Okay, so we are not going to talk about "preserving" the church, but we are going to talk about "protecting" the church. How do we make this distinction? On biblical grounds.
What this means is actually much more serious than you might think. It means we make no distinctions except on the basis of God's word. We cannot call anything "protecting" without a biblical basis, a real biblical basis, on which we are acting. So, let's think of a few things.
Not very long ago, everyone "dressed up" for church. Men wore suits and women wore dresses and hose. Now, almost no one wears a suit to church (although many preachers still do so) and women and men both dress casually. For several years, this was a big deal in church thought. People objected strongly to casual dress and the problem split churches. Ultimately, it was resolved by people giving up on the whole "dress up" idea. It was not biblically based, but culturally based, so we let it go. We are better for doing so.
In music, we see more churches abandoning the 1800's "hymns" that so many of us have loved for so long. As I sing them now, I realize that many are not theologically sound and that the use of "thee" and "thou" is becoming ridiculous. "Thou shouldst not" is not a good song lyric in modern America. There is no biblical basis for using songs of the 1800's or quaint language from then (or earlier) in our worship. Why not use modern language? Why not translate the songs into modern language?
Think of all the things we do, that we often want to protect. Age-designated Sunday Schools have no biblical basis (and are contrary to the biblical principle of unity). Meeting at 11:00 am on Sunday morning is not a biblical meeting time. Preaching at the end of the service, with singing before, is not a biblical matter. Wednesday night prayer meetings are not a biblical matter.
What are we going to protect? What is biblical about your church? Answer the second question, and you have answered the first question.
What this means is actually much more serious than you might think. It means we make no distinctions except on the basis of God's word. We cannot call anything "protecting" without a biblical basis, a real biblical basis, on which we are acting. So, let's think of a few things.
Not very long ago, everyone "dressed up" for church. Men wore suits and women wore dresses and hose. Now, almost no one wears a suit to church (although many preachers still do so) and women and men both dress casually. For several years, this was a big deal in church thought. People objected strongly to casual dress and the problem split churches. Ultimately, it was resolved by people giving up on the whole "dress up" idea. It was not biblically based, but culturally based, so we let it go. We are better for doing so.
In music, we see more churches abandoning the 1800's "hymns" that so many of us have loved for so long. As I sing them now, I realize that many are not theologically sound and that the use of "thee" and "thou" is becoming ridiculous. "Thou shouldst not" is not a good song lyric in modern America. There is no biblical basis for using songs of the 1800's or quaint language from then (or earlier) in our worship. Why not use modern language? Why not translate the songs into modern language?
Think of all the things we do, that we often want to protect. Age-designated Sunday Schools have no biblical basis (and are contrary to the biblical principle of unity). Meeting at 11:00 am on Sunday morning is not a biblical meeting time. Preaching at the end of the service, with singing before, is not a biblical matter. Wednesday night prayer meetings are not a biblical matter.
What are we going to protect? What is biblical about your church? Answer the second question, and you have answered the first question.