, it has become quite fashionable in academic circles to blame the downfall of the Church on Constantine. In particular, there are a number of scholars who assume a Marxist-sociological approach to the study of Christian history and theology in which Church .vs. Empire becomes the controlling paradigm for them. While there is definitely some truth to such a conception, it is quite obvious that it is also a political ideology, which presupposes the validity of a certain conception of what “this-worldly” government ought to be.

Other results of this church-state fusion were that the “pomp and pageantry” of the Roman state, previously foreign to the Christian Church, radically transformed its worship. And then came the practice of “simony”, which was the buying and selling of church offices for money! As strange as this sounds, the only reason anyone would pay money to work for the Church was that it essentially became a political office. Lastly, many Protestants would say that the corruption of doctrine in the Roman Church was at least partly the result of the ungodly alliance of Church and state. On the other hand, there were great reasons to believe that this joining, or fusion of Church-state was nothing less than a gift from above.

Listen to this story from Church history:

Not only this, but some Catholics would point out that what appeared as the church bowing to the state, was in some cases, the opposite. The state sometimes bowed to the Church! The most vivid example of this was when Bishop Ambrose of Milan (340-397 AD) refused to serve Emperor Theodosius the Eucharist until he had publicly repented of his role in slaughtering thousands of villagers in revenge for a riot. In this case, the Emperor conceded to the Bishop. The state bowed to the church. While it is not difficult to admit that the Constantinian era invited compromise, it is also easy to see why some viewed this positive relationship between the Church and state as a gift from God. After all, did Paul the Apostle not say, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18)?

So what have we learned that would help us frame the modern Church-state discussion? First, when Christians had no power, they were persecuted. And while it may be glorious to choose to suffer for Christ’s sake, it would be much harder to watch your spouse, children, and fellow believers hauled away to prison and death. Being politically engaged helped avert such atrocities. Second, we saw how political allegiance with the state altered the Church in such a way that the Church was changed significantly. While seeking to influence the state, Christians ought be very wary about the fact that political engagement often involves compromise. Next week, we will look at the unique position we Christians find ourselves in the United States of America.

¹See Justo L. Gonzalez’s excellent book The Story of Christianity, vol.1.
²Taken from: www.christianhistoryproject.org

In a perfect world we would not need to govern people in the earthly sense, because everyone would behave just as they should. Obviously, the same would be true in the church. However, the church is full of sinners, redeemed sinners, but sinful people nonetheless. Yes, we have a new heart and a new position in Christ, yet we still sin every day we are on this earth. Pastors and leaders are not even exempt from this plight. The great reformer, Martin Luther, is known for often using the Latin phrase, “simul justus et peccator”, which means that we in the church are simultaneously both saint and sinner. With this in mind, we need a plan to help us flawed saints to function properly in community with one another. Proper church governance is a necessity in order to hold men and women accountable to God and to each other.

We know that the Holy Spirit birthed the church: as believers, we are now redeemed men and women under the “Head” who is Christ (Ephesians 1:22, Colossians 1:18). According to Ephesians 4, Jesus also equips people through dispensing spiritual ‘gifts’ to His church. Within God’s various giftings, He has provided leaders to serve His church. They are to lead under His guidance and by His Spirit as they use the spiritual gifts that He has graciously provided. However, (and this is very important) God has set these leaders in the ‘body of Christ’ to be part of an accountable whole. Let’s remember that church leaders are gifted people sharing the Gospel, yet they themselves are still growing in the likeness of Christ.

Since God has given spiritual gifts to His church for the purpose of governing (while at the same time there is the persistent problem of sin) how must we organize to carry out His mission on earth? Well, God has made it abundantly clear: we are to function as a body (1Corinthians 12:20). How then does a body function? A body functions as a set of equal and necessary parts all connected to the head, the command center for the body. No body part is any greater than any other as the Apostle Paul so eloquently elaborates. When one part of the body is valued or looked at as greater than the rest, it gets unhealthy. Only Christ Himself, the preeminent Head, is greater.

Keeping this very important fact in mind, let me share three essential points to consider when selecting a style of church governance. These are general guidelines not intended to get into the ‘nitty-gritty’, but to emphasize that we have some clear non-negotiable guidelines that apply no matter what governance model a church adopts.

Is the model Biblical?

God appoints leaders to the church to protect the integrity of the Gospel (Acts 15), and to build up His people in the Word of God (Acts 6:1-7). There are many profound examples of leaders in both the Old and New Testaments of Scripture. For example, Moses, Joshua, David, Jehoshaphat, and Esther (among many others) were leaders appointed by God in the Old Testament. Christ Himself also appointed and empowered apostles, by the Holy Spirit, to be leaders in the New Testament. Of course, Jesus was undeniably the greatest leader who ever lived, so ultimately we want to follow His leadership model. Hermeneutics 101 is interpreting the whole of Scripture with Scripture itself. We call this maintaining the unity of Scripture. Therefore it makes sense to apply this principle to the formation of our ecclesiology. It’s helpful to glean from all the men and women God used throughout Scripture as leaders of His church, but especially Jesus.

In the New Testament, we are given clear structural guidelines for what governance should look like in the church. In Acts 6:1-6, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, and Acts 20:17 we see that leaders need to be “appointed” to oversee or “govern” the church. In 1 Peter 5:1-4, 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9 we also see the character traits that must accompany the overseers. Please take time to read these passages, they exemplify what the Apostles require in the lives of those who would govern under Christ’s authority.

Is the model spiritual?

By spiritual I mean, there a spiritual purpose. Spiritual oversight of the church is necessary, but also spiritual oversight of the governing members. The purpose of church governance biblically is to help keep the church in a spiritually pure place – a place in which Christ is supremely exalted. Whenever sinful human agendas cloud the true purpose of the church, a spiritually minded governing body should graciously, yet firmly, steer people back towards the glory of Christ. When adopting a governance model, questions should be asked about what safeguards should be in place in order to maintain the spiritual focus of the leaders and the flock they are shepherding.

Is the model sustainable?

As the gospel goes out from the church, the Lord adds to the church, and in many cases multiplies the church. The church is then continually reproduced in other communities, cultures, and contexts. In a church’s history there is always a founding group of oversight, but as time goes on and people are added, will the founders’ model endure to the next generation? Will the model work in other cultures and in missions? These are good questions to ask. For example, certain corporate models of organization familiar to the American church, do not work well in other ethnic contexts. Overseas missionaries will tell you that what works in America does not always work well in the country they serve in. Therefore it is important that the guidelines laid out in Scripture are appropriately contextualized to each unique culture where Jesus is building His church. This requires much prayer and sensitivity wherever you may be serving in the Lord’s Kingdom. Christ does not want to see the church’s advancement crippled under the weight of man made tradition. Ultimately, if a church governing body seeks to continually maintain its biblical integrity and remains humble in exalting Christ alone, it will be impossible for the Gospel to be marginalized, no matter what culture we serve in.