Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
The New Diaspora
Strange Measures for Strange Times
by Alan Morrison
Everything which I write comes from the heart.
Occasionally it comes from the heart with a special seal, a particular passion.
This article is one of those seals and passions. It is a subject very dear
to my heart. It concerns the way that the experience of
"church", for so many today, has become a nightmare holocaust ghost
train instead of a dream vision growth journey. Readers should be warned
that this is not a cold treatise on Ecclesiology. Rather, it is a
passionate exposition of the manner in which the reality for many has fallen
short of the ideal. It is a modern fact of life that many genuine,
diligent, Bible-believing Christians do not attend a church. Not being with a
church is not an ideal situation. But we live in strange times; and in strange
times, one has to take strange measures. Many today have taken strange measures
and — wounded, abused and utterly disillusioned — have left churches
altogether. In fact, what has happened is that a
New Diaspora has
been born. It is a global Diaspora pregnant with great potential for the
Kingdom, if only there will be understanding and empathy, instead of rejection
and browbeating. Diaspora is a Greek
word which means "scattered throughout the world", dispersed
like seeds riding on the wind. It was used by the Apostle Peter, for example,
when he wrote to "the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet.1:1). That Dispersion was a
major factor in the history of the Early Church. Scattered Jews who really
believed in the Lord came to faith in Christ and thus paved the way for the
spread of the Gospel beyond Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the ends of the
earth. In the Book of Acts, numerous other diasporas took place as a
result of persecutions, and the Gospel was spread in God’s way rather than
man’s as believers were reluctantly hurled into new pastures. Today, a new kind of "scattering" is taking
place, as many disenfranchised folks without a church, who have
been persecuted and abused, both by the world and by the churches they attended,
have fled to their Adullam’s Caves across the globe. [Objection:
No believer should ever flee to a cave. He
should be out there in the world spreading the Gospel, rather than indulging in
selfish isolationism. Answer:
When I say that the people of the New Diaspora have "fled to their
Adullam’s Caves", I do not mean that they have permanently hidden
themselves away and discontinued spreading the word. Actually, nothing
could be further from the truth. There is a powerful desire to evangelise
amongst the New Diaspora. However, just as David needed to recuperate in
his Adullam’s Cave while fleeing from the abusive madness of Saul (1
Sam.22:1), so the people of the New Diaspora need time to recuperate from their
wounds and discover God’s direction for their lives. In fact, the people who
joined David in Adullam’s cave — in spite of being the kind of people that
the squeaky-clean folks would look down on — were to become David’s crack
troops for the work of the Lord (1 Sam.22:2; 1 Sam.23:5, etc.). In fact this
whole period that David spent in Adullam’s cave is very instructive for the
New Diaspora. David saw it plainly as "recuperational" and temporary, "till
I know what God will do for me" (1 Sam.22:3). Eventually, the prophet
Gad came to David and told him that it was time to get out of that cave and back
into Judah (1 Sam.22:5). The New Diaspora is also highly responsive to
divine direction. The problem is that what people often disparagingly
call "isolationism" is simply "recuperationism". If
your son or daughter had just come out of a really bad and abusive marriage,
would you try and force them immediately into another one? And if they had been
abused in one marriage after another, and felt that they didn't want to be
married again, would you start thundering at them about the evils of
spinsterhood or singledom? Of course not. So why do people — in such a
threatening manner — force those who have been abused in a church relationship
to start immediately attending another church? That is just so cultish, not to
mention insensitive. Hurt people who do not go to church are not
"isolationists", as they are often falsely accused, but "recuperationists".
They need time to convalesce. It may take weeks or months, or it may even take
years — in some extreme instances, decades. Only a completely insensitive
character would fail to recognise this. There is a pastoral dimension here
which seems to evade the understanding of far too many professing Christians.] So today we have this abundant New Diaspora. What could
have led to this phenomenon? There is a common ideal about "church" which
just does not match the reality. There seems to be a prevailing idea that
"church" is the solution to everyone’s problems — that all people
have to do is to go to church and the sun will shine forever. Go to church and
the Lord will bless you. Go to church and receive the ‘means of grace’. Go
to church and your life will be transformed. Go to church and your needs will be
fulfilled. Go to church and receive the teaching of the Lord. Go to church! Go
to church! Go to church... etc., etc., ad nauseam. Sadly, for a great many people, this has turned out to
be anything but true. It has instead been a case of... Go to church and get
screwed up. Go to church and get stabbed in the back. Go to church and get
poisoned by lies. Go to church and massage a pastor’s ego. Go to church and
have your worst nightmare. For many it has been a case of... Go to church and be
robbed of what little faith you already had. Go to church and wish you’d never
been born. Yes! "Go to church and wish you’d never been
born". Shocking, isn’t it? Now if you think that is too strong, I can
tell you that for many it is a total understatement! For them, churches seem
more like the slumly environs of hell than the sublime suburbs of heaven. When
they go to church, they see a nest of hornets rather than Abraham’s bosom.
They’ve been stabbed in the back so many times that they will say to you (as
one once said to me): "When you sing that hymn, just make sure you sit
in the back pew". Now you may not like it that so many people will say
that today, but you’re going to have to live with it anyway. Because it is
true. You cannot pretend that reality is something other than what it is, no
matter how uncomfortable it may be and no matter how much you may want to do so. "When
you sing that hymn, just make sure you sit in the back pew!" I have come to the conclusion that many people idealise
"church" to such an idolatrous extent that they fail to see the vast
curtain of darkness which has invaded it (which is why they get so indignant
with me for saying these things). Or they shrug it all off with the feeble
excuse that we’re all sinners (as if that should excuse the ubiquitous rank
evil committed by so many who are supposedly indwelt by the Holy Spirit). Or
they DO see the darkness but they would rather sweep it under the carpet (which
is why they have to shut me up at all costs). But the only way you’ll close my
mouth is by killing me. I guess you can always spread around a pile of lies
about me; but you’d be wasting your time because it’s been done already,
over and over again! They’ve tried just about every lie that there is in the
book, and out of it! In February this year, someone wrote to me from the UK
and said: "Do you know there are rumours within conservative evangelical
churches in England that you joined a cult!" Amazing! Alan Morrison in
a cult! That would be as ludicrous as claiming that Tony Blair is Margaret
Thatcher’s "Toy-Boy", or that Al Gore joined the Ku Klux Klan! But I
guess if they want to blackball you they’ll say anything, even if it is
something so unlikely that it should really make the rumour-mongers look stupid.
But the crazy thing is that it is NOT the rumour-mongers who appear stupid. They
will be believed by the vast majority of people in their churches. And these are
the "conservative" churches that people want to force the New Diaspora
to sign up to! I can now see why the journalist, H.L. Mencken, said that no one
had ever lost a nickel by underestimating the intelligence of the public, and
why the circus guy, P.T. Barnum, said that there was one sucker born every
minute! Incidentally, it isn’t baby Christians who are
spreading such rumours. It is so-called mature Christians, elders and pastors of
supposedly orthodox conservative churches who foment these things. I fail to see
how any genuine believer could engage in that kind of activity. But I know why
they do so. It is because they are afraid of people like us. They are afraid of
us because we can see through them, because we ask too many questions, expose
too many follies, discover too many lies, reveal too many contradictions, and
there is no room for such people inside the rigidly authoritarian, dictatorial,
Spirit-quenching (and spirit-quenching) churches of today, where the liberty
which is in the Gospel of Christ becomes miraculously transformed into a burden
for one’s back and then a big stick to break it. In order to get by in so many
churches today, you have to roll over and show them your belly. Then you will be
regarded as being "in fellowship" and a "member in good
standing". What possible motivation could there be for the sensitive,
thinking Christian to go within a million miles of such churches? Is it any
wonder that a New Diaspora has been born? [Objection: Your
problem is that you are filled with rage and malice. Such bitterness is
unfitting for a Christian teacher. You need to repent. Answer:
My friend, you are confusing rage with passion. You are assuming that I am
caustic, angry and bitter when I write about these things. But nothing could be
further from the truth. I am not angry or heated at all. I don't get angry.
Anger is a waste of time. You may not like my tone. How about Jude's tone in
Jude 12-13? How about the Lord Jesus' tone in Matt.23:13-30? Christians, it
seems, are not allowed to be passionate about anything! I am passionate. Period.
Real people like that sort of thing. Unreal people don't. You wouldn't believe
the number of hurting people on the Diakrisis e-mail list who have suffered at
the hands of pharisees, autocrats and insensitive ignoramuses! I become
passionate about that sort of thing. Always have. Always will. I repeat: I am
not at all enraged -- just passionate. If you cannot discern the difference
between the two, then you need to wake up to the pain of others. It is no
coincidence that the very word "passionate" comes from the Latin word
for "suffering". Passionate people can identify with suffering and its
sufferers. On that basis, I cannot avoid wanting to help the underdog, or to
champion the cause of the downtrodden, or to shine a light for the blinded, or
to provide an arm for the cripple. Such is passion.] There are some who say that if people don’t go to
church, even for one Sunday, then they will not "receive the means of
grace". Presumably when they say "means of grace",
they mean "those institutions which God has ordained to be the ordinary
channels of grace, i.e., of the supernatural influences of the Holy Spirit, to
the souls of men" (Charles Hodge). Well no doubt God has ordained that
through genuine Christian fellowship, the reading and preaching of God’s Word
and participation in the Lord’s Supper, much grace-upon-grace can be bestowed.
But I believe that the deadly formalistic "churchianity" which passes
itself off as "fellowship" in so many churches today is very far
removed from what was originally ordained by God to provide solace and growth
for His people. It is at this point that many would chime in with a
stern quotation from the Letter to the Hebrews chapter 10, verse 25. But when
the Hebrew Christians received those words "not forsaking the assembling
of ourselves together", it was not meant as a rigid command for them to
"go to church, or else!" The context was apostasy (Heb.10:23,
26-31). It was referring to those who had not merely failed to attend church but
who were abandoning the faith altogether because of the persecution it brought
on them. (Incidentally, I don’t see too much persecution of the kind of
churches which spread lies and rumours. It is the people about whom they lie and
rumour-monger who are the real persecuted Christians). How often I have seen
Heb.10:25 hurled in people’s faces if they even fail to go to church for one
single Sunday! Merely to apply Heb.10:25 to trooping along to
"church services" on a Sunday represents a completely inadequate
vision of Christian fellowship. Christianity is not supposed to be a cult; yet
to see the way that people treat Sunday church meetings as the
be-all-and-end-all of spiritual life, you would think that it was the most
pernicious cult of all — especially when there is nothing in those services to
enhance one’s Christian life and growth. Interestingly, the vast problem of exiles in the
Protestant scene today has come about because of a lack of any
"Apostolic" style of leadership and authority being exercised. Today,
anyone can set themselves up as a "church" and then abuse multitudes
of people in the cult they have created. It is all very messy. If there
were still genuine Apostles today of Paul’s and Peter’s stature and
authority (which there aren't), I think things would be very different. It would
be interesting to see how they would respond to the New Diaspora. Somehow
I cannot imagine them heartlessly and unimaginatively hurling Heb.10:25 in
people’s faces. Many arrive at churches already in a bad state because
of their previous lifestyle, relationship hassles, etc., and the last thing they
need is maltreatment from professing Christians when they thought they had
finally found the suburbs of heaven. I do not believe that Scripture heartlessly
harangues such folks to remain in that kind of scenario. Our Lord is more
compassionate than that -- although to listen to some of those bearing His name
as "Christ-ians" you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise. To
apply Scripture in such a heartless, robotic way appears to me to be very
legalistic. It would seem that there is a kind of "macho-man" style of
scoffing at people who have been so hurt that they have had to part company with
a church. To regard such people as "wimps" (as I have heard some say)
and then revile them for not being obedient to Scripture is not only insensitive
but it is also entirely contrary to the spirit of our common faith. The primary
purpose of the work of Christ is not to make people robotically, callously,
heartlessly and legalistically obedient to the letter of Scripture. Instead, the
primary purpose of the work of Christ in His people is to increase their love
for God and for their neighbours -- and especially for those who are of the
household of faith. Faith is only proven to be true saving faith when it works
through love (Gal.5:6; James 2:14-26). I would say that such love is what is
distinctly lacking in the hearts of those who have reviled the New Diaspora so
vehemently. I am aware that some people hop around churches and
leave them for little or no reason. But that is not what we are dealing with
here. I am not at all discouraging souls from being part of a REAL assembly;
those who say that I am are creating a "straw man" (a common dishonest
tactic in the cut-and-thrust of the Christian scene today). All I am seeking to
do is to minister to hurt souls in the situation in which they are now. That is
where the Lord Jesus met people, and that is where I meet them too. The fact
that I have suffered a little in churches enables me to empathise with them (and
also enables them to trust me -- broken trust being the sore spot with many of
them). Someone has to minister to those who have been alienated by churches
today. Some have said to me that I should focus on building Christ’s church
rather than concentrating so much on internet articles. I believe that in my own
way I already AM helping to build Christ’s church by what I am doing on
the internet. You may not like that or agree with it, but it’s just coming
from a different angle to what many are used to. I deal practically with reality
rather than hypothetically with ideals. The situation that we have today with this New Diaspora
is completely different to anything that existed in the infant church as handled
in the New Testament writings. However, in the third century, when the majority
of churches were badly infected by Gnosticism -- and then later on when the
majority were badly infected by Arianism -- the number of true believers had to
leave those churches and set up alternatives, or even exist in horrible
isolation. There is little published about this from that period, but it must
have been difficult for many. Well just look at Athanasius (d. AD 373). He was
exiled and treated like a pariah by the false church. His anti-Arianism must
have left him a lonely and isolated man -- although he was eventually
vindicated. We know what the ideal is, as expressed in Scripture.
But that is not always possible. That is all that I am saying. And where it is
not possible for reasons outside of human control, this does not make vile
sinners of those who cannot fulfil the ideal. Culpability is based on the intent
of the heart rather than the unavoidable inevitability of circumstances. Any
lawyer will tell you this. That is the Lord’s standard. He will judge the
hearts of men rather than their outward show of works. The people about whom I
have been speaking, who do not or cannot attend a church, love the Lord and His
people dearly and want nothing more than to be in REAL fellowship with other
likeminded people. Their hearts are in the right place -- especially when judged
next to the billions who do "attend" churches but who are mere
hypocrites making a show. [Objection: Are
you saying that people should not attend church? You may use the saying "churchianity"
to define those who attend church, but the Bible says that we should attend
church. It has nothing to say about "churchianity". Answer:
Actually, if I may be boldly controversial here, I believe that it is NOT
God’s will for a believer merely to "attend church". Anyone
can "attend church", i.e. turn up at a building in a suit and tie each
Sunday, sing the hymns, close his or her eyes in the prayer, sit through a
sermon (if they’re fortunate enough to get one!), shake hands with a pastor on
the way out, etc. The people of the New Diaspora could no doubt do that just to
silence their critics (and their critics would be satisified with that!). But to
do so as one merely going through the motions is "churchianity". It is
NOT God’s will for a person just to do that. The Pharisees and Sadducees did
that. Very diligently. They "attended" the temple. They busied
themselves with the things of God. But it never was enough just to "attend
temple". Millions of the children of Israel "attended the
tabernacle" or temple, but their hearts were not really there. That is
"tabernaclianity", "templianity", just as merely to
"attend church" today is "churchianity". You say that the Bible says nothing about "churchianity".
But I believe it does, in many different places. And it warns us against it
vigorously. Mere church attendance is "churchianity", heartless
outward action, which the Bible speaks a great deal about, and which the Lord
Jesus referred to many times in relation to the hypocrites of his own day. How
about: "For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do
not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a
broken and a contrite heart..." (Psa.51:16-17)? That was not the Lord
despising honest service to Himself, but he was castigating hypocritical
"temple attendance". Anyone can simply turn up at the temple (or
church). But having a broken spirit and a contrite heart is a different ballgame
altogether. The people of the New Diaspora have infinitely more deeply broken
spirits and contrite hearts than the billions of people who merely robotically
"attend church" each Sunday. Again, the Lord was speaking of "churchianity"
when He wrote: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the
Lord" (Pro.15:8). You can attend the tabernacle, the temple or the
church as often as you like, but if your heart remains unchanged, such
attendance is meaningless. The Lord was speaking of "churchianity"
when He wrote: "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge
of God more than burnt offerings" (Hos.6:6). The Lord Jesus was
speaking of "churchianity" when He said: "If you had known
what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have
condemned the guiltless" (Matt.12:7). And I think that those who
condemn the New Diaspora so vigorously do not know the meaning of the Scripture
in which the Lord says: "I desire mercy not sacrifice". Is it
not the case that forcing dreadfully hurt people merely to "attend
church" displays a distinct lack of mercy? This is what I mean when I say
that it is not God’s will for people merely to "attend church".
Fellowship -- true fellowship -- is infinitely more than that. However, it
IS God’s will that His people should come together at appointed times and
engage in corporate worship and prayer, if such a thing is possible. But that is
not synonymous with mere "church attendance". Do you see what I am
saying here? I am not "anti-church" per se, as some readers
would no doubt like to make out in a rather over-reactionary manner. But I do
believe that there is a massive unsung problem of widespread abuse and
manipulation in churches which is simply being swept under the carpet by people
who are unduly frightened that any publicity about it will put people off going
anywhere near a church. However, I think it would be far more attractive for
people to become part of churches if the churches themselves engaged in some
heavy-duty housecleaning. So do not revile the New Diaspora with theological
clichés or lash them with copious quotes from Book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes!
Instead, get creative about how you can enable people to feel trusting towards
your church! All I am trying to do is speak into this messy situation and help
to bring something good out of it. The Lord will be my judge, and no doubt
already is.] I have known a great many who have been badly hurt in a
church — and often not just in one church but many churches — serially
abused. When they turn to others for help and guidance, they are so often
threatened with Heb.10:25 as if it was the final word on church fellowship, and
as if church attendance was the only goal of the Christian life. As part of that
threat, the emotionally blackmailing screws are tightened as one is told that
when a single coal falls from the fire it loses its glow; or one is told that
there can be no such thing as a "Lone Ranger" or "Free
Electron" in the body of Christ; or one is told that God has no place
for "Mavericks" and "Individualists". Yet, the startlingly interesting thing is that these
people only began to "glow" again AFTER they had stopped going
to church! They only began to regain their "electron"-ic zip
when they TORE THEMSELVES AWAY from the churches which had so maligned them and
so damaged their spiritual integrity. They only began to realise how much God
really cares for them when they REMOVED THEMSELVES (or in some cases were
forcibly removed!) from the churches which had tried so hard to crush every last
ounce of their God-given incisive minds and individuality. [Objection: There
is already far too much "individualism" in churches today. In
fact, it is the scourge of churches. This is what has led to the problems you
are addressing. You are encouraging that unhealthy development. Answer: It
seems that you are confusing individualism with individuality. A
common accusation in churches to anyone who thinks imaginatively is that they
are an individualist. You say that the scourge of the church is
"individualism", and that I am aiding and abetted this scourge by
propping up the "individualists" with what I say. But you need
to understand the important difference between "individualism" and
"individuality". The first one puts it’s own ego above all
other considerations, whereas the second simply exercises his or her God-given
abilities and discernment. Our individuality comes from our Creator. If that
then becomes "individualism", then we are making an idol out of
ourselves. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with being an individual. We were
created as individuals. Any organisation which seeks to quash that individuality
has become a cult. Sadly, many churches, in their bid to cure the disease of
individualism, wind up crushing the uniqueness and individuality of many of
those in their fellowships. We must not confuse egocentric individualism with
healthy, natural God-given individuality.] Many of the souls in the New Diaspora first got worked
over in a charismatic church with a heavy shepherding style of eldership and
lots of phoney, threatening, controlling "words of knowledge" and
"prophecies". Then they discover a local Evanjellycal church, which
serves up cold tripe one Sunday, the blandest, lukewarm liquid the next, and
alienates the newcomers by sneering at their sensitivity to truth and falsehood
and disdaining their powers of discernment. Then, in their search for
"sound doctrine" they go to a heavy-duty Reformed church, only to find
that they are unacceptable because of their clothes or their unformed theology
and even bullied by the unsympathetic, legalistically-inclined, formalistic
leadership. From there, battered and bruised, they stray into some mainstream
denominational church where they are not only misunderstood but also subtly fed
more of the poison which had already damaged them in the chaotic charismatic
church, plus a dash of liberalism into the bargain. After that, bleeding,
bruised and sutured from head to toe, they realise that there is nowhere else to
go; so they reluctantly tolerate their isolation and get Heb.10:25 thrown in
their face every five minutes. But at least they are FREE! FREE to learn
at their own pace. FREE to enjoy fellowship with those whom they know will
be of value to them. FREE to discover things which they could never have
discovered before in the fettered, tendentious, hothouse, controlling
environments they previously inhabited. FREE to be themselves instead of
putting on a front to become the men-pleasers that are so valued in today’s
church scene. FREE to worship, love and be loved as their Lord intended. [Objection: This
is a disgraceful way to speak about God’s church. I am appalled that you
should have such a low view of the body which the Lord Himself is building. Answer: Please
do not confuse the visible church with the Body of Christ. None of what I am
writing is directed at the Body of Christ. How could it be? I am speaking about
abusive and demeaning social institutions which people call churches. Even
though so many get defensive about their church, it is now my belief that the
apostasy is far deeper than most people realise. I now believe that the majority
of pastors and church members in this world are not real Christians at all but
impostors. In fact, I believe that the true people of God is as it always has
been, as inspirationally defined by the Apostle Paul — "a remnant
according to the election of grace" (Rom.11:5). I know very well
that churches, assemblies, still have to be formed in a Scriptural manner as a
basis for the public preaching of the Gospel and as a fertile garden in which
Christians can safely grow (because, as William Perkins said, the two great
works of a church are the bringing in of the sheep and then keeping them from
the wolves). But I also believe that not enough has been done to keep the
wolves out -- and they have virtually taken over on a global basis. That
is not the Body of Christ but the false church, which will one day greet the
Antichrist with applause.] Why do you think that it is so common for the same
people to be treated badly in church after church? It is because a certain
kind of person gets screwed over in churches. That kind of person is
usually intelligent, questioning, discerning, non-conformist, non-pigeonholeable,
non-gullible. Actually, it is usually the most interesting people who get
screwed up by churches. Frankly, I would dearly love to gather together
all those people and form a very interesting church! But they are
scattered all over the globe (and the rumour-mongers and liars would only say
that I had started a cult!). THIS is the New Diaspora. The fat unpersecuted cats of today’s
"Christendom" positively loathe the New Diaspora (mainly because they
can’t milk them for their money!). Rigidly legalistic "Christians"
despise the New Diaspora (because they are jealous of their liberty). Bishops,
Archbishops and Popes vigorously condemn the New Diaspora (because they are a
threat to their usurped authority). "Christians" who nitpickingly put
human confessions of faith above the authority of the Bible hate the New
Diaspora (because their manmade tramlines may be uprooted by them). Above
all, the New Diaspora is despised because it is iconoclastic,
Scripture-searching and unwilling to be deceived. [Objection: I
challenge you show me ONE instance where any apostolic writer said that they
were "going it alone" because of some ‘bad behaviour’ in a church.
Can you also show me anywhere in the New Testament where a Christian is not a
part of a local fellowship of believers? You will not be able to do it! Answer: What I
really want to deal with, in answer to that first question, is the use of the
term "going it alone" to refer to believers who are part of
this "New Diaspora". We have already exposed the fact that there
is a vast unsung scandal of abuse in churches today and that, as a result, there
is a vast quantity of hurt people who have given up -- at least temporarily --
on churches. This term, "going it alone", is plainly a
disparaging remark designed to make out that these people of the New Diaspora
are autonomous-minded and self-centred who want to have nothing to do with the
people of God and have no desire to be answerable to the Lord for their actions.
This is a Straw Man, of course, and has no basis in reality. But many have
learned that mud sticks. They have also learned that the dirtier it is, the
better it sticks. "Going it alone"
is but one epithet of many. Other examples of the insulting sayings which are
levelled at the people of the New Diaspora are "Lone Rangers", "Free
Electrons", "Mavericks", "Individualists",
and "Isolationists". They are terms of abuse designed to back
up the claim that a person who does not attend a church must, ipso facto,
be guilty of rampant egocentricity and rank disobedience to God’s Word.
However, giving something a label may be a convenient way of tarring that person
in the eyes of the world, but it does not necessarily encapsulate what that
person is truly all about in terms of their standing before God. And it is our
standing before God which counts for infinitely more than how we may appear in
the eyes of the world. I can assure you absolutely that the people of the New
Diaspora are not at all "going it alone". In fact, they are in
touch and in tune with the Spirit of God on a far more profound level than many
of their accusers! No true believer truly "goes it alone". If a
person has prayed his or her heart out to the Lord to show them the next step on
their pathway and then He has clearly and irrefutably led them to a place where
there is no church (as yet), but where they can and have become a beacon for
those in their neighbourhood or environment or sphere of work, leading to
God-alone-knows-what-wonderful-thing-next, only a hardened Pharisee would argue
against that. How easily we make negative judgements about others
when we have no real understanding about their inward wrestlings or about what
has taken place between them and their Lord. It is no coincidence that one of
the original Pharisees’ major beefs against the Lord Jesus Christ was that He
was a "Lone Ranger", "Free Electron", "Maverick",
"Individualist", etc. (e.g. Mt.21:23). Religious people cannot
stand those who are spiritual, and they make it their business to fetter such
folks with false authority and place them under stifling burdens. Religious
people do not like the light which burns in the eyes of the spiritual. That is
why they killed the Lord Jesus Christ. And they will kill Him again and again
when they see the spiritual light which shines in the eyes of His disciples. It may be convenient to label the New Diaspora with
such a disparaging epithet as "going it alone"; but it is
completely irrelevant because they are not at all "going it alone".
No true believer ever could. They are answerable directly to the Lord, and they
know it. They may find themselves temporarily isolated in the world’s terms,
having been abused and hurt. They may find themselves temporarily lonesome,
having reluctantly had to separate from a corrupt situation. But they are never
alone, and they are assured of that (Mt.28:20). As they seek their direction in
prayer, the Lord will work in their lives and reveal it to them. The only
difficulty will be the casual, disapproving, sightseeing, critical onlookers who
will fail to comprehend and empathise, and instead cajole and criticise. The objector asks the question: "Can you show
me one instance from the New Testament where a Christian is not a part of a
local fellowship of believers?" Some people seem to believe that the
grace of God and His actions in this world can ONLY happen through the official
workings of the visible church machinery. But this is simply not true. Christ
dispenses His grace and works to build His church in a myriad more ways than our
puny brains can ever take in. How limited and limiting we are in our vision for
the Gospel ! Take, for example, the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:1-20). Once
he had been converted, he begged the Lord Jesus that he might be with Him
(Mk.5:18). But Jesus did not permit him and instead told him to go back to the
Decapolis region. Now, here was this brand new vulnerable convert all alone in
Decapolis with no church to go to. Imagine the Pharisees’ reaction.
Think of the accusations which might have come his way: "Lone
Ranger", "Free Electron", "Maverick",
"Individualist". Was this man "going it alone"?
Not at all. He was simply following the pathway which the Lord had clearly shown
him and opened up for him. He was doing the Lord’s work. There was great
wisdom in it which the religious people could never have understood or forseen;
because a little later on, the Lord Jesus went on a successful mission to
Decapolis for which this "Lone Ranger" had presumably done the
preparatory groundwork (Mk.7:31-37). The Lord’s ways are not our ways. Then there is the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). He
was sitting in his chariot reading Isaiah 53 on his way back from worshipping in
Jerusalem when, suddenly, Philip is miraculously transported there to interpret
the Scripture and open the man to the truth about the death of the Lord Jesus
Christ. He is soundly converted and baptised. Equally as suddenly, Philip
is transported away and "the eunuch saw him no more", and he
was left to return to his home in Ethiopia and become a light for the work of
the Gospel there. At that time, there will have been no local church.
Was this man "going it alone"? Not at all. He was simply
following the pathway which the Lord had clearly shown him. In time to come, an
assembly of believers may well have been more formally set up. But until
then, he was working as what the critical religious folks would call a "Lone
Ranger", but who the Lord would call "My chosen servant". By far the most instructive biblical example of one of
the "Lone Rangers", "Free Electrons", "Mavericks"
or "Individualists", who is "going it alone"
and who has come under the undue lashing of critics was the man about whom the
Apostle John complained to the Lord Jesus with the words "he does not
follow us" (Mark 9:38). The complete Scripture says: "Now John answered Him, saying, ‘Teacher, we saw
someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade
him because he does not follow us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him, for
no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For
he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to
drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will
by no means lose his reward’" (Mark 9:38-41). Here is a man who was not one of the called and
appointed Apostles, yet he was going about doing the Lord’s work (cf. Mark
6:7). To John, this man was "going it alone", and he
forbade him to carry on with that work for the Lord. What is interesting
here is the context of this conversation. The disciples had just been arguing
about who was the greatest of them (Mk.9:33-34). Jesus then used this
opportunity to show that true spiritual greatness lies in servanthood rather
than rank or social status (Mk.9:35). He then took a small child in His arms and
used him as an illustration of the lowliest of His disciples and demonstrated
that to show kindness to such a one is the equivalent of doing so to the Lord
Jesus Himself. At this point, John is said to "answer" the Lord
Jesus with his account of how the disciples had forbidden a man to cast out
demons solely because "he does not follow us". It is as
if John is trying to assert Apostolic authority here after Jesus has
specifically put them down for their delusions of grandeur. Furthermore, there is a grand irony in the fact that
this seemingly "uncalled" man who "does not follow us"
was actually successful in his work for the Lord in the very area of work in
which the disciples had been abject failures (compare Mark 9:38 with vv.17-18)!
Was there some jealousy on John’s part here? Here is this guy, apparently "going
it alone", but with a successful ministry, working for the Lord Jesus
Christ and under His protection too. John says: "We forbade him"
(v.38) because he is a "Lone Ranger", a "Free
Electron", a "Maverick", an "Individualist",
who is "going it alone". But the Lord Jesus said: "Do
not forbid him" (v.39). "He may look like all those things to you,
but do not forbid him because what you don’t understand is that He is Mine and
He is working for Me in ways that you cannot discern right now". Especially instructive are the words of the puritan,
Matthew Henry (1662-1714), in his commentary on this portion of Scripture. I
quote them in full here because Henry is well-respected as a balanced
commentator and the words are so startlingly relevant to the situation in which
so many of the New Diaspora find themselves. Concerning this man who "does
not follow us" but who is doing the work of Christ, Henry writes: <<<"Some think that he was a disciple of
John [the Baptist], who made use of the name of the Messiah, not as having come,
but as near at hand, not knowing that Jesus was he. It would rather seem that he
made use of the name of Jesus, believing him to be the Christ, as the other
disciples did. And why should he not receive that power from Christ, whose
Spirit, like the wind, blows where it listeth, without such an outward call as
the apostles had? And perhaps there were many more such. Christ’s grace is not
tied to the visible church. It was strange that one who cast out devils in the
name of Christ, did not join himself to the apostles, and follow Christ with
them, but should continue to act in separation from them. I know of nothing that
could hinder him from following them, unless it was because he was loth to leave
all to follow them; and if so, that was a bad principle. The thing did not look
good, and therefore the disciples forbade him to make use of Christ’s name as they
did, unless he would follow him as they did. This was like the motion
Joshua made concerning Eldad and Medad, who prophesied in the camp, and did not
go up with the rest to the door of the tabernacle: ‘My lord Moses, forbid
them (Num. 11:28); restrain them, silence them, for it is a schism’. Thus
apt are we to imagine that they who do not follow him with us do not follow
Christ at all, and that they who do not do just as we do can do nothing well.
But the Lord knows them that are his, however they are dispersed; and this
instance gives us a needful caution to take heed lest we be carried — by an
excess of zeal for the unity of the church, and for that which we are sure is
right and good — to oppose that which yet may tend to the enlargement of the
church, and the advancement of its true interests another way">>>
(Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, comment on Mark 9:38) Matthew Henry uses some remarkably challenging phrases
in his exposition here. Just look at these four quotations: 1) "Why should he
not receive that power from Christ, whose Spirit, like the wind, blows where it
listeth, without such an outward call as the apostles had?" There are those today who think that a person can do
the work of the Lord ONLY if they have actually been formally "called and
sent" by a church. But the Holy Spirit will not be tied down to our
narrow-minded conception of mission and Gospel witness. 2) "Christ’s grace is not tied to the
visible church". It is tied to the Body of Christ, which is not to be
confused with the visible church. If there is any grace in the visible church it
is derivative of the Body of Christ. And that saving grace will therefore be
dispensed in ways far beyond our wildest imagination. Wherever members of
the Body of Christ go, the grace of Christ will go with them -- nay, before
them! The grace of Christ can even work in a heart of darkness in the
darkest of corners, if He so wishes to do so. We should not attempt to
limit it with manmade rules and regulations. This is not to say that rules
and regulations are bad; but if they actually work against the movement of the
Holy Spirit, then they are ill-conceived. 3) "The Lord knows them that are his, however
they are dispersed". The Lord’s people are dispersed in many more ways
than the narrow lines on which we would wish to fix them. The New Diaspora
(dispersion) is a way that the Lord has driven people out of dead, unwholesome
churches into their communities, workplaces and alternative spheres of activity.
Their dispersion, as being through the providence and under the sovereignty of
God, can only work out for a higher, noble purpose. 4) "Take heed lest we be carried... to oppose
that which yet may tend to the enlargement of the church, and the advancement of
its true interests another way". The enlargement, advancement and feeding of the church
-- the Body of Christ -- can take place in ways other than those we may want to
prescribe, or even other than what we have understood from Scripture. God's
creativity is boundless. How careful we should be not to tread on God’s
toes with our error-spotting opposition to anything which doesn’t fit our
narrow preconceptions. "Oh, the depth of
the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His
judgments and His ways past finding out!" Yes, I grant you that this is a control-freak’s
nightmare, but the church as the Body and Bride of Christ is not the place for
control-freaks! However, the visible church today has become so full of
control-freaks, so full of heretics, so full of tares, so full of false
teachers, so full of Pharisees, so full of liberals, so full of impostors and
deceivers, so full of unctuous ear-ticklers, so full of the restricters of
God’s sovereignty, so full of the restrainers of God's Spirit, that many have
reluctantly abandoned it until something better can be formed or until they
themselves, with the Lord’s help, can form it. So many seem to imagine that a thing cannot possibly be
God’s will, or be Scriptural, or be in obedience to God, unless it is done in
exactly the way that they think it should be done, or in exactly the way that it
has always been done by them and people like them. But praise the Lord that He
does not work down our tramlines! This is NOT to give carte blanche to
anyone who wants to act in an entirely whimsical, superficial and arbitrary
manner and hop around churches or to leave a church for no reason at all. I know
that is how this piece on the New Diaspora will be received by some. But it
simply is not true. The people of the New Diaspora could easily join one of the
corrupt churches near where they live, but it would prove nothing. It may
satisfy some people who want everything to look neat from the outside; but it
would not be a truly spiritual solution. Having to spend time out of a church is not the ideal
situation. But if one can find good food and fellowship in new and interesting
places, it is infinitely better than being systematically stifled or
dripfeedingly destroyed by social institutions masquerading as spiritual homes.
The people of the New Diaspora would love to be part of a real, loving,
teaching, vibrant fellowship; but they have no desire to join a social club, or
a lunatic asylum, or a mausoleum, or a penitentiary, which is the only
neighbourhood choice for so many today. [Question: Are you saying that we
should do away with churches altogether and have no such thing as pastors,
elders, deacons etc.? Answer: Well I'm surprised you
haven't got the message yet. Of course that is not what I am
saying. I have written articles extolling the importance of the offices of
the church, such as pastor-teachers/elders and deacons (you can find one of
these articles on the "Articles & Analysis" page of this
website, entitled "Rulership & Service"). The problem
is that is if someone says anything remotely derogatory about churches, those
who want to defend them go right off the deep end with a knee-jerk and try to
portray the people of the New Diaspora as anti-authority and anti- any kind of
office in churches. But this is simply not true. A great many people
have been totally alienated from churches because of the wielding of a false
authority involving a kind of despotic rule which goes way beyond the
jurisdiction of the shepherd as he is portrayed in Scripture. Far too many
office-bearers see the holding of office in a church as a form of power and
control instead of nurture and protection. A great many Christians have
never witnessed a true shepherd in action. Their only experience has been
a Genghis Khan or Machiavelli. Small wonder that they should not want to
darken the doorstep of a church again. We are going to have to work very
hard if we want to make our churches attractive enough to these people -- i.e.
enough like the suburbs of heaven -- to encourage them to come back and take
their place as fearless participants.] So let it be loudly said that the people of the New
Diaspora are not "going it alone". They are working
passionately for the Lord, in the best way possible at this strange point in
history. When the present false church has shown its true colours and been
judged accordingly, the Lord will use the New Diaspora in His own way and in His
own time, just as He used the first century Diaspora to which Peter wrote, and
just as He has always done from the beginning of His creation. I love the New Diaspora. Do you want to know why? It is
because I believe that something marvellous will eventually materialise from it.
In fact, I have every faith that the people of the New Diaspora will be the
heart of the churches of tomorrow. I believe that as the end draws
near and backs really begin to be rammed against walls and the detritus of this
passing world really begins to hit the fan, the Lord will abandon the deadly
formalistic, drably evanjellycal, crazily chaotic, powerfully poisonous
"churches" and will bring something extraordinary out of the New
Diaspora to offer a final challenge to the crumbling Babylonian Establishment of
this world in a way which the lackey, compromised, obsequious, self-centred
churches could never do today.
I just hope I live long enough to see all of that
happen. And I hope you do too!
© Alan Morrison, Diakrisis International, 2002
{N.B. I have used what
is known as an "elenctic" device in this article in order to assist
the teaching. This means that at certain points in the text, you will find
inserted some typical objections which people might raise there, followed by my
answers to them.}
| Pastor Alan Morrison is a Baptist minister who established Diakrisis International originally in 1990 to acquaint believers with the importance of Christian apologetics, to provide written commentary and public speaking on a wide range of topical, doctrinal and pastoral issues, and to hold out a hand of rescue to those who suffer psychological and spiritual manipulation in the religious scene. Rev. Morrison has, since the publication of this on his website in 2002, shut the web site down to engage in a church planting project in France. |