Theology Central

Life is full of ironies! These short essays came about in response to the recent cancellation of Sunday services at a Baptist megachurch. I wanted to challenge those who read the Nick that what was done was—perhaps—out of harmony with the Word of God. The first essay stressed the importance of corporate gathered worship as the New Testament model and expectation. Essay two suggested that while house churches may have a limited role, they are really neither the New Testament expectation nor the universal preference of the Church. Just before I sat down to pen this third essay, a response came from a brother who prefers his small, family house church because the money saved on salaries and air conditioning can be used to fund Christian refugees and feed college students who joined his little family gathering. It was an interesting idea but hardly biblical. Not a thought was given to world evangelism or discipleship.

In this final essay, I consider the appropriateness of cancelling church services, whether on the Lord’s Day or otherwise. I remember hearing an old preacher encourage the congregation that “it takes three to thrive,” referring to the Sunday morning, evening, and Wednesday night services. It is four if the Sunday School is added. So, how many services should the Christian be expected to attend in a week and is it ever acceptable for the church to cancel a regular service?

The irony of this third essay is that as I write, the temperature is -27 and much of Minneapolis is closed: no schools or mail service, malls are closed, some businesses and many/most churches with activities are shuttered. Also, last Sunday the weather forecasters predicted a major snow event of 5-8 inches beginning at 3 PM and lasting through the night. Our pastor announced that the evening service would be cancelled. As it turned out, the snow didn’t begin until 7:30. Finally, this week is Super Bowl Sunday—a day which a good many churches alter their corporate worship practices to accommodate the game.

I have tried to make the case that Sunday is the Lord’s Day and it has become the Christian day of worship. The day is set aside as the one day in seven when we assemble together to celebrate His person and work. We need to hold the idea of the Lord’s Day as important if we wish to follow biblical models. But just what should be done on that day is a matter of debate.

In the Victorian era, Sundays were a day of multiple services among Baptist churches. Spurgeon saw that many visitors from across London showed up at his Sunday evening meetings because other churches didn’t have them. Moreover, in answer to the question “How is the Sabbath* to be kept?” Spurgeon’s catechism responded “The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days (Lev 23:3), and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship (Psa 92:1-2; Isa 58:13-14), except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy (Mat 12:11- 12).” Wow! We have certainly come a long way if we think that cancelling a church service for a sporting event is acceptable.

Even if we hold to a similar view as Mr. Spurgeon, we still have not answered the primary question—can services be canceled on the Lord’s Day? The answer is a qualified yes. Biblically, we ought to make every effort to carry out the spirit of the New Testament by having a Lord’s Day service, but there may be times when this is simply not possible due to weather, political chaos, community disasters, and the like. The California wildfires certainly affected how churches functioned as the countryside blazed. Our snow event, while missing the mark as to the timing, could have been otherwise. We still met on the Lord’s Day morning, fulfilling the spirit of the New Testament.

A second question to ponder is whether we really need multiple meetings on the Lord’s Day. Getting back to the brother’s email that house churches are a better use of resources, it does seem rather expensive that we build massive structures for a one-hour meeting on a Sunday, if this is all we meet. Pushing back, can we really do an adequate job of corporate discipleship in one or two hours per week? For this reason, at least, most churches offer multiple services for multiple opportunities for Christian growth and discipleship—times dedicated to fellowship, times dedicated to instruction, times dedicated to worship and the observance of the ordinances.

I have never felt that the church services, any of them, were primarily aimed at evangelism, though evangelism may certainly take place within a church meeting. If we use Acts 2:42 as an indication of the early Jerusalem church, it met for the study of the apostle’s doctrine, for fellowship, for the breaking of bread (the Lord’s Table), and for prayer. Can we do all of this in an hour or two? Likely not. Multiple diverse services allow us to accomplish these important objectives.

It used to be that churches had regularly scheduled times of prayer: prayer for the lost, prayer for the pastors, prayer for the ministry of the church, and prayer for the saints. The Moravians had their 100-year prayer meeting. The point of the meeting was prayer. A prayer meeting was held in Spurgeon’s church while Spurgeon was preaching, and he attributed to these gatherings the source of the power of his pulpit. His people prayed for him. Today, prayer meetings of that sort are seldom held.

It seems to me that before we cancel any particular meeting, we need to ask ourselves why we meet in the first place. If we understand why, then perhaps the question of cancellation is clearer. Services that are ancillary to our stated goals may be and perhaps should be cancelled. Meetings that go to the heart of why we exist as a church may need to be held, even when inconvenient, as a matter of priority. We all make choices and we make them all the time. Churches make choices. The why of the service will drive the when and how often. Perhaps we cancel too lightly because we don’t really grasp the why.

Finally, part of the reason we have church is to build up the saints. If we aren’t really doing this, then we need to step back and evaluate our ministry to ask afresh what it is that we are seeking to accomplish. Simply having services for services’ sake is hardly biblical. In the end, there is no easy answer to the question of cancellation. I think this is how the Lord planned it. We should serve Him, worship Him, and follow Him out of devotion, not merely by checking off a list of things we do to please Him. What we value with our time says more about who we are than most anything we say.

_____
* I recognize the issue of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath is problematic, but this would take another essay to reply to. For the sake of this Nick, I grant that Sunday is not the sabbath as such. But let’s not lose the bigger issue Spurgeon is addressing: Sunday was a day set apart for devotion to God. Are we the poorer if we fail in this regard?

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Come, Let Us Join With One Accord

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

Come, let us join with one accord 
In hymns around the throne: 
This is the day our rising Lord 
Hath made and called his own. 

This is the day that God hath blessed, 
The brightest of the sev’n, 
Type of that everlasting rest 
The saints enjoy in heav’n. 

Then let us in his Name sing on, 
And hasten to that day 
When our Redeemer shall come down, 
And shadows pass away. 

Not one, but all our days below, 
Let us in hymns employ; 
And in our Lord rejoicing, go 
To his eternal joy. 

Last week I began a brief series on an influential pastor’s decision to cancel services at his nine-campus church on the final Sunday of 2018. About the same time my essay was being written, another well-known pastor released a podcast on the same issue. Our addressing the same question from a similar vantage point was providential.

In the first essay, I dealt with the priority of first-day-of-the-week worship from a biblical point of view. I rehearsed standard, boilerplate New Testament theology that has been widely accepted across the spectrum of Christianity since the post-apostolic era. Christians worshipped together on Sunday, the first day of the week. The church is a gathered community of believers. Worship is a corporate experience which means it is rightly done together. The Bible models this and the church has universally followed this practice.

What about worshipping at home either as a family or a small group? I say small group because few believers have the kind of houses that would accommodate a large gathering, unless it is in a warm climate and the group holds an outdoor meeting. One might have hundreds gathered under such circumstances. A house meeting is going to have far fewer in attendance. Moreover, what the brother in question was suggesting was a family worship experience as opposed to a corporate gathering or a small group. His Twitter feed declared “there are no services at our campus locations this weekend. This is a great chance to worship at home with your family!”

This was promoted as family worship and not small group worship, although perhaps some of the congregation gathered with other believers.  I took exception to the “family worship” format at minimum, because it deviates from the recognized New Testament pattern which Christendom has historically embraced, irrespective of theological orientation—gathered corporate worship.

Now, I am sure there are those who would emphatically push back at this criticism because, after all, didn’t believers start out by holding church meetings in houses? Early churches didn’t have buildings, so why should they be important today? If Christians met in homes in the New Testament, what would be wrong with doing so today? This really is a good question that deserves a thoughtful answer. Is tradition the only real reason we gather in buildings tradition? The answer is not as simple as one might think.

In the first place, while early New Testament believers did indeed meet in houses, it was not their first choice for a meeting place. The earliest Christians started by meeting in Jewish places of worship—initially in the Temple for those converts in Jerusalem (Acts 2:46) and in the synagogues for those outside the city (Acts 13:14ff) scattered across the Diaspora. In both cases, soon after Christians tried to assemble in these places as Christians, they were driven out as Jewish heretics by angry hordes of non-Christian Jews. Christians didn’t abandon Jewish places because they found them inconvenient, but because they found them dangerous.

Without the ability to meet in Jewish places, where could they meet? Some may have met outside, in public spaces, or on private property away from the prying eyes of their detractors. Many believers met in the houses of other believers (Acts 2:46). We know this because Paul refers to “churches” in “houses” on several occasions (Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15). Clearly “house churches” existed in the New Testament era. Also, it is quite likely that when Paul met the elders from Ephesus in Acts 20, he was meeting with men ministering in house churches across the city. Elder plurality arose out of the need to minister in these small group settings. There is no evidence or biblical intimation that the church at Ephesus had a building. They met in homes across the city and a plurality of elders was needed to care for the many small gatherings who met for church.* I have a friend who pastors two churches in Romania about 15 minutes apart by automobile. It would be impractical to try to handle two churches on a Sunday if he had to walk between them. This brother preaches three to five times per Sunday between these places. Only in the modern era can this be done. Still, these believers have buildings in which to gather. In the early New Testament era, there were no buildings.

Over time, Christians began to pool resources and erect buildings for convenience for gathered worship. Sadly, many of these early structures were razed by the authorities during the years of persecution that preceded the Edict of Milan (313 AD). Under Constantine’s administration, after he legalized Christianity, it received favored status. The emperor actually built or funded churches across the empire to curry favor of Christians with the aim of solidifying his civil authority over the nation. House churches likely still existed in places, but these gradually gave way to dedicated buildings for gathered worship.

Today, there is a strong house church movement in some parts of the world. It is well known that many Christians meet in homes in China, though this is not their preferred practice. Since 1951, Chinese Christians have had few options—either the state sanctioned Three-Self Patriot Movement (or its Catholic equivalent) or illegal house churches. They are illegal because they refuse to be controlled by government officials. Many house churches have dedicated buildings or use apartments for their meetings. Now the government is oppressing these illegal churches who refuse to be kept under the thumb of the government. Some have built buildings without government permission only to have their crosses torn down, their buildings razed, and their pastors arrested for the crime of corporate worship. This reminds me of 17th century England, when the infamous Conventicle Act kept more than five people not of the same family from gathering together for worship. When believers defied the Conventicle Act (1664), the government imposed the 5-Mile Act (1665) which made it illegal for ministers to travel to within five miles of parishes from which they had been removed.

Nevertheless, Christians resisted these strictures, even as in other countries. Christians gather secretly in “house churches” or out in the woods because corporate public worship is otherwise too dangerous. Some Christians resist the persecution by deliberately holding public corporate gatherings, not to oppose their governments but to show their allegiance to Christ and His Word.  The thought of deliberately cancelling an established public worship service for no greater reason than congregational fatigue is incomprehensible to much of the global Church.

Yes, historically, Christians have worshipped in houses. Sometimes, family worship may even be a necessity (family illness or travel to remote areas). These occasions are out of necessity and not out of preference. The global Church has chosen to gather together in dedicated buildings wherever possible as a public testimony of their loyalty to Jesus Christ. The pattern is hardly on the small groups but on the large assemblies with their choruses of voices raised to the glory of God!

_____
* At this point, I don’t want to get into the idea of the church as ekklesia because there is dispute as to what the word signifies, although many think that the very nature of the word highlights a gathered group of people called out from the world to follow Jesus Christ.

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Built on the Rock

Nikolai Grundtvig (1783–1872); tr. Carl Doving (1867–1937)

Built on the Rock, the church shall stand
even when steeples are falling;
Christ builds His church in ev’ry land;
bells still are chiming and calling,
calling the young and old to rest,
calling the souls of those distressed,
longing for life everlasting.

Not in a temple made with hands
God the Almighty is dwelling;
high in the heav’ns His temple stands,
all earthly temples excelling.
Yet He who dwells in heaven above
chooses to live with us in love,
making our body His temple.

We are God’s house of living stones,
built for His own habitation;
He fills our hearts, His humble thrones,
granting us life and salvation.
Yet to the place, an earthly frame,
we come with thanks to praise His name;
God grants His people true blessing.

Thro’ all the passing years, O Lord,
grant that, when church bells are ringing,
many may come to hear God’s Word
where He the promise is bringing:
“I know My own, My own know Me,
you, not the world, My face shall see;
My peace I leave with you. Amen.”

Two fresh missionary deaths have made the news in recent weeks. The first was the unexpected death of missionary Charles Trumann Wesco (1974–2018), an independent Baptist missionary from Indiana. Charles, a father of eight, was accidently caught in the crossfire of civil unrest in Bamenda, Cameroon, having been in the hostile northern part of the country for less than two weeks. The shooting was accidental (in the providence of God) in that while Wesco was working in a potentially dangerous place, he joined an established missionary group that had had a gospel presence there for thirty years. The death, while lamentable, is the kind of hazard that countless missionaries since the New Testament era have encountered with the advance of the Christian message. The apostle Paul apparently found himself in similar situations on numerous occasions (1 Cor 11:26).

The second tragic death is more recent. John Allen Chau, a twenty-six-year-old graduate of Oral Roberts University, managed to obtain illegal passage to a remote part of India, North Sentinel Island, in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal. This is home to a small primitive tribe of people (with an estimated population of less than fifty) who still live in pre-Neolithic conditions and have no contact with the outside world. India has forbidden anyone from visiting the island, placing a five-nautical-mile restriction around it, partly out of concern for the survival of the tribe due to exposure to illnesses with which they have no natural immunity, and partly to preserve their way of life.

Chau felt the call of God to take the gospel to this unreached people group. He left a hand-written record of his contacts, including the life-threatening reception he received from the tribe. The last entry in his journal was dated November 16. The fisherman who helped him get to the island claims to have seen the locals burying a body on the beach the following day. Efforts by Indian authorities have thus far been unsuccessful at recovering his body, and it appears at the time of this writing that his remains may never be retrieved. Because of the primitive nature of the people and their forced isolation on the part of the Indian government, there are no plans, according to reports, for murder charges to be laid, even if the perpetrators could be identified.

Both of these deaths, while tragic from a human viewpoint, are a part of a growing roster of men and women who have paid the ultimate price for the advance of the gospel. Even as I write about these two men, I am reminded of one of the most well-known stories of missionary martyrdom, the deaths of the Auca five in January 1956—Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully, and Pete Fleming. Elizabeth Elliot’s Through Gates of Splendor, which I read in my early years in Bible college, had a formative influence on my journey as I considered a life of service to Christ. Would God require me to make the ultimate sacrifice?

With these two current deaths so close together and apparently so similar, it behooves the Church to ponder the lives of these men and reflect on the sacrifices made for gospel advance. Is this kind of sacrifice really necessary? Wouldn’t more have been gained for the cause of Christ if they had chosen different, less dangerous paths of service and lived out their earthly journeys in places where they could preach the gospel either unhindered or at least without the kind of physical dangers they knew they might face otherwise? Why run the risk of death when there is so much gospel need in less perilous places? Should the lives of these men serve as examples of personal dedication or as models of foolish choices?

There is no doubt that unbelievers and, sadly, some faint-hearted Christians, will argue that they gave their lives in vain and need not have made the choices they did. In Charles Wesco’s case, he not only imperiled his own life but that of his wife Stephanie and their eight children by taking them to a part of Africa where civil unrest was a common occurrence. Surely, he could have found another place to serve Christ, some might argue.

As I have family in Zambia, in sub-Saharan east Africa, this story hits close to home. My oldest son Benjamin, his wife Amy, and all of my grandchildren (Simon, Isaac, Casper, and Ada Jane) are serving at the Central Africa Baptist College in Kitwe. Among the opportunities that Ben has had is teaching pastors in other countries (Malawi, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo). While they do not deliberately go into hostile areas, some of the spots have had a history of turmoil. In light of these two recent deaths, should I warn my son not to be foolish? To stay closer to “home” and to not take any unnecessary chances?

Of course, this is a tempting option. Who of us wants to hold the next missionary funeral? Rebecca and I gave our children to the Lord long ago and with that commitment came the possibility of one of our children laying down their life for Christ. Zambia is a fairly safe place, to be sure, but Africa itself has been known to be a difficult place at times in her history. Moreover, even if their country of residence is relatively free from civil unrest, there are any number of diseases and personal calamities that could befall them so far from “home.”

How then should we view the lives and deaths of these two recent missionary martyrs—Charles and John? With gratitude to God for lives well-lived or with a sense of profound loss for lives lived in vain, or a little of both? For my part, I actually think that Charles Wesco’s story and John Chau’s story, while similar, are also strikingly different. That difference is worth exploring in another Nick essay next week. But for now, there is much to appreciate about these two brothers whom God in His sovereign plan allowed to come to the violent end that they experienced.

Much should be made of their dedication to Christ and their willingness to follow Him at great personal sacrifice. More importantly, much should be made of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords who left heaven’s glory to die on a cross, one of the most violent of deaths, at the hands of wicked men, so that human redemption was not only possible but actually effected. In following Christ by laying down their lives, Charles and John did no more than follow the example of Jesus. Is the servant better than the master? Whatever else we can say about their lives and deaths, we can be profoundly grateful for this kind of dedication and sacrifice. They certainly aren’t the first missionaries to perish in gospel advance, and most assuredly they will not be the last to be called upon to lay down their lives for the sake of Christ.

I can think of no human words more fitting than some of the final words of Jim Elliott, contained in his diary, recovered in the jungle of Ecuador: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” May God raise up many others to fill the void left by these servants of Christ. Soli Deo Gloria!

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

See How Great a Flame Aspires

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

See how great a flame aspires,
Kindled by a spark of grace.
Jesus’ love the nations fires,
Sets the kingdoms on a blaze:
To bring fire on earth He came;
Kindled in some hearts it is;
O that all might catch the flame,
All partake the glorious bliss!

When He first the work begun,
Small and feeble was His day:
Now the word doth swiftly run;
Now it wins its widening way:
More and more it spread and grows,
Ever mighty to prevail;
Sin’s strongholds it now o’erthrows,
Shakes the trembling gates of hell.

Sons of God, your Savior praise,
who the door hath opened wide;
He hath given the word of grace,
Jesus’ word is glorified;
Jesus, mighty to redeem,
He alone the work hath wrought;
Worthy is the work of Him,
Him Who spake a world from naught.

Saw ye not the cloud arise,
Little as a human hand?
Now it spreads along the skies,
Hangs o’er all the thirsty land.
Lo! the promise of a shower
Drops already from above;
But the Lord will shortly pour
All the spirit of His love.

In our most recent edition of Nick of Time, I provided a copy of the letter Chinese house church pastors first issued on August 30, 2018. The initial letter contained 29 signatories; two days later 87 more signed their names. That number had grown to 279 by September 6; this was the number reported in last week’s issue. According to the St. Charles Institute there are now 439 names on the list. This number is likely to grow as news of this declaration spreads. Plug in “letter from Chinese pastors” into any internet search engine and you will find dozens of stories about it.

So how can Gospel-preaching American churches profit from considering these brave words penned by our Chinese counterparts? We could consider several themes raised in the letter, including the content of the Gospel message, the final authority of Scripture, the nature of acceptable civil disobedience, the demonstration of Spirit-motivated courage, the mission of the church, and the biblical role of civil authority. But space constraints permit me to concentrate only on the subject covered in declaration #4 which actually intersects with the last two themes regarding the mission of the church and the role of government: the principle of the separation of church and state.

Here are two sentences from the declaration that concisely explain this principle: “We declare that in matters of external conduct, churches are willing to accept lawful oversight by civil administration or other government departments as other social organizations do. But under no circumstances will we lead our churches to join a religious organization controlled by the government, to register with the religious administration department, or to accept any kind of affiliation.” The key phrase here is “lawful oversight by civil administration” which, the church leaders state, should be the same as that exercised over any social organization in a country. Conversely, unlawful governmental coercion in the Chinese context would include forced membership in government-controlled organizations, required registration with the religious administration department, and any kind of church-state affiliation.

Earlier in the declaration we receive several examples of unlawful government oversight, such as demolishing crosses on church buildings, forcing churches to hang the Chinese flag or to sing songs praising the state, banning children from receiving religious education, and depriving believers of the right to gather freely. We Americans, and particularly Baptists, find such governmental practices repulsive and alarming just as our Chinese brethren. And we rightly approve of such declarations in countries like China which do not have constitutional guarantees of religious freedom such as we enjoy in the United States.

On a short historical note, one of the main reasons we have the First Amendment to the Constitution here in America is because of the diligent efforts of Baptist pastor John Leland. Because of a letter to George Washington and a meeting with James Madison, Leland helped influence the Constitutional Convention so that religious liberty of the sort Baptists had always affirmed could be included in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the guarantee that the state cannot establish any religion nor prohibit its free exercise provides the impetus for many prayers of thanksgiving on the part of American Christians and of American Baptists in particular.

Since we Americans have enjoyed religious liberty for so many years, we often forget how valuable this freedom is, and we also find it puzzling and even outrageous to hear of the oppression of worship in countries like China. Lest we forget about the meaning of the separation of church and state, I remind the reader that this concept has been a major distinctive of Baptist theology for centuries.

One of my colleagues here at Central Seminary, Kevin Bauder, has provided us with a valuable gift in this regard. In Chapter 6 of his book, Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order (Regular Baptist Press, 2012), Kevin succinctly and clearly lays out the history, meaning, and points of application regarding the significant Baptist distinctive of separation of church and state. I can only provide the main points of his discussion here, but I strongly recommend further study of this chapter for every Baptist—American or otherwise.

First, Baptists believe that the state cannot coerce worship because true devotion must come from the heart. Second, the New Testament teaches that churches neither expected nor received material support from the government. Third, with regard to civil authority, Baptists have been willing to serve in the military and to hold public office; they have been willing to practice civil disobedience when the country’s laws require them to do evil or forbid them from doing good and when a particular law violates the higher laws of the land. Fourth, in regard to the church and politics, the church has no political responsibility but bears a moral responsibility to expose the works of darkness in the land (Eph 5:3–14); individual Christians should refuse to support unjust policies, should vote, and should get involved in the political process and in some cases run for public office; and Christians can be involved in civic events and military chaplaincy. Finally, because the boundary between religious freedom and state authority has blurred, wisdom is required in regard to governmental regulations (e.g. building codes), religious sedition, and immoral religion.

We see many points of connection between the issues facing Chinese house churches and these principles of church-state separation. What Baptists have traditionally supported in this regard is clearly asserted by the Chinese declaration. And we in the American church must continue to hope and pray that our Chinese brothers and sisters will be able to enjoy the same freedom from government oppression that we experience here so that the Word of God can have free course.

Finally, I offer an observation about some Baptist churches and their inconsistent application of the separation of church and state. The observant reader will have noticed that the Chinese churches view the hanging of the national flag and singing of patriotic songs as antithetical to their view of religious freedom and as an unlawful intrusion by the government into their worship. Indeed, the mission of the church knows no national boundary and must not include worship of any but Christ. Having worshipped with believers in England, Romania, India, and China, I can attest that the hanging of the national flag and singing of patriotic songs appears to be a mostly American phenomenon (or in some cases an American practice transported via missionaries to other countries). Our Chinese brethren are willing to be imprisoned for not doing these things. We Americans, and Baptists in particular, would be wise and consistent in applying the principle of separation of church and state similarly.

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

When Any Turn From Zion’s Way

John Newton (1725–1807)

When any turn from Zion’s way,
(Alas! what numbers do!)
Methinks I hear my Savior say,
“Wilt thou forsake Me too?”

Ah Lord! with such a heart as mine,
Unless Thou hold me fast;
I feel I must, I shall decline,
And prove like them at last.

Yet Thou alone hast power, I know,
To save a wretch like me;
To whom, or whither, could I go,
If I should turn from Thee?

Beyond a doubt I rest assured
Thou art the Christ of God;
Who hast eternal life secured
By promise and by blood.

The help of men and angels joined,
Could never reach my case;
Nor can I hope relief to find,
But in Thy boundless grace.

No voice but Thine can give me rest,
And bid my fears depart;
No love but Thine can make me blest,
And satisfy my heart.

What anguish has that question stirred,
If I will also go?
Yet, Lord, relying on Thy Word,
I humbly answer, “No!”

The phone rang at 5:30 a.m. on Sunday, January 13, 2008. The voice on the other end belonged to the male nurse who had cared for my father in a hospital during the night. He informed me that my 91-year-old father had passed away ten minutes earlier. While we had admitted Dad to the hospital the previous evening, I had no thought that his life would end so soon.

After making phone calls to immediate family members, I was faced with a decision about how to handle my pastoral responsibilities that day. It seemed too short notice to expect my associate to prepare to teach my adult Bible class and preach in the morning service, so I determined to fulfill those duties personally. I had prepared to present the first of three sessions on the Christian and grief that morning! I did not hide the fact of my father’s death or my own grief from the class. I was informed that there was not a dry eye in the room as we discussed the biblical perspective of grieving.

The experience of grieving personal loss in death became even more acute as God took my wife of fifty-three years into His presence a few months ago. Many people have asked how I am doing in the interval. My answer is, “I am doing well.” That does not mean that I do not sense deep loss. It does not mean that I have no emotional pain. It does not mean that there is no sense of emptiness. It does mean that I have found grace and strength to deal with that loss without losing emotional and spiritual equilibrium.

There has been a great sense of loss. Gloria’s mark remains throughout our home, but she is not there. When I entered a supermarket in the weeks following her death, my first thought would be, “What can I buy that is on her diet?” I still do not pass a display of flowers without wanting to take some home to her. I preached in a church several hours from the Twin Cities last weekend. As I began teaching an adult Bible class, I noticed a woman who had been a member of a church I served more than twenty years ago. My first thought was to tell Gloria. I cannot kiss her goodnight or greet her in the morning. I have gone to the grave site where her remains are interred on two occasions, but she is not there!

There are times when my new reality seems to be surreal. Gloria’s clothing remained in the closets. I have spent two months sorting through boxes, file drawers, and cabinets. Each card, letter, and note she ever received was stored there. Reading them brought back many memories. Many hundreds of photographs remind me of a lifetime of shared experiences. The surreality usually involves the realization that her loss is permanent, that she will not return.

How does this believer in Jesus Christ deal with the grief resulting from death? I have benefited from several positive factors. Traits which I have developed through the years have helped. I tend to deal with issues from a factual perspective rather than a purely emotional perspective. The emotions are present, sometimes powerfully. However, I tend not to make decisions based on emotion. I tend to focus on the future rather than dwelling on the past. Memories flood my mind at times, but I am moving forward as God opens doors of opportunity for ministry. Also, I have attempted through five decades of public ministry to practice what I preach and teach before I teach it. I have counseled and taught others to deal with grief and loss biblically through the years. I am attempting to practice those principles now.

I have kept busy, not as a narcotic to dull the pain, but because there are worthwhile and necessary things to do. I am teaching two courses as a member of the adjunct faculty of Central Seminary. I have a score of commitments to teach and preach this autumn, with more on the horizon. In addition, I have spent more than two months preparing to sell our home and find “right size” housing for the future. Staying busy is a good preventative for self-pity.

Another positive is that Gloria and I experienced the long goodbye about which I wrote in this space previously. Therese Rando (Treatment of Complicated Mourning) identifies several myths about mourning. Among them are the beliefs that all losses prompt the same type of mourning and that losing someone to a sudden unexpected death is the same as losing someone to an expected death. In my experience they are not identical. While my grief became more intense with Gloria’s physical death, much of my personal mourning occurred earlier over an extended period of time. There was not a cataclysmic shock.

In addition, I have a wonderful support system consisting of family and friends. Our four children have been most helpful. All of them call regularly and help as they have opportunity. One of them calls me every night, taking care of Dad! My godly mother and my six siblings and their mates have provided caring support. Uncounted friends indicate that they continue to pray for me and my family. Some have gone out of their way to provide encouragement and assistance.

Finally, and most importantly, there is the comfort of God’s Word and the ministry of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Psalm 116:15 informs me that the death of His saints is valuable to God. Gloria’s death was not a mistake and was not wasted! 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 describe the future rapture of the church as the blessed hope of every believer in bold relief against the dark colors of death and grief. I will be reunited with Gloria in that future day when Christ comes to snatch His followers from this world. So, I do grieve, but not like people who are without hope. Our God is truly “the God of all comfort”—and He shares it with me (2 Corinthians 1:3-4).

This essay is by Don Odens, Professor of Homiletics and Expository Preaching at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Lord, We Lie Before Thy Feet

Joseph Hart (1712–1768)

Lord, we lie before Thy feet;
Look on all our deep distress;
Thy rich mercy may we meet;
Clothe us with Thy righteousness;
Stretch forth Thy almighty hand;
Hold us up, and we shall stand.

Oh that closer we could cleave
To Thy bleeding, dying breast!
Give us firmly to believe,
And to enter into rest.
Lord, increase, increase our faith!
Make us faithful unto death.

Let us trust Thee evermore;
Every moment on Thee call
For new life, new will, new power:
Let us trust Thee, Lord for all!
May we nothing know beside
Jesus, and Him crucified!

My wife’s casket was before me as I stood at the pulpit to present a tribute and the funeral sermon for the love of my life on July 18, 2018. Later, people asked how I could do that. The answer is a combination of God’s grace, long pastoral experience, and a desire to honor Gloria. A long road led to her departure from this world into eternity, giving us time for a long goodbye. I did not have to deal with the shock of an unexpected death. The long goodbye began with a diagnosis of polycystic kidney disease (PKD) in 1983 and extended through surgeries to remove her native kidneys and transplant a donor organ. When the transplant failed in 2011, Gloria began a regimen of hemodialysis, spending three half-days each week connected to a dialysis machine.

Gloria’s health deteriorated significantly in the last months of 2016. Her nephrologist helped us switch to peritoneal dialysis (PD) at home, believing it would be gentler than hemodialysis. A catheter was implanted surgically and I received training to administer PD. However, PD generated its own problems. In addition the catheter failed after only three months. Gloria returned to the hemodialysis clinic three days per week.

2017 brought numerous trips to the Emergency Room, nine hospitalizations, and five surgeries. I left a position on the faculty of Central Seminary to care for Gloria full-time. The “senior moments” about which we joked for a couple of years became serious as her memory declined. She became more and more somnolent. Occasionally, she became minimally responsive or even completely unresponsive. Expert physicians were unable to discover the cause. Several said, “Mrs. Odens, your case is very complex!” Eventually, dementia was added to her list of diagnoses. Our “long goodbye” now included diminished memory, difficulty in processing complex ideas, and decreased ability to communicate. The gregarious, vital, talkative woman I married now became quite withdrawn.

2018 brought continued decline in Gloria’s energy and an increase in discomfort. She was somnolent in the day time. Her primary care physician became deeply concerned about the deterioration in her health and spoke with me several times about adopting a plan for the end of her life.

We ate a late lunch on June 5. After eating, we sat at the table and talked. Her words were halting, but she expressed herself clearly and her thoughts were connected. At one point she said, “I don’t know if I can live in our house.” I asked what she meant. Her answer made it clear that she was contemplating death. We engaged in an extended conversation about death and eternity for believers in Jesus Christ, discussing John 14:1-6 and 11:25-26. Gloria asked how death occurs and if it was something she could do. I explained from Psalm 139:16 that God has determined the number of days in our lives. She concluded that she would have to wait for God to take her, and then asked if it is something we could do together! I asked if she was certain that she possessed eternal life. She replied, “Absolutely!” As our conversation ended, she said, “I just want to go to heaven.”

Our daughter and I communicated with in-home hospice providers. To this point our focus had been on extending her life by drawing on the best medical care available. Now, it was becoming evident that Gloria had little energy left. Dialysis sessions exhausted her completely and she became more resistant to keeping her appointments. Following conversations with her primary care physician I determined that we would begin hospice care, but only if Gloria refused to continue doing dialysis or was not capable of going to dialysis.

That day came on July 2, 2018. Gloria was unresponsive and unable to keep her dialysis appointment. After twelve hours, I called the hospice provider and initiated hospice care. Gloria awakened that evening. The next morning, I asked her what she would choose for her future, presenting two options: (1) to go to heaven to be with Jesus in a few days, or (2) to continue dialysis. She replied, “To be with Jesus!” We continued the in-home hospice care, perhaps the most difficult decision I have ever made.

Dialysis patients who stop treatment typically pass away on days six, seven, or eight. Gloria lived to day fourteen! Those were extremely difficult days for her, but they also provided some sweet times. I returned to our bedroom with her medications at 7:00 a.m. on day twelve and said, “Good morning.” She whispered, “Good morning.” I asked, “Are you still my girlfriend?” She whispered, “Your girlfriend!” I said, “I love you.” She responded, “I love you.” She did not have enough energy to talk the rest of the day. On day thirteen, I replayed that scenario. Gloria could not whisper a response, but she mouthed “Good morning,” and “Girlfriend,” and “I love you.” Then, after a pause, she whispered, “I love you, I love you, I love you!” and smiled broadly. Those were her last words to me.

Her last night was extremely difficult as Gloria struggled to breathe. Through the years of our marriage, she asked me several times to promise that I would join her in her hospital bed when she was dying. I made it a point to be there. I was awake most of the night but dozed occasionally. I awakened at 5:00 a.m. to hear her breathing with extreme difficulty. Taking her hands in mine I asked God to take her into His presence and bring the struggle to an end. Apparently, I dozed again, because something startled me awake. Gloria was not struggling to breathe in that moment. I feared that she had passed away as I slept. Then, she took her last breath…and entered the glory of God’s presence. The long goodbye was complete.

I miss her deeply, but God has brought comfort and strength through His Word, the presence of our children, and the support of uncounted numbers of friends.

This essay is by Don Odens, Professor of Homiletics and Expository Preaching at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

From Egypt Lately Come

Thomas Kelly (1769–1855)

From Egypt lately come,
  Where death and darkness reign,
We seek our new, our better Home,
  Where we our rest shall gain.
           Alleluia!
  We are on our way to God!

To Canaan’s sacred bound
  We hast with songs of joy,
Where peace and liberty are found,
  And sweets that never cloy.
           Alleluia!
  We are on our way to God!

There sin and sorrow cease,
  And every conflict’s o’er;
There we shall dwell in endless peace,
  And never hunger more.
           Alleluia!
  We are on our way to God!

There, in celestial strains,
  Enraptured myriads sing;
There love in every bosom reigns,
  For God Himself is King.
           Alleluia!
  We are on our way to God!

We soon shall join the throng,
  Their pleasures we shall share,
And sing the everlasting song,
  With all the ransomed there.
           Alleluia!
  We are on our way to God!

How sweet the prospect is!
  It cheers the pilgrim’s breast!
We’re journeying through the wilderness,
  But soon shall gain our rest!
           Alleluia!
  We are on our way to God!