Robert Pearsall Smith and the Keswick / Higher Life Preaching of Post-Conversion Sexual Baptism: part 20 of 21 in Hannah W. Smith: Keswick Founder, Higher Life Preacher, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic

This entire 21-part study appears on the FaithSaves.net website in a study entitled “Hannah Whitall Smith: Higher Life Writer, Speaker on Sanctification, Developer of the Keswick Theology, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic.” Click here to read the entire study.

Search for:

“While Mr. Smith most clearly spread Foster’s filthy doctrine in private to a variety of his followers, usually women, he did publicly proclaim with clarity the necessity of a post-conversion Spirit baptism as the climax of the Higher Life, while pointing publicly to its sexual nature only in a guarded way.”

to read the section that was in the blog post below.

I Happen to Know How the Earth Is Going to End

Not zombies.  Not another ice age.  Not rising oceans.  Not a pandemic.  Not global warming.  Not a cooling sun.  Not an asteroid.  Not an alien attack.  Not nuclear war.

Earth is going to end with the judgment of God.  He's real, He's angry, and He won't put up with sin forever.

At the same time the entire creation (known also as the universe) will roll up as a scroll, so an escape to Mars or anywhere else on a space ship will be futile.

This prediction is more sure than anything else that anyone is saying who is being paid six or seven figures for that opinion.

Both free range or caged hens could care less.

Christians Not Impressed with Christianity

If you look up the lists of either overused phrases or pretentious or annoying or useless ones, you'll find, "it is what it is."  How did it become overused if it was so worthless?  I say that because Christianity actually is what it is.  It isn't what we want it to be.  It isn't what the world will be impressed with. It is what it is.  And what it is, is true.  It is the true account of everything.  What we found out about what it is, is that it is absolutely wonderful.  Everything else is insignificant in comparison.

What Christianity is though doesn't seem to be good enough for many Christians anymore.  What is impressive to the world is something different than Christianity, but that doesn't mean that Christians should treat Christianity like it is less than impressive.  The world isn't going to like Christianity, but it might like a program for kids, a promise of safety, some friends, a boyfriend or girlfriend, pop music, amusement, or games.  In John 6, the world wanted bread.  Bread would be good enough, as far as that crowd who followed Jesus was concerned.  Jesus -- Christianity -- wasn't sufficiently impressive.

Christians are to be offering Christianity, that is, Christians are to be giving people Christ.  They are to be so impressed with Christianity, and like it so much, yea, love it, that they will talk about it all the time and to everyone.  That's not the latest for Christians.  Christians are sort of ashamed of Christianity, and to save Christianity from itself, they present something else with the idea that at some point in the future, they will spring it on the unreceptive.

Nothing is more impressive than Christianity, which is to say that Jesus is the most precious Person, topic, theme, solution -- whatever word that applies here -- in all of earth and in all of heaven.  Christians aren't impressed and they give the world that impression by starting with many number of things before they ever get to Jesus.  Many of them are what people are seeking, and they plan on using those things, the things people in the world are interested in, to lure people into Christianity.  At that point, Christianity has taken on a different nature, a nature that is diminished, that is lesser than other things.  Christianity should be kept Christianity, because nothing is better.

Christians should preach Christianity like they like it.  This is a mindset.  It should be easy for an actual Christian.  It's hard for the impostor, really impossible.  Why would someone in the world though like it better than everything else, if Christians don't like it better than everything else?  What is pathetic, even despicable, about this lessening of Christianity, and prioritizing things above it, is that Christian leaders, even pastors, train their people and other leaders or potential leaders to do the same thing.

This is what pastors should be saying.  Preach Christ.  Talk about Jesus.  Give the good news.   Treat the gospel like it is the most wonderful thing.  Don't apologize for it.  Don't start with other things.  Get right to the gospel.  Instead, professing Christians are still constantly brainstorming to concoct a better way.

The leaders say people will get discouraged from talking about Jesus, because people won't like that.  They counsel to start with something people will like.  They train to target people in a certain demographic with something they'll relate with, that they will like, that they are seeking for.  That will succeed, they say, and then when it does, people will want to do this work more.  They won't quit so easily.  It will be easier, so they'll not give up the work.  Just think, these men came up with this idea too.  They've helped and edified these people into better Christian workers with this strategy.  They often say too that God gave this to them, almost like it were supernaturally revealed.

Some of you readers probably have a certain critique of this post.  You're maybe saying or thinking, these leaders, pastors, and the ones who take up the above tact, the bait and switch really, actually are very impressed with Christianity. They just know the world won't be.  A few things here.  Even if the world isn't, it still is the only way for them to be saved.  If you don't present it then you are less impressed with what Christianity itself will do.  Christianity, Christ, is the only way to be saved.  It can change someone.  Preaching Christ also is how God is glorified, because that strategy doesn't make sense that it will work.  The ones constantly at the drawing board or cooking up a new recipe are not impressed with the changing power of Christianity.

Those who say to start with something the world is seeking will often also prove that their techniques are best with some stats they have in the short term.   However, they can't figure in the long term destructive effects, and even how that in the short term, what they are using isn't actually, actually, working.  You don't get to find out what is working in the short term until the long term.  By then it's too late.  This is why the just live by faith.  They just believe what God said and do it.

Professing Christian leaders don't think Christianity will work as it is.  That is also not to be impressed with it.  It is to say that as it is, Christianity isn't powerful.  It doesn't work as is.  The special sauce, originated by men, must be added.  They are also not impressed with it to talk about it first.  They are saying they are impressed with it, but they aren't, and you can see that by how that Christianity comes later in their strategy.  This is not how Jesus operated.  Ever.

There's no wonder the world won't be impressed.  Christians can't talk about Christianity like they are impressed with it.  If they were, they would.  They would, because they are impressed, and they would, because they can.  People who are impressed can talk about it like they are.  The more they dig into it, the more they'll be impressed too.

Much of the problem in Christianity is that Christians don't like Christianity.  They want to go to heaven.  They like what Christianity will give them if they have it, but they aren't really that impressed with Christianity, not to talk about it like it's the best thing in the world.  Christianity is what it is and that should be good enough for Christians, but for so many, it isn't.  A different Christianity, one more palatable to others, is what is presented, not something that would be done by someone who is impressed with what it is.

Repent of Original Sin? Yes!

Regrettably, in today’s world where theology is downplayed and sin is watered down, the fact that both the unconverted and the people of God need to repent of Adam’s sin is downplayed.  Very few sermons are preached on the imputation of Adam’s sin, and even fewer mention the need for men to repent of it.  Despite this neglect, the fact mentioned is clearly taught in Scripture.  Rather than re-inventing the wheel, the following excerpt from the works of David Clarkson expresses the point well.  For further study of the Biblical need for repentance over original sin beyond the quotation reproduced from Clarkson below, see pgs. 267-285, Sermons to the Natural Man, William G. T. Shedd (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1871); pgs. 39-42, The Works of David Clarkson, David Clarkson, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864) & pgs. 292-313, vol. 3, ibid; pgs. 324-376, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Goodwin, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865).

      In light of the Biblical fact that you ought to lament, hate, and repent of your original sin, when was the last time that you confessed it as sin to God?

Quest. Whether must we repent of original sin?

That this may be more clearly propounded and resolved, observe a distinction, the non-observance of which occasions much darkness, both in men’s apprehensions and discourses of this subject.

Original sin is, 1. Imputed, 2. Inherent.

1. Imputed, is Adam’s sin, that which he actually committed in eating the forbidden fruit. Called original, because it was the first sin, and committed at the beginning of the world, when the first foundations of man’s original were laid. Imputed, because Adam representing us and all mankind, what he did, we did in God’s account, he looks upon us as sinning by him, Rom. 5:19, 20.

2. Inherent, is that natural corruption which cleaves to us, dwells in us, consisting in the privation of original righteousness, and propensity to all unrighteousness; the sad issue and effect of the former sin. Adam receiving this original holiness for himself and his posterity, lost it for himself and them; and holiness being gone, a proneness to all sin necessarily followed. It is called sin, because it is a state opposite to the will and law of God; the absence of that which it requires, the presence of that which it forbids. Original, because we have it from our birth, from our original. Inherent, because it is not only accounted ours, but is really in us. Of this Gen. 6:5, and 8:21, Job 4:5, Ps. 51:7.

Quest. Whether must we repent of Adam’s sin, that which is but imputed to us, that which was committed so many years before we were born?

Ans. This must be repented of with such acts of repentance as it is capable of, confessed, bewailed, hated. As to avoiding, forsaking of it, we need not be solicitous, because there is no danger it should be recommitted. But we must acknowledge, aggravate, mourn for it, abhor it, hate the memory of it. So I conceive (though I meet not with any that determine this), on this ground.

1. We are bound to repent and mourn for the sins of others, much more for those that are any ways our own. This à fortiori. This has been the practice of holy men formerly: David, Ps. 119:158, so Jer. 13:17. Sins of fathers, Jer. 14:10, many hundred years committed before. It is prophesied of the Jews, that when the Lord shall convert them, they shall mourn for the sin of their forefathers who pierced him; so Dan. 9; and Moses’s ordinary practice. If repentance prevent judgment, then it might prevent those that are inflicted for sins of others, progenitors. The Lord often punishes for their sins; if we would not suffer for them, we should repent of them. And if of others’ sins, then of that which is ours; and this is ours by imputation. And justly is it imputed to us. For by all human laws, children are charged with their fathers’ debts, the father’s treason taints his posterity.

2. We are bound to rejoice in imputed righteousness, and therefore to mourn for imputed sin. Adam’s sin is ours, the same way as Christ’s righteousness, viz., by imputation, Rom. 5:19, and contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia. If we must rejoice in Christ’s righteousness, we should bewail Adam’s sin. And indeed great cause of joy in that it is the marrow, the quintessence of the gospel; the most gladsome part of those ἐυαγγέλια, those glad tidings which are published in the gospel; the sweetest strain of that message, which, the angel says, was ‘good tidings of great joy to all people,’ Luke 2:10. Imputed righteousness is that blessed design which the Father from eternity contrived, which Christ published and performed, into which the angels desire to pry, that lost man, who could not be saved without righteousness, who had no righteousness of his own to save him, should have a righteousness provided for him, whereby he is freed from wrath, and entitled to heaven. Sure this is, this will be, an occasion of eternal joy; and if so, imputed sin is a just ground of sorrow.

3. As long as the Lord manifests his displeasure against any sin, so long we are called to mourn for it The Lord is highly provoked, if, when his hand is stretched out against any place or person for sin, they will not see it, so as to repent of it, and be humbled under it. He interprets this to be a contempt, and this highly exasperates. It has been the practice of holy men, when wrath was either executed, or threatened, to mourn for the sins that occasioned it, though committed by others, and long before. See it in Josiah, 2 Chron. 34:31. There he takes notice of forefathers’ sins; and see how he is affected therewith: ver. 27, ‘his heart was tender, he humbled himself.’

We are called to mourn for sin, whenever wrath is manifested against it; but the wrath of God is still revealed from heaven against that first unrighteousness; his displeasure is still legible in the effects of this sin, the dreadfullest effects that ever any act produced, no less than all sin, and all misery. That threatening, Gen. 2:17, is still in execution, and the execution is terrible; every stroke is death, spiritual, personal, temporal, eternal, take it in the most extensive sense. Adam’s soul was struck dead immediately; and by virtue of that sentence, all his posterity are dead men, born dead in trespasses and sins. Personal death, death of afflictions; all the sorrows and sufferings of this woeful life, they flow from this cursed spring. Temporal, in Adam all died; it he had not sinned, all had been immortal. Eternal, all must die for ever that repent not. Great cause then to repent of this sin.

Quest. Whether must we repent of that original sin, which is inherent; that natural corruption, the loss of original holiness; and that innate propensity to evil? It may seem not to be any just occasion of sorrow, because it is not voluntary, but natural; having, without our consent, seized upon us unavoidably.

Ans. This is principally to be repented of, as that which is the mother sin, the cause of all actual sins. Nor should the supposed involuntariness of it hinder us from making it the object of our sorrow.

For, 1, every sin is to be repented of. But this is a sin exceeding sinful, indeed, all sins in one. For, what is sin, who can better determine than the Lord himself? And he in Scripture determines, that whatever is a transgression of the law is sin, whether it be voluntary or no; not only that which we actually consent to, but that which he peremptorily forbids. The apostle’s definition of sin is unquestionable, 1 John 3:4, ἁμαρτία ἐστιν ἡ ἀνομία; but no greater transgression than this, since it transgresses all at once. We are commanded to be holy; so the want of holiness is forbidden, which is the privative part of this sin. We are commanded to love the Lord with all our hearts; so the heart’s inclination to hate God is forbidden, which is the positive part. Was not the apostle Paul more able to judge what is sin, than any papist, Socinian, &c.? He calls it sin five times, Rom. 6, six times, Rom. 7, three times, Rom. 8, yea and his sin, though he then consented not to it.

2. Suppose (that which is false) no evil is to be repented of, but what is consented to, this should not hinder any from repenting of this sin; for all that are capable of repentance have actually consented to their natural corruption, have been pleased with it, have cherished it by occasions of sin, have strengthened it by acts of sin, have resisted the means whereby it should be mortified and subdued, which are all infallible evidences of actual consent. That which was only natural, is to us become voluntary; and so, by consent of all, sinful; and therefore necessarily to be repented of.

3. The necessity of it is grounded upon unquestionable examples of saints, both in the Old and New Testament. Instance in two of the holiest men that the Scripture mentions. David, in that psalm, which is left as a public testimony of his repentance, to the world, he bewails, acknowledges this, Ps. 51:5. Paul does acknowledge, aggravate, bewail it, as one heavily afflicted with it, Rom. 7. His description of it is very observable: as that which is not good, ver. 18; in me, i. e., in the unregenerate part, that which is not good, that which is evil, ver. 20, sin, six times; the greatest evil, a condemned forbidden evil, ver. 7; a sinful evil, ver. 13, καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλὸς; a private evil, ver. 20, hinders him from doing good; a positive evil, ver. 17, no more I that do it, but sin; perverse evil, grows worse by that which should make it better, ver. 8; debasing evil, made and denominates him carnal, ver. 14; intimate, inherent evil, sin in him, ver. 17, in his members; a permanent evil, οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ, ver. 17; a fruitful evil, ver. 8, all manner of lust; a deceitful evil, ver. 11, ἐξηπάτησέ; an imperious evil, a law, ver. 23, gives law, commands as by authority; a tyrannical evil, αἰχμαλωτίζοντά, ver. 23; sold, ver. 14; a rebellious conflicting, war-like evil, ἀντιστρατευόμενον, ver. 23; an importunate, unreasonable evil, ver. 15, forces him to do that which he hates; a watchful evil, ver. 21, is present, παράκειται; a powerful evil, ver. 24, ‘who shall deliver?’ &c.; a complete evil, ver. 24, a body furnished with all members of unrighteousness; a deadly evil, ver. 24, body of death, θανατώδες, ver. 11; slew me, ver. 9, I died; a miserable evil, ver. 24, above all things made him wretched.

Paul suffered as many calamities in the world, as any we read of in it; see a catalogue, 2 Cor. 11:23–28. But all these sufferings could never extort such a passonate complaint from him, as this corruption. He could glory in those; but sighs, complains, exclaims, in the sense of this. You see how large he is in aggravating this. Here is above twenty aggravations of this. His sorrow was proportionable. No sin, no suffering, for which he expressed so much soul-affliction. And if he saw so much reason to bewail it, it is our blindness if we see it not. The more holy any man is, the more sensible of natural corruption. The more they get out of this corrupt element, the more heavy it is. Those who feel it not, are drowned in it. Elementum non gravitat in proprio loco. Sin is their proper element, who are not burdened with natural sinfulness.

If it was such an intolerable evil in him who was regenerate, how much more in the unregenerate! If it made him account himself wretched who was so happy, how much more miserable does it make those who have no title to happiness! If it was such an impetuous evil in him who had extraordinary powers of grace to weaken it, how prevailing in us, in whom grace is so weak! If he had cause to complain, bewail, repent of it, much more we! (David Clarkson, The Works of David Clarkson, vol. 1 [Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864], 39–42.)

Making the Old Paradigm the New Paradigm for "Full Time" Ministry

Church leaders need to be adjusting the thinking of their leaders back to a biblical and historical way of supporting "full time" ministers.  I put "full time" in quotations because every Christian is full time in the Ephesians 4:1 sense, which is the sense in the Bible.  We've been called, that is, saved unto a new vocation.  Every Christian in that sense, the sense, is bi-vocational.  You have the office of the pastor, but that doesn't mean he isn't employed elsewhere, to earn a living.

I've told our people that our church is probably not reproducible for the age in which we live.  We have a "self-supporting" church in an urban area with an incredible overhead.  Everything is expensive.  Land is expensive.  There is a wide range within a few miles.  In Lamorinda, where we are evangelizing now, the property values average over a million dollars.

Since the above is true, we can't be thinking about pastors in the same way many, if not most, have for the last century or two.  We've got to go back to the old paradigm, where men of God are tent makers, like the Apostle Paul, and then in early American history, the doctor/pastor or farmer/pastor.

What I'm writing about here will require a change even in parenting philosophy for many.  The old paradigm here was you trained your children in character, to obtain a godly spouse, and to fulfill his role, which for the boy was earning a living.  A boy learned a trade and he had to take care of a family as a first responsibility.

The financial pressures for pastors to keep a full time pastorate often result in the compromises to doctrine and practice that I confront here.  To stay self-supporting, to keep a full time salary, pastors need a certain number of giving members and to sustain those in this country, in this cultural milieu, seems to call for easing up on doctrinal and practical precision.  Rather than getting a job, a pastor will attempt to find the sweet spot, the balance, whatever one wants to call what it takes to keep the membership intact to the degree that it can pay him.

When the young people would go off to Bible college and graduated, everyone who graduated needed to be paid either on pastoral staff, school staff, or with missionary support.  All of that money did not exist, so in a sense, it was all a house of cards, ready to fall.  Really, it was a lie.  It was never real.  The money divided very thinly. Not everyone could get paid.  Ultimately through sheer attrition, many of these had to get jobs anyway, but now they didn't have any marketable skills, no trade, no way of earning.  In this sense, the churches put the cart before the horse.

In the past, men started with having a means of earning.  That was part of being a Christian.  You took care of a family first.  The cultural mandate, subdue and have dominion, says that Christians should contribute.  Christians aren't to borrow from everyone else, sponge off the efforts that everyone else put in.  They should be the biggest contributors and in the best way.  They should show the world how life is to be lived.

I understand some of the thinking against what I'm writing about.  Your potential full time servants will start making the big money and then won't want to walk away from it.  When they are training for a job, surrounded by all those unbelievers, they could falter and go off the right path.  This reverts back to the doctrine of salvation.  If these people are really converted and grounded in scripture, they won't be stopped from accomplishing what the Bible says Christians should.

In many cases, Christian kids can't do anything in the world.  They are afraid to do anything.  The churches have made them that way.  The boys might even lack ambition, because they've never been pushed to have it.  They don't know what to do, because they don't have a skill to do it.  They've not been given any direction to be that way.  A kind of welfare mentality can even exist, where there is the assumption that someone should be able to write them a paycheck.

A man with the desire for the office of the bishop, the pastor, gets a good job and then does the work of the evangelist, trains others, and continues to evangelize an area, and maybe it never becomes self-supporting.  He can stay because he wasn't totally dependent on the church for support.  The church should support him.  Scripture teaches that, but getting fully supported is not a scriptural goal.  The goal is rightly to lead a right church.  He preaches right, practices right, and takes everyone else with him.  He and the other disciples keep preaching and working.  Maybe the church will allow for him to stop his job, but this does not become the end, because that is not his paradigm.

These life skills are not the enemy of being a proper or good pastor.  Somebody who can succeed in the world, like a Daniel or Joseph or Moses, is well on his way with the abilities someone needs to lead a church.  When you read the Bible, you're not thinking that there is some type of spiritual cadre, set aside by some kind of genetic predisposition.  The Bible has the same standard for everyone.  Everyone lives it.  Certain ones, because of response to preaching and teaching, will have the internal drive to become the expert on the Bible and show that he can lead.  He becomes the pastor, but he's already also a good worker with abilities to earn a living too.

Churches will need to establish men in a greater way to rightly divide the truth and to teach it.  Both prongs will need attention.  They will need to learn that trade or that skill for earning a living, while at the same time giving close heed to the doctrine.  The churches will have to get started earlier to get their men further along than what they are right now, to where they're still playing around by the time they get to college age.  They might be ready later.  They have that job, earning a living, raising a family, but continuing to train in the church until they get there by the time they're thirty, and not when they are twenty-two or twenty-five.  Thirty ought to sound familiar, but it could be thirty-five.

If we're going to do what I'm describing, we've got to get our minds right.  We've got to build the infrastructure within the church for this to work.  We'll have to start early.  We can't afford not to start.  There is no guarantee that the money will be there.  That shouldn't stop the work.  The work that Jesus wants us to do can be done no matter what the socio-economic situation.  It isn't designed only to work where there is enough of a cash flow.  People need to be hearing that this is how it is going to function now.  Really, it's how it should have been and continued to be.  The break we took from the old paradigm, the original paradigm was a kind of apostasy of the right one, which should be the new one.

Now talk amongst yourselves.

Where to Live, Life, and the Choice of a Church

I would not live somewhere if there wasn't a good church there.  I understand that some of you readers truly do not have a choice.  You can't move because your husband or father has you in a particular church or at least in area where there isn't a very good church.  I think that more of you have a choice than you think you do. I believe that your church is the most important factor in deciding where you will live.  As most of you know, people will move somewhere for a job or even for some lesser reason, and then look for a church afterwards, to find there isn't much of a choice.

Not long ago, when we went on vacation, we left on a Sunday afternoon with the plan to attend church on the way to our destination, stopping along the way.  I gave myself a very large geographical and population area to find a good church for Sunday night service.  I narrowed it down to the few finalists and then to one.  We went out of our way to get to this one.   I spent at least two hours deciding where we would go, observing doctrinal statements and sampling preaching.  I wanted to bring my family to a good, at least decent church. We arrived, sat down, and then left the service before ten minutes were up.  Maybe in that big swath of territory, over a million in population, there really was somewhere better to go.  I had tried.

Most of the tracts we use at our church, we have written.  One of them we titled:  Can You Worship God at Your Church?  We use it mainly for evangelicals or Charismatics.  If the answer is, "no," do you stay at that church?  Does it matter if you can worship God at your church?  If your church participates in false worship, can you continue there?  How much should anyone put up with in order to stay at his church?

You've got one life and it's short.   When you consider whether your life will be wood, hay, or stubble, or gold, silver, or precious stone, that relates directly to your church.  That language occurs in 1 Corinthians 3 and refers to the building up of a church, not the physical building, but the work that goes into the assembly.  I think you can assume that you aren't involved in this building up, if you aren't in or with the thing being built up, which in the picture is the church.  The preeminent situation for the value of your life is your church.

As you work your way through the Old Testament historical books, you see that the institution for worship of the one true God was the congregation of Israel.  True worship obeyed God's law to Israel. If you were a Gentile, outside of Israel, you would need to become attached in a scriptural way to that congregation and God's demands and mandates for pleasing Him.  After the split of the nation, if you were a true Israelite, you would have left the north and gone south to continue the temple worship of Judah.  Elijah and Elisha ministered in the north, along with other prophets, like missionaries going to a foreign field, but this wasn't the divine ideal for a believing Israelite.

The temple of God in this age in which we live is the church (as seen in 1 Cor 3) and so the corporate worship of God occurs through the church.  Like you couldn't worship God except through God's temple in the Old Testament, you can't except through the New Testament temple, the church.  Jesus said true worshipers worship the Father in truth (Jn 4:23-24).  However, the truth is often diminished in churches today for church growth methodology or strategy to keep the group from dwindling or disbanding.  Leadership of churches negotiates the greatest common denominator of doctrine and practice to prevent dissolution of its assemblage.  Truths considered non-essential are discarded.  The number of essentials continues to decrease.  You can hardly find a church that hasn't done this.

The increasing difficulty of finding a church for even minimal acceptance seemed to have spurred an idea such as Mark Dever's 9 Marks.  I don't believe nine marks are enough, but I really do get the thinking behind it.  For full disclosure, I wouldn't join Devers church.  They accept amillennialism, which results in a different interpretation for at least a third of the whole Bible, and I'm sure there are other reasons.  However, I really do like the nine marks that 9Marks promotes.  Those marks do characterize our church, and I'm glad.  At least those nine marks could be counted upon, if a church had them.  I have some of my own basics that I would start with to determine whether a church is acceptable, which would match up closely with Dever's list.  I have priorities even for visiting a church on vacation.  Some of Dever's marks do not characterize most of independent Baptists, so in the nine marks I find more agreement with Dever than I do them.

The Great Commission of Jesus mandated obedience to all of His commandments.  If we love Jesus, we keep His commandments -- all of them.  There isn't biblical grounds for minimizing certain aspects of scripture.

The primary purpose of this post isn't to figure out what church is acceptable for membership.  It is to consider where to live in light of the brevity of your life, saying that choice of church is of greatest importance in that decision.  I would move to have my family in the best church possible.  I wouldn't continue for months, years, and even decades in something that was perpetually disobedient.

Other questions arise, I know.  What if I can't find a job there?  As you consider that question, why is this question not then prompted, what if I can't find a church there?  You might have to start with living within your means, adjusting your standard of living to where the church is.  Some areas, like ours, are expensive to live.  You can become creative with bedroom furniture like people in Japan have to.  That's what I would do above being in the wrong church.  If the family can eek by, then perhaps it can improve that situation.  I've found this to be the case.  It is far less likely that the church will get better than your living situation can improve.

Should someone just leave a church to be in a better one?  This is likely the most controversial question.  Churches that don't obey scripture still want their people to stay.  They might not believe and practice everything in the Bible, but they do believe that people should stay in their churches. They have a strong conviction about that.  They become very authoritative about that.

There is a right way to leave a church.  I think anyone should try to help the church change first, using the biblical means.  I recognize that these churches will consider this to be divisive.  You can't bring up anything that might disagree, because that is an unacceptable violation.  There is, as I write this, I know, strong possibility that something isn't actually scriptural, but just a preference.  I know that.  The idea is that all those things that disagree are just mere preferences.  I also know that is not true in most situations. Churches have diminished by expanding the preference category and shrinking the conviction one.  The Bible is plain.  There is one truth.  There is one truth, goodness, and beauty.  God is one.

When churches bring in entertainment to lure and keep people, when they shift to casual dress for those in attendance and immodest, worldly, and unisex sometimes in and always out of attendance, there is more than one Bible because now you can't know the exact words of scripture (that's what is said), church discipline is not practiced, and the preaching becomes watered down, you are not required to stay there out of loyalty.  It could be a great number of doctrines, practices, and issues.

First, try to help the church change.  Talk to the leadership.  Present a scriptural way in the most peaceful way possible.  If the leadership won't change, second, ask if the church will send you to another church for greater ministry.  I understand that in leaving, you will also leave a lot of people who you care for, and you don't want to leave in that situation.  It seems unloving.  Many leaders and churches will say that you shouldn't try to help them leave too.  I would let the church leadership know that in the most peaceful way possible that I'm going to let others know why I am leaving. They should know why I'm leaving.  I think that is enough and less than recruitment of others to leave with you.  I recognize that when a big group of people leave, that's a church split.  1 Corinthians 12 says there should be no schism in the body.  The schism is the doctrinal or practical division, not the final leaving.  Leaving will eliminate the schism.  In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul said separations in a church must needs occur.  Jesus Himself would not stay in an unbiblical church and one can see that in Revelation 2 and 3.  He, of course, could do a lot about one of these situations, more than what we could.

Paul instructed Timothy to charge teachers to teach no other doctrine (1 Tim 1:3).  There is only one doctrine.  Consider this excerpt from 1 Timothy 6:3-5:

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness . . . . from such withdraw thyself.

That is a basis of not staying to continue to hear and practice a different doctrine than what the Bible teaches.  I understand that there are those reading who are, for instance, Calvinists, and they are in a church that isn't Calvinist, and what I'm writing they could use to justify going to a Calvinist church. I'm not attempting to justify anyone to do anything unbiblical.

Let's say that you don't think men should wear shorts, but always pants below the knee, and you see men in your church wearing shorts above the knee.  I wouldn't suggest that you leave that church for that reason alone.  Just saying this, I understand, says to some that then I'm saying that some things are non-essential.  I'm not saying that.  I recognize that we should practice everything the Bible teaches.  I believe the Bible is plain.  I also believe that a person can be wrong.  I think wisdom says that isn't going to be a problem for your family.  This is where discernment comes in, making judgment calls.  Maybe you don't like how the pastor rules.  You think he lords over the flock.  You might be wrong on that.  These are the kind of decisions that fall within a range of what you can sort through and help over a period of time.  Perhaps you are the one that needs the help.

This is all for now.  The choice of a church is your most important decision for location of where you will live.  I would sell my business to be in the right church. I would take a pay cut to be in the right church.  I would down scale my house to be in the right church.  I would diminish my vacation weeks to be in the right church.  When I look back on my life, this is a very important decision.  Take it into very careful consideration.  This might mean that some people need to move somewhere to be in another church.

Hannah W. Smith's Spread of the Erotic Baptism of Post-Conversion Power: part 19 of 21 in Hannah W. Smith: Keswick Founder, Higher Life Preacher, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic

This entire 21-part study appears on the FaithSaves.net website in a study entitled “Hannah Whitall Smith: Higher Life Writer, Speaker on Sanctification, Developer of the Keswick Theology, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic.” Click here to read the entire study.

Search for:

“Hannah W. Smith chronicled Dr. Foster’s communication of his views to herself and another lady as follows:”

to read the section that was in the blog post below.

A Gay Marriage Case Study: Whether It Hurts Someone Else Deciding Whether It Is Right

As I've listened to some of the reaction to the announcement of the United States Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage (I'm using the term "gay," not out of preference, but because I think it will allow filtered internet to get through), in almost every case, you hear the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone else.  The majority (5 for and 4 against) argued for gay marriage from "due process" and "equal protection" which the majority of justices found for gay marriage in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.  The argument is that gays' constitutional right to due process and equal protection is prohibited without their having the right to marry.  They've got that now in the entire country, overturning every law and every state constitution in every state that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.

I don't want to write about whether this was a right decision.  You can find multiple presentations all over the internet about that.  If you believe in original intent and strict construction, of course it was a horrible decision.  If you believe that we derive our rights from God -- natural rights -- a concept essential to and the understanding of the founding documents of the United States, then you don't believe that there is a right to something unnatural and not created by God.  Government doesn't give rights.  God does.  That truth is foundational to Americanism.  In one sense that is what I'm writing about, because redefining the nature of our rights will in both the short term and long run result in our natural rights not being protected, because we have ceded that authority to government.  We will lose our God-given rights.  That is almost a guarantee, and that does hurt people, but I'm not writing about that today.  I want to consider whether we can decide whether something is right based upon whether it hurts someone else, or even how we decide what does hurt someone else.

As this relates to gay marriage, the point we hear from supporters is, if it doesn't hurt you, why can't you just allow these people to be happy?  That is supposed to sort of clinch it for them.  It works like this -- even if you disagree with it and you don't like it, can't you just leave it alone because it's not hurting anyone else?  Just ignore it and you'll be fine.  Just let it go, act like it doesn't exist.  Why can't you do that?

I treat homosexuals as though they are made in the image of God.  I am kind to them.  As long as I don't bring up what I think of their lifestyle, we get along.  I've found that they like how I treat them as people.  However, I believe that saying nothing about their sin hurts them more in the long run than not telling them.  If they don't repent of their sin, they will be judged for it, and they won't be saved.

Many if not most think that letting things go is the key to the world being a better place.  Letting things go is another way of saying, tolerate things.  It's not harming you, so just tolerate it.  These people want to do this, and they're not hurting you, so just let it go.  I want to consider that.  I get the concept of letting things go.  A biblical term for letting things go might be "forbearance" and other terminology might be "turning the other cheek."  Every single day of living in the United States for me is forbearance and turning the other cheek.   I don't let the sun go down upon my wrath (Eph 4), even though everywhere around me I see violations of my belief and practice.  I let it go.

As an aside, my belief and practice are not tolerated to the same degree that gay marriage is now. You have a gay lifestyle course, even department, in state universities, but you couldn't have a biblical lifestyle course taught there.  I digress.

Years ago now (2003), when the Texas sodomy law (Lawrence v. Texas) was overturned, paving the way to legalization of gay marriage, a big part of the argument was that sodomy occurs between consenting adults in private.  The same justice who wrote the gay marriage opinion, Kennedy, equated liberty with the right to privacy.  "Since these two people aren't bothering anyone else, they should have the right to do that," the argument goes.  Liberty equals being able to do what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

It is my opinion that a big reason for the poll numbers supporting gay marriage is this idea that it isn't hurting anyone else.  These people are not "supporting" gay marriage.  They are not advocates.  They are just saying that they don't care if the government allows it or not, and the major reason is because it isn't hurting them.  Why should they care if these people get married?  It is also my opinion that many of these who "support" it because it's not hurting anyone also "support" it because they think that if they do, those people will leave them alone.  They might be able to stop hearing about it if they get what they want -- a lot of people are this way about a lot of things.  I'm saying that both of these are my opinion, but I also think that you readers know this to be true.  I believe a true poll, precisely worded to get an accurate percentage of "support," would get a very small percentage of actual support.  On top of this, when people hear that a majority are supporting it, these same type of people just resign themselves to it.  Far more people value religious liberty than support gay marriage, and it is the former that is threatened by the latter.  The former is actually in the Constitution of the United States.

One point of this post has been, does gay marriage hurt anyone?  I write about that because I believe that is the fallacy that has yielded the faux support.  Closely related to this question is the argument itself, that is often used, that particular sins are not hurting anyone else, so they should be permitted.  You hear it all the time.

Often these practices do hurt other people.  An obvious harm is to children of same gender parents. Liberals themselves, including the president, argue for the involvement of fathers with sons being a vital component of parenting success, something lost when there aren't two parents (this comes along today to prove the point).  Surely, not having a mother inflicts children with a lack of nurturing, because men are not designed with necessary capability for that.  Justice Kennedy argued that validating gay marriage as marriage was necessary to dignify it as a contribution to the children of these couples.  Even if they were dignified to their greatest extent, they still lack one or the other of the abilities of a man or a woman for the children, so children are being harmed.

Marriage as defined from the beginning correlates to reproduction.  Same gender couples can't reproduce.  Sure, they can find someone else to contribute what one of them is missing, but especially with two men, neither can bear a child, to state the obvious.  If families are necessary for the propagation of the human race, gay marriage can't help with that.  I understand how that the last two paragraphs could seem to contradict.  Shouldn't I welcome the lack of reproduction, since it will harm the children anyway?  Gay marriage won't produce even less than normal or adjusted children.  That lack won't supply missing workers and social security contributors.  The rest of the country must shoulder that loss.

All of the above argues without the benefit of scripture.  The Bible is true and represents a correct view of the world.  This is the Father's world.  He designed it, created it, and sustained it.  When we rebel against what He designed or said, against His rules, we do worse.  We know from scripture that if we allow gay marriage, we have not just already brought His judgment, but worse is to come. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because things were allowed to go this far.  We forfeit certain favor from God when we forsake His ways.  Some relegate this to the mere theological, but it is a true view of the world, as scientific as any science, since this world smacks of God's design.  When we don't fulfill His purpose, we bring about our own destruction.  All of this harms everyone, so it is not true that gay marriage won't bother someone else.

You hear often that these two people "love" each other.  Love is a biblical concept.  It didn't come into American culture through a secular avenue.  It started in the Bible and entered culture from there. It's definition depends on the Bible.  Love is perverted by defining gay marriage as love.  The perversion of love harms many people.  If we can't know what love is or we corrupt it, God won't be loved and others won't be loved, hindering obedience to God's first and second great commandments. Love for God and others buttresses the entire Judeo-Christian ethic.  People don't know how to live without it.  Most people still know that treatment of others, including themselves, will deteriorate. They are hoping they'll be left alone, but deep down they know they won't.  They will in fact be bothered by someone else because of the degradation of values overall.

I'm sure there are more arguments, but this should at least get one started on what might have become the most important point in the gay marriage issue, that is, it's not hurting you or anyone else, so it should be supported.  If people would agree that isn't true, it would be a very small percentage who would support it.

Is, will it hurt us, the only argument that really matters?  Isn't that a narcissistic, self-centered and self-promoting, argument?  Does it bother God?  Is God offended?  Is it not beautiful?  Is it disorderly?  Is it a lie?  Can we support a lie that doesn't hurt anyone?  Or maybe a lie will be justified because it is argued that the lie is more helpful than the truth?  Can something be wrong that doesn't hurt anyone?  Should everything be allowed that doesn't bother someone else?  If something is wrong, could it help?  Do we really want something wrong to be considered not to be bothersome?

Part of the argument, it seems, is that if someone wants to destroy his own life, it shouldn't matter to us.  We should just leave him alone, leave him to his own devices.  If he wants to blow his brain on drugs, just let him, it goes.  This is an argument for assisted suicide.  This is an argument for lessening or lightening the drug laws.  The same type of argument brought about the repeal of prohibition of alcohol.  It does not arise from what will be a successful view of law or values.  It relates all law to relative value and removes it from an absolute value.  There are absolutes.  There is natural law.  It's an admission that we can't know anything beyond what relates to us and our own experience.  Whether someone is bothered becomes the final authority.  In the end, this will diminish all of society.  I assume that it will end in totalitarianism of some kind.  A small group of people, who won't want to be bothered by anything, will make sure that no one bothers them.

I believe we have a lot of practice that does not relate to whether it bothers someone else or not.  We can argue that gay marriage hurts other people, ones not involved in the marriage, but we shouldn't reduce arguments to accepting or supporting something as long as it doesn't hurt me.  I hire a roofer. I buy a particular brand of shingle but he puts a less expensive brand on the roof that is of equal quality.  It can be proven that it won't change anything for me in the long run.  In the end, I don't even know it, so it doesn't matter, because it hasn't bothered me?  That's just one illustration, but our country doesn't believe in that.  I could give you a hundred illustrations like that one, where no one got hurt, but it was still wrong.  We should not justify activity just because it didn't harm or bother someone else.