We Let This Happen?

Pastor Bill Farrow

Home | Church Info | Members | Doctrine | Studies | Missionaries | Youth | Articles

I preached on the mess that is going on regarding the 10 commandments in the West Chester Courthouse yesterday. One of the things that I said was that this is more a case for mourning and grief then it is for outrage and anger. The congregation generally agreed with what I had to say but one comment, innocently made, troubled me and I'd like to think about it a bit.

''We let this happen..." was the comment made by the individual in question. What he meant was that the church at large, by its inaction in the post, allowed the situation to arise that resulted in the current situation. At some time in the past decade or two, the enemies of God mobilized and attacked and the church, for whatever reason, failed to respond and act to prevent the foundation for the current anti-Christian attacks from being laid.

It is the implication of the statement that I find difficult to reconcile. It is one thing to observe that perhaps the body should have been more animated and energetic in its opposition to the attacks of the enemies of God. That might be argued with some success. However, the tacit assumption of this line of logic is that if we had opposed the enemies of God in the way that we should have, then we would have won. Things would be different if only we had done what we should have. The idea is that if God's people had mobilized , then God would certainly have answered and given us victory - and things would have proceeded differently and the church would be winning now instead of losing, as we obviously are. It seems like those who espouse this idea think along the line that Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church if the church co- operates with God and holds up their end.

Obviously, there are serious problems with this reasoning. It may well be that the church could have done more to oppose the enemies of God and to stand up for His righteousness in days past. But then, it may not be so either. The fact of the matter is that the church struggled plenty hard against the enemy in the years in question. We didn't just lay down and let them have their way. The assumption is, this is the only way that the other side could have gotten to where they are. But that assumption is in error. It does not leave room for the sovereign plan of God.

Nor does it rest on solid theological ground as its assumptions are basically Arminian. They assume that we have the capacity to do whatever we wish, and that it lies with us to do it! It is faulty at the very start. It is basically an appeal to man's pride and ego. Surely, if we had but tried hard enough, we would have, could have, and should have won out.