Discovering Our Roots (Part Three)

Defining the Evangelical Free Church in Malaysia

By Khen Lim

PART THREE - DEFINING 'FREE' 




Image source: aacc.net

Introduction

In the previous part of the series, we learned the role that Spener played in laying the foundation for the Evangelical Free Church (EFC) movement and then Harms’ contribution to the underlying significance of the word ‘Free.’ Harms was able to offer the definition that we are today familiar with. That the word ‘Free’ is broadly defined as ‘deregulated’ is correct as it underscores the movement’s desire to remain independent of the State Church’s overreach as well as any direct interferences from the government or any government-controlled secular body.

As opposed to the new-found principles of the EFC movement, a state-run Church represents an instrument of government control. For that matter, any church that has direct links to the government in one form or another will become dependent when secular funds are made available by the state treasury.

We can see this quite clearly with China’s Three-Self churches. Here, Scriptural teachings are consistently packaged – and repackaged – to meet government expectations, which in turn means that a genuine Christian life will always be compromised. There is also the aspect of financial intervention, which would have been threatened if the Scriptural message is not up to the “standards” required by the Chinese Communist government.

In contrast to the principles of the EFC, a state-run church becomes a recognised instrument of government control because secular funds from the state treasury make certain of that. Such is the case with China’s Three-Self churches where the teaching of Scripture is consistently being moulded to compromise the genuine Christian life in exchange for financial intervention.

Image source: eastasiapcusamission.com

The Chinese Three-Self church model offers us a good glimpse as to how government intervention defines the character of the church and the activities it carries out. The nature of the control may include the following:

-        All manners of information the church provides to its congregation

-        The sermons the church delivers every Sunday service

-        The definition of the church’s collective faith and how it is practised

-        The publications that the church puts out for the consumption of its congregation but also made available to the visiting public

-        The praise-and-worship ministry work that the church engages in, which includes the songs and their lyrics

China is not the only country to exert such control, although by and large, the most visible we’ve seen in recent years. Controlling instruments within the operation of the church are also found in Germany, the United Kingdom and lately, America. Messages disseminated from the pulpit can and have attracted strident government interference particularly when there are also very vocal liberal monitors “baying for blood.” The scale of interferences in and amongst American churches may be nothing compared to the Chinese experience but having begun, it’s now a question of how much how soon.

Although today, many church denominations – especially the EFC – throughout the developed world exercise freedom of governance, choice of leaders and direction of their messages, meddling by government instruments had been prevalent until only recently. Governments of yesteryear had long viewed churches as potential groundswell for mass protestations and even expressions of defiance and the need to curb them or at least have the mechanisms in place to exercise control was vital.

The ‘Free Church’ part of the EFC is, therefore, a deliberate feature of the movement. It is there because it is designed to be there. It is not by happenstance or public flavour that it is part of the denomination character but instead, something that was learned from lessons of the past. By the very definition of the term ‘Free Church,’ the purpose is to steer the EFC away from political undercurrents that may subvert the true direction of the church, which is the way of Christ, the Head of the Church.

It is therefore there to constantly remind us that we are to handle our own affairs and to them diligently, faithfully and with our integrity intact. We are to have the freedom to express our directions in accordance to God’s and not man’s will. We are never to be subjugated by outside influences or political forces but instead to articulate the independence that EFC possesses. It is in light of state control and domination that this essence of freedom is particularly vital to the spiritual integrity of Christ in the Church, which is why Article 10 of EFC’s Statement of Faith reads the way it does:

“We believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Head of the Church and that every local church has the right, under Christ, to decide and govern its own affairs.”

When we read this very carefully, we can now understand and appreciate what our roots in Pietism have long meant to us and how they have inspired the path taken by the EFC to safeguard our freedom. In fact our roots truly define not just our history but importantly, our identity.

Is ‘Free’ really free?

The Jerusalem Council (Image source: harvestcenterchurch.net)

Those who are familiar with the Jerusalem Council (aka Apostolic Conference) may remember that this was a Christian council held during the Apostolic Age in Jerusalem around 40-50 AD. One of the key items on the agenda was to determine how much of Jewish compliances would apply to gentile converts. In other words, decisions had to be arrived at that would identify the gentile converts’ obligations to maintain the Mosaic Law, which would include the circumcision of males.

In whatever that was agreed that the gentile converts would comply with, these requirements would be fulfilled in a manner that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” and that they should not be any “greater burden than (the) essentials” (Acts 15:28). Even if the compliances were not the same as those that applied to the Jews, the traction point for the EFC movement was clearly that they would decide how their churches would and wouldn’t be run and not any government. The comparison with the Jerusalem Council merely brings into sharp focus the importance of self-determination and self-rule at a level that is exclusive and, therefore, independent of state control.

State control, in its wholesale view, is wrong and unacceptable to the EFC. Viewed from the opposite end, freedom is central to the self-governance of any EFC church. That is at the root of its foundation. Its history proves it. It is the spirit that drives the EFC movement. Take that away from the EFC movement and it has a significantly lesser meaning altogether. However the concept of freedom extends beyond the issue of intervening state control.

Freedom isn’t just about avoiding secular interferences. It must also be independent from any form of ecclesiastical control. In this case, the EFC movement should compare itself not with state instruments but with other versions of the ‘free church.’ The Methodist order would be a good comparison.

John and Charles Wesley (Image source: dailyoffice.org)

The Methodist movement began as early as during the 1730s with John and Charles Wesley. It is today the fourth largest church in the United Kingdom and on a world scale, it supports a congregation of some 70 million people. They became known as Methodists because of the methodical fashion by which they conducted their faith. It was in fact John Wesley that later used the term Methodist himself to refer to the “methodical pursuit of biblical holiness.”

The Methodist order is best characterised by its complex self-governing structure; certainly a very defining feature by comparison with other Protestant denominations in the ecclesiastical world. The church is divided into circuits that comprise local churches and a group of these circuits would then make up a district. Each district is chaired by a person who is, in some ways, akin to a bishop in the Church of England. His job is to lead the ministers and laity in the function and carriage of preaching and worship, evangelism, pastoral care, teaching and administration.

Every district is governed by a District Synod, which is equipped to make policies decisions that must be within the parameters determined by the annual Methodist Conference where appointments are also made and affirmed.

At the same time, every local Methodist church has a Church Council, which works together with the minister in coordinating and leading the work or ministry of his church. The Methodist church describes itself as having a connexional structure, meaning that the whole order acts and makes decisions in unison. Therefore a local church does not have any independence from the rest of “The Methodist Connexion” in making decisions or policies even to the point of how to administer themselves.

All Methodist churches convene under a worldwide umbrella organisation known as the World Methodist Council, which was formed in 1951. Interestingly, though the movement originated from England, the world headquarters is in North Carolina, America.

The Methodist movement had begun as a part of the ‘free church’ initiative during the 19th century but it somehow evolved into a system unto itself with its own intricate web of checks and balances. Perhaps coming from the roots of the Church of England, that might have been the connecting relevance where a similar synod structure also existed. Like the Anglican order, Methodist churches neither have the authority to choose their own ministers (pastors in our language) nor the power to run things differently.

What this means is that the EFC movement couldn’t have been more different. While the Methodist order veered away from the ‘free church’ ideal, the EFC stuck steadfastly to it. Today, local EFC churches have their own operating framework and they remain loosely tied to one another via a national body. In an oxymoron, EFC churches within any particular nation are independent but they also recognise the co-existence of their fellow chapters as well.

In the case of Malaysia, the national body is EFC Malaysia (EFCM), which has actually been in existence longer than any of the country’s local EFC chapters. However what EFCM isn’t is a synod or even an archdiocese. True to the tradition of freedom from external governing clutches, EFCM is centralised but has no power or say over any of its local chapters. That’s because governance is not its feature. It wasn’t in the first place and there is no possibility of this changing.

Founded on the original Pietist framework, every EFC chapter lives according to the principle of being free as in free from state control and free from any internalised or federalised ecclesiastical influence. They are therefore at liberty to articulate their own operating abilities. To that end, every EFC church is within its right to define the freedom that has been accorded them in the following ways:

-        The right to decide how to run their own church administration

-        The right to manage their own affairs

-        The freedom to hire their own pastors and recruit their own staffs

-        The freedom to determine how best to balance between lay and pastoral leadership

The freedom given to an EFC church reveals a great deal of latitude, unlike most other major denominations. To a Methodist, the culture shock would have been seismic. For them as well as the Church of England or even the Presbyterian and Lutheran orders, the ability to decide on your own pastor (minister) is literally unheard of.

The question then is what use a national body is if it doesn’t have any controlling interests over its local chapters. Would that make a body like EFCM toothless? Does it mean it is powerless to do anything should there be issues between the local chapters? 

Consistently to the constitutional markers laid down in the spirit of the Evangelical Free Church movement, a national body like EFCM has a hands-off relationship with the local churches. Its non-interference policy means it does not intrude in the affairs of any of the churches but it is available to help when needed. For example, the EFCM has the means to offer financial assistance in the form of loans that make them more attractive than commercial banks.

Small EFC churches that from time to time face the risk of running aground can call upon EFCM to come to their rescue by organising guest speakers and the like especially if the pastor has left. For any EFC member who wish to seriously pursue a career in ministry or pastoring, EFCM can also offer scholarships to approved local seminaries.

EFCM’s services are essentially voluntarily offered, meaning that the local chapters are free to decline. There are no threats, no arm-twisting and no coercion. The freedom to reject or accept is guaranteed. That said, EFCM does not intervene with advice until and unless assistance is sought.

Every second year, EFC Malaysia runs the EFCM Leaders’ Retreat that offers the opportunity for all EFC local leaders to join in for goodwill, sharing of ideas and a general chance at fellowship. Of particular importance, every local EFC chapter uses this event to talk about their progress and challenges, their development and the various projects they may be running. 

It is properly not very practical to base our understanding of EFC operations on EFCM because with its smaller size covering less than 20 local chapters, things are significantly simpler. In contrast, EFC America, according to a recent Wikipedia report, has as many as 371,191 active members in weekly attendance in 1,500 churches throughout all fifty states of the country. Given the enormous size, the mechanism of a ‘free church’ in action is far more obvious and impressive to behold.

‘Free’ can bite back

Image source: flatfoot.guru

In 1786, Thomas Reid in his “Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man” wrote a line that would forever be immortalised: “In every chain of reasoning, the evidence of the last conclusion can be no greater than that of the weakest link of the chain, whatever may be the strength of the rest.”

In other words, one’s greatest strength may also turn out to be his most vulnerable at the same time. For example, a Golden Retriever’s incredible friendliness with humans may make it America’s top breed for many years but it is also the reason why it is easy to physically abuse.

An EFC church’s characteristic sense of freedom sets it apart from many other types of denominations. Unlike others, local churches govern themselves, choose their own leaders and establish their own policies. And because the church hires their own pastor, they are also within their rights to dismiss him. And there’s nothing the national body can do to stop them. While we tend to view this freedom as a liberating advantage many others would be envious of, it does have some issues.

With the delineation clear, the national body can have no means of intervening even if a local chapter is seen to be out of line. In the case of a local EFC church getting into the news for all the wrong reasons, there is no jurisdiction in its constitution that will allow the national EFC body to step in, let alone control the damage unless they are asked for their assistance.

Consider some of the following that can occur to any local EFC chapter:

Damaging internal politics – if the church does not seek national body assistance, the risk that it will be torn asunder can be very real

Government trouble – these have the tendency of making it to national media that can cause irreparable damage and embarrassment to the church order

Deepening financial crisis – if this is not arrested soon enough, the church may cease operations

Desperate search for pastor – a pastor-less church can be accommodated in the short term but in the long run, the problem can become quite major

Dwindling numbers – when the local church runs out of ideas to shore in the numbers and do not seek assistance, depression can set in and eventually the church may cease to exist

Worsening property issues – in the case that the church has a non-renewable lease, then it is possible that it has nowhere else to move to

Irreconcilable division – a détente between the pastor and the elders can happen and split the church, causing irreparable damage

The nature of this freedom that is so much an EFC signature can also render the national body an insipid and helpless bystander. In other words, while the national body can be of tangible value in any of the above scenarios, intervention is not possible unless asked. In the literal sense, the role of the national body is as a ‘perfect coordinator,’ pulling the strings only if it is in their privilege to.

However scenarios like any of the above demand that the national body be capable of rising above its coordinator role but that does not look possible. In reality, the only hope is that troubled local chapters possess the wisdom not to delay but seek the help of their national body.

This case in point was brutally highlighted in one of EFCM’s Leaders’ Retreat in February 2011 when convened church leaders discovered that one of the local chapters had closed their doors without their knowledge. In their totally uninformed state, it would have been unthinkable how all of them would have felt had the national body been given the central controlling authority to have done something.

As it stood, it was understandably disastrous. Under the more controlled Methodist setting, that church might have been saved because there were checks and balances in place that would have spotted any signs of a crisis in the making. As a central authority, a synod would stay in more regular touch with all of its district churches, which means that an ailing chapter would have been detected early enough to be attended to.

This is not to say that the EFC national body model does not have what it takes to do the same. It’s more like the model for EFC that we know of in Malaysia (at least) is not shaped to do that. Given the EFC churches number less than twenty in this country, running the national body is in itself a fairly significant challenge.

While EFC America (EFCA) is staffed with a combination of full- and part-timers including volunteer groups, large enough to handle 1,500 chapters, EFCM has, to date, one full-time staff while the remainder within its humble structure are dedicated volunteers, comprising members from the more active local chapters, putting their passion to work in the Name of Christ.

The Malaysian national body is in such contrast to a typical Methodist synod that they are completely incomparable. The limitations are perhaps inconceivable to the Methodists but by comparison, the city of Kuala Lumpur probably has more Methodist churches than there are EFCs in the whole of the country. From this perspective, maybe it’s easier to understand that EFC Malaysia does not have its own physical headquarters and also does not necessarily operate on a daily basis. It is highly possible, therefore, that they may prefer to use the funds to help the local chapters rather than use it to purchase their own building.

Appropriate dressing for church? (Image source: stephanieeidse.wordpress.com)

On the local church level, freedom can also be interpreted awkwardly as members take its definition and stretch it to an embarrassing extent. So what exactly can freedom really mean without the brakes on? Here is what we have seen from some church members:

Dressing – Some people believe that they can interpret what ‘Sunday best’ means by dressing in whatever fashion they like to church. And they would justify the way they dress by saying that, “God is more interested in the heart” than what you wear. In most such cases, the dressing is essentially unacceptable – Bermuda shorts, loose fitting and torn tee-shirts, bath slippers and generally unkempt. They interpret freedom as in how they should dress.

Punctuality – A number of people make it a habit to turn up late for church no matter how proximate they live. It’s a mystery why they’re late – other prior things committed, waking up late, can’t get organised or simply can’t be bothered – it’s hard to tell, but people are ‘free’ to decide when they should turn up for church. After all, it’s “better late than never.”

Interrupting calls – We have encountered people who ignore the pastor’s call to mute their cell phones through the service but phones will still invariably ring and when they do, the receiver speaks at the top of his voice. Many excuses are often available. When asked why the phone isn’t muted, the answer is “otherwise I can’t hear” followed by, “I need to answer the call in case it’s an emergency.” They feel this is their freedom and right.

Taking calls in church – It seems increasingly hard for people to accept that they should take their calls outside. That is the rule in a cinema and that is also the rule in church but it appears people believe they have the freedom to either listen or not listen to the advice. And when the call is taken, the receiver often speaks at the top of his voice. When asked why, the answer is, “that’s how I talk on the phone.”

Having affairs in church – As improbable as this may sound, some of us have seen this taking place between two mature adults – one a widower and the other, a married woman. One would assume that Christians should know this is wrong but when asked, the woman replied by saying that she believed that the Bible is “only a guide,” which is another way of saying that she has the freedom to pick things to and not to believe.

Stealing in church – Quite unbelievably, this too happened in church. There used to be an abundance of Bibles in the church, meant for those who don’t bring their own during service. They were also handy during Bible Study classes. When they went missing, nobody owned up but we somehow knew who took them although without red-handed evidence, it is difficult to confront the person. Not surprisingly, there are those who think stealing the Bibles is okay when they can edify those who receive them.

And these are just a selection. You may be able to add more to it. The point is whether people in general have what it takes to use the freedom given to them in a responsible manner. In a church setting, the freedom aspect can have as much potential as it has in opening up frightening possibilities of good and bad. When a church member is given free rein to use this freedom, one might want to be a little nervous at what he would be up to.

No church is perfect. And none of us are, as well. A church that comprises people of a sinful nature are bound to be imperfect. According freedom to an imperfect church is what all this is about. Because a church is imperfect, should we remove the freedom from them? Or do we owe people the opportunity to see what they can do with the freedom that the EFC movement guarantees?

The EFC ideal encourages us to operate within the sphere of Christ’s teachings, that we do everything in love and acceptance of all. Accordingly then, we should be accepting sinners like ourselves in whatever shape, form, creed or colour. In other words, while we do not condone sin, we are to love the sinner.

Therefore when we interpret freedom in the spirit of the EFC movement and yet be practical and consistent, we must then take into account the individual’s sense of accountability. This means having responsibility while being respectful of the rules of behaviour. These rules may not be explicitly engraved in stone but are often common sense and well known enough that it’s hard to excuse any churchgoer for not understanding what they are about.

Freedom at EFC also means the importance of doctrinal leeway. The EFC movement appears to have honed the “agree to disagree” maxim to a fine art. You can, for example, have a preference for baptism by immersion when the church does baptism by sprinkling. There should not be a problem with having a different view but it also should not cause anyone else to stumble.

But there are limitations as certain doctrinal differences are not a matter of difference of opinion. Like all conservative Protestant denominations, the EFC does not and will not entertain differences when it comes to the Holy Trinity or that Jesus is the Son of God. In both cases, there is no room to agree to disagree. If you differ in either case, you shouldn’t consider yourself a Christian.

The EFC position is not an easy one to weave around because theological and doctrinal issues are aplenty. It is impossible to list and categorise what to and not to draw a line with. Similarly some issues are minor to some people but a rather big deal with others. For example some churches believe that the root of musical instruments is traceable to Cain’s lineage and therefore they are not to be used in worship ministry. Another example is how some people insist that speaking in tongues is a must. If you come from a charismatic church, that is a standard position but for those from evangelical churches, that is not their stand.

Image source: image.frompo.com

In pretty much the same way, the different Bible translations can also be divisive. Some churches have gone to the extent of calling themselves a “KJV church” just to make the point that other translations are simply unacceptable. There are those that may not be so outwardly outspoken but they could insist on their congregation to only refer to the translation of their preference. Invariably that would be the KJV, as they persist with how they were historical referred to as the ‘Authorised Version.’ To that end, they misguidedly place inordinate significance on the wording that was given by King James VI.

As we can see, freedom that lacks guidance among the congregation can be a two-edged sword. We can dice beautifully with it but we can also be cut by it at the same time. To overcome the potential dangers in ‘flirting’ with freedom, EFC churches need to bring to the attention of their congregation what this freedom means, how it works, what we must do to avoid problems and when does it not work.

In the numerous cases we have encountered in the past, some congregation members have defined freedom in ways that were detrimental and certainly, not in the spirit of the founder of the ‘Free Church’ movement. When the original idea was not to be bridled to state authorities or to a central ecclesiastical control, there can be those who distort the fundamental purpose and shape it to their intentions. By doing so, the effects could become a source of undesirable influence to those who are impressionable enough to succumb to them.

A case in point is the impact a topic like evolution has made in many churches. Over the decades past, the defence of Creationism has been gradually eroded and despite counterarguments and evidence against evolution, the damage has been great enough to have caused some to be disillusioned and many others to no longer trust the inerrancy of Scripture.

Many churches with a liberal or progressive bent have been known to embrace evolution to some extent, believing that it is possible to combine it with Creationism and still make biblical sense. And along the way, the freedom to hold different opinions have caused some degree of divisiveness. In this case, it is perhaps arguable how an unbridled sense of freedom may or may not be productive or helpful especially when there is no proper guidance.

Many of these are, of course, common problems in churches beyond the EFC movement. Regardless of denominations, demographics and geographies, these are just some of the many challenges that are familiar to many of us because they reflect eroding social norms as much as they are an expression of how freedom can be misused.

None of this suggests that the freedom guaranteed by the EFC charter is ill-advised. Freedom when nurtured carefully and developed with guidance can be productive and rewarding. When matured adults utilise freedom to expand on their theological understanding and then share it in church, the benefits can be exciting and invaluable. To this end, EFC upholds this freedom with the hope that people can appreciate its intrinsic value.

How freedom might be defined

Image source: blogs.telegraph.co.uk

The American precept of freedom is a value cherished in the defence of civil rights as in the right to vote, to have a voice and even to disagree. Every American understands he has this right to oppose the government and not to share their views and then to express his opposition in a peaceful demonstration. These rights are enshrined and guaranteed in the American Constitution that protects every American.

But this freedom can sometimes come at a price. And it’s not just from the Asian perspective but there are moments in American society where innocent people have paid for it with their lives. A case in point is the right to bear firearms.

While I am extremely hesitant to discuss this on a political aspect, I just want to say that the priority of an individual to protect himself and his family is a guaranteed right and that priority allows him to purchase and equip himself with the necessary firearm to do so.

The anti-gun lobby in many states across America has been very feisty in pushing for private ownership of firearms to be banned but then, what happens when a family is powerless to protect themselves in the midst of an armed criminal who has just broken into their home? Lobbyists fail to understand that centuries of having the right to own guns have meant that it is not only entrenched in the American culture but it also means that some will give them up willingly but some won’t. It doesn’t take much to know whether a criminal will give up his guns to comply with the law.

When people are defenceless, they cannot be protected properly. Lives are then unnecessarily and tragically lost. Schoolchildren have been mindlessly mowed down in schools because one person goes maniacal and no one could stop him. Shoppers and shopkeepers are similarly massacred for the same reason.

We may then be able to say that in guaranteeing this freedom, lives could simply be lost. If this were a coffeetable chat, it would be simple enough to indulge in a bit of prattle and then concur one way or the other. It’s easy to say people should not own guns “because guns kill” but it might not be so straightforward if your own family member were to be mowed down because he could not defend himself against a deadly robber. Perhaps then we might have to force ourselves to think a bit differently.

How do Asians think when it comes to the topic of freedom? Do we look at it any differently to our fellow American brothers and sisters?

While I’m no accredited historian, many of us in church share the common perception that with freedom comes a deep sense of responsibility. To be privileged with the freedom vested upon us, we must therefore have the wisdom, patience and understanding to use it properly and hopefully, mindful of the glory we give to God.

Image source: asian-central.com

Many Asians hold dearly to the belief that freedom is not necessarily a guarantee but more likely a value that one earns. It does not come on its own. It is only available when an individual shows all the likelihood that he can handle the freedom offered; otherwise he will have to wait until he displays sufficient maturity (or even manhood). Therefore a dutiful and morally upright parent will grant his child a level of freedom that is commensurate with his level of experience, adulthood and upbringing.

In other words, as the child grows up in stages, he is given a certain degree of freedom. He learns to grapple with it, understands it and knows it enough to move to the next stage. Similarly when the child becomes a late teen entering college, he earns a level of freedom that is enough to enable him to make the necessary academic decisions in his young life.

Freedom has to be the most talked-about social value in the history of man. This is because it is a value that has not come easy for most of us. The Jews know and cherish freedom unlike many of us because of their history. We can also say the same about the Chinese who had never been in the position to rule themselves until only recently. Post-war Japan learned about freedom taken away from them in a very hard way and it took decades of diligence, pacifism and dedication to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world.

From God the Father came the guarantee of free will. We liked the free will. It was man’s very first value of freedom but then look where that got us. Look at what man did with the freedom that God had promised us. The bloodshed. The massacres. The debaucheries. The corruption. The barbarisms. While we probably made God regret His gift to us, we should also know that He gave us our freedom in the hope that we would tell Him that because we could depend on Him, there was no need for it anymore. God would have been hopeful that we’d exchange our freedom for the pleasure of doing His will.

As it were, the history of man is today defined by Christ who died on the cross to pay for our sins, the kinds of sin that we commit using the freedom that God gave us. And so in that sense, Christ died so that we can be free again from sin. That is ironic in many ways – from the free will given to us, we used it to commit sin and then Christ died so that we may be unshackled from the bondage of sin so that we may have our freedom back. Read that several times and it still doesn’t get any less heady. That’s because it is how sly man has become and with the freedom that God gave us, we have done nothing but harm with it.

The only way we could ever be free once again from sin was that Christ had to die. He was the only perfect One to fit the role but in allowing this to happen, it pained God the Heavenly Father greatly. The price of freedom, again, was of immense cost but that was the only way for mankind to be given the chance at redemption and salvation.

The concept that freedom is always costly is repeatedly found in the Bible. Even as we in society often experience this painful cost ourselves, Scripture lays down the marker about the sacrifices in exchange of safe passage. Yet it also teaches us another invaluable viewpoint. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 reveals Paul’s reminder to us that our freedom must never result in someone else stumbling along the way but instead should build on a unity that bonds the strong with the weak so that the former can edify the latter in the sustenance of a healthy church.

Here are the verses:

“Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offence. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.” (Romans 14:20-21, NASB)

“But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:9, NASB)

Paul’s words are timely for the EFC movement. While freedom is cherished and should be protected against those who seek to take it away from our church, we must be ever mindful not to misuse it. Churches must exercise caution not to utilise the freedom to subjugate others into submission or to impose one’s authority onto another or to exert supremacy of individual presence so that others may simply be subservient to that particular person.

Poor church member behaviour (Image source: en.wikipedia.org)

The Pietist spirit that inspired this freedom that characterised each and every EFC chapter must therefore be viewed and appreciated from a wider and bigger picture. It must be seen from the perspective of Christ’s desire for fellowship and not subjugation; that this freedom is a value that we must hold on to in order that we may use it to uphold the weak lest they fall and then to uphold the strong so they may be encouraged to build the others up.

All of these are predicated on the liberty of conscience; in other words, the ability to think and act responsibly, given the freedom to do so. For the good of Christ, it is the desire to use the freedom to rally the strong to help the weak, to leverage on the rich to feed the poor and to equip the fortunate with the means to aid the misfortunate.

At the same time as well, we are to know how to act conscionably not to bring shame to God. Even in the throes of authority and influence, our aim must never be to behave errantly. Here are some examples:

-        You might want to tell your church friends of your wonderful bar in your home but remember, don’t make this a bad example and get them inebriated

-        Not everyone will agree with the church’s plans to expand or develop but being a good example means not to create division by arguing and confrontation

-        Your son did not get elected to the church chairman position but it would be shameful to God to stage protests and claim underhandedness

-        As a result of your generous donations to help the church, you might want to think carefully how ‘differently’ you expect the church to treat you

-        If you are the longest-serving – even founding – member of the church, be mindful of what favours you think you deserve from the church

-        Even if you are a respected ministry leader, you must consider if you really have the right to run people around

-        While you may be very successful in your business career, corporate ideas might not necessarily work in a church setting

These are only seven examples. It’s obvious the reader can provide even more but that should be enough to exemplify the importance of handling freedom with responsibility. Abused freedom leads to corruption and corruption is creeping sin that can destroy a church. In an EFC setting, freedom is given to be enjoyed but everyone must be accountable just as it is when God promises and then gifts us free will.

We must reflect the examples of Christ (Image source: nytimes.com)

The long and short of it is this – the EFC notion of freedom is enshrined in Christ. It reflects Christ on the cross. It reflects the life of Christ. And it reflects how Christ expects us to conduct ourselves. We must therefore be aware of how we use this freedom so that others may be inspired by what we do and be motivated to follow Christ all the way.

- Continued Part Four -