CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Some of the issues listed below should not be taking up as much time and energy as they are in conservative local churches today. Instead of defending doctrines like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or His atonement on the cross against those who would call them into doubt, we find ourselves dealing primarily with disputes over things like preferences in music style. While these things are important to some extent, the time and focus they have been given is out of proportion. So we do not list our positions here in an effort to stir up strife, but rather to settle it down. It is our goal, that in offering clarity and transparency on our feelings on some of these secondary issues we will help avoid misunderstandings and conflicts in our ministry. With these misunderstandings and conflicts taking less of our time and energy, we will then be freed up to keep our focus on defending the core doctrines of our faith.

I. MUSIC

We believe that a literal and consistent interpretation of the New Testament demands a distinct style of music from the world’s music both for the individual Christian and for the church in corporate worship (Worldly music meaning music that communicates both verbally and non-verbally the world’s values as opposed to God’s values). Although there are many principles in the Bible that lead us to this conclusion, the primary principle is that of separation from worldliness. (see I John 2:15, I Pet 1:15, I Pet 2:9) We reject the concept that music is a morally neutral entity because it cannot exist apart from human creative efforts and humans are moral beings. We also reject the philosophy that music that is worldly should be used to attract the world to Christ. We believe that in order to attract the world to Christ we need to show them Christlikeness through our music, not worldliness. If we attract them using worldliness, they are really only being drawn to more of their sin, rather than the Christ who died for those sins.
The question that this position leaves one asking is, “How do I know where the line is between what is worldly and what is not?” Or, “What is worldly?” This is where the music debate takes on most of its complexity. Worldliness could be defined as anything that is demonstrably opposed to the values and character of God. With a broad definition like that you can bet that there have been many disagreements between Christians over whether or not something is worldly.
To help offer some more specific guidance, consider the following: If God had written a command for every possible choice we face in our daily lives, the size of the Bible would be nearly infinite. But it would be easy to prove what is worldly and what is not - just look it up. Instead of narrow commands, God gave us broader principles as guides which can be applied to numerous areas of our lives. But don’t forget that there are still some narrow and clear commands to live by in scripture. Think of these commands as the fence around an open meadow. Within that meadow is a zone that represents your freedom, but that zone doesn’t take up the entire meadow. The fence is the obvious indicator of where the boundaries are, and it should not to be crossed. If you cross the fence, you know that you’ve stepped outside of your freedom and sinned. This is the clear part and the easy part. But within the meadow, we still need to decide what is free for us and what is off limits. This is where the principles come in. Think of these as limiting factors - like an area of deep mud or thorn bushes. The mud may be inside the fence, but it's not wise or beneficial to get muddy. For different Christians in different contexts and cultures, the outer fence around the meadow of freedom should look almost identical. But what areas within the fence they choose to enjoy will be different from person to person based on all sorts of factors like their past history, areas of personal weakness, etc. For example, some Christians saved later in life have chosen to avoid certain styles of music because it reminded them of some of their past sins.
All of that to say this. There are some areas of music that technically fall under the label “Christian,” but we can demonstrate from the Bible that they are outside the fence for all of us (like Christian death-gore heavy metal - yes, it actually exists, and it makes a great example of the obvious). But within the boundaries, we believe it is up to each individual Christian to choose where they will draw the lines of freedom for themselves based on clear and careful Bible Study. Some will accept drums, some will not, but all need to be able to demonstrate clearly from scripture that they are obeying the Bible’s principle of being set apart from the world. If a person is right with God in their choices and can demonstrate clearly that they have not violated Bible commands and principles, then we are commanded in Romans 14 to respect their standards and treat them as an equal who is right with God, remembering that each of us will give an account to Christ Himself for how we have chosen to live in our freedom.

Thus, we do not take so narrow a view that we would decide an individual’s specific music choices for them in their own home (example: no drums, no electric instruments, etc.). It is up to each believer in our ministry to take the principle of distinction from worldliness (among other principles), and apply it completely and faithfully to their music choices. We operate under a desire to balance the principle of using all that we can to draw the world to Christ (avoiding the Amish extreme of isolation and appearing weird), and maintaining a clear, visible, audible distinction between our lifestyles and those of the world’s (avoiding the extreme of most of the modern Christian Rock scene).

In corporate congregational worship in our services, you can expect to hear the conservative end of the music spectrum. We are committed to the use of solid, doctrinally rich hymns that play such a pivotal role in teaching and admonishing us to live godly in this present age. There are many reasons that we prefer a congregational hymn-singing format. One reason for this choice in the corporate worship at our church is that we want to honour the individual music preferences of those in our ministry. The Bible is clear on Christian liberty. If you have the freedom to do something, but you know it causes another to feel uncomfortable, to doubt, or even to fall into sin - or it in some way limits your ability to minister to them, then you need to be willing to forego that liberty for the sake of unity. Another reason we prefer hymns is that we have observed that much of the NT church has fallen into the trap of loving the experience and entertainment that many contemporary music choices bring. The result is that their focus shifts slowly away from the preaching component of the service. Modern music does not guarantee this shift will happen, but it has been an observable pattern over the last few decades. If people walk out of our services saying that the music was incredible, they enjoyed the show, and they got really pumped up for God, but they say nothing of the teaching from God’s Word, then we have failed. We find that hymns involving everyone singing together are an effective way of protecting our focus and keeping it on worshipping God rather than enjoying ourselves. John 15:19  - "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

II. BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

We believe that only the original manuscripts - written by God's chosen authors throughout history - were perfectly inspired by the Holy Spirit word for word. Translations and copies of those original documents throughout the last 2000+ years - while not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit - are under the protective hand and guidance of a sovereign God. This is commonly referred to as God's preservation of His word. We believe that God is protecting His Word through the advancement of many translations and copies that trace back very close to the original documents (none of which have survived to today to our knowledge). In so doing, God has given great accountability to the process of determining which ancient documents truly are a part of the scriptural canon. Almost immediately, copyists began copying the inspired letters to distribute them and protect them. As a result of this, we now have over 5,000 ancient Bible manuscripts to compare one to another to ensure the accuracy and preservation of what the original documents said (more than any other historical book). Today, with more manuscripts discovered than ever before, translation teams now have more material to compare and contrast with in their translation work. God’s work of preserving His Word throughout the years truly is a stunning thing to behold.
We believe that any translation that has – as its primary goal – an accurate reflection of the original author’s words as found in the surviving manuscripts, is a good translation. We prefer a translation that is as literal in its reflection of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as possible, while still being understandable in it's reading style. This position limits us to a few good conservative translations (such as, but not limited to, the King James, the New King James, the NASB, and the ESV to name a few). We believe it is up to each individual believer and each church corporately to study through the history of the many available translations and to decide which translation(s) they feel best reflects the originally inspired documents. The degree to which a translation reflects the original manuscripts accurately is the degree to which that translation should be valued and trusted. This means that we do not value other types of translations as highly, nor do we recommend them for most purposes. Translations that are broadly thought-for-thought, or idea-for-idea take a greater risk in allowing the translator’s personal opinions to enter the text. This is even more true for paraphrases of the Bible. (example: the Living Bible)

In an effort to maintain consistency, we use the King James version in our pulpit. But we do encourage and allow believers to study this issue and make a choice for themselves as to which translation they use personally. (We do, on occasion, distribute new conservative translations to those believers who ask for advice on a translation after struggling with the older style English of the highly respected King James Version.) It is our opinion that due to its age, the language of the KJV is becoming increasingly harder to understand [examples: “superfluity of naughtiness,” “he who now letteth will let.”]. So, believing fully that God intends His word to be accessible to the average person on the street - to both read and understand - we do value the availability of some of the conservative modern translations presented in modern English.

We reject the King James Only position and its teachings. This position teaches that God has only allowed one translation in the english language to be preserved by His providential hand, and that all other english translations are not God’s Word at all, but are merely works of man. This teaching is not based on scripture itself, and thus, should be viewed as a preference of man. If an individual feels uncomfortable with the other translations for reasons of their own and wishes to use the King James exclusively, we have respect for this preference and the individual’s freedom in Christ to make this choice for themselves (Romans 14). But if an individual cannot tolerate the presence of other acceptable translations around them with other people who have made a different choice than they have, this ministry will not be a good fit for them.
1 Peter 1:25  - "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

III. SEPARATION

We believe that the New Testament paints a clear picture when it comes to the teaching of separation. In every instance of separation, no matter the type or severity, the goal is always to regain the person or group to Jesus Christ. Truth should never be sacrificed for unity, because without truth, there is no solid foundation for our faith, and no reason for being unified.  There are three main areas in which each individual and each church must be careful to maintain separation.

1. Separation from Worldliness (I John 2:15)  Due to the danger of negative influence away from godly living, a believer must learn to exist in the world, while never allowing his identity to become intermingled with the world's values and goals.

2. Separation from False Doctrine
(Titus 3:9-11) One of the many strategies of our spiritual enemy is deception. Because of this, any Christian or church encountering teachings and ideas that do not parallel the Bible, must separate from that error in order to maintain clear lines of distinction between truth and falsehood. Maintaining fellowship with those who do not espouse the truth - even though one may disagree with their ideas - could be interpreted as condoning the false ideas. The severity of the error and the degree to which a clear interpretation of scripture is being misrepresented is the degree to which that person/group must be separated from.

3. Separation from an Erring Brother(s) (Matthew 18:15-17) To demonstrate to a continuously erring brother that sin puts distance between the sinner and God, we as loving brothers and sisters must also distance ourselves from their sinful lifestyle both individually and corporately as a church family. This is not a complete shunning as in some denominations, but a limitation of regular fun and fellowship that might allow for the impression that nothing is wrong and nothing needs fixing.  Care must be taken to keep a heart attitude of instant forgiveness and restoration to fellowship once the individual demonstrates repentance. As in the case with separation from false doctrine, the severity of separation from an erring brother(s) is based on the level of seriousness of their sin.

The idea that the severity of separation should be proportional to the error, has implications for what some would call secondary separation (ie. separating fully from person A because they’re not separated from person B who is in serious sin or teaches false doctrine). The practice of many in our camp has been to fully cut off man A who is not fully cut off from man B, simply because they choose to separate from man B. Instead of matching the severity of separation to the severity of sin, they cut him off fully simply because he is not practicing separation the same way they are.

Here at LBC, we take each individual case of secondary separation and treat it individually instead of applying an across-the-board formula. If we fellowship with someone and learn that they are in fellowship with someone else who we have concerns about, we will only limit our fellowship with the first person as much as we feel is necessary. Sometimes this may be a full separation, sometimes it may be partial. The reason for this case-by-case approach is that many have been abusing the separation principle of scripture and using it as a way to punish people they disagree with. This does not demonstrate a humble, Christ-like attitude. The choice to limit fellowship with any other believer should be taken very seriously and done very carefully making every attempt to win them back from whatever error was discovered in their lives.

A great example of this dynamic would be a highly respected and gifted Bible scholar who is personal friends with someone in open doctrinal error, even though the Bible scholar himself does not agree with his friend’s error. We now need to choose to what extent we fellowship with this scholar based on how we feel he is practising biblical separation with his friend who is in error. If we endorse him fully with no disclaimers, we risk communicating unintentionally that he is handling the situation with his friend’s error correctly, and even endorsing his friend’s error. But if we separate from him fully, we may lose out on the benefits of his gifting as a scholar and teacher. It may be that we feel he has publicly challenged his friend’s error enough while remaining his friend, that he has demonstrated separation in a limited sense, and so we might be able to fellowship with him ‘mostly.’ Or there may be indicators that he is waffling on clearly calling out his friend’s error and people are unsure of how much he disagrees or not. If this were the case, we would have more reason to question his resolve for defending truth, and we would need to separate from him more fully. You can see how both the details of the situation and how Bible principles are being obeyed or not obeyed ought to determine how we apply separation.

Full fellowship with someone would include things like having them preach in our pulpit, and would imply an almost complete endorsement of their positions and practices.

Limited fellowship with someone varies, but could involve things like using their printed materials in a Sunday School class, selling their book in the church bookstore, singing some of their music. This level of fellowship would imply a partial endorsement of their positions and practices, but not a complete one. In other words, we would be demonstrating that we agree with some of their positions and practices, but not necessarily all.

No Fellowship with someone would indicate that our concerns about their positions/practices are so serious that we cannot participate with them at virtually any level. We would not reference them in a sermon in a positive way, we would not recommend their writings and we would not go to their conferences. Our goal in this separation would be to demonstrate that there are errors in their positions/practices so that they and others around us will see the errors and potentially turn from them. But this never works when an attitude of arrogance is applied to how we separate.

**************

Again, our goal in posting these statements here on our siteMuch more could be said on each of these topics. But time and space are both limiting factors. If anything you read here confuses you or you have any related questions, please feel free to contact us for more information.