The Seven Churches of the 21st
Century
Sardis:
Dead And Buried
Revelation 3:1-6
And unto the angel of the
church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath
the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know
thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and
art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which
remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy
works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou
hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If
therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a
thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come
upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which
have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk
with me in white: for they are worthy. He that
overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment;
and I will not blot out his name out of the book of
life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and
before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
The terrible
downward progression continues as we come to the
church in Sardis. As we’ll see, this church was
one that looked alive, vital, effective, and
progressive but was in reality dead and
buried.
The Root of the Letter (v.
1a)
And unto the angel of the
church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath
the seven Spirits of God, and the seven
stars;
Concerning
Christ
The vision of the
Lord Jesus found here is from Revelation 1:4: “John to
the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you,
and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which
is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before
his throne.” The seven spirits is a reference to
the Holy Spirit. Of course, there is only “one Spirit”
(Eph. 4:4), so what our Lord is saying here is that the
number “7,” which is the number of “perfection,”
pictures the diversified activities and perfect ministry
of the Holy Spirit. After all, Christ sent the Holy
Spirit (Jn. 15:26) and here shows His authority over the
Spirit. We then see the seven stars, which refer, as we saw in 1:19, to the seven
churches. Therefore, Christ shows that He desires to
control the churches by working in the pastors through
the ministry of the Holy Spirit, Who will illumine the
Word of God to the minds of those leaders. But, as we
will see, the church at Sardis was not following Holy
Spirit leading and had usurped Christ’s
authority.
Concerning
The Church
The word “Sardis” means,
“Those who have escaped, a remnant.” The remnant of this
church is found in verse 4: “Thou hast a few names even
in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and
they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.”
We’ll return to this verse later, but we not e here that
there were a few faithful servants who were not a part
of the dead orthodoxy in Sardis, a few who were clinging
to the Truth, and our Lords praises them as “worth.”
Based on thought, we will later be challenged to examine
ourselves to see if we are part of that remnant
today.
Prophetic
History
This church clearly
pictures the period of Church History called “dead
Protestantism.” This was the time of the great state
churches of the Reformation (1517-1790). We’ll come back
to this in great detail in “The
Rebuke.”
Concerning
The City
Sardis was located about
thirty miles southeast of Thyatira and stood at the
junction of five main roads. Sardis was an important
city of commerce, being not only a center of the carpet
industry and the dying of wool, but the place in which
many believe coins were first minted. Sardis was one of
the greatest and wealthiest cities in the world. Its
wealth, in fact, was legendary. As archaeologist William
Ramsay recounts, while there was none found by Romans,
legend has it that the sand of the Pactolus River, which
flowed through the lower part of the city, actually
contained gold and is where much of the cities wealth
originated.
Another interesting thing
about Sardis was that it was located on top of an almost
inaccessible plateau. This fact caused the people in
Sardis, however, to have a false sense of security; they
believed that their city was impregnable. History tells
us that Sardis was, indeed, conquered twice (Cyrus, 549
B.C. and Antiochus the Great, 214 B.C.), but the most
fascinating thing is that it was conquered both times in
the exactly same way. Each time the invaders found a
secret trail leading to the top of the plateau and found
an unguarded city.
The city in view in the
first century A.D., therefore, is but a shadow of its
former splendor, and, as we’ll see, the church in that
city was in the same condition.
The Regard of the
Letter
While the words “I
know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest”
might seem to be a regard, they are not because they
only describe outward appearance, not reality. There is actually no regard given
to this church. The only possible exception to this
would be the positive words of the Lord to the remnant
in the church noted earlier (v. 4), but to the church as
a whole there is no commendation whatsoever. How tragic
it was that our Lord could find nothing noteworthy in a
group of New Testament Believers. It had drifted so far
away from the Truth that it no longer even resembled a
New Testament church. This should strike us profoundly
as we continue.
The Rebuke of the Letter (vs.
1b, 2b)
I know thy works, that
thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. . . .
for I have not found thy works perfect before
God.
The problem in the church
at Sardis was that it was living in mere dead orthodoxy.
As we did in our study of the church at Thyatira, let us
look at three emphases.
The Scene At
Sardis
The Greek behind
livest is the verb zao, from which, with
the noun zoe, is where we get
English words such as “zoology” and “protozoa.” It means
to have life or existence. Metaphorically, it means
lively or active, and that was the church at Sardis; it
was active and lively. As one commentator puts very
well, “In all probability it was a beehive of organized
activity. . . . It had a reputation of being a
progressive church.”[i] No doubt everyone
knew where it was and knew how lively it appeared. Like
many churches today, it was undoubtedly a big,
prosperous, and progressively growing church. I heard
one expositor comment that Sardis might be the church a
pastor would recommend his people attend if they were on
vacation in Sardis. He would probably say something
like, “Oh, you just have to go see what incredible
things that are going on there!”
But as the old
saying goes, things were not as they seemed. While this
church appeared to be alive, it was in reality
dead. It possessed only an outward form
but no inward fervor; there was only
liturgy, no life. Like flowers that
look real but upon close
examination are actually artificial, this church was not
the genuine article. It looked beautiful and appealing,
but upon close examination it was nothing but a corpse.
Our Lord says
specifically that their works were not perfect
before God. The Greek for perfect is
pleroo, which
speaks of filling a container. It was once used
of ships being filled with sailors, rowers, and soldiers
and means “to
influence fully, to control.” As one Greek authority
adds, “To fill up, to cause
to abound, to furnish or supply liberally, to flood, to
diffuse throughout.”[ii] It is used, for
example, in Matthew 13:48 to refer to a full fishing
net. The chief
idea in the present context, then, is that this church
was not complete, not full, not influenced and
controlled rightly. In short it was not filled with
God, not controlled by the Holy Spirit. It was,
in fact, living a lie. This condition was, of
course, the inevitable end to what had begun in
Pergamum and developed in Thyatira. First we tolerate the world and then embrace
it; once that is done, we are on the road to a dead
church.
With the foregoing in
mind, let us take a few moments to consider some warning
signs that a church is near death. Every Believer should
search his or her spiritual condition for the presence
of these warning signs.
First, a sign
of a church’s death is liturgy rather than
life. From the Church of England’s Book of
Common Prayer to some inflexible order of service or
even the exact opposite of a strict insistence on
spontaneity, anything can become liturgy because we’re
thinking only of the way we’re doing something
instead of concentrating on what we’re doing. Mindless activity, regardless of
the form it takes, is not worship. It’s dead
orthodoxy.
Second, another
sign is an emphasis on social reforms instead of
spiritual realities.
More and more Christian leaders today have embraced the
idea that social problems are the biggest obstacle of
people coming to Christ. We see it historically in
Methodism, and we see it today among the
“seeker-sensitive” crowd. But that is not what the New
Testament teaches. We might give a sinner food, clothes,
a house, and a job, but now all he is a fed, clothed,
housed, and employed sinner. A person needs Christ
first, Who will then meet temporal needs (Matt.
6:25-34).
Third, a sign
of a dying church is materialism over
ministry. True ministry is
service without thought of remuneration. Is it no
contradictory when a business puts the word “service” in
it name? If you pay someone, what they give is not
service; that is trading and bartering. True service
asks nothing in return. Today, however, money and
material gain are the goal. Christ is marketed in the
same ways we market cars, clothes, and candy. Gone is
the desire for spiritual Truth. While we look lively and
thriving, we are dead.
Fourth,
another sign is a concentration on creeds instead
of Christ. Doctrinal statements are very
important. No better statements exist than The
Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 and The
London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.
We also see statements in our modern day, such as The
Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, drawn up and signed by hundreds of evangelical
scholars in 1978. But when we then examine the teachings
and practices of some of those who supposedly hold these
documents dear, we find staggering contradictions. We
see Christ and the Gospel more and more redefined and
diluted with each passing day. If all we have is a
creed, we are dead.
Fifth,
following the previous sign, a strong sign of a dying
church is when the Bible is only an addition
rather the authority. For example, while the
document just mentioned is basically good, it blunders
with this troubling statement, “We affirm that the
Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God
binds the conscience.” But is that true? To many
readers, that seems fine, even accurate and
praiseworthy. But words mean things and the word
“supreme” is a very poor choice. Why? Because it means
highest in rank, authority, degree, or quality and it’s
a word of comparison. The Supreme Court, for
example, is the highest of all courts, so saying the
Bible is the “supreme written norm” clearly means that
there are other norms, the Bible just being the
supreme. But that is simply not so! Whether intended or
not, that statement weakens the sole (not supreme) authority of Scripture. That
statement should read, “We affirm that the Scriptures
are the SOLE written norm by which God binds the
conscience.” There is no other norm!
The fact of the matter is,
however, that the Word of God is ignored today when it
comes to ministry, methods, and motives. Let’s get real!
The Church today simply does not follow the Bible alone
in all that it does. It has become merely an addition,
not the authority. If it consulted at all, it is usually
only to prop up a doctrine we’ve already formulated, a
decision we’ve already made, or the practice we’ve
already instituted. Regardless of what Scripture says,
we end up just doing whatever we think will accomplish
our goals.
Sixth, one
last sign is when Christians are look for
recreation instead of Christ’s Return.
Indeed, many churches today not only look lively,
but they also look hedonistic. When one studies
this trend historically, in fact, he finds that
entertainment offered in churches today is unprecedented
in Church History. Never before have we seen the
emphasis on entertainment that exists today. We’re not
looking for Christ’s appearance, rather we’re
looking for the appearance of the latest “Christian”
celebrity and buying tickets
to the next exciting event. Instead of the place of
worship, reverence, and learning, we’ve turned our
churches into theaters and arenas.
The tragic story of
Sampson provides a graphic example of dead orthodoxy.
Here was a man God chose to accomplish great work but a
man who failed miserably and is one of the saddest
stories in all of Scripture. And why did he fail? Yes,
he did some amazing feats in God’s name that awed the
people of his day and even ours. But I am immediately
reminded here of “The Power Team,” a group of strong men
and women who travel around the world doing great feats
of strength to inspire people to do great things in
their lives. What a warped philosophy! Yes, Sampson was
his own “Power Team,” but he ended up defeated,
disgraced, and dead because he disobeyed God’s Word. And
that is exactly where a large part of Christianity today
is headed. Yes, we look impressive in what we’re doing,
we look effective to the thousands of people we’re
supposedly reaching, but the real Truth of Scripture is
nowhere to be seen.
Again, let each of us
examine our spiritual lives for these signs.
The Scene In
Church History
If the history we studied
concerning Thyatira was amazing, the history we are
about to examine is truly astonishing.
Prophetic
History
Again, the church at
Sardis vividly pictures the time of the Reformation, but
there are both good and bad aspects of that pivotal era.
Because of the complexities of the Reformation, let us
break down its history into these two aspects; the
positive import and the negative
impact of the
Reformation.
The Positive Import of the
Reformation
The importance
of the Reformation should never be discounted or
understated. It cannot be adequately understood,
however, without also understanding The Renaissance. In
southern Europe, this movement had turned to Humanism to
try to find meaning to life. The cry of the Renaissance
was man is the center of all things; he can do whatever
he wills and can accomplish anything he sets his mind
to. The seed of this was actually planted in the Middle
Ages by Thomas Aquinas (1227-74), the Roman Catholic
Schoolman who mixed Christian thought with pagan
thought, especially Aristotle’s. By teaching that while
man fell in his will, his intellect did
not, the inevitable result was the idea that man could
think his way out of his problems. This tainted the
Church as well. No longer was the Bible the authority;
rather the Church became the authority. We should also
interject that that idea is still with us today, even
among Evangelicals. While we give the Bible lip service,
it is far from being the SOLE
authority in all that we believe and do in the Church;
we look to our intellect, our understanding, and our
ideas. We have never wholly escaped Thomas Aquinas, who
is still studied today as one of the greatest thinkers
of Church History. Additionally, right in line with
Humanism, Renaissance thought further tainted the church
by adding human works to the work of Christ for
salvation.
At first, Humanism
seemed true and workable. The art and architecture of
the Renaissance, for example, especially in Florence,
Italy, is breathtaking to this day. Michelangelo’s
statue David still stands as
the ultimate statement of the Renaissance. It pictures
man as supreme in his own strength and breathtaking
beauty. Likewise, the incredibly brilliant Leonardo da
Vinci (1452-1519) truly epitomized Renaissance man; he
was not only an artist, but also a chemist, musician,
architect, anatomist, botanist, and mechanical engineer.
His accomplishments still stagger the mind 500 years
later. But it’s especially significant that Leonardo
himself, near the end of his life, saw the inevitable
failure and ultimate defeat of Humanism.
There is a
staggering paradox here, namely, thinking does not
lead to the Truth. Truth is not
discovered; Truth is revealed. Man can never discover
Truth; only God reveals Truth, and He reveals it only in
Scripture.
While this was
happening in the south of Europe, however,
another movement was arising in the north. The
men there struggled with the same questions of morals
and life, but they came to a conclusion, and
therefore results, that were the polar opposite
of Renaissance man. As had the forerunners of the
Reformation—John Wycliffe (c. 1320–84) and John Huss
(1369–1415)—the Reformers started with
God, not man. They first
realized that man fell in his entire being. That
principle, in fact, is at the very foundation of
biblical salvation doctrine. Every false
teaching—whether it be Arianism, Pelagianism,
Arminianism, or any other—has at its core the wrong view
of man. Every one, in fact, views man as having either
not fallen at all and is basically good, or that his
fall was only partial, that there is at least a little
good in there somewhere. But the Reformers recognized
the biblical teaching of man’s totally fallen and
perverse nature, that his entire being—his intellect,
emotions, and will—is hopelessly
depraved.
The reformers also
considered the Bible as the Word of God and the only
authority over men’s lives. By removing Humanism from
their thought, the Reformers rediscovered the Truth of
the Gospel. The leaders of the Reformation were men such
as Martin Luther (1483–1546) in Germany, who nailed his
Ninety-five Theses on the church door in Wittenberg
(Oct. 31, 1517), John Calvin (1509-64) in Switzerland,
who wonderfully outlined biblical Truth in his
monumental Institutes of the Christian
Religion in 1536, and John Knox
(c. 1513–72) in Scotland, who said the Catholic mass was
idolatry and whose preaching turned that country upside
down.
The Reformation,
therefore, truly brought the Church out of the darkness
that had ruled for 1,000 years and was the first major
attempt to return to biblical Christianity. Its primary
accomplishments were the bringing back salvation Truth
and the authority of Scripture. Disastrously, those
truths are again being challenged in our day even from
within the ranks of Evangelicalism. Some so-called
evangelicals maintain that the Reformation was the most
tragic mistake of Church History, that it split the
Church and destroyed unity. Such teaching from so-called
evangelicals is beyond comprehension.
The Negative Impact of the
Reformation
While it’s true that the
Reformation brought the Church out of the Roman Papacy,
it is equally true that the Reformation produced its own
set of problems, problems, in fact, that are not minor.
As one writer words it, “The Reformation was not a
golden age. It was far from perfect.”[iii] That is truly an
understatement. While the Reformers tried hard to make
Scripture their only standard, there were
inconsistencies that seriously marred the movement.
One such
contradiction was Luther’s response to the Peasants’ War
in 1525. After hearing Luther denounce the authority of
the Church, the peasants of southwestern Germany applied
this to their social and economic problems and revolted
violently against the abuses of feudalism. While they
looked to Luther for support, he thought that their
fanatical revolution might endanger the Reformation and
undermine orderly government, so he sided with the
princes. While Luther was no doubt right in not
supporting the fanaticism, he greatly erred when he
urged the violent suppression of the uprising by the
princes, even writing a pamphlet titled, Against the
Murderous and Thieving Hordes of
Peasants. An estimated 100,000
peasants were slaughtered and the rest remained in the
Roman Catholic Church.
There were also some
problems in Luther’s theology. Luther was, of course, a
Catholic monk who, after studying the book of Romans,
realized that salvation comes from faith in Christ, not
by the Roman system. He then broke from Rome and began
to spread reform. To this we say, “Praise the Lord!” He
was still affected in many ways, however, by Roman
Catholic theology. Now, Luther did reject
“transubstantiation,” the Roman Catholic doctrine that
says the bread and wine of “the eucharist” (the Lord’s
Supper) turns into the literal body and blood of Christ.
We should interject here that this practice comes
directly from pagan religion. But, while he rejected
that practice, Luther still held to what is called
“consubstantiation,” which says that in a “mystical way”
Christ is present in the bread and wine, a clear
violation of our Lord’s own words that His table is a
memorial only. Neither did Luther change with regard to
the mode of baptism (which in Catholicism is pouring,
not immersion), nor did he reject infant baptism, which
is nowhere taught in Scripture. Luther then merely
developed church liturgy and government that was
basically his own and only a reaction against Rome. All
this led, of course, to “Lutheranism,” a man-founded
system. The bottom line is, Luther came out of
Catholicism, but not far enough.
Another example was
Huldreich Zwingli, the leader of Reformation thought in
Switzerland. He held most of the same views as Luther
but rejected “consubstantiation” and held the Biblical
position that the Lord’s Supper was only a
memorial. Zwingli did much against the Roman Church,
probably more than Luther. However, Zwingli held some
humanistic ideals. He also, like Luther, founded his own
religious organization, which later merged with the
Calvinistic forces in the reformed churches of
Switzerland. So again, the bottom line is, Zwingli
came out, but not far enough.
Bible teacher and
commentator Lehman Strauss puts it well:
The Reformation raised up
a group of men who came out from Romanism and who
rescued much from the mortuary of Rome. But they did not
go far enough. State churches were organized, many of
which are in operation today in Germany, Holland, and
other countries. Denominationalism with its sacraments,
forms, and ceremonies became a cold, lifeless formalism.
Ministers became ministers of the church, not of
Christ.
We could trace much more
of this, but we’ll just briefly name a few other
historical incidents. “Reformed Faith” or “Reformed
Churches” refer to John Calvin’s Theology (much of which
is truly important to our faith and which we embrace),
but “Presbyterianism” is the word used to describe the
system of government that a man developed. James
Arminius opposed Calvinism and had considerable
influence on one wing of the Anglican Church of England
in the seventeenth century, the Methodist Movement of
the eighteenth century, and the “Salvation Army” in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Another important
fact is that the Anglican Reformation in England was
similar to the Lutheran Movement in its approach to
reform. But since the Anglican Reformation had no
dominant leader (like Luther or Calvin), it was,
therefore, dominated by whoever was in governmental
power. That, of course, produced a “state
church.”
Another regrettable
result of the Reformers not going back far enough was
their retention of the word “sacrament,” which makes me
cringe every time I hear a Christian utter it. The
Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic reaction to the
Reformers, defined a sacrament as, “Something presented
to the sense, which has the power, by divine
institution, not only of signifying, but also of
efficiently conveying grace.” The Roman system teaches
that baptism, Holy Eucharist (the perversion of the
Lord’s Supper), and five other sacraments convey grace
and give salvation, which is not only a perversion of
the Gospel, but is also a thoroughly pagan system. The
Latin sacramentum, in fact,
was used to refer to the mysteries of ancient pagan
religion. Further, the Prayer Book of the Church of
England actually calls the Lord’s Supper “these holy
mysteries.” While no true Christian should ever use that
word in reference to the “ordnances” that our Lord
Himself ordained, many tragically do and thereby give
credence to Rome. Why the Reformers retained that word
is beyond explanation.
What is the point to
all this? Simply this: All this was reform but
was not a return. A. C.
Gaebelein says it well:
The reformation itself was
of God and the great men of God who were used were the
most mighty instruments of the Holy Spirit. It was the
greatest work, up to that time, since the days of the
apostles. But out of it came the human systems which go
by the name Protestantism. The reformation began well,
but soon developed in the different Protestant systems
into a dead, lifeless thing.[iv]
Indeed, the
Reformation was of God and had a glorious
beginning, but its leaders fell short by failing to
return to the principles of Church government and
ministry that were evident in the first century and
which are recorded in the Word of God. The majority of
what we have just seen was founded, not on Biblical
authority, but on human reasoning and human ideas. What
should Luther have done? He would have been much
better off, as we would today, if he would just have
thrown out everything and,
with an open Bible in front of him, started over. We say
again, most of what the Reformers did was marvelous, but
their systems degenerated because they were not based on
the Word of God alone. The result was “Protestantism,” a
human system. It has been well said, “At the birth of
every organization are the seeds of its destruction.”
Man-made organizations will always fail sooner or later.
So, the result of all this that came historically, and
which still remains today, is big, dead denominations.
William Newell, one of the
most reliable evangelical commentators, wrote these
words in his commentary on Revelation:
“Thou hast a name that
thou livest, and thou art dead.” Nothing could describe
Protestantism more accurately! As over against Romish
night and ignorance, [Sardis] has enlightenment and
outward activity: the great “state churches” or
“denominations”, with creeds and histories, costly
churches and cathedrals, universities and seminaries,
“boards,” bureaus of publication and propaganda,
executors of organized activities, including home and
foreign missions, even “lobby” men to “influence
legislation” at court! You and I dare compare the church
with no other model than the Holy Spirit gave at
Pentecost and in Paul’s day.
No truer words have
ever come from an expositor. What the Reformers
should have done, and what we should do today, is
open our Bibles to the Book of Acts and the Epistles of
Paul and base our churches on that alone. While the
Church is in need of another Reformation, what it
needs more is a Return to the
New Testament! That thought leads us to a third
consideration.
The Scene
Today
With Newell’s words
still in mind, let us see how clear these historical
truths are today. I have struggled with this issue at
various times over the years, and I have tried to strike
a balance. I heard one well-known preacher say recently,
“Denominations are a necessity in order to mark
distinctions between the many groups that exist and to
keep doctrine pure.” Now, we most certainly agree that
we must have distinctions. I believe strongly in
doctrinal statements and strong distinctions based on
Theology. But does that require a denomination? What
exactly is a denomination?
Webster defines it as, “A religious organization whose
congregations are united in their adherence to its
beliefs and practices.” In other words, it’s an
association of churches that agree in doctrine, order,
and practice.
In today’s practice,
however, a denomination goes further to denote that the
said group organizes itself as another entity apart from
any one church. The fact of the matter is, however, that
while there have been many attempts to justify the
organizing of several churches into its own association,
which is then often called a denomination, the New
Testament simply does not say that, and that ought
to be enough. What is says is that Paul and
others founded churches, but it does not say that
those churches were then organized into another
entity called a denomination
or association, which in turn has its own constitution,
by-laws, organization, leaders, officers, and so forth.
The seven churches
here in Revelation serve as an example. While we often
refer to them collectively as “The Seven Churches of
Asia Minor,” Scripture does not call them that, or call
them something like, “The Independent Fundamental
Churches of Asia Minor” (IFCAM), or “The Near Eastern
Association of Christian Churches” (NEACC), or any such
denominational term. Each was an independent work with
no so-called “association” or collective organization
implied. In fact, local churches of that day were so
autonomous that they sent out their own “missionaries”
that is, church-planters, as
did the Church at Antioch when it ordained and sent out
Paul and Barnabus (Acts 13:1-3). Today, of course, we
think we can improve upon that by using mission boards
and other organizations. Does no one see a problem
here?
Does that imply that
churches should never fellowship with one another? Of
course not! When churches can agree upon the “seven
unities” of the faith that Paul lists in Ephesians
4:4-6, there can be blessed fellowship. But once we
“organize” that fellowship into its own
entity, we have abandoned the
biblical precedent and are asking for trouble.
Someone has put the matter
this way: Every man-made organization or ministry goes
through four stages: a man, a movement, a machine, and a
monument. How true that is! Many a man has started with
a well-meant and sincere burden or “vision,” who sees
the potential of some new organization. We then witness
a movement, where thousands jump on the bandwagon,
attend the new movement’s conferences and rallies. Next
we see the new organization purring along like a machine
as its board of directors control finances and policy.
But sadly, after a few years of novelty, we see the
organization turn into just another monument to some
man’s dream and then watch it fall by the wayside and
make room for the next progression.
It needs to be said
that denominations and other such associations,
including parachurch organizations, are man-made
not God-ordained. Oh, how we need to go back to Biblical
authority! We praise God that the Reformers went back to
the Word of God in several areas, but they didn’t go
back far enough; they didn’t go back to the New
Testament standards of the Church. As a result, their
systems were riddled with man’s organization and
therefore human weakness. The same is true today. Most
of our evangelical churches are encumbered with
organization that was founded on Reformation
opinion instead of Biblical Truth. Just one example of this is that the government
in most churches is one that is based on one of those
founded by a Reformer.
“But what about ‘labels’?”
is it is asked. “There are so many views, so many
teachings, that don’t we need labels to distinguish one
group’s teaching from another, such as Baptist,
Methodist, Presbyterian, and so forth?” Here is where my
aforementioned struggle comes, for tragically there is
some truth in that. From the early days of the Church,
men have looked at particular doctrines a little
differently, practiced worship in a little different
manner, governed their church differently than other
churches, and so forth; they then adopted a particular
name to differentiate them from others. Other groups
have simply fallen into error and had to be described
using some label, such as Arianism, for example, named
after the apostate Arius.
I would submit,
however, that the less Bible believing Christians do
this among themselves, the better off the true
Church will be. If I may stoop to use myself as an
example, if someone asks me, “What are you?” meaning
what denomination I am, I usually answer, “I pastor an
independent Bible Church.” That is usually followed up
by the question, “What’s that? What do you believe?” I
answer, “Our church is independent and believes in
salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ
alone, and believes the Bible to be the absolute, final,
and sufficient authority in all maters and issues” I
have had some ask further, “Is that like a Baptist?” To
which I answer, “Yes, it is baptistic, but I prefer not
to use the term Baptist.” I go on to explain why. While
I believe passionately in virtually every historical
Baptist doctrine as outlined in The London Baptist
Confession of Faith of 1689, sadly that term today
immediately paints someone as believing certain things
that are not historically Baptist, such as
Arminianism and legalism in Christian living. It’s
tragic that many Baptist denominations are
Arminian when that is NOT historically Baptist at
all. Men such as Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, Augustus
Strong, John Dagg, and many others were all not only
strong Baptists but also strong Calvinists. To my dear
Baptist brethren out there, I also cannot accept the
idea of congregational government because it clearly
contradicts the shepherd/sheep analogy in the New
Testament, which so obviously indicates pastoral
leadership that I don’t understand how anyone can
justify any other form of church government. If the
Bible says anything about the
Church, it clearly outlines Pastoral Leadership (also
called Elder Rule), not Congressional, Presbytery, or
anything else.
At any rate, while
some labels are sadly unavoidable, the more we can avoid
them among true Believers,
the more godly unity we will have. The classic example
appears in I Corinthians 3. The church in Corinth (the
most carnal church on record) was divided into four
groups. Each group was following a particular man
instead of God and labeled himself accordingly. God does
not want the body of Christ divided. The unity of the
body is so important, and disunity so common, that there
is something about unity in almost every one of Paul’s
Epistles.
I was recently grieved
when I ran into a fellow pastor in our area who would
barely even speak to me when I tried to strike up a
conversation. I actually had to force him to speak. Why?
Because I am not “a Baptist,” when in reality I am
undoubtedly more historically Baptist than he is. I’ve
encountered that attitude many times over the years and
wonder how such folks are going to get along in Heaven.
How sad it is that we have built so many walls between
us!
The bottom line,
therefore, is that we should stay away from
denominations. While they have been founded for
various reasons, such as power for political lobbying,
sending out missionaries, maintaining doctrine, and so
forth, they are not the New Testament precedent. More
often, in fact, they actually make churches weaker
through compromise. And if that is not enough, it is
historical fact that far more denominations have gone
the way of liberalism than have stayed true to the Word
of God. Is that what we should defend? Mark it down:
denominations are the seed of dead
orthodoxy.
The Requirement of the Letter
(vs. 2a, 3)
Be watchful, and
strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to
die: . . . Remember therefore how thou hast received and
heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou
shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and
thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon
thee.
Christ told the church at
Sardis that it needed to do four things.
“Wake Up”
(literal translation of “be watchful”)
Our Lord uses the
odd phrase, I will come on thee as a thief, but
those in Sardis immediately understood the image.
Robbers were common and lurked in the surrounding hills
and caves. As mentioned earlier, the city had also been
captured twice by conquerors while the people slept in
overconfidence. Likewise, the church had lulled itself
into such a deep sleep that it was dead to the realities
around it. But how could something that was dead wake
up? Jesus could raise it from the
dead! The Lord Jesus could
indeed resurrect that church if it would just obey. That
is a joyous principle because it tells us that it wasn’t
too late, that there was still hope.
“Strengthen
The Things Which Remain”
The word
things is neuter in the Greek, so it refers not
to people but things, that is, spiritual realities. This
church needed to reemphasize, strengthen, and build up
spiritual truths, and the only way it could do that was
by going back to the Word! Oh, how this is needed today
as well. It never ceases to amaze me how may many
Christian leaders today say they believe in Biblical
authority but then turn right around and start their own
organizations, create their own methods and ministries,
and just do anything they want to do and do their own
way. Do we question their sincerity or doubt their pure
motives? Absolutely not! We merely question their method
because it simply does not plumb with Scripture. We also
wonder whether they truly understand the doctrine of
biblical authority and it implications. How we need
to get back to the Word!
“Remember
What You Have Received and Heard and Keep It”
These words are
similar to those Christ wrote to the Ephesians. In
short, “Go back to the beginning.” If we may repeat, may
we not go back simply to the Reformation; may we
go back to the Word of God. To illustrate, many
today want to “trace their roots.” Well, that is what
the Church needs to do, trace her roots back to the New
Testament model. Our roots are not in the
Reformation, rather in the New Testament.
These words of Christ are also similar to what He said
to Thyatira. In both letters we find the words hold
fast, but the Greek here is different; it is
tereo, “to guard as with a
fortress.” Oh, that we would guard the Word of
God!
“Repent”
Once again we find this
all-important word. Here the word vividly shows that
believers must change their minds from man’s opinions,
ideas, and traditions to that of the Word of God. It
needs to be said that the majority of what we see in
Christianity today is a result of Reformation Theology
and tradition. What we desperately need to do is “chuck”
it all and return to the book of Acts and the Epistles.
The Reassurance of the Letter
(vs. 4-6)
Thou hast a few names even
in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and
they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white
raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the
book of life, but I will confess his name before my
Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let
him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches.
There are two things to
see here.
The
Remnant.
As mentioned
earlier, “Sardis” means, “Those who have escaped, a
remnant.” Thankfully, there were a few in Sardis
who had not defiled their garments, those who
stayed faithful to the Word. The word few is the
Greek oligos, from which we get the English
“oligarchy,” government by the few, such as a small
group exercising control. Only a small number of people,
therefore, remained untainted by the lifelessness that
surrounded them; they had not defiled themselves.
Defiled is moluno,
which literally means to “besmear or soil, as one does
by applying mud or filth.” This would have been familiar
to those in Sardis because of the wool-dying industry
that existed there. The metaphorical meaning, then, is
clear: to demean and pollute oneself morally or
ethically.[v] Garments is
himation, which literally, of
course, refers to clothing. Figuratively, however, it
pictures “spiritual dress,” such as actions and
attitudes. So the remnant in Sardis had not polluted
their spiritual clothing but had remained true to the
Word. What a statement coming from Jesus
Himself!
Without question the
Reformers were part of this remnant in Church History.
They had not polluted themselves with the filth of Roman
Catholicism. To read the Reformers, in fact, is to be
profoundly struck by the strong denouncements of the
apostasy and wretched wickedness of the Roman
system.
There are others,
however, who are perhaps even more dramatic examples of
this remnant. One historical example was the Anabaptists
of this period, who were actually the ancestors of
today’s Baptists. While there was some radicalism among
Anabaptists that discredited them (just as there sadly
is today by their successors) and even some heresy (such
as polygamy and mysticism), there were many sound
Believers in their ranks. They insisted on a literal
interpretation of Scripture, and rejected such things as
state churches and the totally unscriptural practice of
infant baptism. Tragically, these believers were
outcasts, even among some of the Reformers. They
rejected some of the teachings of the Reformers and were
in some ways actually closer to New Testament truths of
the Church than any believers had been since the first
century. While not perfect, the Anabaptists formed a
large contingent of the remnant of that era of Church
History.
The
Rewards
For its obedience, the
Lord offered the church at Sardis three
rewards.
“Clothed In
White”
The color
white had several meanings in
ancient times and how significant these meaning are in
showing this reward!
First,
white pictured purity.
This emphasizes that we are clothed in the righteousness
of Christ (II Cor. 5:21).
Second,
white pictured glory.
This reflects the promise that Christ is our only hope
of glory (Col. 1:27).
Third,
white pictured victory. When a Roman triumph was celebrated, all the
citizens word white. Those who were victorious at the
Greek games also wore white. We likewise know victory
over death through Christ (I Cor. 15:57).
Fourth,
white pictured festivity. Honored guests
at feasts and weddings wore white, and how this reminds us of the bliss and
festivity there will be at the Marriage Supper of the
Lamb (Rev. ?19:7–9).
Recorded In “The Book Of
Life”
Here is an often
overlooked, and sometimes misunderstood, truth of the
Word of God. The Book of Life is referred to in
several other places in Scripture (Ex. 32:32; Ps. 69:28;
Dan. 12:1; Lk. 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 13:8;
17:18; etc.). The point here is that in every one of
these references the idea presented is that a name is
being removed not entered. The often sung chorus,
“There’s a New Name Written Down in Glory,” is simply
unbiblical. In truth, our names were in the Book of
Life from the foundation of the world. Only when an
unbeliever dies is his name removed from the book. So,
at the final judgment (Rev. 20:12-15) the Book of Life
contains only the names of
Believers. This is the reason an unbeliever’s name is
not found in the book; it used to be there but was
removed because of unbelief. It is also at that time
that the name of the book will become “The Lamb’s Book
of Life” (21:27), for only those who are “of the Lamb”
are written therein.
Now, those today who
disagree with this presentation of the Book of
Life do not understand ancient history. The people
at Sardis understood this principle because it
paralleled the governmental census of that day. If a
person committed a crime against the state, moved away,
or died, his name was erased from the registry. So, our
Savior is saying, “Those who are Mine will
never be erased from the
Book!” What a blessed proof this is of the security of
the believer. This leads to one other
reward.
Declared to the Father to
Be One of Christ’s Own
The Greek used in this
context, according to one noted Greek authority
(Thayer), means, “To declare the name (written in the
Book of Life) to be the name of a follower of [Christ].”
This matches what our Savior said in Matthew 10:32,
“Whosoever, therefore, shall confess [declare] Me before
men, him will I confess [declare] before My Father.”
Think of it! Because of our faithfulness, because of our
love for the Savior and His Word, He declares us to be
one of His own. HALLELUJAH! There is no clearer
statement of the security of the believer than Romans
8:28-39:
And we know that all
things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to his purpose. For
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he
also glorified.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be
for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his
own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he
not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall
lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God
that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ
that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even
at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession
for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is
written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we
are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all
these things we are more than conquerors through him
that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death,
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers,
nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor
depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate
us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord.
Once again Christ’s
letter closes with the admonition,
listen (v. 6). Like our last
chapter, this chapter has been strong, but that is only
because Christ composed a strong letter. May we not be a
part of dead orthodoxy, dead denominations. Let us build
our churches today only upon the Word of God, not man’s
ideas, traditions, organizations, methods, or
programs.
[iii] Francis Scheaffer,
How Should We Then Live (Old
Tappen: NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1976), p.
84.
[v] Brown, Vol. 1, p.
448.
