With the People of God - Glenn Conjurske

With the People of God

by Glenn Conjurske

“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt, for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.” (Heb. 11:24-26).

These verses are some of the richest in all the Bible. Moreover, they are also some of the most important, such as must be lodged very near the center of the heart of every man who would hold to a sound system of practical theology. I do not intend to give any exposition of them here, but only to enforce the words which stand above as the title of this article.

The statements in these verses define the associations of the saints of God. Whatever their calling may be, they are called to association “with the people of God.” But this of necessity requires their disassociation from the world. Moses did not dream of associating with the people of God, and yet retaining his associations with the Egyptians. He “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,” and the next words following those which I have quoted above are, “By faith he forsook Egypt.” Every man who is called to association “with the people of God” is by the same token called to separation from the world.

And observe, this was Moses’ own choice. He was not disowned by Pharaoh’s daughter: he forsook her. She had been a mother to him, and that not by any natural law of necessity, such as is the usual basis of motherhood, but by a voluntary choice of her own. She chose to be a mother to him, when there was no necessity for it at all. And yet after all her care for him for many years, he refused to be called her son. By this act he likely brought a great deal of reproach upon himself, but his act was both right and necessary. Pharaoh’s daughter had shown herself personally a friend and benefactor—-yea, a mother—-to this poor, perishing son of Israel, but for all that, she belonged to the camp which was against God and against the people of God. For Moses therefore to associate with the people of God, he must break his ties with her, and all that she stood for.

This doctrine of separation is indeed one of the most elementary lessons in the walk of faith, but it has been but little understood in the history of the church. The Plymouth Brethren understood it, and some of them still do. Many of the Fundamentalists half understood it, and that is about all that can be said. They understood ecclesiastical separation, but little more than that. Had most of them been in Moses’ shoes, they would have gone out to attend the religious meetings of the people of God, but retained their place in the household of Pharaoh all the while—-unless they were driven out. But Moses was not driven out. “He refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.”

But even ecclesiastical separation has been repudiated by most of what was called Fundamentalism a generation ago. A new movement arose within the ranks of Fundamentalism, known as Neo-evangelicalism. That movement swept away most of what then existed of Fundamentalism, taking full possession of most of the Christian schools and publishing houses—-so that now almost all of the books and literature which are read by Fundamentalists are written and published by Neo-evangelicals. This bodes very ill for the future of Fundamentalism.

But what is Neo-evangelicalism? It is at bottom a movement which repudiates separation from the world. It repudiates even ecclesiastical separation, advocating infiltration rather than separation. It advocates, in other words, that Christians should remain as members in worldly, liberal, and apostate churches. The line of demarcation between the saved and the lost is largely obliterated in their thinking, and all who name the name of Christ are regarded as Christian brethren. What, even the pope of Rome? Ah, it takes most of these evangelicals a long stretch of years of deep exercise of heart before they will acknowledge the pope as a brother in Christ, but some of them eventually reach that acme of spirituality, and the movement definitely takes them in that direction. If Moses had turned Neo-evangelical, he would no doubt have deeply repented for his rash step in leaving the household of Pharaoh, and his unchristian spirit in refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. And he would no doubt have come to the realization that Pharaoh’s daughter was a true Israelite after all—-perhaps mistaken in some of her ideas about God, but right in her heart.

“Love” is of course the watchword of Neo-evangelicalism—-as it always has been of liberalism—-but all that most of it really amounts to is love for the world. Moses embraced “the reproach of Christ,” and esteemed it great riches. Neo-evangelicalism shuns the reproach of Christ, and will go almost any length to escape and avoid it. This dislike for the reproach of Christ is the foundation of Neo-evangelicalism. For this cause they pursue worldly education, and covet its highest “degrees.” For this cause they seek to excel in every branch of worldly endeavor. For this cause they seek to evangelize celebrities, and to use those celebrities in all of their programs. For this cause they preach toleration, belittle doctrinal purity, and sneer at strict standards of practical righteousness. For this cause they repudiate the doctrine of separation. They seek to walk with the people of God, and with the people Egypt also. Moses knew of no such broad pathway.

But there is an error on the other side. While some think to serve the Lord with the people of the world, others think to serve him without the people of God. They find none with whom they can walk in the narrow pathway, and so endeavor to walk in it alone. They belong to no church, and attend none. They rarely join in the fellowship of the saints, seldom hear the word of God preached, seldom blend their voices in the singing of the congregation of the saints. They have forsaken the assembling of themselves together, and walk no longer “with the people of God.”

But though I believe such a course to be a mistake, I am not able to censure it without qualification—-at least not in all cases. For some who endeavor to wend their way to heaven without the people of God I have only the most heartfelt sympathy. This is not such a course as they would choose, but such as they have been forced to by conscience, by faithfulness, by the word of God, and by the worldliness and materialism of the churches. They cannot in good conscience join with churches whose membership is little different from the ungodly world. They cannot put their children under the influence of the worldly leaders of the modern church. Therefore they walk alone, not because they wish to do so, but because they believe they must. I have been in that position myself, and I have only sympathy for others who are there.

But then all who take such a course do not have the same spirit. Some may be compelled to such a course by conscience, but others are impelled to it by nothing but pride. I have known a number of such folks down through the years, and believe I may safely say of the great majority of them that the main ingredient in their character was pride. They know better than everyone—-though their own doctrine is shallow and unsound enough. They can find none whose godliness comes up to their standard—-though their own godliness is no better, and perhaps not so good. They are unwilling to submit to the authority or the standards of any church on earth, and any and every little technicality of doctrine or practice is made the occasion to stay outside. Here is a man who cannot join one church because they admit alien baptisms, cannot join another because the women wear no head coverings, cannot join a third because they hold that some divorced people may remarry, cannot join a fourth because the people wear wedding rings, cannot join a fifth because the men have no beards, nor a sixth because they have a steeple on their building, nor a seventh because they practice closed communion, nor an eighth because they pay the preacher a salary—-and it may be that the level of real godliness is higher than his own in every one of those churches. Such a one may “try” various churches from time to time—-“try,” that is, to see whether he can so change them as to conform them to all of his own views. Failing in that, he immediately departs, and has never a good word to say of that church for all the time to come. Pride is the real cause of his isolation, whatever grounds he may profess for it.

But then I believe also that there are real and sufficient grounds for staying out of many churches—-churches which profess to be fundamental, but where half or three quarters of the members show no evidence whatever that they have ever been converted. “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” is sufficient warrant to leave such churches. The extreme worldliness of others is warrant enough—-especially for those who have children. We have all seen examples enough of such churches. A number of years ago I attended a few meetings of a thriving and prominent Open Brethren assembly in another state. One of those meetings was a Friday evening Bible study. The ministry was dead and unprofitable, with nothing in it to instruct the mind, nothing to warm the heart, and nothing to stir the spirit. On Sunday morning, of course, they gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, but as soon as the noon meal was finished (where I and a number of others were guests at the table), the party broke up—-the women to the kitchen to talk, the young people to the dining room to play cards, the men to the den to watch television—-and I, out the door. Now if anyone had asked me, I would certainly have advised them to either change that church or leave it. But those who have tried will know that there is little hope of changing such churches. The old bottles are too brittle to change their shape.

A man may be compelled to stay out of some churches because he could not in good conscience sign their doctrinal statement, assent to which is required of all who join. To join others would mean to support or condone programs which he believes to be directly against the doctrine or example of Scripture. In such cases a man might attend a church for the sake of the fellowship, without joining it. I have done the same myself at times. But the fact is, many churches are so worldly and materialistic in both principle and practice, that I would be the last one to blame a man for refusing even to attend their meetings. How can a man with a family stay in such an atmosphere, and place his children under such an influence?

But what is he then to do? Must he then walk the narrow pathway alone?

I think not. He may at some time be forced to this against his wishes, and as a temporary thing, but it is both wrong and dangerous to continue indefinitely in such a course. Dangerous, for, as an old German proverb says, “One log does not burn long by itself.” Zeal is likely to cool in those who attempt to walk alone. Spiritual life is likely to languish without the fellowship of the saints. Not necessarily so, but usually so. A Moses might walk alone with God for forty years, and yet remain a man of God. A John the Baptist might be alone in the deserts with his God, and yet his spiritual life flourish. But such men are rare. They are the sort of logs which can not only can burn alone, but which serve always to communicate fire to those around them. But if so, for that reason they ought not to walk alone. Suppose there is no danger at all in your separating yourself from the people of God. Suppose you are the one among a thousand who can walk alone, and walk well. You have no need of an elder to watch over you, nor a prophet to exhort you. Your zeal will not cool, though not warmed by the fellowship of the saints. You do not need the people of God, nor the meetings of the church of God. You can stand strong and true and faithful without them. Is this your case? Then by all means THE CHURCH NEEDS YOU.

Israel, by the way, needed Moses also, but they rejected him, and he was therefore compelled to walk alone, without the people of God, for forty years. Yet this was not his choice. When he left the household of Pharaoh, it was with the full intention of walking “with the people of God,” but he was compelled by providence into a path of solitude. This fact ought to make us very careful about judging others who walk alone. If the church of God rejects their ministry, they may be forced to this, as Moses was. And if the church drives away spiritually hungry souls, by its worldliness and carnality, it has little business to judge them for walking alone. I met a woman many years ago who was in just such a state. She had been converted ten years. She of course joined a fundamental church when she was converted, and went on for about two years, full of zeal and joy. But one thing always troubled her. She could not understand why the older Christians were cold and dead, and had none of the zeal and joy which she had. This was not pride, for after a couple of years she came to the conclusion that since they were all older and more mature in the faith than she was, and none of them were like she was, she must be wrong. She gave up her spiritual experience in order to conform herself to a carnal church. She went on in that state for three years, but had no satisfaction in it, and at length concluded that if that was all there was to the church, there wasn’t anything to it, and she dropped out.

For five years she went on alone, endeavoring to serve God, but not doing very well at it. At that point she came to my house, as a business representative. I told her I was not interested. But she knew something about me, and wanted to talk to me. She pressed her case, but still I told her I was not interested. She practically begged me to let her come in and make her presentation, promising me she would stay no more than ten minutes. I let her in, and she began her work, but our conversation soon turned to the things of God, and she stayed three hours. She was back again the next day, and often afterwards. Her joy and zeal were all restored, and her face glowed as she spoke of it. Yet still she joined no church, for at that time I myself belonged to none, having a little before left one for conscientious reasons. After a little I was called away from that city, and we did not see this woman for eleven years. After eleven years we got a letter from her, saying she had not had any spiritual fellowship or teaching for eleven years, and she was ready to give up again. Yet there were a number of fundamental churches in that city—-but worldly and unspiritual. Churches ought not to judge such souls, “but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Rom. 14:13). If those churches would remove the stumblingblocks out of the way, and offer solid spiritual food and a sound spiritual example, such souls would gladly come to them—-though many of their present members would doubtless leave. The principles, ways, programs, and general state of many evangelical churches is just such as naturally attracts the worldly and unspiritual, and sends the spiritually minded away mourning and hungry.

But having spoken thus much to dissuade the unspiritual from judging the spiritual and the hungry, I must yet insist that every child of God has a responsibility, as far as in him lies, to serve the Lord “with the people of God.” Scripture commands us, “Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the day approaching.” (Heb. 10:24-25). And again, “Follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” (II Tim. 2:22). This seems plain enough.

But what is a man to do if he can find none with whom he can in good conscience join in church fellowship? It may be he ought to look farther. It may be there are none in his own town, but are there none on the earth? Surely he might find some somewhere. True, he might have to give up a good situation to join with them, but what of that? That is exactly what Moses did, according to the text cited at the head of this article. When he determined to join “with the people of God,” he gave up one of the best situations on earth. He turned his back upon it, and walked away from it, not looking back, but looking ahead, to the eternal “recompense of reward.” Surely this is recorded in Scripture as an example for us to follow.

Glenn Conjurske

Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
Pinterest
Email
0:00
0:00