Charting Mission Drift in the Local Church

Even while there are starbursts of hope on the horizon, mission drift should never be taken lightly. Shifting away from the biblical teaching and practicing biblical evangelism are symptomatic of and precedent to identifiable doctrinal drift. When a pastor or church no longer esteems direct evangelism appropriate, it is usually disguised by emphasizing relationship evangelism or servant evangelism. Non-participation in direct evangelism easily morphs into antagonism to direct evangelism. While there is a warning here, at the end of this blog I highlight four encouraging trends displaying that God is truly at work in His church.

This topic is like trying to make sense of bowl of Jambalaya. There are so many interacting and moving parts that it becomes difficult to comprehend the blending and rehashing. The goal of this short blogpost is to introduce four overlaid charts that seek to develop a framework for identifying the problem of evangelistic drift. Each of the four charts introduces another layer of consideration into this topic. 

Chart One introduces the lifecycle of an organization. Chart Two applies the lifecycle terminology to the development of a denomination, from evangelism and church planting all the way to disintegration. Chart Three inserts red boxes to show how views of evangelism overlay over the lifecycle of an Evangelical church movement. Chart Four shows how institutional churches try to tap the zeal and power of an evangelistic fervor of the “incipient stage” with “church planting,” or the growth of the “formalizing state” with “church growth.” Other layers could also be added to this framework. It is the view of this author that what is needed is a return to New Testament evangelism in theory and practice at every stage of church life. It is only by following the teachings and examples of the Bible that God’s love is shed abroad in believing hearts. 

“And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” Romans 5:3-5.

This tribulation produced love from God then flows through the entire church when they are zealously obedient to Christ’s Great Commission.

Chart 1: Five Stages in Organizational Lifecycle

The chart above displays the five stages of a social institution, as described by David Moberg in his book, The Church as a Social Institution. These five stages are descriptive of organizational reality. They will provide the basis for understanding the rise and fall of the local church. Let it be clear that if a local church lasts 100 years in the United States, it is an unusual church. This is especially so if it maintains its original purposes and goals after 100 years. Most churches close long before they achieve their 100-year mark.

This fact begs the question: have there not been Baptist churches in the United States since the State of Providence was founded in 1638, how can it be that churches do not survive, and new ones must be planted? The reason is mission drift and doctrinal drift. After these two forms of mildew eat away the heart of the churches where they thrive, the leave a hollow shell that eventually closes.

The five stages in the lifecycle of an organization are:

• Incipient Stage: Typified by zeal and fervor, founding members will cross rivers and plains to preach the gospel to one and all. Revival fires glow. The Holy Spirit is breathing out a new work of God.
• Formalizing Stage: Typified by hard working pastors who gather congregations together, continuing in the footsteps of their founders. They boldly evangelize and gather members into churches.
• Administrative Efficiency: Sometimes one or two generations removed from the founders, the new pastors apply new methods and principles of administration to best shepherd the flock of God in their care. There is no need for outsiders to be brought in since the churches are healthy and prosperous from the efforts of the founding generations.
• Institutionalization: As evangelism wains, so love diminishes, and zeal for spiritual things becomes rare. Soon the church becomes introverted and works-oriented as it focuses on its own health and survival. Love grows cold. Church leaders run the church like businessmen do a business. The Spirit slowly says, “Ichabod.”
• Disintegration: The church knows that it is dying. They may have money in the bank. They may control sizable real estate. But soon the numbers diminish, and they are no longer able to pay the light bills. Desperation mounts to maintain the institution that they once were. This is a sad time for any church.
• Political Assimilation: To Moberg’s five stages I have added 5-B. There are some churches that defy the funeral home envisaged in this last stage. When a church receives support from taxes, they can continue indefinitely no matter how many people do or do not attend that church. The giving to the church is less important. Practicality speaking, evangelism is less important. This is where State-Churches do not follow the five-stage paradigm of Moberg.

Every local church fits somewhere on this paradigm. It is helpful to begin to evaluate where we are so that we can best return to the biblical teachings and methods.

Chart 2: Stages of Denominational Power

As churches walk their way through their own history, each stage marks difficulties and opportunities for them. Early church planters are unknown in their towns and cities. They are like outcasts seeking to start another church in a town that may be filled with other churches (in the U.S. for example). But once a new church begins to grow, the church planter gain recognition and respectability. If God continues to bless their work with faithful members his spiritual “power base” increases.

Soon the church planters may find themselves in conflict with the pastors of institutionalized churches that are waning. If church planters are more spiritually oriented (as the paradigm suggests), they may lock horns with pastors that have slipped down the slippery slope of compromise. It may appear to be generational conflict, but on a deeper level, it may be a Great Commission conflict, and even a doctrinal conflict.

Meanwhile, the institutional churches generally hold the levers of power. They control the finances and board rooms of the institutions created by prior generations of churches, such as conventions, schools, and even publishing houses. The older pastors understand church politics, and they do not intend to give up that control.

Are these battles only generational or institutional? It seems like there is an underlying evangelistic or spiritual component that may ignite or fuel these battles to epic proportions.

Chart 3: Stages of Evangelistic Philosophy

Before a church becomes a dying church, biblical evangelism has long been abandoned. Evangelism may be discussed in the hymns and Sunday School curriculum, but it is no longer practiced. There is a key point in a local church’s lifecycle when aggressive evangelism is considered counter-productive and unnecessary.

The church did not start out that way. Most Evangelical churches are founded by Evangelists through Revival Movements. Souls were aggressively sought. Direct evangelism was encouraged from the pulpits and practiced in the pews. But as the church budget grows and church staff swells, there is often a moving away from the urgencies of evangelism.

Culture begins to encroach into church evangelism methods. Mass marketing and client-management tools replace personal evangelism. Sermons no longer plead for souls to be saved. The need for a healthy weekly offering weighs heavy on the heart of the pastor as he prepares his sermons. Prominent people from town may now attend his church. The pressures of success are real. It takes an unusual pastor to keep the bow of the ship of the church clearly pointed toward Christ’s Great Commission. Praise God for men such as these!

On the other hand, ungrounded leaders listen to the sirens of culture calling out to ship’s captains, causing them to veer towards spiritual reefs. 

Chart 4: Attempts to Regain Patterns of Growth

Some local church sociologists may market a “form of godliness” (2 Tim 3:5) of techniques of church planting or church growth to institutional churches. These techniques fit with the evangelistic philosophy of institutional churches. However, these culturally relevant methodologies often lack the two essential components for power in witness:

1. The power of the word of God, Hebrews 4:12-13: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.”
2. The power of the gospel of Christ, Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”

The culturally relevant methods have all the trappings of earthly success, but they lack Holy Spirit power. They also lack the love of God, which God sheds on His people as they evangelize through persecution for the gospel.

Natural means yields natural success. Spiritual means produces spiritual success. Earthly means yields temporal success. Divine means produce eternal success. Regenerate Christians have been gifted the “power of God unto salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Why would we trade in this most powerful weapon for the broken cisterns of human methods.

God blesses His Word. He blesses His Gospel. He blesses biblical evangelism.

Several Amazingly Encouraging Trends

As Moberg’s five stages of organizational life are studied, there are trends that show that Southern Baptists are breaking the mold of mainline U.S. churches. The first major miracle was the Conservative Resurgence that took place especially from 1980 to 1990. As the recipient of a Doctor of Philosophy from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, graduating in 2001, I became a student after Dr. Albert Mohler led significant changes at the school. I am deeply grateful. In the majority of U.S. seminaries, I would have had to fight for inerrancy, the virgin birth, and the substitutionary atonement in most doctoral seminars or colloquia. My degree would have had little to do with biblical evangelism and a lot to do with sociology of religion. Southern Seminary was both rigorous and a breath of fresh air in my academic preparation. The six SBC seminaries remain an encouraging modern trend.

The six seminaries takes biblical inerrancy seriously and are firmly planted on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. There is brilliant hope for the future.

The second positive trend that I have experienced for over 25 years is that SBC leaders are constantly seeking out young talent. When Dr. Jason Allen was hired as President of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where I taught on campus for 19 years, I was truly impressed. The SBC machinery of churches, associations, entities, committees, boards, conferences, conventions, and fellowships allows young talent to be noted, trained, and deployed, some into prominent leadership roles. The highly qualified Dr. Allen came to Midwestern as President at the age of 35.

A third trend regards the North American Mission Board’s (NAMB) Church Replanting ministry. Their Replanting webpage (https://www.namb.net/church-replanting) is devoted to replanting and revitalizing struggling churches. Included on this page is Mark Clifton’s weekly podcast, “Mondays with Mark.” This emphasis shows that NAMB takes the reality of organizational lifecycles seriously, to the point where they have implemented a strategy to address this threat.

Fourthly, NAMB's new "Evangelism Kit" (https://www.namb.net/evangelism/kit/) is an amazing breakthrough in mobilizing Southern Baptists all across the U.S. to be involved in New Testament evangelism. This kit marks a full return to incipient stage evangelism by affirming and encouraging New Testament principles of evangelism.

Additionally, there are some amazingly positive trends on the mission fields of the world where Evangelical missionaries are drawing from the raw material of the New Testament to develop powerful movements of evangelism and discipleship. While a study of these trends is beyond the scope of this paper, they only add to the encouragement of God’s hand at work.

And yet drift happens and is happening. Like Jambalaya, these charts exemplify many moving parts in organizational stages and mission drift in the life of the local church. What might be some takeaways? Here are four recommendations:

1. Identify the organizational stage of your local church.
2. Consider your philosophy of evangelism.
3. Acknowledge compromise if it has taken place.
4. Repent of compromise and ask God to restore you to your first love and the sound pattern of His Holy Word.

Although mission drift will always be a part of a fallen world, it need not snatch us into its net.

Confused Catholicity

 “All things are lawful to me, but not all things are helpful.” 1 Cor 10:23.

It appears that “catholicity” is replacing the term “ecumenism”—and that for good reason as we shall see below. Meanwhile, the use of “catholicity” represents an interesting non sequetor. That inconsistency pertains to use of the word “catholic” with a small “c” and “Catholic” with a capital “c”. The first use with a small “c” is to be understood to mean “universal.” The use with a capital “c” is understood to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

The ambiguity and confusion are quite alarming. I recall attending a church that placed the Apostles’ Creed in its bulletin with an asterisk by the word “catholic” to explain that it meant “universal.” It is interesting that a 20^thCentury Evangelical church using a Second or Third Century creed, eventually translated from the Latin, keeps one ambiguous transliterated term in its liturgy. Granted, it was probably borrowed from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, only removing the “k” from the end of the word, “The Holy Catholick Church.”[1] Meanwhile, modern Evangelicals are taught to remove “borrowed terms” from modern Bible translations.

The policy-making agreement for worldwide Bible translation work, “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible” (1968), included an important a statement regarding the use of loan words from other languages:

“For major languages borrowing should be kept at a strict minimum, for all such languages have a sufficiently large vocabulary or phrasal equivalence to make borrowing relatively unnecessary”[2]

“Guiding Principles” were originally drafted by the hand of Eugene Nida in 1964.[3] Whatever malaise was applied to loan words in Bible translation, it curiously does not seem to apply to Creeds. For this reason, the word “catholic” continues to be used in the Apostles Creed to this day, even though it is confusing to those who read it.

For the Roman Catholic Church, the Apostles’ Creed belongs to them, therefore it is uniquely in their purview to interpret it and its terminology. For example, it was his treason against the word “Catholic” in the Apostles Creed that John Huss was sent to the stake in Constance on July 6, 1415. In the meantime, according to the 1208 “Profession of Faith Prescribed to the Waldenses,” the word “Roman” was added to the list of adjectives describing the Catholic Church:

“We believe with our heart and confess with our mouth only one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Church, Catholic, Apostolic, outside of which we believe that no person is saved.”[4]

Notice that the word “Roman” was added to the list of descriptors of the “catholic” church in 1208, Rome thereby clarifying their self-understanding.[5] From these two examples, it is clear that this loan word from Latin, “catholic,” comes a thorny and polemic historical context.

Modern scholars seem to be using the noun “catholicity” as a synonym for “ecumenism” or “cooperation.” The concept of catholicity may be founded on the false notion that there was a consensus of faith in the Early Church. Prior to Constantine there were a multiplicity of approaches to the church and the gospel, which is confirmed by the existence of the seven major autocephalous (having their own head) Orthodox Churches in the modern times. In addition to these verifiable autocephalous churches, numerous other churches can be discerned in histories by their inclusion among the listings as either rival churches or heretical churches.

If there was a consensus of faith within the State-Church movement initiated by Constantine, after he saw a cross in the heavens and heard a voice saying, “Conquer with this,” that consensus came with significant compromises to the gospel. Some of these compromises include:

·      General Atonement and universal salvation—to accommodate every person living within any given state.

·      Sacramentalism politically silencing its rival Evangelical soteriology—Sacramentalism became the approved means of grace, largely due to the ecclesio-doctrinal and political efforts of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine.

·      Although against the teaching of the Pastoral Epistles, church leaders were called priests.

·      Although idolatrous from a biblical point-of-view, state churches did not forbid the veneration of Mary, angels, and saints, and prayer to the same.

·      The Great Commission was revised to champion the use of the sword to conquer lands and people for the benefit of church and empire.

Many more compromises and heresies can be added to this list.[6]

In the mid-19^th Century the use of the word “ecumenical” was originally used for interconfessional cooperation among Evangelicals in their missiological endeavors. This was the case as noted in the “New York 1900 Ecumenical Missionary Conference.” The term “ecumenical” transitioned to mainline Protestant use after the 1910 Edinburgh World Missionary Conference. The Ecumenical Movement transitioned again on August 23, 1948, with the founding of the World Council of Churches. Then on November 21, 1964, 2,156 Roman Catholic bishops assembled at the Second Vatican Council approved the decree “Lumen Gentium” (2,151 for and 5 against). In this most recent emendation, the word “ecumenical” moved from pan-Christian to pan-religious:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too many achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.”[7]

The term ecumenical in missionary conference circles went from describing Evangelical missions. It morphed into a mainstream Protestant use. Then once the Roman Catholic Church entered into the Ecumenical waters, it quickly took on a pluralistic religious overtone. This same pan-religious emphasis was confirmed in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions [other than Judaism and Islam] that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.’”[8]

In a way it is easy to understand why the term “ecumenism” has gone into disuse among 21^st Century American Evangelicals. Perhaps that is why some Evangelicals are now looking to use the term “catholicity.”

It may also be helpful to consider noted Evangelicals who “returned” to Catholicism in the last 100 years as a point of caution:

·      In 1922: G.K. Chesterton, Author, Evangelist, and Apologist.

·      In 1985: Tom Howard, brother of David Howard and Elisabeth Elliot.

·      In 2007: Francis Beckwith, president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

The path they trod is well worn. Waldensian Pastor and Evangelist, Durand of Osca took this path from 1204 to 1206. His reconversion into Catholicism led to the writing cited above, the 1208 “Profession of Faith Prescribed to the Waldenses.”

Confusing discipleship is not helpful for the next generation of Christians. Hence another term is needed to reflect the spirit of “catholicity” experienced by some young Evangelicals today. A term should be chosen that does not carry significant ecclesiastical polemic. “Great Commission Partners” is used by some missionaries to delineate other Evangelical mission organizations with similar views of the gospel and whom they can partner. More seem to be using the term “Reformed” to delineate an affirmation with the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation. Whatever the case, "catholicity" does not appear to be a helpful term.

---

[1]The Book of Common Prayer and the Administration of the Sacraments… (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, n.d.), 23.

[2]“Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible”; from Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P., and John B. Sheerin, C.S.B., eds. Doing the Truth in Charity: Statements of Pope Paul VI, Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity 1964-1980. (New York: Paulist, 1982), 164.

[3]Nida was the Executive Secretary of Translations of the American Bible Society from 1946 until 1980. A position from which he was able to make personnel and funding decisions for worldwide Bible translation for 35 years. These 35 years were marked by important transitions in original language textual work and worldwide Bible translation—a transition that Nida superintended from his position. “Guiding Principles” were eventually reworked and jointly published by the Roman Catholic Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the United Bible Society Executive Committee on Pentecost, June 2, 1968. A revised edition of this strategic plan was renamed to “Guidelines,” approved by the President of the Society for Promoting Christian Unity and the Honorary President of the United Bible Societies in 1987. It is currently housed on the Vatican website.

[4]Heinrich Denzinger, Peter Hünermann (ed., original edition), and Joseph Hoffmann (ed., French edition), Symboles et définitions de la foi catholique: Enchiridion Symbolorum (aka. Denzinger, or DS), 38^th ed. (37^th ed., Freiburg: Herder, 1997; Paris: Cerf, 2005), §792; translation mine.

[5]Jean Gonnet and Amedeo Molnar, Les Vaudois au Moyen Age (Torino, Italy: Claudiana, 1974), 5.

[6]“A Century by Century Quickview of Developments in Western Christianity,” Chart 6 in “Timelines for Western Christianity: Chronological Theology”; available following a link at: https://www.evangelismunlimited.org/c/evangelism-in-church-history (Online); accessed 6 Oct 2023; Internet.

[7]“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium” (21 Nov 1964) §16; available at: http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/vaticanii/lumen-gentium.html; accessed 19 April 2007.

[8]Catechism of the Catholic Church [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1994], §843.

Diagnosing the Disease of Many Questions

Sometimes in street evangelism, in the local church, or even in the classroom settings I encounter persons who pepper me with tangential questions. I barely construct an answer to their first question when very soon another one arises. In many cases, clear biblical answers do not bring them peace. They seem to be plagued with a specific ailment—the sickness of many questions.

Paul helped Timothy diagnose this disease in persons who sometimes make their way into local churches.

“If anyone teaches otherwise, and assents not to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the teaching which is according to godliness, he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but is morbid about questions and strifes of words, from which come envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind, and robbed of the truth, supposing that godliness is a means of gain.” 1 Tim 6:3-5-ABPS (1913).

There exists a “morbidity about questions” as this translation puts it—or a “sickness of trifling questions.” The prognosis of this ailment implies that those struck by this disease either ignore that they have it or cannot remedy their antagonistic cognitive thunderstorms.

They convulse under the spell of an epilepsy of doubt. Never satisfied with any answer from the Bible, their “pride of life” retrieves another juicy bone of contention to overwhelm their hopeful spiritual benefactor. Are these not the “wells without water and the clouds carried by the tempest” as described by Peter (2 Pet 2:17-NKJ)?

Who are these quasi-Christians beset with this deadly disease? How can they be vetted? Is there hope for them?

These quasi-Christians sound smart. They position themselves as brilliant, using Pyrrhonic logic they destroy any and all propositions made about God or man. They cloak themselves as contemporary Voltaire’s or David Hume’s. “They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walks through the earth” (Psa 73:9).

Did Peter temporarily suffer from this ailment when he reproved the Lord Jesus in Matthew 18:22? Did not pride swell his heart after God had revealed to him the true identity of Jesus?

In an interesting portion of Deuteronomy 29, God through Moses described a disease in this same family:

“So that there may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations, and that there may not be among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood; and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart’—as though the drunkard could be included with the sober.” Deut 29:18-19.

At the root of this disease called “wormwood” was total selfishness and pride: “I shall follow the dictates of my own heart!”

God does not tolerate this ailment. He promised that he would forcefully remove this diseased branch. “The Lord would blot out his name from under heaven.” (Deut 29:20). Likewise, Jesus borrowed the punishment language of Moses in John 15:

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” John 15:6.

Meanwhile, quasi-Christians with this disease of disputes act as Christians and prey on Christians. It’s a game for them! Knowing the right words, they lack the necessary broken and contrite heart. They will not submit to the clear teachings of the Bible. Nor have they repented of their own total inability to save themselves. Rather they prefer their own imaginations about salvation. This disease is deadly!

People have honest questions. An honest question deserve a sincere answer--even if the answer is, “I don’t know.” But then, there is the disease of many questions. The attentive Christian, “wise as a serpent,” should early differentiate between the contrite heart and the crafty soul.

When recognized, Paul gave the admonition that the diseased person should be shunned after a first and second encounter.

“But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.” Titus 3:9-11.

Yet is there hope for such a quasi-Christian? Yes. Paul also held out an olive branch of expectation.

“And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” 2 Thess 3:14-15.

Clearly, Paul’s response to a factious man was not a public burning at the stake. Rather, he held out the hope that this person might repent and accept admonishment.

Likewise, a discussion of the disease of many questions demands our godly introspection:

• Does your heart churn with antagonism and contradiction as you read and meditate on the teachings of the Bible?
• Is your heart quieted by the reproofs and promises of God’s words?

Certainly, if our heart is churning and chaffing against the Bible’s admonitions, then we have soul-searching to do. We ought not rest until we have repented of our sin of pride, and humbly submitted to God who speaks perfectly in, with, and by His Holy words.

If a brother or sister in our church appears struck with this ailment, reach out to them one time, then a second time. No more. Do not allow yourself to be caught in their trap, picking up their dreadful disease. After two encounters we can do no more. We must obey the teachings of Paul.

Deliver us, Lord, from the disease of many questions.

The Divine Nature of the Bible

The term “Bible” is used in the title of this article because I speak of true words on a page. Sometimes the term “Word of God” applies to an ethereal ideal that has no basis in today’s world. The following text addresses the divine nature of the Bible, the Scriptures, or the Word of God.

My thoughts move to the Psalmist’s description of words on a page as found in Psalm 119. This man of God interweaved four concepts that portray the divine nature of the words of the Word of God, rightly transferred and applied to the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as to the New Testament.

• God’s Word is eternal. 

While mentioned four times in Psalm 119:89, 144, 152, and 160, perhaps one verse will be enough to exemplify the Psalmists view of the eternality of Special Revelation: Psalm 119:152, “Concerning Your testimonies, I have known of old that You have founded them forever.”

• God’s special revelation is both righteous and upright. 

Another truth repeated across the pages of Scripture and in 10 verses of Psalm 119: 62, 75, 106, 123, 128, 137, 138, 144, 160, and 164. Here are two verses that repeat these ideas several times: Psalm 119:137-138, “Righteous (tsedeq) art Thou, O Lord, And upright (yashar) are Thy judgments. Thou hast commanded Thy testimonies in righteousness (tsedeq) And exceeding faithfulness.”

• The truthfulness of God’s words 

Is reaffirmed in Psalm 119:43, 142, 151, and 160. For example, Psalm 119:160 reads, “The sum of Thy word is truth, And every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.”

• So also, God’s special revelation is deemed faithful

In Psalm 119:86 and 138. Psalm 119:138 reads, “Thou hast commanded Thy testimonies in righteousness And exceeding faithfulness.”

These four characteristics, eternality, righteousness, truth, and faithfulness are divine truths. The Psalmist seems to approach the Bible as if it were a divine book, not-at-all tainted by the sin nature of man. So also, a Psalm of David attributes to the written Word of God all the attributes of God:

Psalm 138:2, “For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.”

If, in fact, these things are true, would not God be required to create a “womb” around His Words, much like Jesus was kept pure from the sin nature of man within the womb of Mary? This womb would have to protect the original inscription of the individual words, and also the transcription of those words over the years.

It is clear that there is a mystery in the God-man homeostasis at work in all these processes. Further, it is obvious that the “serpent of old” was not asleep as God’s words became living and active agents of His will within this world. Yes, there are many complexities involved:

• Original inscription of the words from the mind of God and the mind of the human author.
• Original inscription of the words onto some type of medium: stone, velum, or papyrus.
• Transcription by numerous scribes through the years with the oversight of leaders: Priests and Levites for the Hebrew Scriptures, Bishops and Pastors for the New Testament Scriptures.
• The inevitability of some scribal error in the transcription processes.
• The storage, guarding, and maintenance of “best texts” by Bishops and Pastors within the history of the churches.
• The translation of these original language texts into the many languages of the world.

It appears, from Scripture, that God continues to guard these procedures. While they are not beyond the impact of “savage wolves … not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). God promised to preserve His words, and He is doing so in His way. Paul could speak to the Ephesian elders with divine assurance:

Acts 20:32, “So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”

The “word of His grace” would preserve God’s people from the “savage wolves” he prophesied would ravage the flock of God. The only way that these words of grace could fulfill their promise of inheritance and accomplish their work of sanctification is if they themselves continued to perform these designated divine duties. God must-needs preserve His words. He has not left them to be devoured and twisted by the corruptions of men.

Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the Lord are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.”

How God is accomplishing this feat remains within the depth of the riches of His unsearchable wisdom.

Prayers of Blessing

Several years ago, I was going door-to-door in North Kansas City with a Midwestern student. After an older woman answered the door, I said, “Hello. My name is Tom and this is [my partner]. We are with [local church] and are telling people about Jesus. Have you heard of Jesus?” To this question the woman answered, “I’m sorry. I belong to [name of denomination] and I’m not interested.” I responded by saying, “Would you mind if I pray a prayer of blessing on your home?” To this the woman replied, “That would be fine.”

At this point, I began to pray in the name of Jesus every good thing that I could think of. I prayed what the Lord brought to my mind that I thought this woman may need:

• That God Himself would protect her home
• That His guardian angels would surround her and keep her safe
• That the Lord would keep evil far away from her home
• That God would bless her and all who enter her home
• That her financial needs would be met
• That God would keep sickness far from her
• That He would bless her local church and its pastor
• That the Lord would reveal Himself to her and give her peace, and
• That, if she did not know Jesus as her Savior and Lord, she would soon come to know Him as such.

As I prayed I literally sought to ask for everything positive that I could think of, knowing that we have a God who answers prayer!

Now, is it legitimate to pray a blessing for people in this way? Absolutely. In Romans 12:14, Paul encouraged blessing and not cursing:

Rom 12:14, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.”

Jesus taught His followers to pray even for their enemies:

Luke 6:27-28, “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.”

If we ought to pray for our enemies, it only makes sense that it is also commendable to pray blessings upon people whom we do not yet know.

In any case, the older woman at her door thanked us for the prayer. Yes, she told us that she was already a born-again Christian. We were soon in a friendly conversation about the spiritual needs in her area. We gently asked questions about her spiritual welfare. Loving prayer opened the door of conversation and friendship with this woman. In the case of this woman, I turned over her contact information to the church planting pastor.

One church leader reminded us in chapel that when a person allows you to pray for them, you become their pastor. Go back and visit them two weeks later. See how they are doing. Pray for them again. The Lord may use that heartfelt concern to open doors for the gospel.

In our tool-bag of evangelism resources, let’s not forget the power of prayers of blessing. If a person has a hearing of faith or even a slight inclination toward the gospel, prayer can be a powerful tool. They will recognize that they are being brought by name before the throne of grace to find mercy and help in time of need as we pray for them:

Heb 4:16, “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Let the words of our mouth bless and not curse.