By Dan Trotter. This issue will be devoted to negativism, a trait which has been said to characterize The New Reformation Review by several of its readers. Quite frankly, I have long anticipated this charge, and have expected it to emerge even sooner than it has.

Before I begin, I want you to do a little exercise. Rank the following Scriptural incidents on a scale of one to ten, with one being sublimely positive, and ten being perfectly negative.

- Ten Commandments, eight of which begin "you shall not," or something similar.

- Paul suggests that certain ones preaching another gospel be quote unquote "accursed" (Gal 1:9).

-Paul states unequivocally that Peter "stood condemned" (Gal 2:11).

- Paul calls the Galatians fools (Gal 3:1).

- Paul expresses publicly the desire that his enemies "mutilate" themselves, meaning that he wished they would castrate themselves as they tried to legalistically circumcise themselves (Gal 5:12).

- Jesus tells the whole city of Capernaum that they are going to hell (OK, Hades) (Matt 11:22,23)

- Jesus attacks the religionists of his day by pointing out that they are violating the commandment of God because of their infatuation with their traditions (if here you draw any implications concerning NRR's attacks on the American church order, that's because I mean for you to.)

I could go on and mention Jesus' condemnation of his opponents as "whitewashed sepulchers," and a "brood of vipers," but I think you get the point: There is hardly a piece of literature in Christendom that is as negative as the Bible!!"If you use the Bible as precedent and authority (as NRR does), then one can not say that being negative is wrong in every circumstance. If you think about it, most of those who accuse NRR and other similar writings as being negative, are themselves often accused by liberals of being negative. "You conservatives are so negative," the liberals say, "because you are always saying that the biblical hell must be taken literally. How could a loving God throw people into hell? You conservatives don't show any love." To which the conservative replies, "The problem with you liberals is you don't believe in truth. Hell is reality. The most loving thing we can do is show people that hell is real, and how to avoid it." Perish the thought that NRR would ever compare living in the present American church order to living in hell, but quite frankly, its gotten pretty bad out there, and we don't see very many within the American church system who even see the problem, much less are willing to do anything about it. So to those of you who think we are negative and unloving, we respond in this manner: "The corruption and soul-killing deadness of the organized American church is real. The most positive and loving thing we can do is to show people this reality, and how to avoid it."

"There is hardly a piece of literature in Christendom that is as negative as the Bible!!"

It is possible to be negative in the wrong way. It is possible to be negative by attacking people instead of beliefs (we don't do that; in the last issue, I took great pains to state that radical house church Christians must never cut off fellowship from anyone who disagrees with them on any doctrinal issue, including, of course, church government and church life - any you will never hear NRR attack a "pastor-pope" by name. It is also possible to be wrongly negative in another way: by quite correctly pointing out the error of something, and then not pointing out the alternative to that error. But rather than doing that, we have tried to point out the alternative to the American church system, namely, radical home church Christianity. We have suggested that you go and try it. What could be more positive than that? Ninety-nine point nine percent of all those who will attack NRR of being negative are those who don't agree with our premises. So, they should attack us for being wrong, not for being negative. Have you noticed that we don't complain about Jesus and Paul for being sarcastic and negative, even though at times, they demonstrably were? If we are Protestant, we don't complain about the Luther's Ninety-Five Thesis, although they were extremely negative in their appraisal of the Catholic church. We don't complain about the little boy who quite frankly and negatively pointed out the emperor didn't have any clothes on. Why don't these egregiously negative examples bother us? Because we agree with the negative attacks, that's why! It is remarkable that people who agree with the radical premises of NRR don't think we're negative at all. It is those who still have their heart somewhere in the American church system that think we're negative.

Dear reader, if you think we're negative, prove we're wrong, and we'll recant. We are much more afraid of being wrong than being negative. You see, we are on to the psychological deception that is involved in the "you are negative" gambit. We challenge people in their beliefs. The people we challenge are comfortably practicing their beliefs, and at the same time comfortably affirming that they believe and practice the Scripture. We challenge them to show us how their unbelievably un-Scriptural church orders are even remotely connected to the Scriptures they affirm as true. They can't begin to answer the challenge, so they resort to the ad hominem argument: "You're so negative." It won't work. NRR will continue to be negative until we shake people loose from their American ecclesiastical prejudices. Until we make them see how utterly inconsistent they are with what they profess to believe and what they practice. Until they quit sullying the bride of Christ with man-made systems that promote the lust for power and money. So, if you think we're negative in our attitude, I have a simple challenge for you. Prove that what we say about the American church system is not true!

"...if you think we're being negative, prove we're wrong, and we'll recant. We are much more afraid of being wrong than being negative."

We now present an article by Les Buford. Unfortunately, it is very negative.

By Les Buford. This is an open letter to those who have taken us aside to correct us for being so negative. Each of you has done so out of concern, and we love you for that. Please let us explain our predicament.

In February of 1991, a group of us got together for a retreat in the mountains. We had been to this retreat center before. In fact, we had experienced wonderful times of revival in this place, meetings in which God's presence was so strong, that we knew that Jesus himself was in the room with us. In fact, this was what had made us such close friends: we had experienced revival together in the seventies, when the Holy Spirit was being poured out upon us in living rooms and college dorms. These were unauthorized meetings, with no one in charge except the Lord Jesus Christ.

Those were dangerous times. In fact, it made us dangerous... dangerous to the status quo... dangerous to the organized church that wants us sit in the pew, listen to sermons, and give generously to the building fund. We had been ruined forever as faithful pew sitters. We had experienced Jesus Christ, alive, real, and really with us in our meeting, causing us to know His presence.

That weekend in the mountains, we made an amazing discovery! Each of the husbands were to prepare a message, and without any pre-arrangement, we each had the same basic message. Artie Hall shared his famous "I Have a Dream!" message (soon to be printed in NRR). Here we were, spread out all over our state now, going to different charismatic churches, yet experiencing the same thing. We felt like something was wrong with us. We were bored, frustrated, and to be honest, we did not like to go to church any more (before you condemn us, go find George Gallup's poll on how many in America say they have met Jesus, but are not too excited about going to church).

We had fun laughing and joking and confessing how we made it through the services. "I keep Sugar Babies in my shirt pocket, to have something to chew on." "I tried to read the Bible through, but the pastor kept distracting me, raising and lowering his voice, and shouting to keep us awake." "I put revival tracts inside my Bible and read them."

Well, we had a grand time! We got out the guitar and worshipped Jesus, just like we used to do. There was total informality, with no one in charge. We made jokes about how rowdy we were getting without a pastor there to keep things under control. It was just as wonderful as it used to be!!! Something had changed, but it wasn't Jesus.

We had made an amazing discovery. We were not so backslidden after all. Our churches were! We were seeing another cycle in church history. God moves in revival, man takes over, the revival dies, and another denomination is left in its place. Our churches, which had started in informal meetings in living rooms with the wonderful presence of God in our midst, had now become just like the churches we had left years ago.

We now had pews, choirs, worship leaders, sermons, and, best of all, religious furniture, such as throne-like chairs for hired professional pastors to sit in.

"THERE YOU GO BEING NEGATIVE AGAIN!"

Well, here is something positive. We left that retreat with a new spring in our step, and a song in our heart, knowing that our Lord is still with us and He would show us what to do. We began to meet once a month in a central location - a living room, of course! Some of us had to drive three hours, but it was worth it because God met us there. As a result of that retreat and others since, at least three house churches have been started.

We have rediscovered the reality that Jesus Christ is head of the Church. That means He is in charge, not man. Pentecostals love to mention the Azusa Street Revival as the beginning of their movement, but they need to read Frank Bartleman's Another Wave Rolls In, published by Whittaker House. Here is a quote from page 57: "Brother Seymour was recognized as the nominal leader in charge. But we had no pope or hierarchy. We were brethren. We had no human program. The Lord himself was leading. We had no priest class, nor priestcraft. These things were to come later with the apostatizing of the movement. We did not even have a platform or pulpit in the beginning, all were on one level. The ministers were servants, according to the true sense of the word." And on page 76: "We had the greatest trouble with strange preachers who wanted to preach. Of all people they had the least sense, and did not know enough to keep still before Him. They liked to hear themselves. The city was full of them just as today. They rattled like last year's bean pod. We had a regular dry bone yard." Frank Bartleman was one of the men who had prayed for years for that revival. I hope you don't consider him too negative for pointing out the things that were working already to put out the flames of that revival. Being negative is dwelling on negative things, instead of the positive solutions. If you find us dwelling on the negatives, instead of our wonderful Lord, who is the solution, we welcome your correction. If we slander our brother or sister it is a sin, and we are wrong.

"So go ahead and call us negative. I think I hear you saying something about how we are not being respectful, and not preserving unity, but it is getting pretty hard to hear you. We are getting terribly distracted right now, looking at His beautiful Bride."

Could it be that you perceive us as being negative because we are trying to change things that you have grown fond of, even though they stand in the way of letting Jesus Christ have full control of His church? Could it be that the reason you think our cause is negative is because this is not an issue you feel any emotion about? But: if we talked against something you think very strongly is a hindrance to the cause of Christ, would you think it negative, or positive? Doesn't it all depend on whose ox is being gored?

We may sound like fanatics, always talking about the church, but something has happened to us that we just can not shake. In our search for the truth about what went wrong with the church we found something quite unexpected. The church is not a thing to be debated about. She is not made up of denominations, Sunday morning services, doctrines, or theology. She is a lovely lady... and we are standing here in awe of how stunningly beautiful she is. And of course she is, she is the Bride of our Lord Jesus Christ. She is young, pure, and exciting, and she belongs only to Him.

So go ahead and call us negative. I think I hear you saying something about how we are not being respectful, and not preserving unity, but it is getting pretty hard to hear you... we are getting terribly distracted right now, looking at His beautiful bride.

ONE MILLION DOLLAR REWARD!!

For Scriptural Evidence of:

• wimpy denunciations of error

By Dan Trotter. One last thought about being negative. One tactic used by those who want to defend their church systems from attacks such as ours is this. The church system is identified with the Bride of Christ. Then, when we attack the church system, the church-system defenders proclaim: "you are attacking the Bride of Christ." No, we're not. We're defending the honor of that beautiful young lady Les just told you about.

From Racing Toward 2001 by Russell Chandler, Zondervan, 1992. The church of the twenty-first century will see a radical distribution of power to the laity. At present the laity exists to serve the clergy's program... the heroes of the twenty-first century will be laity who will shepherd small groups of six to ten people... To get larger, churches will have to think smaller... We'll see an explosion of empowerment of lay people like we've never seen - a second Reformation [A second Reformation! Has this man been reading NRR?] The ministry is going to be returned to the people. [Now churches] are led by clerics, seminary trained, who are unwilling to give away ministry to other people. They must release power and leadership to others. Churches of seventy-five to two hundred [members] will become a thing of the past."

WARNING!! The Surgeon General has determined that if you are content with plush, velvety pews, Sertoma-club sermons, and politician pastors, you are going to find NRR quite negative! The Surgeon General would also like to point out: hey! you don't have to read this thing!

The following three epigrams are courtesy of Scott Rumph, of Sumter, S.C.- A member of a dead church was asked why he thought the church was so dead. Was it lack of intelligence or apathy? His answer was: "I don't know, and I don't care!"- Most people say they know what they like, but most people really like what they know!- Most people today worship their work, and they work at their play, and play at their worship!

The following observation was passed to us by Jim Shepard, of Holly Springs, N.C. Paul told Timothy to "reprove, rebuke, exhort." (2 Tim 4:2) Notice how the positive word "exhort" comes after the two negative words "reprove, rebuke." Could it be that Paul thought that Timothy had to remove the negative before he could establish the positive?

House church Conference!! "The Church Comes Home: Healing and Mission in the House Church," October 15- 17, Eastern Mennonite Seminary, Harrisonburg, VA 22801-2462, (703) 432-4260. The goal: network and en- courage Christians whose vision is to nurture community face-to-face bodies of love... practice participatory, non- authoritarian styles of leadership, worship and decision-making... spend resources on ministry and missions, not institutional maintenance, church buildings and clergy salaries. Examples of sessions: "The Biblical and Historical Roots of the House Church." "Getting a House Church Started (Gene Edwards)." "Beyond Codependency and Clericalism." "Nuts and Bolts of Authority and Leadership in House Churches." "The Nuts and Bolts of Growing Pains." "Planting House Churches in Networks."