A CHRONICLE OF GOD SFAITHFULNESS: Covenant Renewal in a Local Church

’

Covenant Renewal in a Local Church

Rev. Dr. W. Gary Hayward

A CH

RO

NIC

LE O

F GO

D’S FA

ITH

FU

LN

ESS: C

OV

EN

AN

T RE

NE

WA

L IN A L

OC

AL C

HU

RC

H R

EV. D

R. W G

AR

Y HA

YW

AR

D

A CHRONICLE OF GOD’S FAITHFULNESS


A CHRONICLE OF GOD’S FAITHFULNESS


A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary South Hamilton, Massachusetts in Partial Fulfilment of Requirments for the Degree

Doctor of Ministry

W. Gary Hayward

July 4, 1997

Dug up and Designed for Dad

Who lives a life of integrity seeking to honor Christ through his every action and word, exemplified time and time again by being a loving father, faithful husband, humble leader,

and a truly devoted servant of the Lord,

CONTENTS

INTRO INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 01

THE PROBLEM IN ITS SETTING 01

THE MINISTRy SETTING 04

STaTEMENT Of THE PROBLEM 07

HyPOTHESES OR STaTEMENT Of OuTcOME ExPEcTEd 09

dELIMITaTIONS 09

aSSuMPTIONS 10

INTROducTION 11

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 16

THE PROBLEM aNd ITS SETTING 16

a. MINISTRy SETTING 19

B. STaTEMENT Of THE PROBLEM 23

c. HyPOTHESES OR STaTEMENT Of OuTcOME ExPEcTEd 24

d. dELIMITaTIONS 25

CHAPTER ONE: A THEOLOGy MINISTRy 27

BIBLIcaL MOdELS Of PaSTORaL MINISTRy 27

NEw TESTaMENT cOvENaNT. 33

cOvENaNT RENEwaL IN THE NEw TESTaMENT 37

CHAPTER ONE FOOT NOTES 40

CHAPTER TWO: THEOLOGy MINISTRy AND A REvIEw... 42

OLd TESTaMENT cOvENaNT 42

NEw TESTaMENT cOvENaNT 44

cOvENaNT RENEwaL IN THE OLd TESTaMENT 46

cOvENaNT RENEwaL IN THE NEw TESTaMENT 49

CHAPTER TWO B: THE COvENANT HISTORy OF... 52

cOvENaNT aNd cOvENaNT RENEwaL IN BaRRE cc 61

THE HISTORY OF BARRE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 76

COVENANT 86

THE PuRPOSE Of BaRRE cONGREGaTIONaL cHuRcH 89

CHAPTER TWO FOOT NOTES 92

CHAPTER THREE INTRO: PROjECT THEOLOGy 97

CHAPTER THREE ONE: AppENDIx D 108

PRAYER COMMUNION 112

CHAPTER THREE TWO: AppENDIx 113

CHAPTER THREE THREE: AppENDIx F 117

THE EvaNGELIcaL cONGREGaTIONaL cHuRcH Of BaRRE. 119

CCHAPTER THREE FOUR: AppENDIx G 122

CHAPTER THREE FOOT NOTES 127

CHAPTER FOUR 128

CHAPTER FOUR A 135

CHAPTER FOUR b: ANALySIS, INTERpRETATION, AND CONCLUSION 138

CHAPTER FOUR C: CONCLUSION RESULTS 146

INTERPRETaTION 152

REcOMMENdaTIONS 155

cONcLuSION 158

CHAPTER FOUR: SUmmERy, INTERpRETATION, AND CONCLUSION? 160

CHAPTER FOUR FOOT NOTES 168

FILE LIST 170

LETTER 172

LETTER TwO 174

LETTER THREE 175

LETTER FOUR 177

LETTER FIvE 178

LETTER SIx 179

LETTER SEvEN 181

APPENDIX A 183

APPENDIX C 188

APPENDIX H 190

APPENDIX 191

APPENDIX I 192

AppENDIx j: CEC CONFESSION OF FAITH 195

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 198

LETTER TO PUSHBUTTON 203

APPENDIX L VITA 207

INTRO INTRODUCTION AND OvERvIEw

THE PROBLEM IN ITS SETTING

The bookshelf of the average American pastor in these waning years of the second millennium has no lack of books, pamphlets, magazine articles, video seminars, brochures for conferences, and invitations to workshops on church growth and renewal. Every seminary worthy of the name offers at least one course on the subject. For clergy and Christians attached to the traditional mainline denominations, including those of the evangelical persuasion, the focus tends more toward church renewal. This is generally defined as the rejuvenation of the “traditional” forms of worship, service, and administration into fresher, more vibrant and compelling spiritual freedom and commitment. Among the current crop of popular methods for church renewal are small groups, “seeker-sensitive” worship services, discipleship training, evangelistic outreach efforts, and a number of other programmatic approaches. Each has its own advocates, adherents, sponsors, and promoters. Each has demonstrated efficacy.

In 1980 I was called to a church which by any measure (including its own assessment) was in need of corporate spiritual renewal. We moved to Barre, Massachusetts eager to analyze the particular difficulties unique to that situation, diagnose the disease, recommend a treatment, and lead the congregation, within the larger context of its denominational affiliation, to the cure. As we began to work toward revitalizing what had once been a flourishing ministry, I sought to employ some of the methods mentioned above. The intent was to bring the entire church community closer to its

Page 2 Intro Introduction and Overview

Biblical mission and purpose. Each program implemented during the 1980’s that was designed to promote spiritual revitalization succeeded, up to a point.

Some of the people involved in these various efforts were brought to saving faith. Others were moved to recommit themselves more fully to God. For the church is a whole however, there was less discernible change. Individual renewal was not evolving into corporate renewal.

I came to believe that this was because the church, is a corporate entity was not operating according to its own founding principle: A Biblically informed and articulated covenant. Over the years Barre Congregational Church (BCC) had drifted away from its original moorings. As a church we needed to purposefully and with understanding return once more to the safe harbor of the Scriptures through the obligation of covenant keeping. Corporate renewal would require a corporate undertaking.

This thesis project was launched in an attempt to bring the centrality of church covenant into the forefront of the church’s consciousness. It would challenge BCC as a whole to reacquaint itself with its own founding Statement of Faith, reaffirm and renew its own original covenant with God, and thereby realign itself with its own particular heritage in the evangelical tradition. Anything less than this could not presume to secure the blessing of God upon any work He might be calling us as a church to do. To neglect what brought the church together would sabotage any effort to keep the church together.

Such a methodology does not suggest yet another technique or program for renewal. Rather, by focusing upon the history of one particular church, this project seeks to illuminate the fundamental spiritual principle behind all renewal, either individual or corporate. The effectiveness of any renewal effort is not dependent upon the “slickness” of the marketing or the quality of execution or the charisma of the individual leader. When any of these strategies do “work,” they work for one reason: God is faithful. He keeps His Word. He does what He says He will do.

This alone is the principle which is ultimately responsible for the success of any church-sponsored revival, growth, or renewal. This Truth, God’s faithfulness to His covenant, must be at the heart of any effort to bring an errant individual or congregation back to God. It is that Truth which this project will examine, document, and celebrate by analyzing the covenant history of Barre Congregational Church.

As will be demonstrated from the Scriptures, God expresses and verifies His own

faithfulness through the means of covenant. He offers Man (to be understood as referring to both male and female) the possibility of entering into relationship with Himself by accepting His terms of covenant. If we accept and enter into covenant with God, we are then under obligation to keep those terms. Should we fail to uphold our portion of the contract, God graciously grants opportunity to repent of our infidelity and return to the conditions as originally spelled out. Only then can we be restored to fellowship with Him.

It might well be argued that the entire scope of human history can be aptly summarized by the “playing out” of two simple postulates:

God keeps His Word.1.

Man does not. The origin, history, and final destiny of every culture, 2. community, church or individual which has ever existed is ultimately determined by the fixed nature of these two laws. While Israel is the consummate example (1 Cor. 10.6,11), countless other illustrations throughout time demonstrate the perpetually dynamic character of this tension between God and Man. This thesis project is one of them. It is the historical chronicle both of God’s faithfulness to one specific covenant community and that community’s failure to keep covenant with God.

A fledgling group calling itself the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre (ECCB) entered into covenant with the Living God in 1827. For many years that body remained steadfast to its Biblical foundations and principles. Yet after those first few generations passed away, the church began to waver in its fidelity. As the church moved further away n time rom 1827, its theology moved with it. As we will see, this is reflected both in the periodic rewording and recasting of its covenant, and in the changing of its name in the early 1950’s to the nondescript Barre Congregational Church. Though repeatedly called and encouraged throughout the 1980’s to reaffirm and renew its own original covenant with God (culminating with this project), in 1993 Barre Congregational Church finally rejected the substance of its founding charter, thereby renouncing its covenant relationship with God.

Shortly after the completion of this project, the author resigned his position as pastor of Barre Congregational Church, for reasons which will be forthcoming. Upon that announcement (in June 1993) some fifty active families began making plans to transfer their membership elsewhere. As a group they were virtually unanimous in the conviction that Barre Congregational Church ad formally decided to reject its founding covenant. It was neither clashes of personality, nor differences of taste, nor


preferences of style, nor mean-spirited contentiousness which led to their departure. Rather it was a matter of faith based upon covenant theology.

The same kinds of efforts that had been made prior to 1827 to keep that church together had also been made in the years between 1990 and 1993 in an earnest attempt to keep Barre Congregational Church together. Neither effort would, nor could succeed, since at the heart of each controversy was he principle of covenant, which by definition can tolerate no compromise. Both in 1827 and in 1993, nothing less than personal and corporate fidelity to Jesus Christ was at stake.

Thus what began as a project designed to promote and solidify the spiritual reawakening of Barre Congregational Church, became instead a project which was used by God to cause new wine to burst old wineskins. No one associated with this effort, least of all its author, foresaw this happening.

But should we have? This thesis contends, after all, that God is always true to any covenant His people enter into with Him. In Barre, Massachusetts God indeed honored our efforts to gather together a renewed people around a given covenant. Although that group now worships outside

Barre Congregational Church it was first conceived and brought to birth within it. The story of how this happened and he role this project played will unfold in the discussion and analysis of the project’s implementation.

The Ministry SettingWe had moved what few possessions we owned into the sprawling parsonage the day before, but I would not begin my official responsibilities for another week. My wife Susan, not noticeably pregnant, walked into the local Post Office that morning to buy some stamps. She was barely through the door when the postmistress exclaimed, “And exactly hen are you having your baby?”

Such was our introduction to pastoral life in the quintessential American small town of Barre, Massachusetts, June 1980. It seemed everyone knew who we were, what we were doing there, when we were “due,” and what was expected of us. Our arrival was rather a major event. The most prominent building at the top of the town common, with the spire which can be seen from every road leading into the center, had a young pastoral family (the first of such tender years in living memory) dwelling comfortably in its parsonage. This was news. We were news.

In 1980 BCC was a small, theologically liberal, aging community church tentatively considering the possibility of having to close its doors. A “good Sunday” might see forty people for worship. There were few young families. The Sunday School had just been re-instituted by a local Christian woman (not a member of BCC) to serve a handful of children. Every person involved in the church lived in Barre; many had been raised there. For the first three years, my wife and I were the youngest active members in the congregation. Virtually everyone in the church at that time, if asked what religion or faith they belonged to, would have responded “Congregationalist.”

Two broad assignments were given. In addition to the traditional expectations regarding a pastor’s responsibilities for visitation, preaching, and administration, I was also asked to develop programs for young people (Jr. High through High School) “to bring more young families into the church.”

Barre Congregational Church was clearly taking a chance with me, young and inexperienced as I was. The two preceding pastorates had each been held by men older than my own father. Rev. Robert Illingworth, who served from 1952 to 1972, the height of the “golden years” for mainline churches in America, was born in 1900. Barre was his first and last parish. His successor, a Rev. Francis Kelley, was over sixty when he assumed his responsibilities, and retired from ministry altogether in 1978. It was the ghost of Rev. Illingworth, however, with whom I had most to contend. He was perceived by most all of the church members who hired me in 1980, and by the wider community as well, as the minister par excellence; kind, gracious, intelligent, and impressive. He left his mark on both the town and the church, reviving a community drama club, overseeing the much needed Sunday School addition to the church building in the early 1960’s, and being active in various civic affairs.

It did not take long to discover though, however fine a pastor he may have been, that he was essentially Unitarian and relativistic in his theology. The only self-defined “born again” Christians in the church in 1980 (I knew of three, not including my wife and myself ) had all come to faith in Christ outside Barre Congregational Church. They each related to me that the pulpit ministry of Rev. Illingworth was basically a series of book reviews from which he drew moral lessons. (A book reviewer in his own right for a local magazine, he had retired from Clark University as a professor of English.) I was later to learn that by his own account, his “call to ministry” came through a palm reader he consulted for advice who told him she “saw him in a black robe.”

It was during Illingworth’s tenure that the church voted to align itself with the United Church of Christ, although no official record of this vote has been found, nor do any


who lived through his ministry remember doing it. It therefore remains something of a mystery as to when, how, or even if Barre Congregational Church actually made this formal commitment. It was also at the very beginning of his time in Barre that the word “Evangelical” was dropped from the name of the church and it became the much more generic (and less offensive?) Barre Congregational Church.

I sketch this portrait of Rev. Illingworth because it was his shadow that was waiting for me when I arrived. His legacy as the “ministry setting.” Rev. Kelley, who had been there for six years (1972-1978), seemed to have had little if any impact at all on the church or the community of Barre. The people just didn’t talk about him. If he was a Christian he was a very quiet one. It was Rev. Illingworth who had defined the substance of the gospel and the nature of pastoral ministry associated with it to the people who asked me to come and serve them in 1980. Almost everyone who voted to call me on the day I candidated had “grown up” under his influence.

Thus the setting of my ministry in the early 1980’s had been set or me by the personal and spiritual umbra of this man. In the mind of the congregation, he had established the parameters of what it meant to be the minister of Barre Congregational Church. It was to become more and more evident, not only to myself but to the church and wider community as well, that, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in his 1992 Vice-Presidential debate with Dan Quayle, “I’m no Rev. Illingworth.” Indeed, the mission upon which God had sent me to Barre consisted precisely of wresting the church but of the lethargy, complacency, and presumption into which Rev. Illingworth had lulled it with his bland, inoffensive brand of Unitarianism. This vision, to most of his loyal followers, would prove a most unpopular effort.

The community of Barre as a whole in 1980 was aging significantly. This was reflected in the church population itself (75 of the membership was over forty years old, 45 over sixty). Perhaps we should have had the foresight to realize things would be changing soon enough as the Baby Boomers grew up, but we did not.

Though retaining much of its small town atmosphere, by 1990 Barre had nonetheless changed rather dramatically. The population had increased 5 in those ten years, only then reaching its previous high point of 4,000 in 1869. There was a continuing housing boom, overcrowded schools, and a severe strain on local services. The demographic changes taxing the wider community could not help but stretch and pull at the internal fabric of social relationships, family loyalties, and ministry expectations within the four walls of Barre Congregational Church.

In sharp contrast to the Barre Congregational Church of 1980, when this project first

began to formulate in my mind during the Summer of 1991 the majority of active members were now younger than the pastor, the Sunday School had an attendance of 125, and one of the most pressing issues was where to put everyone on Sunday mornings. The membership had grown to include many families from several communities outside Barre who had little or no connection either with the town of Barre itself or with congregational heritage, traditions, or ways. They called themselves

“Christians” first; “Congregationalists” only by association.

The fundamental differences in value structure, belief systems, and church expectations between the “pre-1980 church” and the “post-1980 church” would collide head on during the autumn and winter of 1991-1992, climaxing in February with a failed attempt to have me removed as pastor, an effort initiated and orchestrated entirely by members of the “pre-1980” church. The introduction of this thesis project as the top priority of the church’s agenda one year later was a deliberate attempt on my part to help clarify, once and for all, what Barre Congregational Church believed.

Statement Of The Problem My research indicates that Rev. Illingworth did not initiate the theological decline of the church. It had been drifting away from its covenant foundations since at least the turn of the century. He simply was the one who solidified the tone of the church as Unitarian in orientation. The “problem” was created during the 1980’s as a growing number of people with an evangelical expression entered the church. By 1990 two distinct groups, distinguished primarily by differences in theological persuasion, existed within the congregation. Would these two increasingly disparate parties eventually meld into one united church? Could they live and work and worship together for the same ends, using the same means?

Should they? Many thought not.

Thus it was that in February 1992 a coalition of twenty, the overwhelming majority of whom had been active during the years of Rev. Illingworth’s service, mounted an organized campaign to demand my resignation. The Sunday before the vote I preached a sermon [Appendix A] in which I called the church to recognize that its decision would not be a referendum on myself, my style, or my errors of judgment in the past. This was a referendum on the gospel itself is explicitly expressed in the founding covenant and statement of faith of BCC. I believed I had been sent by God to summon the church back to its original evangelical, Biblically informed covenant. If Barre Congregational Church chose to retain me as pastor, I would continue to lead it


purposefully and unashamedly in that direction.

Six days later, 190 people gathered in the sanctuary. Some of them I had literally never seen before, though I had been living in Barre for twelve years. A two-thirds

(2/3) majority was needed to pass the resolution. More than half of those voting wanted me to stay. Immediately after the tabulation of the vote, most of those who had been opposed to me and had sponsored the effort simply dropped out of sight, at least for a while. It was that event in particular which galvanized my determination to enact this project in an attempt to settle the question: Will BCC choose to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, or Unitarian relativism?

In the years leading up to that vote the church had already begun to debate many of the issues raised by God’s call upon us to be faithful to our founding covenant. This had happened in settings both formal (each of my projects for this Doctorate of Ministry program related to it in some way) and informal (through countless discussions among and between church members). Many significant changes had taken place which further pointed us in the direction of corporate covenant renewal. In 1991, the church voted to review and rewrite its bylaws, of which the covenant was part. This exercise had last been undertaken some forty years earlier. Later in 1992, with considerable input from the United Church of Christ (UCC) Area Office, a Pastor/Parish Relations Committee was established to help facilitate communication and conflict resolution among parishioners and between pastor and parish. That same year

BCC voted to discontinue the Every Member Canvass tradition of pledging financial support to the church, and experiment with more of a “faith system.” Also the Church Committee (in charge of financial matters) agreed to redesign the office arrangements so that people would not have to walk through the pastor’s office to enter the church office.

All these were healthy indications that Barre Congregational Church as a whole as loving, albeit haltingly, back toward its covenant roots. I was persuaded that the moment was right to become decisive about that we were doing, here we were going, and why. Our vision for Christian life, ministry and mission as being realigned, clarified, and energized. The reality of this shift as becoming the dominant characteristic of our corporate life. We all felt it and everyone talked about it. Thus our

“way of doing things,” our whole emphasis and focus and understanding of what we were there for, was going to have to change, i.e. be restored, and soon.

Hypotheses or Statement of Outcome ExpectedIt became the plan, through a series of four sermons and subsequent discussions on the content of those sermons, to use this project to propose to the congregation that we move toward a covenant renewal service or ceremony; some kind of act whereby we reaffirmed, is a congregation, the essence of our original covenant to one another and to God. It was and remains my personal conviction that God had brought us to Barre precisely for that purpose: to restore an errant covenant community to its God through repentance and renewal of covenant.

During this volatile time of theological ferment and debate, Barre Congregational Church was searching for its identity. I had proclaimed, through preaching and teaching, that its identity, purpose, mission, and vision rested in its founding documents insofar as they were firmly rooted in Scripture. In carrying out this project, I did not know whether the church would feel it was ready, or that more research and discussion would be necessary. The purpose of the project was to raise the possibility of renewing our covenant as a congregation, in a public worship service, thereby establishing the groundwork by which to “rediscover” our reason for being. The execution of the project, for one of those two groups within BCC, would accomplish exactly that.

God honors his covenant. Therefore, while not necessarily knowing ow His faithfulness might play itself out, one is confident it will. This project would compel the church to move either towards, or way from, its covenant. There could be no third option.

Delimitations The project itself involved the preaching of four sermons during the month of March 1993. This had to be amended as the Great Blizzard of ‘93 struck on the Saturday before the second Sunday of the series, which carried us over into April. For those unable to attend worship services, manuscripts and tapes of the sermons were made available. Participants were given opportunity to contribute to the project through writing, if they so chose. After each service, I moderated discussions on the content of the sermons. In consultation with the Deaconate, we would then reach some consensus on how to proceed from that point on. As I saw it at the time, the following were realistic possibilities of what might happen after the project was completed:

Reaffirm the covenant the Sunday after we finished the project, or some later date.


Continue to study the matter as a church. 4

Appoint a task force to study it further, and bring a recommendation to the church.

Let the matter rest for a while, and take it up again later.

Drop it entirely. We don’t want to do this. 4

AssumptionsMost of the information regarding the founding of the church, its history, and its development since 1827 was unknown to most of the congregation. I assumed (wrongly) the church would welcome the opportunity to clarify its purpose by analyzing its origin. I assumed that a rather high level of cognitive dissonance would accompany the execution of the project, which proved to be the case. Biblical Truth is always explosive, especially when we are out of step with it. Finally I assumed that whatever the consequences of undertaking this task, it could not fail to heighten awareness and promote understanding of where the pastor believed God was calling the church to go. The only question remaining was: Would it agree?

INTRODUCTION

Some reflections on a recent meeting on AIDS curriculum at local regional high school. While there was considerable disagreement regarding the policy under consideration, there was this common ground: Everyone wanted to save kid’s lives.

When there is common ground, there is plenty of room for differences of opinion, differences in approach even different conclusions. The issue facing our church today is over common ground: The vote on whether or not to remove me as pastor next Saturday will answer that question. A group of people decided that the church they were a part of the First Parish of Barre had abandoned what had once been their common ground. Those individuals held a conviction that the only reason for a church to exist is to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ, nurture that trust, and thereby promote His Kingdom. To their minds, First Parish had become unfaithful to the Scriptures, and therefore unfaithful to Christ, and therefore incapable of fulfilling its task. Those people began this church. In so doing, they entered into a covenant; an agreement, a pact, a promise with God, which forms the basis and the foundation of what until the middle of this century was called The Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. Let me summarize for you the confession of faith each member who joined his church had to make in its early year: Two statements of faith in the Trinity: One God in Three Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. To support the confessions; almost 100 Bible verses. A statement recognizing the Bible as the Word of God. In support, over references. Two statements regarding Man’s responsibility for his own sin; that we are by nature entirely destitute of holiness, at war with God, and under his condemnation. 30 Bible verses. A confession of Jesus Christ as the only redeemer

Page 12 Introduction

of sinners, which he accomplished by substituting himself in our place. Over 30 references. Then there is this: “We believe that without regeneration and a living faith in Christ, no man is justified and saved.” 17 verses. And this: “We believe that the invitations of the gospel are such, that whosoever will may come and take of the water of life freely; yet the wickedness of the human heart is such, that none will come to Christ, except the Holy Spirit so incline them.” And this: “We believe that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies both of the just of the unjust; that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive a just and final retribution according to the deeds done in the body; that at this day of judgment, the state of all will be unchangeably fixed; and that the misery of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous will be endless.” Over 50 supporting references from the Bible. Then, after affirming these statements of faith, the following covenant was read: (May I remind you, this is this church.)” You do now, in the presence of God and man, avouch the Lord Jehovah — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost– to be your God the object of your supreme love and your portion forever. You cordially acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as your only Savior, and the Holy Spirit as your Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide. You do humbly and cheerfully devote yourself to God in the covenant of grace. :You solemnly covenant not only to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; but each and all the commandments of God, to obey them. You consecrate yourself, and all you possess, to his service and glory; “And, through help of divine grace, you promise that you will deny all ungodliness and worldly lust - that you will live soberly, righteously, and godly, even unto death. You now cordially join yourself to this Church of Christ, engaging to submit to its discipline, to attend on its worship and ordinances, according to the rules of the gospel), and to walk with its members in Christian love, watchfulness and purity. Thus you covenant, promise, and engage.” 4

Then, you could join.

Whatever we may think of this, here can be absolutely no question regarding the intent of the founding fathers and mothers of this church. Their common ground was faith in Jesus Christ as declared in the Scriptures. Not faith according to whatever hey wanted it to be; Faith as defined and described by God, n the Bible.

It was precisely because this faith was not being proclaimed or practiced or promoted to First Parish that his church began.

Now. Let me share with you why (I am convinced) God brought me here. For the first 75 years of this church’s existence, the vision and the passion and the common ground of its founders as evident.

If you read what church records we have you will find that there was an ongoing cycle of revival and renewal. The church would bring in evangelists and hold special meetings to preach the gospel, and bring people to faith in Christ.

And the numbers of the church would increase.

In the 1800’s, that was how our forebearers grew this church. Somewhere in the early part of this century, faith as described and defined by the Bible, and reflected in the founding covenant, began to lose its hold. The church started to drift away from its original moorings.

In what was perhaps a well-meaning desire to be more “inclusive”, A less “restrictive”, or “open” and “accepting”, the connection with the beginning became strained.

The common ground was losing ground. God sent me here to work with you; together to reclaim this church, his building, his ministry, for Jesus Christ; that He alone might be its only purpose, its only desire, its only Shepherd.

The Lord appointed me as the pastor of this congregation to point the way back to its moorings; back to its origins; to return to the common ground of its founders. He called me here to call you back to faithfulness to your own covenant with God. There is only one reason this church is still here:

Because God is faithful to His covenant.

He always keeps His side of the bargain.

There is only one way this church can go forward into the future: Be faithful to the covenant it made with God.

I am not suggesting we have to do everything the way they did it, or say everything the way they said it.

But we to have to share the common ground with the of we do not want to go the way of First Parish — the church hey left - and end up as a parking lot. Proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ is God Himself sets it forth in this Bible, is our only purpose for being. It is our only legitimate right to exist. There is no other reason for this church to be here.

Do we, or do we not, hare that common ground with the founders of this church? That, and nothing less than that, is what next Saturday’s vote is all about. This is not a matter of liberal versus conservative, or baptist hymns versus congregational hymns, or one kind of worship versus another. This is a matter of faithfulness to our own

Page 14 Introduction

covenant, or not. There is plenty of room for disagreement. There is plenty of space for different opinions, and different approaches, and different styles, and even different conclusions.

But there is only that when we are all standing on the same common ground. This is a week for the most heartfelt, most concerted, most unceasing prayer.

For next Saturday, when this church votes on whether or not to retain me as pastor, there is only one thing that matters:

What does God want?

I have gladly given almost 12 years of my life to my conviction that God wants this church back — back on its foundations, back to its purpose, back to Himself. Back on the common ground which founded this church in 1827.

My only purpose and desire and goal is to be faithful to that task.

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ s God has given it to us in the Bible, and I will not compromise it. 6Even when this book tells me what I don’t want to hear

— which is often enough — by the grace of God

I will preach it and teach it and obey it, whatever the cost to me.

Saturday’s vote is not about Gary Hayward.

It is about the covenant of this church. It is about what this church is about. It is about why this church is even here.

There should be no mistake or misunderstanding: If I am to continue to lead this church, it will be in the same direction in which it has been slowing moving for the past eleven and one half years:

Back to its covenant. Because when we make promises to God, woe unto us if we do not keep them. 7The story of the Bible is one continuing, ongoing story of God’s people straying away from His covenant, and the Lord calling them back to it. That is our personal story of faith; he story of every Christian: God claims us, we stray and wander off, He calls us back. It is also the story of every single church ever to be founded anywhere in the world at anytime in history. It is the story of Barre Congregational Church. It is my prayer and my hope that the story of this church will be one in which its people hear the call to return wholeheartedly to the covenant, he pact, he promise with God, and there re-discover the common ground; with our

founders, with the Protestant Reformers, with the Apostles, with the Prophets, with true believers of every age; with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

CHApTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTINGUpon the bookshelf or desk of the “average” American pastor in these waning years of the second millennium there is no lack of books, pamphlets, magazine articles, video seminars, brochures for conferences and invitations to workshops on the matter of church growth and renewal. Every modern seminary worthy of the name will offer at least a course on the how’s, why’s, and wherefore’s of the subject. For those clergy and Christians attached to the traditional “mainline” denominations, including those of the evangelical persuasion, the focus tends to more on church renewal; that is, the restoration of the “traditional” forms of worship, service, and administration ntonewer, fresher, more vibrant and compelling spiritual freedom, commitment, and verve. Among the current crop of popular methods for church renewal are; small groups, “seeker-sensitive” worship services, discipleship programs, evangelistic outreach efforts, and any one of a number of other programmatic approaches. Each has its own advocates, adherents, sponsors, and promoters. Each has been honored, blessed, and used by God. 7 This thesis does not suggest yet another “technique” for renewal. Rather it seeks to illuminate the one spiritual principle behind them all. It contends that the effectiveness of any such program is dependent neither upon the “slickness” of the marketing, nor the quality of execution, nor even the charisma or personal persuasiveness of the individual responsible for implementation. These strategies will

“work” — to the extent that they do— for one reason and one reason only: God is

faithful. He keeps His Word. He does what He says He will do.

This is the Truth which is ultimately responsible for any church-sponsored revival, any church growth, or any church renewal. It is the Truth which this project will examine, document, and celebrate.

As will be demonstrated from the Scriptures, God expresses and certifies His own faithfulness through the means of covenant. He gives Man (hereafter to be understood as referring to male and female) the opportunity to enter into relationship with Himself by accepting His terms of covenant. If we do so, we are then under obligation to keep those terms. Should we fail to uphold our portion of the contract, God graciously allows us the chance to repent of our infidelity, and return to the conditions as He originally spelled them out.

Thus it might well be argued that the entire scope of Biblical history be aptly summarized in two simple, complimentary yet oppositional statements:

God keeps His Word.1.

Man does not. All human history is the “playing out” of these two postulates. 2. One particular facet of that history is crystallized for us in the Bible through the “example (1 Cor 10.6)” of Israel. Yet the destiny of every culture, community, church or individual ever to exist is ultimately determined by the fixed nature of these two laws.

It is our intent to tell one such story — not to argue for this or that, but to give testimony; to bear witness, to the faithfulness of God to “keep covenant” with those who pledge themselves to Him. In this story, one small community of believers in Barre Massachusetts in 1827 made a covenant with God. The descendents and inheritors of that covenant, some 166 years later, abandoned its terms, renounced its

“hold” upon them, stiffening their necks and hardening their hearts to the call of God to be faithful to the covenant that had been made by their forefathers on their behalf. This is where you stopped. You have something started here. Keep at it.

As is perhaps the case with many such projects, this one evolved in the doing of it. It began as an effort to call a wayward church back to its founding theological principles. It ended with the birth of a separate new church based squarely upon those very principles. Barre Congregational Church had been established and had articulated its theology and vision in the context of the spiritually charged environment of the great Unitarian/Trinitarian controversy in New England in the previous century. Covenant Evangelical Church — which was to emerge from within Barre Congregational

Page 18 Chapter One: Introduction

Church — would do the same. This thesis project became the catalyst for history repeating itself 166 years later within two months of this project’s “completion”.

Upon the announcement of my resignation as pastor of Barre Congregational Church in June 1993, the body which had been forming under my ministry within the walls of Barre Congregational Church came forth on its own and was brought to its moment of birth by the Holy Spirit. The binding document for that group — which was soon to become the Covenant Evangelical Church — was and is the original covenant and statement of faith of the Barre Congregational Church, at its birth called the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre.

As I write this introduction two years later in June 1995, Covenant Evangelical Church is preparing (within the next month) to formally recognize that covenant and that statement of faith as its own theological heritage. It is with hose disenfranchised evangelicals of 1827 that hese disenfranchised evangelicals of 1995 are connected. It is to God we owe our existence, but it is to hem we owe our spiritual lineage.

For indeed, far beyond any of my original expectations — as the title of this thesis proclaims — this story is truly a chronicle of, and a testimony to, the faithfulness of God. In the context of my argument, Covenant Evangelical Church is not a “new” church. Rather Covenant Evangelical Church is the spiritual rebirth in a new time (same place) of Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. Our forms of expression in worship and execution of ministry will differ from theirs, but we are one with them in spirit, purpose, and vision. We are building on their foundation, who sought to build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ.

When I resigned from Barre Congregational Church and some fifty families decided it was time for them to leave as well, the unanimous conviction of those who did was that Barre Congregational Church — as a covenant community — had formally (and irrevocably?) made a decision to abandon its founding covenant. This is why I, and they, left. It was not preferences of style, or clashes of personality, or differences of taste, or simply mean-spirited contentiousness which caused this “split”. It was theology. The same kinds of efforts that had been made prior to 1827 to keep that church together were also made in the years between 1990 and 1993 to keep Barre Congregational Church together. Neither attempt would succeed because theology was at the heart of the controversy. The very essence and definition of the gospel itself was on the line. Nothing less than personal fidelity to Jesus Christ was at stake.

Thus what began as a project designed and intended to further promote the spiritual renewal of Barre Congregational Church through a corporate return “in spirit and

truth” to its founding principles as articulated in its covenant and statement of faith, became instead a project which was quite literally used by God to change the history of this little town. Neither myself nor anyone associated with my ministry or this project had envisioned or imagined this. Yet perhaps we should have known, had we truly believed what the Bible teaches us about God’s faithfulness to His covenant.

For God — as this thesis and my faith contend — is always true to any covenant we as His people “enter into” with Him. Here in Barre, Massachusetts God has honored our efforts to gather together a “renewed” people around a given covenant. And while that people lives and worships outside Barre Congregational Church it was first conceived within it. The story of how this happened — but more particularly why, and the role this project played — will unfold in the telling of the tale and the reporting of the project’s development and implementation.

To be sure the proverbial winds of change had been blowing through the gathered community in Barre Congregational Church for some time. The preaching of the gospel, if done faithfully and consistently, ill eventually divide people (in Paul’s language “...not all who are descended from Israel are Israel [Rom. 9.7]).” It has always been so. Yet when God separates His People, “calling them out (2 Cor.6.17),” He unites them. One woman who came to faith in Christ while a member of Barre Congregational Church, and then followed Him but of it into Covenant Evangelical Church, recently said to me that she believes Covenant Evangelical Church was in fact “born” on the Easter Sunday immediately after the completion of this project. On that day I invited the people in the congregation to come forward and recommit themselves as a body to the Lord based upon the substance and spirit of the founding charter of that body. Covenant Evangelical Church began that morning with those who stood and affirmed that document. It just took another couple of months for the old wineskin to break, finally releasing the new wine to become its own entity.

Here then is the story; God’s story. As with any and every story told by Him, this one too, is A Chronicle of God’s Faithfulness.

A. Ministry SettingWe had moved the few possessions we did own into the parsonage the day before, but I was not to begin my official responsibilities for another week. My wife Susan (not noticeably pregnant) walked into the local Post Office that morning to buy some stamps. She was barely through the door (having been in town for less than twenty-four hours) when the postmistress exclaimed, “And exactly hen are you having your


baby?” Such was our introduction to pastoral life in the quintessential American small town of Barre, Massachusetts, June 1980. Everyone, it seemed, knew who we were, what we were doing there, when we were “due,” and what was expected of us. Our arrival was rather a major event. The most prominent building at the top of the town common, with the spire which can still be seen from every road leading into the center, had a young pastoral family — the first such family of tender years in living memory

— dwelling comfortably in its parsonage. This was news. We were news.

To appreciate the life and atmosphere of Barre Congregational Church in 1993 when this project was completed, it is necessary to understand something of its most recent history. For what has occurred in that place since the Hayward’s arrival in 1980 is, by any measure, nothing short of tumultuous in a town — and a church — as stable, quiet, parochial, and ingrown as Barre.

The organization which hired me in 1980 was a small, theologically liberal, aging community church (forty for worship) considering the possibility of having to close its doors. There were few active young families; the Sunday School had just been revived (by a Christian woman not a member of the church) to serve a handful of children; every single person involved in the church lived in Barre; many had been raised here. For our first three years, my wife and I were the youngest active members in the congregation. Virtually everyone at that time, if asked what religion they were, would have responded “Congregationalist.”

I was given essentially two assignments. In addition to the traditional expectations regarding a pastor’s responsibilities for visitation, preaching, and administration, I was also asked to develop a program for the young people of the church (Jr. High through High School) to “bring in more young families.” Barre Congregational Church was clearly taking a chance with me, young and inexperienced as I was. The two most recent pastorates were held by men older than my own Dad. Rev. Robert Illingworth, who presided at Barre Congregational Church from 1952 to 1972 — the height of the “golden years” for the mainline churches in America — was born in 1900 (his age a simple calculation). Barre was his first and last parish. His successor, a Rev. Francis Kelley, was over sixty when he assumed his responsibilities, and retired from ministry in 1978. It was the ghost of Rev. Illingworth, however, with whom I had most to contend. He was perceived by most all of the church members (and the wider community as well) who hired me in 1980 as the pastor ar excellence; kind, gracious, intelligent, and impressive. He certainly left his mark on both the town and the church. It was under him that our church added its much needed Sunday School rooms, and he started a drama club in town which survives to this day.

It did not take me long to discover though, however fine a “pastor” he may have been, that he was essentially Unitarian in his theology. The only self-defined “born again” Christians in the church in 1980 had come to faith in Christ outside Barre Congregational Church. They related to me that the pulpit ministry of “Rev. I” (the nickname by which he was affectionately called) was basically a series of book reviews from which he drew moral lessons. (He was a book reviewer in his own right for a local magazine, and had retired from Clark University as a professor of English). I was later to find out that his “call” to ministry came through a palm reader with whom he had consulted for advice who told him she “saw him in a black robe.”

It was during Illingworth’s ministry that the church voted to align itself with the United Church of Christ, although we could find no official record of this vote, nor do any who lived through his tenure remember doing it. It therefore remains something of a mystery as to when, how, or even if Barre Congregational Church actually made this formal commitment. It was also at the very beginning of his ministry that the word “Evangelical” was dropped from the name of the church (which ad been The Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre), and it became the much more generic (and less offensive?) Barre Congregational Church.

I sketch this portrait of Mr. Illingworth because his animus was waiting for me when I arrived. That specter as the “ministry setting.” Rev. Kelley, who had been there for six years (1972-1978), seems to have had little if any impact at all on the church or the community of Barre. The people just didn’t talk about him. If he was a Christian, he was a very quiet one. It was Rev. Illingworth who had defined the substance of the gospel (and the pastoral ministry associated with it) to the people who asked me to come and serve them in 1980, for virtually everyone who voted to call me on the day I candidated had “grown up” under his influence.

Thus the setting of my ministry in the early 1980’s had been set for me by this giant of a man (by local standards) who — in the mind of the congregation — had established the parameters of what it meant to be the minister of Barre Congregational Church. It was to become more and more evident, not only to myself, but to the church and community as well, that to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in his 1992 Vice-Presidential debate with Dan Quale, “I’m no Rev. Illingworth.” The mission upon which God had sent me to Barre consisted of wrenching the church but of the lethargy, complacency, and presumption into which Rev. Illingworth had lulled it with his inoffensive, bland brand of Unitarianism. This vision, to most of his loyal followers, would prove a most unpopular effort.


The community of Barre as a whole in 1980 was rapidly aging, and this was reflected in the church population itself (75 of membership was over 40 years old, 45 over 60). Perhaps we should have had the foresight to realize that things would be changing soon enough (once the Baby Boomers grew up), but we did not.

The community of Barre, while retaining its small town atmosphere, had nonetheless changed rather dramatically (population increase of over 4 in ten years; continuing housing boom; overcrowded schools; and severe strain on local services). These changes could not help but stretch the internal fabric of social relationships, family loyalties, and ministry expectations within the four walls of Barre Congregational Church.

When I first conceived of this project in the Summer of 1991, the majority of active members were younger than myself; the Sunday School had an attendance of 125; and one of our most pressing issues was where to put everyone on Sunday mornings. Our membership included many families from several surrounding communities who had little or no connection with congregational heritage, tradition, or ways. They would have called themselves “Christians” long before they would have called themselves

“Congregationalists.”

The differing value structures suggested by the above “character sketches” of these two different “churches” (both of which were being served by one pastor in the same building), collided head-on during the Fall and Winter of 1991-1992, climaxing in February 1992 with a failed attempt to have me ousted as pastor. The impact of this clash of expectations, values, traditions, and most importantly, theological beliefs, is still being felt in Barre Congregational Church, Covenant Evangelical Church, and even the wider community of Barre. The alleged focus of the controversy has always been the writer of this thesis, who maintained throughout the three year ordeal (and still does) that the real issue (while readily conceding not to be without fault — [double negative that]) was the gospel itself. Barre Congregational Church in 1980, through retaining the Congregational name, was thoroughly Unitarian in theology and practice, and had been so for the previous two generations (at least). By 1993, Barre Congregational Church was Evangelical in its self-understanding, its preaching and teaching, its vision and mission, and its way of life. New wine does still burst old skins.

It is the contention of this thesis project that what happened in Barre Congregational Church from 1980 to 1993 was brought about primarily not by the influx of young people with little historical loyalty to congregationalism, nor by the demographic

shifts in the larger community, and certainly not by the irresistible manner of its pastor, but solely by the faithfulness of God. The covenant community gathered at Barre Congregational Church when I arrived had wandered away from its covenant, and my job was to call it back. I did so. The result was not what I had hoped and prayed towards; namely a renewed Barre Congregational Church. Rather God has brought forth a resurrected Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre in the form of Covenant Evangelical Church — a church animated and invigorated by the first stridently Evangelical witness (in the Congregational tradition) in the town of Barre. Covenant Evangelical Church will be the second. As will be argued in this thesis, these events which converge to create this story are the result not of my success or failure, but of God’s faithfulness.

B. Statement Of The Problem My research suggests that Rev. Illingworth did not instigate the theological decline of the church. It had been slipping away from its covenant moorings since at least the turn of the century. He simply was the one who solidified the tone of the church as Unitarian in outlook and ministry. The problem was created when I, an unabashed Evangelical who makes no apologies for holding the Scriptures to be the single authoritative rule for faith and practice, started to gather a significant number of followers to the Evangelical persuasion and expression. This threat to what had been perceived as “the church” was too much for many who were offended by the proposition that there is Absolute Truth, and that Truth is only in Jesus Christ.

Thus it was that with less than ten days notice, a coalition of twenty people revealed an organized campaign to demand my resignation. While not all the people who were part of that effort dated from the days of Illingworth, the principal “movers and shakers” did. The vote was cast in February 1992. The Sunday before the vote I preached a sermon in which I contended that this vote was not a referendum on myself, my style, or my errors of judgment in the past — it was a referendum on the gospel itself [See Appendix A]. I said that I had been sent by God to call this church back to its original Evangelical, Biblically informed covenant, and that if Barre Congregational Church voted to retain me as pastor, I would continue to lead it relentlessly and unashamedly in that direction.

Six days later, 190 people gathered in the sanctuary. Some of them, though I had been living in Barre for twelve years, I had literally never seen before. A two-thirds (2/3) majority was needed to pass the resolution. More than half of those voting wanted


me to stay. Immediately after the tabulation of the vote, most of those who had been opposed to me and had sponsored the effort simply dropped out of sight. For a while. It was these issues and that vote in particular which generated my determination to enact this project.

In the years leading up to the vote, we in the church had already begun to debate many of the issues raised by God’s call upon us to be faithful to our founding covenant. This had happened in settings both formal (each of my projects for this Doctorate of Ministry program related to it in some way) and informal (through countless discussions among and between church members). Many significant changes had taken place which further pointed us in the direction of corporate covenant renewal. In 1991, the church voted to review and rewrite its bylaws. This had not been done in forty years. In 1992 we established Pastor/Parish Relations Committee to help facilitate communication and conflict resolution on a specifically Biblical basis between parishioners and between pastor and parish. (One of our earliest church documents states that all discipline will be administered according to the guidelines of Matthew 18.15-17). That same year the church voted to discontinue the Every Member Canvass system of pledging financial support to the church. This had become an ugly power play in recent days, and the church desired to put itself on more of a “faith system”. Also the Church Committee (those in charge of financial matters) finally agreed to redesign the office arrangements so that people did not have to walk through my personal office to enter the church office.

All these were indications that Barre Congregational Church as a whole was moving inexorably back towards its covenant roots. It had become clear to me by this time, however, that the moment was right to become explicitly deliberate and intentional about what we were doing and where we were going, and why. Our vision for Christian life, ministry and mission was being realigned, clarified, and energized. The reality of this shift was becoming the dominant characteristic of our corporate life. We all “felt” it and everyone talked about it — a lot. Thus our “program”; our “way of doing things”; our whole emphasis and focus of what we were there for, was going to have to change — and soon. 7

C. Hypotheses or Statement of Outcome ExpectedIt became my plan — through a series of sermons and discussions on the content of those sermons — to use this project to propose to the congregation that we move toward a covenant renewal service; some kind of act whereby we reaffirmed — as a

congregation — the essence of our original covenant to one another and to God. It was (and still is) my personal conviction that God had brought me to Barre precisely to that end: the restoration of an errant covenant community to its God. During this volatile time of theological ferment and debate, Barre Congregational Church was searching for its identity. I proclaimed to it — through preaching and teaching — that its identity, its purpose, its mission, rested in its founding documents (insofar as they were firmly rooted in Scripture). As I was proceeding through the project, I did not know whether the church would feel it was “ready”; whether more research and discussion would be necessary; or whether the time had come. The purpose of the project was to raise the possibility of doing this as a congregation. The execution of the project — and its after effects — provided the catalyst to bring the true issues that were dividing us as a church into graphic relief.

I believe God honors his covenant. Therefore, while not knowing ow His faithfulness would play itself out, I knew it would. This project would force the church to move either towards or away from its covenant.

D. DelimitationsThe project itself involved the preaching of four sermons during the month of March 1993. (This had to be amended as the Great Blizzard of ‘93 struck on the Saturday before the second Sunday of the series. This carried us over into April). For those unable to attend worship services, manuscripts and tapes of the sermons were made available. Participants were given opportunity to input into the whole process through writing, if they so chose. After each service, I monitored discussions on the content of the sermons. In consultation with the Deaconate, we would then reach some consensus on how to proceed from that point on. As I saw it at the time, the following were realistic possibilities of what could happen after the project was completed:

Reaffirm the covenant the Sunday after we finish the project.

Continue to study the matter as a church.

Appoint a task force to study it further, and bring a recommendation to the church.

Let the matter rest for a while, and take it up again later.

Drop it entirely. We don’t want to do this.

Any one of these scenarios could have come to pass, and I don’t think I would have been surprised. I launched the project to press the issue. It did. We. Assumptions


Most of the information regarding the founding of the church, its history, and its development since 1827 was new to most of the congregation. I did assume (wrongly, it turned out) that at least the church would welcome the opportunity to clarify its purpose by analyzing its origin. I assumed that a rather high level of cognitive dissonance would accompany the execution of the project, and I was right about that. Biblical Truth is always explosive, especially when we are out of step with it. Finally I assumed that whatever the consequences of undertaking this task, it could not fail to heighten awareness in the congregation of where their pastor was leading them. The only question remaining to be answered was: Are we going with him?

CHApTER ONE

A Theology Ministry

Biblical Models of Pastoral MinistryWhat is a pastor? What does it mean to serve God in that capacity? What are the responsibilities of the office? These are questions which anyone undertaking the task eventually has to answer, at least in part.

While we must remain consistently flexible, pliable, and teachable in the “living out” of the role, circumstances change, personal giftedness, temperament, and training will vary, and different settings of ministry may demand different approaches, strategies and emphases for pastoral work.

The common denominators of faithful pasturing, however, are cross-cultural and cross-temporal. As the word normally translated “pastor”{ oimhn} means “shepherd,” this metaphor is one of the most over arching and all encompassing of the many variations on the theme of church leadership in the Bible. As shepherd, the pastor is entrusted with the care of the Lord’s flock n the stead of God (Ezek. 33.11-16) and Jesus Himself (John 10.14; 1 Peter 5). The pastor therefore, like Jesus, must be willing to give up his own security, desires, and life; his very elf or the sake of the sheep (John 10.11). The pastor-shepherd is responsible to see to it that the people of God are well fed on the Truth (John 8.32), encouraged to be kept safe within the parameters defined by the gospel (2 Thess. 3.14-15), and free to graze, grow, and develop on their own in freedom (Gal.5.1) as they learn to feed themselves within the pastures of God.

Page 28 Chapter One: A Theology Ministry

Overlaying the picture of the pastor-shepherd is the pastor-teacher. The grammar in Ephesians 4.11 suggests that “pastors and teachers” are really two functions of one office. Other passages such as James 3.1 and 1 Timothy 3.2 (cf. also Timothy 24) declare teaching to be a most weighty responsibility for leaders in the church. Of the twenty-two epistles contained in the New Testament, only one (Philemon) does not include somewhere within it at least one direct warning to teach and/or hear only the Truth (Romans 16.17; 1 Cor 4.16-17; Cor 11.3-5; Gal 1.6-7; Eph. 4.14-15; Phil. 3.2; Col. 8; etc.).

The Gospels and Acts are filled with admonitions not to be deceived or led astray by false prophets, teachers, or doctrines (Mt. 7.15; Mk 8.15; Lk. 1.8; John 84; Acts 4.19-20; etc.). Indeed some of the New Testament (Galatians, Colossians, Jude) was penned explicitly to address the issue of orthodoxy. Teaching that contradicted the received gospel of God had infiltrated the church from its earliest days, putting it in danger of unfaithfulness, betrayal of covenant obligations, and apostasy. Church leaders, pastors, were the ones entrusted with overseeing the avoidance of such errors. One might well argue that the over arching concern of the Apostolic age was that the body of Christ be nurtured in correct doctrine.

Regardless of the particular biblical model of ministry towards which a pastor may have the most affinity, there can be little doubt that “rightly handling the word of truth” is among the highest priorities of pastoral work.

One’s status as a servant, one’s self-perception as a slave of the Master, must become the guiding attitude of anyone in pastoral ministry. Jesus said, “The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mark 105). Yet how many enter pastoral ministry to be looked up to, and praised, and followed, and validated, and recognized? In short, to be served? When a couple marries, neither husband nor wife et possesses the love which “does not seek its own” (1 Cor. 13.5). Each must grow into it. So too, when one enters pastoral ministry desiring (albeit unconsciously) to we served, God begins immediately to set things right prodding us further into servant hood.

We are called to become hand servants of Jesus Himself. We are His slaves, not slaves to the demands and/or requests and/or expectations of the church Christ calls us to serve or His own sake Christ sets the agenda for our time and work, not the church and not ourselves. He determines the nature of the task, not the desires of the people paying the salary. He establishes the boundaries of the job, not the Search Committee. We are at His beckon call, not our own or anyone else’s.

Still another element of pastoral ministry having Biblical support (Exodus 18.24-26; Romans 12.8) might be called the pastor-administrator. This model highlights the

pastor’s principal function as the leader of a large volunteer organization. The primary responsibility is oversight and implementation of the purpose and mission of the organization, as well as the maintenance of such programs once put into effect. While this aspect of the pastorate may be more pragmatic than that of the shepherd, every pastor nonetheless must develop some skill in administration. The nature of the work makes it incumbent upon him to lead, make decisions, and be a guiding force not only in articulating God’s agenda, but in seeing it carried out with integrity and godliness.

Other models could be explored. Some would find clear support in the Scriptures (such as pastor-counselor), others might not (such as pastor-CEO). Regardless of which biblically informed model one may prefer, every pastor will have to “play” more than one of these roles over the course of a life in pastoral service. In no small degree each overlaps the other.

But one particular paradigm of pastoral ministry concerns us in this thesis project. Once convinced that the specifics of the given situation, the Word of God, and the encouragement of the Holy Spirit were “conspiring together” to accomplish His will, the author stepped into that role of pastor- prophet.

According to Dt.18.15-18, the prophet in Israel would speak for the Lord, uphold his laws, and “prosecute the covenant stipulations.” Under this arrangement, the covenant blessings and curses pronounced in Dt. 8-30, and agreed to by the people of Israel, would stand as witness against them for their unfaithfulness yet at the same time the blessings and curses would be their one source of hope, for contained within hem (Dt. 30.1-10) as the promise of mercy should they repent and return to Yahweh. It was the prophet to whom God entrusted this work of reminding the people of God’s covenant promises, and heir covenant obligations.

Throughout the history of Biblical Israel, when the prophets discerned by the Holy Spirit that the people were being unfaithful to the covenant, they would pronounce upon the nation, under the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the very curses God had assured them would come should they fall away. But the ministry of the prophet was also to hold out before the people the assurance of blessing if they would only repent and come back to Him (cf. Hos. 6.1-3; Is. 44.22; 55.6-7; Jer. 3.11ff.). God would certainly remember His promises to Abraham, and “restore their fortunes” if they would return in obedience to the covenant.

Thus in the office of pastor-prophet, there is the double edged sword: sober warnings of impending judgment for covenant infidelity, and comforting promises of mercy, hope and grace for any who, having fallen away, return and renew the covenant.


Whether the pastor-prophet stands under the New Covenant or the Old does not effect the responsibility placed upon him. God’s People, and God’s prophets, are under covenant whether before Christ or after Him. It is the calling of the pastor-prophet to comfort the people of God when they are in obedience to the covenant, confront them when they are not, and convince them of forgiveness and restoration should they choose to return.

This became my mission during the last three years that I served as pastor of Barre Congregational Church: remind this covenant community of its own origin and history, warn it of the consequences of continuing to ignore the responsibilities of its own covenant, and offer it the gracious promise of God’s restored favor if it would return. The pastor-prophet was the dominant role which I undertook to fulfill in the years and months leading up to the implementation of this project. It was from that perspective that I initiated the effort to make the church conscious of its need to be faithful to its own founding documents.

This undertaking did not negate or minimize any other ongoing roles associated with the office. I was still the pastor-shepherd, both of those who believed that the church had gone astray, and those who did not. I remained the pastor-teacher, holding forth the Word of Truth. It was, after all, the Scriptures which had convinced me that the very basis for the continued existence of any covenant community would be directly contingent upon that community’s loyalty to the covenant agreement which brought it into being. Thus it was my responsibility to communicate that truth clearly, effectively, and consistently to the people that the Lord had sent me to serve.

During this period it was essential to remain single-minded in my pastoral self- understanding as a servant of Jesus. Some in the church thought the project would be too divisive. Others were becoming angry. A few feared it could split the church by ignoring the wishes of members who did not agree with my insistence upon covenant renewal. Should I serve these concerns, or God’s? My already marginal capacities as pastor-administrator also would be tested to the limit. Juggling an expanding church program with the call to repent and return to God would at times seem, both to pastor and congregation, contradictory. Nonetheless, while utilizing each of these pastoral models during this three year period, the one rom which I adopted, programmed, launched, and evaluated this project, was that of pastor-prophet.

I will attempt to show that this particular pastoral approach to a wayward covenant community is thoroughly grounded in Scripture, validated by the history of congregationalism, and confirmed by the ultimate consequences of carrying out this

project. The purpose of this report is neither to justify nor judge the results. It is to bring glory to God by giving testimony of His faithfulness to the principles He has set forth in Scripture.

Old Testament Covenant an incalculable number of books, papers, and articles have been published explaining and elaborating the Biblical concept of covenant: what is means, how it develops in the Scriptures, and its importance for a proper understanding of God’s ways with men. Since our particular focus is on the practical validity of covenant renewal within a covenantally constituted community, we will turn first to a survey of the major themes of covenant. We will then proceed to a consideration of covenant renewal as a normative discipline necessary to maintain, and restore, loyalty to Yahweh.

The literature available on the etymology of the word “covenant” is copious and readily accessible. The term as it came to be used in the Old and New Testaments (granting shadings of meaning in different contexts) can be summarized thus: Covenant has to do with commitment and oath on the one hand, and with love and friendship on the other. In virtually every use of the specific term or allusion to the general idea in the Scriptures, both aspects are assumed. On occasion, as in the Sinaitic covenant, the notion of oath and commitment will predominate (Ex. 19.5-6), though not to the exclusion of love and friendship. At other times, as in the covenant between Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 0.16-17), the aspect of friendship is given a higher value than that of oath. In each case however, both elements are present. Biblically defined, what is commitment, if not love? And what is love, if not commitment?

It is also clear in each instance of the use of covenant in the Old Testament that some sort of ceremony, or recognition of such, must be in place for a covenant to be duly established. The form of such ceremonies may vary widely. Noah is given a rainbow (Gen. 9.12). For Abraham there is the cutting of a number of animals, with God in the form of a smoking fire brand walking amongst them while Abraham sleeps (Gen. 15.12-20). To all his descendants is given the sign of circumcision (Gen. 17.9-14). Jacob and Laban use rocks (Gen. 315ff). At Sinai there is a great commotion on Yahweh’s part with tablets and fire and noise and quaking (Ex. 19.16-19). Jonathan gives David his robe and weapons (1 Sam. 18.3-4). At the stone Ezel (1 Sam. 0, esp. v16-17) there is simply the mutually affirmed promises of David and Jonathan to show kindness to one another’s families. Each of these “signs” serves as reminder to the parties involved of their obligation not to forget the historicity of the arrangement which has been made.


Perhaps the most important factor in Old Testament covenant making is this: In every case, without exception, God is assumed to be The Witness, thereby making the agreement binding upon those who enter into it. Even secular covenants presuppose this (Gen. 314-50; 1 Sam. 3.18).

7 Whether between friends (1 Sam.18.3) or rulers (Gen. 1.22ff), a covenant has legal force (1 Sam. 0.8) before the Lord.

There is much debate in the literature whether the core idea of covenant is legal or religious.9

In the larger framework of a Biblical world view, these two distinctions blur into the one essential and indisputable fact: Yahweh is both Judge (the legal role) and God (the religious role). There is no inconsistency between the execution of His judgment as the Righteous One and His demands upon us as Creator and God. What matters for our purposes is that any covenant entered into between man and man, man and woman (as in marriage), or man and God, has God as its witness. He will therefore hold accountable those who dare to enter into this sacred oath, made sacred by His Presence as that Witness.

“There is no firmer guarantee of legal security, peace or personal loyalty than the covenant. Regard for the institution is made a religious duty by means of the path taken at its establishment. Those who enter into covenant know that Yahweh Himself keeps strict watch over the sworn fellowship and its order, violation or depreciation of the accepted duty is recognized to be sin in the strictest possible sense of disregard for the will of Yahweh (TDNT II, p115).” Thus while God is the author of covenant, his people ay initiate covenant, trust the Lord to honor their oaths and desires (Jer. 50.5), and hold themselves and one another accountable to Him.

The final common denominator of all such arrangements in the Old Testament is that a covenant, when broken or forsaken, brings consequences with it, not only for the immediate parties, but also for he progeny. Yahweh’s covenants with Noah (Gen. 9.9), Abraham (Gen. 15.18; Kings 13.23), and David (2 Sam. 7.12-16; Jer. 33.20-22), explicitly extend to the descendants. To violate, ignore, or otherwise disdain any covenant is the single most serious breach of one’s obligation to God. The Lord hates divorce (Mal. 14-16) because it breaks covenant, thereby damaging children.

The Lord opens the thundering mouths of the prophets because the priests have broken covenant (Mal. 5-9), as a result polluting the nation. The Lord executes his wrath against Israel and Judah because they have been unfaithful to keep the covenant

(Dt. 9.22-25), consequently incurring great suffering upon their descendants. It is clear from the Old Testament record that loyalty or betrayal to covenant is the central matter with which the Maker of Heaven and Earth is most acutely concerned.

New Testament Covenant. What of the concept in the New Testament? While the word or idea does not occur with the same frequency or regularity as in the Old Testament (thirty-three times, seven of which are OT citations), its meaning, as with so much of the New Testament, is not hanged, but fulfilled.

The Old Covenant was but a precursor to the final New Covenant initiated, appropriated, and maintained through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Paul according to Galatians 3.9 teaches that “all who believe,” Christians and the faithful people of Israel, are “descendants” of Abraham the man of faith, and therefore heirs of the same promises as he (3.14, 9). While the explicit anguage of covenant is not invoked here, the idea is the unmistakable underpinning of his entire argument. It is precisely because God gave the sign of the covenant (circumcision) to Abraham after we had believed, that we too, through faith, are heirs of the same promises (Rom. 4.11, 16), whether circumcised or not. Those favorite words of Paul’s, “It was credited to him as righteousness,” are used to tell his readers that this “crediting” came to Abraham hen he believed. The sign of the covenant was given following hat. Thus Christians, by our faith, receive the new sign of the new covenant (baptism) after the fact of our faith, and enter into the covenant promises God had made to Abraham. This establishes us as full heirs with “the father of us all” (Rom. 4.16).

In the book of Hebrews (in which the word dia h appears seventeen times, far more than any other strata of NT Scripture) the marvelously provocative adjective “new” is inserted (see Jesus’ words in Luke 2.20) and the indispensable element of blood is reaffirmed (9.18). The author equates the offering of sacrifices in the Temple by the priests with the keeping of the first covenant. In the same way then, blood must be offered to keep the new covenant. It has been, of course, “once for all (10.10)” through the body of Jesus. In this regard he quotes Jeremiah, through not specifically Jeremiah’s words regarding the “new” covenant to which he has already referred at the beginning of his discussion in chapter 8.

This new covenant then, while of necessity instituted and validated by blood in like manner to the first, is nonetheless “better” than the first (7.22), resting on


“better promises (8.6).” It is more sure by virtue of being eternal (8.13). Its badge of authenticity and guarantee of faithful mediation is the Present Living Person of Jesus (8.1,6; 9.15; 12.24), instead of the past historical event of Sinai.

The wellspring of all New Testament thought on the covenant comes from the source of covenant, Jesus Christ Himself.

“Since Jeremiah (with Dt. Isaiah) was for Jesus the most familiar of all the prophets, we are undoubtedly to relate His saying concerning the new covenant (Luke 2.20) to Jer. 31.31ff, whose counterpart, the covenant at Sinai, was constituted by blood (TDNT VII, p133).” Thus in using such poignant and historically concentrated language, Jesus sees his task as being to establish “once for all” the new relationship between God and Man through the medium of his own passion. His death, represented in the bread and cup, is the validated and verified new covenant ceremony itself.

Therefore the new covenant of Jesus’ blood is the principle correlative to his own public message regarding the kingdom of God. The kingdom metaphor portrays God as the undisputed and sovereign Lord of all things seen and unseen, who lays absolute and unapologetic claim to the souls of all human beings. Covenant language, as established through Old Testament usage and the experience of Israel, is the means by which God’s Kingship is recognized, affirmed, and instituted among men.

In form, substance, and power the New Testament use of the concept of covenant follows and completes that of the Old. The only difference between them is that the Old Covenant was “prophetic” in the sense that it foreshadowed another covenant to come. The New Covenant of Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises of God (Mt. 5.17; Cor.1.20).

Concluding our survey of the Biblical material on covenant, we are compelled to see that, above all else, covenant is relationship.

It is not a series of laws, although such may well be included. It is not a business arrangement whereby both parties agree to conduct themselves in a predictable manner, although this is certainly one of its dynamics. Biblical covenant has to do principally and primarily with relationship which is founded and experienced on the basis of commitment and love. The essence of everything covenant means is best summarized in the promise so frequently quoted in the Scriptures: I will be your God, and you will be my people (Ex. 6.7; Lev. 6.12; Chron. 6.16; Jer. 7.23; 11; 30.22; 33.28; Heb. 8.10; Rev. 1.3).” .Covenant Renewal in the Old Testament the focus of his thesis, however, is covenant renewal.

What is the basis for such an idea? Can covenant renewal be considered normative for modern day Christians? If so, what ought it to look like? How should it be exercised? Is it an essential of our faith, or merely a tangential and superfluous extra? The answers to these questions lie at the heart of this theology of ministry and are the driving force of this thesis project.

I believe Scripture teaches that from the very beginning God sought to incorporate covenant renewal, as a personal and corporate discipline, into the daily life of every believer. This intention permeates the Old Testament and is carried on seamlessly into the New. Deuteronomy 5.12-16 says:

“Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh ay is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, our donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maid-servant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were laves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”

According to this passage, the inauguration and maintenance of the Sabbath was designed by God specifically to cause the people to remember from whence they had come. They are commanded to do this “remembering” very seven days

If they are faithful to do so, once a week each and every member of each and every household in the family of Israel will recall to mind the historical demonstration of God’s determination to be their God.

They will remember that God chose them as His People, set them apart by His great and mighty arm, constituted them as a nation, and claimed them as His own personal property. All by means of covenant. As the Decalogue itself is the covenant document (Dt. 4.13), it would be impossible for the Israelites to obey the fourth commandment every seven days, and not remember the context in which it was presented; covenant. 11

This regular exercise of collective remembering was fundamental— he foundation of their corporate life together; not an option, but a command. Covenant renewal was a weekly requirement.

In the institution of the Passover, the theme is struck again: “Do not eat it with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of affliction,


because you left Egypt in haste — so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt (Dt. 16.3).” The expressed purpose of the Feast was to remember. Passover was to be celebrated in a prescribed manner so that the generations to come, who had not experienced the deliverance from Egypt or any of God’s miracles associated with it, would identify themselves with their forefathers who had. In this “remembering” they would reaffirm themselves to be the heirs of the same Sinai covenant into which their ancestors had entered. Though it was primarily preventative measure against the propensity of God’s people to forget His mercies, Passover was to be observed regardless of whether or not the people had been faithful to the covenant. Even in disloyalty, we are to remember.

The command to remember was explicit in the institutions of the Sabbath and the Passover. This same command soon became the essential cry of the prophets. Virtually every prophet from Elijah to Malachi called upon the people to remember the covenant because, invariably, they had forgotten it (1 Kings 18.18; Is. 17.10; Jer. 32; Ezek. 2.12; Hos. 8.14; Mal. 4: etc.).

If the people heeded the call of the Law or the Prophets, God would be merciful and forgive. “After a long time had passed and the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them (Josh. 3.1)...,” [Joshua called the people together] “...and they presented themselves before God (Josh. 4.1).” In the role of the prophet, Joshua calls them to turn away from their breaking of the covenant (24.14 charges them with violation of the first commandment) and serve the Lord. They agree to do so, but Joshua warns them sternly (24.20) that if they forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods,

“He will turn and bring disaster upon you” as Yahweh had made clear in the Law (Dt. 7-28). All the people with Joshua, corporately remembering how good God has been to them (24.5-13), recommit themselves to the covenant, renewing its essence: God will be their God, and they will be His people. Joshua “made a covenant for the people,” set up a stone as a witness, and recorded the event for posterity (24.25-26).

2 Chronicles reports several instances of similar covenant renewal ceremonies. Each one involves the people coming together, ridding themselves of their idols, reaffirming their commitment to the covenant relationship, and restating their desire to give themselves once again to the Lord (15.1-15; 3.16-17; 9.5,10; 34.31,33). On each occasion, the covenant renewal is a self conscious and deliberate act in which the people acknowledge their failure, principally through idolatry, to keep faith, and then celebrate God’s promise to restore them.

In the case of Josiah (34.29-32) the Scripture tells us that the king “...called together all

the elders of Judah and Jerusalem...He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant...The king... renewed the covenant in the presence of the Lord—to follow the Lord and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, and to obey the words of the covenant written in this book. Then he had everyone in Jerusalem and Benjamin pledge themselves to it; the people of Jerusalem did this in accordance with the covenant of God, the God of their fathers. Josiah removed all the detestable idols from the territory belonging to the Israelites...”

Following the exile, when all the disasters decreed against the Israelites as punishment for forsaking the covenant had fallen upon them, this great tradition of hope and restoration was re-energized yet again under the leadership of Nehemiah and Ezra with the remnant that returned to Jerusalem. In chapters # and 9 of Nehemiah the Israelites separated themselves from all foreigners. They confessed their sins and were read to from the Book of the Law. After the prayer of confession which contained the essential remembering of all the good deeds of the Lord and his faithfulness to them, they made

“a binding agreement (9.38)” and signed their names to it.

12 While not named as such, this is clearly another example of a covenant renewal ceremony in which the people bind themselves gain to Yahweh after having gone astray from the stipulations contained therein.

Covenant Renewal in the New TestamentThat covenant renewal as a lifestyle for Christians under the New Covenant is, if not commanded, at least strongly assumed and implied, can be seen in Paul’s words regarding the institution of the Last Supper. We are to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of Christ (1 Cor. 11.24-25). Leaving aside the issue of whether the Lord’s Table is exclusively a memorial (as with most Free churches), the actual transubstantiated flesh and blood of Jesus (as with Rome), or somewhere in between, the key word is remembrance

If the Old Covenant was ratified and renewed with the offering of blood sacrifices (Ex. 0.24; Chron. 9.20ff), and if the New Covenant was instituted by the shed blood of Jesus, then here is a clear indication that very time believers share in the bread and the cup, we are renewing the New covenant.

We are reaffirming the relationship which God has established with us through the death of His Son. Just as the foundation of an Old Covenant renewal service was a recitation of what God had done or His people—how He had acted on their behalf in


time and space—so too in the Lord’s Table we remember, and recite, and re-enact what God has done for us in the historical fact of Jesus’ passion.

The Lord’s Table then is no mere ritual by which we memorialize what Jesus said by repeating His words. It is rather the New Testament equivalent of an Old Testament covenant renewal ceremony, with all the ingredients that make it so. We affirm by the blood of His sacrifice, symbolized in the bread and wine, that “He is our God, and we are His people.”

The basis for covenant renewal ceremonies in the church is therefore the same as that of Old Testament Israel: the faithfulness of God. The promise is expressed in Dt. 30.1-3:

“When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.”

The principles are self evident. First, God’s People in every age will fail to keep the covenant. Secondly, in their need and distress they will seek Him. Finally, according to His faithfulness, God will have mercy and “restore their fortunes.”

Covenant renewal then is to be an integral part of the Christian life, both in personal and corporate spheres. This is so because, like Israel, we forget. But we too, like them, are commanded to remember.

The spirit of covenant with the Lord is, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” Any heartfelt act which reaffirms this relationship (such as the Lord’s Table) can rightly be considered a covenant renewal ceremony.

Scripture declares that when God makes a covenant, He remembers it, even if (when) the individual or community he is in covenant with, forgets. The prophetic tradition under both the Old and New Covenants proclaims the faithfulness of God to be he only ground for “covenant keeping.” The role of the pastor-prophet in today’s church therefore consists of two elements. First, he must continuously call the people of God to be faithful to the terms of the covenant as originally ratified by Christ, for it is assumed we will forget and be prone to wander. Then, as the people are faithful, encourage them to maintain their loyalty, as God Himself will.

The story of Israel—a people who continuously strayed from their covenant with God, only to be repeatedly called back to it—is thus the story of every Christian Church ever founded anywhere, by anyone, at anytime in history. It is the story of Barre Congregational Church, Barre Massachusetts. As pastor-prophet to this people, it became my responsibility to proclaim the will of God clearly: that our covenant with Him be renewed. The only hope of securing God’s continued blessing upon our efforts would be to have our gathered community, is a community, enter into a covenant renewal ceremony before God. Because my theology of ministry compelled it, I began this project to that end.

CHApTER ONE FOOTS NOTES

No small amount of material has been written to guide in the effort. Among the 1. most consistently helpful in my own development have been Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor ; John Bunyon, Pilgrim’s Progress ; Almost anything by Jonathan Edwards; J.I. Packer, Knowing God ; A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God ; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship ; Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ . Also John McNeil, The History of the Cure of Souls .

The most thorough discussion I have found of this matter is in Marcus Barth, The 2. Anchor Bible, Vol 34A [Ephesians 4-6] ; Doubleday Company, Inc. Garden City, New York, 1974, pp. 438-439. He boldly translates as “teaching shepherds”.

For discussion see Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read The Bible 3. For All Its Worth ; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1981: pp151ff. They emphasize three points, each of which applies to the pastor-prophet: 1) The Prophets were covenant enforcement mediators; Their message was God’s, not their own; 3) It was essentially a iteration of the message already brought to Israel through Moses in the Law. A pastor-prophet brings nothing “new”. 95

Some of this was “scientifically” documented as early as March 1991 in a report 4. submitted to the congregation by UCC church consultant Rev. Dr. Robert Johnson. The Deaconate had contracted for his services “to facilitate a conflict management process”. In his analysis he states:

“It is this consultant’s view that [theology and faith values lie] at the heart of the

conflict, complexifying all the others”

I have included his full report as Appendix B. It gives a satisfactory representation of the issues leading first to the vote for my resignation in February 1992, and then to my call for covenant renewal through this project in Spring of 1993.

See especially John P. Milton, God’s Covenant Of Blessing , Augustana Book 5. Concern, Rock Island, IL; 1961. Also Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary , Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1971, esp. pp. 39-62. Also William Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 1979, pp 113-126.

TDOT, II, p253ff.6.

For some extra-biblical instances of this and discussion of same, see Baltzer, p14. 7. Also TDOT, II, p266-269.

An illustration of this thinking is found in the new (1995) translation of the Bible 8. called God’s Word , published by World Publishing, Inc., Grand Rapids. The editorial heading introducing Hosea 4 reads: The LORD’S Legal Case Against Israel”

For survey see TDOT, II, pp273-277.9.

James Jordan argues in Through New Eyes - Developing a Biblical View of the 10. World , Wolgemugh Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. Brentwood, TN, 1988; p181. “...when covenant renewal comes, it is never simply a return to the old ways. Rather, it is a renewal of the olds ways in a new form, a form appropriate to the times and to the stage of growth.”

Klaus Baltzer,The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 18. 11.

“It was not intended, however, that the treaty should merely be preserved in some archive. Knowledge of the content of the treaty is frequently enjoined upon the vassals in the treaties. To this end the text of the treaty was to be excited regularly in the presence of the vassal [emphasis in the original].”

Ibid., 17. Of secular treaties he says:12.

“Publication of the stipulations of the treaty, invocation of the gods, and written execution are the most important acts in the conclusion of a treaty.”

CHApTER TwO

Theology Ministry and a Review of the Literature Relating to the Thesis I

Old Testament CovenantThe literature available on the etymology of the word “covenant” is copious and readily accessible (See TDOT, VII, p253ff). The term as it came to be used in the Old and New Testaments (granting shadings of meaning in different contexts) can be summarized thus: Covenant has to do with commitment and oath on the one hand, and with love and friendship on the other. In virtually every use of the term or allusion to the idea in the Scriptures, both aspects are assumed. On occasion, as in the Sinaitic covenant, the notion of oath and commitment will predominate (Ex. 19.5-6), though not exclude love and friendship. At other times, as in the covenant between Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 0.16-17), the aspect of friendship is given a higher value than that of oath. In each case however, both elements are present. Biblically speaking, what is commitment, if not love? And what is love, if not commitment?

It is also clear in each instance of the use of “covenant” in the Old Testament that some sort of ceremony, or recognition of such, must be in place for a covenant to be duly established. The form of such ceremonies may vary widely. Noah is given a rainbow (Gen. 9.12). For Abraham there is the “cutting” of a number of animals, with God in the form of a smoking fire brand walking amongst them while Abraham

“sleeps” (Gen. 15.12-20). To all his descendants is given the sign of circumcision (Gen.

17.9-14). Jacob and Laban use rocks (Gen. 315ff). At Sinai there is a great “to do” on Yahweh’s part with tablets and fire and noise and quaking (Ex. 19.16-19). Jonathan gives David his robe and weapons (1 Sam. 18.3-4). At the “stone Ezel” (1 Sam. 0, esp. v16-17) there is merely the mutually affirmed promises of David and Jonathan to show kindness to one another’s families. Each of these “signs” serves as reminder to the parties involved of their obligation not to forget the historicity of the arrangement which has been made.

Perhaps the most important factor in Old Testament covenant making is this: In every case — without exception — God is assumed to be The Witness, thereby making the agreement binding upon those who enter into it. Even “secular” covenants presuppose this (Gen. 314-50; 1 Sam. 3.18). Whether between friends (1 Sam.18.3) or rulers (Gen. 1.22ff), a covenant has legal force (1 Sam. 0.8).

There is much debate in the literature whether the core idea of covenant is legal or religious. In the larger framework of a Biblical world view, these two distinctions blur into the one essential and indisputable fact: Yahweh is both Judge and God. There is no division between the execution of His judgment as the Righteous One and His demands upon us as Creator and God. What matters for our purposes is that any covenant entered into between man and man, man and woman (as in marriage), or man and God, has God as its witness. He will therefore hold accountable those who dare to enter into this sacred oath, made sacred by His role as witness.

“There is no firmer guarantee of legal security, peace or personal loyalty than the covenant. Regard for the institution is made a religious duty by means of the oath taken at its establishment. Those who enter into covenant know that Yahweh Himself keeps strict watch over the sworn fellowship and its order. Violation or depreciation of the accepted duty is recognized to be sin in the strictest possible sense of disregard for the will of Yahweh (TDNT II, p115).” Thus while God is the author of covenant, his people ay take “the initiative,” trust the Lord to honor their oaths and desires (Jer. 50.5), and hold themselves and one another accountable to Him.

The final common denominator of all such arrangements in the Old Testament is that a covenant, when broken or forsaken, brings consequences with it — not only for the immediate parties, but often also for he progeny. Yahweh’s covenants with Noah (Gen. 9.9), Abraham (Gen. 15.18; Kings 13.23), and David (2 Sam. 7.12-16; Jer. 33.20-22), explicitly extend to the descendants.

To violate, ignore, or otherwise disdain any covenant is a most serious breach of one’s obligation to God. The Lord hates divorce (Mal. 14-16) because it breaks covenant,

Page 44 Chapter Two: Theology Ministry...

thereby damaging children.

The Lord opens the thundering mouths of the prophets because the priests have broken covenant (Mal. 5-9), as a result polluting the nation. The Lord executes his wrath against Israel and Judah because they have been unfaithful to keep the covenant (Dt. 9.22-25), consequently incurring great suffering upon their descendants. It is clear from the Old Testament record that loyalty or betrayal to covenant is he central matter with which the Maker of Heaven and Earth is most acutely concerned.

New Testament CovenantWhat of the concept in the New Testament? While the word or idea does not occur with the same frequency or regularity as in the Old Testament (thirty-three times, seven of which are OT citations), its meaning — as in so much of the New Testament

— is not hanged but fulfilled. The Old Covenant was but a precursor to the final New Covenant initiated, appropriated, and maintained through the blood of Jesus Christ.

We note three elements of the development of covenant in the New Testament. Paul according to Galatians 3.9 teaches that “all who believe”, we Christians and the faithful people of Israel, are “descendants” of Abraham the man of faith, and therefore heirs of the same promises as he (3.14, 9). While the explicit language of covenant is not invoked here, the idea is the unmistakable underpinning of his entire argument. It is precisely because God gave the sign of the covenant (circumcision) to Abraham after we had believed, that we too, through faith, are heirs of the same promises (Rom. 4.11, 16), whether circumcised or not. Those favorite words of Paul’s, “It was credited to him as righteousness”, are used to tell his readers that this “crediting” came to Abraham after he believed. The sign of the covenant was given following that.

Thus Christians, by our faith, receive the new sign of the new covenant (baptism) after the fact and enter into the covenant promises God had made to Abraham. This establishes us as full heirs with “the father of us all (Rom. 4.16).”

In the book of Hebrews (in which the word appears 17 times, far more than any other strata of NT Scripture) the marvelously provocative adjective “new” is inserted (taking his cue from Jesus in Luke 2.20) and the indispensable element of blood is reaffirmed (9.18). He equates the offering of sacrifices in the Temple by the priests with the keeping of the first covenant. In the same way then, blood must be offered to keep the new covenant. It has been, of course, “once for all (10.10)” through the body of Jesus. In this regard he quotes Jeremiah, through not specifically Jeremiah’s words regarding

the “new” covenant (which he has already referred to at beginning of his discussion in chapter 8).

This new covenant then, while of necessity instituted and validated by blood in like manner to the first, in nonetheless “better” than the first (7.22), resting on

“better promises (8.6).” It is more sure by virtue of being eternal (8.13). Its badge of authenticity and guarantee of faithful mediation, instead of the past historical event of Sinai, is the Present Living Person of Jesus (8.1,6; 9.15; 12.24).

The wellspring of all New Testament thought on the covenant comes from the source of covenant, Jesus Christ Himself.

“Since Jeremiah (with Dt. Isaiah) was for Jesus the most familiar of all the prophets, we are undoubtedly to relate His saying concerning the new covenant (Luke 2.20) to Jer. 31.31ff, whose counterpart, the covenant at Sinai, was constituted by blood. (TDNT VII, p133).”

Thus in using such poignant and historically concentrated language, Jesus sees his task as being — through the medium of his own passion — to establish and settle “once for all” the new relationship between God and Man. His death, represented in the bread and cup, is the validated and verified new covenant ceremony itself.

Therefore the new covenant of Jesus’ blood is the principle correlative to his own public message regarding “the kingdom of God”. The kingdom imagery and metaphor portrays God as the undisputed and sovereign Lord of all things seen and unseen, laying absolute unapologetic claim to the souls of men and women. Covenant language, as established through Old Testament usage and the experience of Israel, is the means by which God’s Kingship is recognized, affirmed, and instituted among men.

In both form and content then, in both substance and weight, the New Testament use of the word “covenant” follows and completes that of the Old. The only difference between them is that the Old Covenant was “prophetic” in the sense that it foreshadowed another covenant to come. The New Covenant of Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises of God (Mt. 5.17; Cor. 1.20).

Concluding our survey of the biblical material on covenant, we are compelled to say that covenant is — above all else — relationship.

It is not a series of laws, although such may well be included. It is not a business arrangement whereby both parties agree to conduct themselves in a predictable


manner, although this is certainly one of its dynamics.

Biblical covenant has to do principally and primarily with relationship — a relationship which is founded and experienced on the basis of commitment and love. The essence of everything covenant means is best summarized in the promise so frequently quoted in the Scriptures: I will be your God, and you will be my people (Ex. 6.7; Lev. 6.12; Chron. 6.16; Jer. 7.23; 11; 30.22; 33.28; Heb. 8.10; Rev. 1.3).”

Covenant Renewal in the Old TestamentThe focus of his thesis, however, is not so much covenant as covenant renewal.

What is the basis for such an idea? Can covenant renewal be considered normative for modern day Christians? If so, what ought it to look like? How should it be exercised? Is it an essential of our faith, or merely a tangential and unnecessary luxury? The answers to these questions are at the center of this theology of ministry.

There are several instances of covenant renewal ceremonies in the Old Testament, and we will consider the most important ones shortly. But first I would argue that the very idea of covenant renewal as part and parcel of the believer’s daily life was intentionally incorporated by God from the very beginning. Covenant renewal is not something we are to do occasionally although this would greatly promote the health and good of our souls and our churches. Rather is it something we are to think of as daily joy an ongoing delight, and a regular discipline of our personal and corporate life as the People of God. This idea (we hope to demonstrate) permeates the Old Testament and is carried on explicitly into the New. Deuteronomy 5.12-16 is worth quoting in full at this point:

“Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”

According to this passage, the purpose of having the Sabbath and keeping it is specifically to remember from whence the Israelites have come. And they are commanded to do this “remembering” very seven days.

If they are faithful to do this, once a week each and every member of each and every household in the family of Israel will recall to mind the historical demonstration of God’s determination to be their God; to choose them as His People, to set them apart by His great and mighty arm; to constitute them as a nation of His personal property through covenant.

As the Decalogue itself has been given as the covenant document (Dt. 4.13), it is not possible for the Israelites to obey the fourth commandment every seven days, and not remember the context in which it was presented; we covenant.

This discipline was intended to remind them regularly hose they were and how as a people they had come into being, and to whom they belonged, and what was expected of them as the recipients of God’s gracious benevolence. And this exercise of collective remembering was to be fundamental — the foundation of their corporate life together. Not an option, but a command: Covenant renewal is a weekly requirement.

In the institution of the Passover, the bell of this theme is rung again: “REMEMBER! (Dt. 16.3).”

That is the expressed purpose of the Feast, to be done in a proscribed manner so that the generations to come who had not experienced the deliverance form Egypt (or any of God’s miracles associated with it) would nonetheless — through the “remembering” in the Passover meal — identify directly with their own forefathers, and in so doing reaffirm themselves to be the heirs of the Sinai covenant. Passover is to be celebrated not necessarily because the covenant has been violated or forgotten or denounced, but as a regular part of cultic life — as preventative measure against the propensity of God’s people to simply (and quickly) forget what He has done for them. This was God’s protective training, intending to build into the minds and hearts of His people regular discipline of covenant renewal - not only for His glory, but also for their (our) sakes.

The command to remember echoes not only in the institutions of the Sabbath and the Passover, but soon becomes the essential cry of the prophetic ministry as it was the develop under the divided kingdom. Virtually every prophet from Elijah to Malachi, in one form or another calls the people to remember the covenant because, invariably, they have forgotten it. The heart of the prophet’s message is: “Return to the covenant which you have forsaken, and the Lord will be merciful.”

In the event the people responded to the call from the Law or the Prophet to return to the covenant, God, according to His covenant faithfulness, would honor that.


“After a long time had passed and the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them (Josh. 3.1)...,” [Joshua called the people together] “...and they presented themselves before God (Josh. 4.1).” In the role of the prophet, he calls them to turn away from their breaking of the covenant (24.14 — they have idols in violation of the first commandment) and serve the Lord. They agree to do so, but Joshua warns them sternly (24.20) that if they forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, “He will turn and bring disaster upon you” as Yahweh had made clear in the Law (Dt. 7-28). All the people with Joshua, remembering how good God has been to them (24.5-13) recommit themselves to the covenant. They renew the essence of it: that God will be their God, and they will be His people. And Joshua made a covenant for the people, and set up a stone as a witness.

2 Chronicles records several instances of similar covenant renewal ceremonies. Each one involves the people coming together to reaffirm their commitment to the covenant relationship and their desire to give themselves once again the Lord (15.1-15; 3.16; 9.10; 34.31). On each occasion, the covenant renewal is a self conscious and deliberate act in which the people acknowledge their failure to keep faith, and celebrate God’s promise to restore them. In the case of Josiah (34.29-32) the Scripture tells us that the king

“...called together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem...He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant...The king... renewed the covenant in the presence of the Lord — to follow the Lord and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, and to obey the words of the covenant written in this book. Then he had everyone in Jerusalem and Benjamin pledge themselves to it; the people of Jerusalem did this in accordance with the covenant of God, the God of their fathers. Josiah removed all the detestable idols from the territory belonging to the Israelites...”

After the exile, when all the disasters decreed against the Israelites as punishment for forsaking the covenant have fallen upon them, this great tradition of hope and restoration is re-energized once again under the leadership of Nehemiah after the remnant has returned to Jerusalem. In chapter 9 the Israelites separate themselves from all foreigners. They confess their sins and are read to from the Book of the Law. After the prayer of confession which contains the essential remembering of all the good deeds of the Lord on behalf of Israel and the recitation of his faithfulness to them, they make “a binding agreement (v38)” and sign their names to it. While not named as such, this is clearly another example of a covenant renewal ceremony by which the people bind themselves gain to Yahweh after having gone astray from the stipulations contained therein.

Covenant Renewal in the New TestamentThat covenant renewal as a lifestyle for Christians under the New Covenant is, if not commanded, at least strongly assumed and implied, can be seen in Paul’s words regarding the institution of the Last Supper. We are to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of [Him] (1 Cor. 11.24-25). Leaving aside the irrelevant (for our purposes) issue of whether or not the Lord’s Table is exclusively a memorial (a la Free churches), the actual transubstantiated flesh and blood of Jesus (a la Rome), or somewhere in between (Luther and other reformers), the key operative word in this logion is remembrance. If the Old Covenant was ratified and often renewed with the offering of blood sacrifices, and if the New Covenant is instituted by the shed blood of Jesus, then here is a clear indication that every time believers share in the bread and the cup we are renewing the New covenant; reaffirming the relationship which God has established with us through the death of His Son. Just as the integral aspect of the Old Covenant renewal service was a recitation of what God had done n history for His people — how He had acted on their behalf in time and space — so too, in the Lord’s Table we remember.

To put it even more graphically, we reenact and recite what God has done for us in the historical act of Jesus’ passion.

The Lord’s Table then is no mere formal ritual by which we memorialize what Jesus said by repeating His words. On the contrary, it is the New Testament equivalent of an Old Testament covenant renewal ceremony, with all the ingredients that make it so. We affirm that in His death, symbolized by the bread and wine, “He is our God, and we are His people.”

As Paul argues in Romans 9-11, God’s faithfulness to His promises embodied in the covenant can not be canceled out by the unfaithfulness of the other party participating in the covenant. In the same way, we may come freely and boldly to the Lord’s Table seeking forgiveness and confident of receiving it. Even though we may have broken covenant, He has not.

In conclusion, what is the basis for covenant renewal in the church? Simply this: The faithfulness of God. The promise is expressed in Dt. 30.1-3: “When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations


where he scattered you.”

The principles here are self evident:

God’s People, in every age, will fail to keep the covenant.1.

In their need they will seek Him.2.

By His faithfulness, God will have mercy and “restore their fortunes.”3.

Covenant renewal then is to be an integral part of the Christian life, both in the personal and in the corporate spheres. This is so because we forget.

And we are commanded to remember.

As the “spirit” of the covenant is “I will by your God and you will be my people”, any heartfelt act which reaffirms this relationship can rightly be considered a covenant renewal ceremony.

The Scriptures teach that when God makes a covenant, He is faithful to keep it — even if (when) the individual or group which enters into that covenant abandons it. The prophetic tradition under both the Old and New Testaments declares the faithfulness of God to be he basis for “covenant keeping.” The ministry of the prophet (i.e. pastor) consists therefore of two elements: 1) Continuously calling the people of God to return to the terms of the covenant as originally ratified (for it is assumed we will forget and be prone to wander), and having returned, encouraging His people to diligently maintain faithfulness to that covenant, as God Himself has promised to do.

The story of Israel — a people who continuously strayed from their covenant with God, only to be repeatedly called back to it — is thus the story of every single Christian Church ever founded anywhere by anyone at anytime in history.

It is the story of Barre Congregational Church, Barre Massachusetts. Its covenant with God was made in 1827. After two generations of faithfulness to it, the church began to turn away until the substance of that covenant had been, by 1980, virtually abandoned. Since 1980, through the preaching of the gospel, God demonstrated His faithfulness by calling Barre Congregational Church back to its original covenant. For a time, the church listened, and many within it heard, and began in earnest a return to the founding charter.

This story is about God’s faithfulness to those who heard “what the Spirit was saying to the churches”, and renewed their covenant with Him.

To continue to develop the transition from Biblical support for covenant renewal to the specific setting of the ministry out of which this thesis arises it is necessary now to briefly trace in Congregational history the central place given to the notion of covenant as the “sine qua non” of a gathered community of believers.

CHApTER TwO b

The Covenant History of a New England Congregational Church

Covenant and Covenant Renewal in Early New England Congregationalism whether church, parachurch, or missions organization, a Christian enterprise justifies its existence by embracing theology and practice consistent with New Testament teaching. Scholars, students, and pastors who have sought to unearth and defend the roots of Congregationalism are no exception to this rule. Dexter, the eminent Congregational historian, was convinced that “the Christian Church of the first century...was governed...not by Peter, or any other Apostle...but by itself, under Christ as its great head; by its entire membership - debating, deciding, doing.”

Atkins and Fagley refer to a historian who claimed to have found true Congregationalism in Corinth and Ephesus.

William Bradshaw, describing English Puritans in 1605, wrote:

“They hold and maintain that the word of God contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles is of absolute perfection, given by Christ the Head of the Church, to be unto the same the sole canon and rule of all matters of religion, and the worship and service of God whatsoever. And that whatsoever cannot be justified by the said word is unlawful.”

In this effort to establish a direct link between New Testament church principles, the practice of “local covenants,” and Congregational polity, the Puritans were essentially of one mind: “Above all they were consciously united, almost to a man, in

the conviction that the form of church order decreed explicitly by revelation from heaven was Congregational.” And Congregational was, by definition, covenantal. John Davenport, pastor in both New Haven and Boston who had helped procure the charter of the Massachusetts Company in 1629, would define the church this way:

“It is a company of faithful and holy people, or persons called out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ, and united in one congregation to him as members to their head, and one with another, by a holy covenant for mutual fellowship in all such ways of holy worship of God, and of edification of one towards another.”

Another New England Puritan would say the church is “a company of people combined together by holy covenant with God, and with one another.”

This unanimity is all the more remarkable in that, as Stout points out, “...while Puritans claimed Scripture as their sole authority, there was no explicit precedent for local covenanting in the New Testament.”

This irony was not lost on Christians who were contemporaries with the Puritans. Still, opposition to the idea or disagreement regarding its practice seems to have had no impact whatsoever upon the Puritan determination to hold to the “congregational way.” In answer to the question, “How was a church to be constituted?” Henry Jacob’s catechism stated, “By a free and mutual consent of believers joining and covenanting to live as members of a holy society together.”

We will not attempt to argue whether or not that “way” is in fact rooted in the New Testament, as this is not our principle concern. Rather our interest lies particularly in the history of the concept of covenant, the practice of covenant principles, and the pursuit of covenant renewal, especially in New England Congregationalism.

While the Reformed movement offered a broad and dynamic breeding ground for covenant theology and its practical application, the first clear emergence of covenant as the hub of Congregationalism’s wheel appears to date from Robert Browne in England. As founder of a “company” in Norwich, his group became “the first regularly constituted congregational church on English soil.”

11 Published in 1582, each one of his articles is based upon the assumption that a gathered community may constitute itself by means of a “covenant.” A covenant contains within itself, by virtue of the nature of God, His promise of salvation. On the believer’s part, we “must offer and give up our selves to be of the church and people of God.” Baptism is the “seal of the covenant.”

Page 54 Chapter Two B: The Covenant History of a New England CC

12 This document says virtually nothing about polity, which technically is all that Congregationalism implies. Yet it sets the tone for much of what will follow in the incipient congregational movement. This is especially so in its uncompromising emphasis upon the covenant freely entered into by the people and unquestionably validated by God.

13 Before leaving on the Mayflower a generation later, forty-one persons signed a compact which says, “Doe by thefe prefents folemnly and mutualy in ye prefence of God, and one of another; covenant, and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick;...”

This was not a gathered church, or even a religious community. Nonetheless, so deeply held by these pioneers was the notion of covenant that its substance had worked its way into this primarily civil document.

14 In the following years the leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony would come together to issue statements articulating what they believed, and how they should therefore conduct themselves in both religious and secular affairs. The General Court of Massachusetts was petitioned in May 1646 to convene the churches in a synod. This, the Cambridge Synod, produced the Cambridge Platform, the standard for church government until 1780.

Fortunately for the delegates much of their task had already been done. When the final session convened after two years of diligent labor, the participants were happy to discover that they were largely in agreement with the Westminster Confession, only recently released to the public. The Westminster Confession solidified the central faith of Reformed Evangelical Christianity as it was then widely understood. It had been adopted by the English Parliament in June of 1648, two months before the final Cambridge meeting in August. Thus, instead of insisting upon a competing confession of their own, the New Englanders decided to include the following sentence in the preface of their Cambridge Platform: Having perused the public confession of faith, agreed upon by the Reverend assembly of Divines at Westminster...we thought good to present unto them...our professed and hearty assent and attestation to the whole confession of faith (for substance of doctrine)...Excepting only some sections...which concern points of controversy in church-discipline.

15 Ten years later in London the Savoy Declaration was penned by the same divines who had composed the Westminster Confession. They were joined this time by John Owen, an articulate advocate of the congregational way:

“The way or means whereby such persons...may become a church...is by mutual confederation or solemn agreement...”

16 No question was left in Owen’s mind regarding the divine benediction upon such a position.

“This resignation of ourselves unto the will, power, and authority of Christ, with an express engagement made unto him of doing and observing all his commands, hath he nature of a covenant on our part; and it hath so on his, by virtue of the promise of his especial presence annexed unto this engagement on our part, (Mt.28.18-20).”

17 As if to insure clarity to his readers, Owen restates his contention:

“Whereas, therefore, in the constitution of a church, believers do give themselves up unto the Lord, and are bound solemnly to engage themselves to do and observe all the things which Christ hath commanded to be done and observed in that state, whereupon he hath promised to be present with them and among them in an especial manner...their so doing hath the nature of a divine covenant included in it; which is the formal cause of their church-state and being.”

18 This work of the Savoy Declaration was also well received in the colonies. The extraordinary agreement on general points of doctrine (though not of polity) between England and New England demonstrated to both parties of Puritans that “the New England Churches were still standing, as a group, with uncriticizing loyalty on the basis of the Puritan theology of England as it had been in the first half of the seventeenth century.”

This provided for the New England churches a formalized confession of faith, not a creed. Creedal statements have never set well with the main body of the movement called Congregationalism.

20 Still the Westminster Confession helped cement a bond of unity between like minded brethren on both sides of the Atlantic.

Within this context we can understand the relative simplicity and directness of New England’s earliest church covenants. The churches felt no urgency to “spell out” in great detail what was meant. This was so because there was a general consensus already in place regarding uniformity of language and its substance; a common agreement about definitions and words.

21 We have therefore concise and almost naive sounding covenants in the earliest days of New England. The Salem Covenant of 1629 reads:


We covenant with the Lord and one with an other; and do bind our selves in the presence of God, to walke together in all his waies, according as he is pleased to reveale himself unto us in his Blessed word of truth.

This brief sentence describes all the attributes of a true church — a group of believers committing themselves to one another and to God, and standing in absolute submission to the “Blessed word of truth” contained in the Scriptures. The freedom to make simple pledges like this would bring to New England the greatest folk migration in the history of the New World.

22 Somewhat more wordy but no less simple is that of the Charlestown church, 1632:

Wee whose names are here written Being by his most wise and good providence brought together, and desirous to unite our selves into one Congregation or Church, under Jesus Christ our Head: In such sort as becometh all those whom he hath Redeemed and sanctified unto himself, Doe here solemnly and Religiously as in his most holy presence, Promise and bind our selves to walk in all our ways according to the Rules of the Gospel, and in all sincere conformity to his holy ordinances: and in mutual Love and Respect each to other; so near as God shall give us grace.

23 The procedure for entering into a covenant was intended by the founding fathers of New England Congregationalism to be as gentle and Christlike as possible. They desired certainly “to prevent the polluting the blessed Ordinances of Christ by such as walk scandalously, and that men and women do not eat and drink their own condemnation, in not discerning the Lord’s body 24

At the same time the Cambridge Platform reasoned from Isaiah 40.11 and Matthew 12.20 that God desired the most tender and weak of the brethren to be gathered into his body.

25 Upon examination by the Elders, then, and being found fit for church membership, it was expected that “all Christians, who look for salvation by Jesus Christ join themselves to some one or other such particular visible Church of Christ.”

26 The Cambridge Platform said: “The things which are requisite to be found in all church members, are Repentance from sin, and faith in Jesus Christ. And therefore these are the things whereof men are to be examined.”

27 While there are several descriptions of methods by which an individual Christian could be incorporated into church membership, certain common denominators are evident. First, the candidate would make his wishes known of his own volition, either

to the elders or to the pastor of the church. He would then be examined, usually privately, as to his fitness.

2 If found to be of satisfactory faith and character, it then became a matter for the entire congregation to consider. Care was taken to prevent the obvious capacity for abuse. If someone had an objection regarding the candidate, it was to be taken up in private with the elders. If the matter involved public conduct, it would have to be dealt with publicly; if a private matter, it should stay that way.

29 If all went well up to this point, and it was agreed the candidate would be allowed church membership, some kind of public statement to that effect had to be made. Provisions were allowed, however, for those who did not feel (what we would call today) “comfortable” doing this. But even these would have to put it in writing. What actually had to be spoken before the congregation was not uniform. Some required answers to catechism-type questions; others simply an agreement to affirm the covenant of the church which would bind him not only to God, but also to the other members of the congregation.

Even though a marvelous diversity is discernible in the various covenants of early New England churches, and varied methods were employed by which candidates were examined and admitted into fellowship, it is clear by even a cursory examination of the documents that the is assumption prevails: The covenant is a binding agreement between the candidate, the church, and the Lord. This understanding is always given the highest respect and veneration. This was then, and today remains, the very essence of what it means to be Congregational, especially in New England.

The focus of the study in hand, however, is covenant renewal.

With his nearly exhaustive examination of hundreds of New England sermons from 1620 until the American Revolution, Harry Stout has given us priceless insights into the covenantal mind set of early New England Congregationalists. In summarizing the essence of the two forms of occasional, though not infrequent, fast day and thanksgiving day messages, Stout says; In effect, the two occasions taught the same lesson: vows once taken lasted forever, and God would hold his people and their children to account for their commitment to his covenant. With this implicit understanding among New Englanders of the certain consequences of covenantal relationship, it can only follow that the call to covenant renewal would be one of the recurring themes in early New England preaching.

In the aftermath of King Philip’s War (1670’s) Stout’s “Second Generation” leaders


conducted a “Reforming Synod” calling upon all the churches to gather for a time of covenant renewal, both as individual groups and as a corporate colony. It was well recognized that this was not technically necessary, since the children of the parents who had entered into the first covenant were already themselves bound to it by their baptism. Nonetheless the clergy hoped such a region-wide call would revitalize the church, and all of New England, in its conscience and soul. 2 They sought internal re-commitment to God as the answer to what they perceived as external laxity which was generating other social problems.

By the 1680’s most churches had accepted covenant renewal as a valid means of encouraging conversion and church membership...The churches could exert moral influence with or without the active support of the magistrates because the children continued to take their covenant vows seriously. Civil laws might impart fear to the inhabitants, but not the all-consuming “awe” that came with covenant renewal and public oaths.

At the turn of the century covenant renewal services, along with revival preaching, were the only two recognized and legitimate strategies for church growth. Thus local ministers were forever looking for an “excuse” to hold a covenant renewal ceremony. The incorporation of a new parish, the dedication of a new meetinghouse, or the refurbishing of an old one, were all used to sponsor times of covenant renewal.

“Sermons on these occasions reminded the present generation of vows made long before on the same spot and urged them to remember their obligations to keep the covenant alive.” 4

More commonly, however, it was the normal dangers of living in a fallen world which provided more than ample opportunity for the prompting of services for covenant renewal. Wars, epidemics, fires, droughts, floods, earthquakes, and other unavoidable

“acts of God” would bring such distress and anguish among the spiritually sensitive souls of New England that it was only reasonable for them to come together in repentance, seek the mercy of God, and renew the covenant. How else could they be restored to God’s favor?

Before that eventful 18th century would draw to a close, New Englanders would once more, in dramatic and unified fashion, look to their own sense of covenant history founded upon God’s faithfulness to his own word. For wisdom, hope, and strength in the confrontation with Mother England, it was the only reasonable alternative.

Other arguments would have to be invented to justify their experience. Where could the people turn for guidance? The answer was to their own covenant past and to Israel.

Both had guided them unerringly before English rule, and they would continue to guide them after it came to an end.

The people of New England across the intervening years had been taught history, and were taught to teach heir children history, as well. That history was, above all else, covenantal. It was this conviction, from the first Pilgrims to the Sons of Liberty, which had armed the hearty New Englanders against adversity and kept them returning to renew their church and community covenants. Yet for all the progress that had been made in the New England churches for 150 years (most dramatically during the Great Awakening); for all the regular insistence upon covenant as the principle administration of God’s Kingdom, and covenant renewal as the responsibility placed upon God’s People, once the nation finally won its independence from Great Britain, something was lost. Indeed it seems clear that the practice of regular covenant renewal among the churches, at least on a large regional scale, virtually ceased after we became the United States of America.

For the first 150 years a covenantal world view had bound the colonies together. But now that those colonies had become a nation, the original founding concept of covenant was abandoned. A different “glue,” nationhood, was now available to unite. The covenant which had, since Plymouth, been seen as “the heart of the matter,” no longer was.

The close of the 18th century which had seen the likes of Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley would bring with it the need to further define exactly what the words of the covenant meant. The Unitarian controversy, among other things, demanded it. More explicit lines needed to be drawn, and more precise theological formulations articulated. Common ground, once taken for granted, would now have to be specifically stated.

Theological divisions between the Liberal/Unitarian branch and the Evangelical/Trinitarian branch of Congregationalism began to increase in severity at the dawn of the Second Great Awakening. 8 In 1820 the Dedham case was adjudicated in favor of the Unitarians, the court reasoning that the Unitarians held the property and the assets of the church in trust for the parish. Therefore, although they numbered only one quarter of the church population, by this ruling the Unitarians ended up with all the capital. Any group choosing to secede from the Parish church could do so, but could take nothing with them when they left. Although clearly a numerical minority, by virtue of this decision the Unitarian wing could no longer be considered a “faction.” Not surprisingly the judges who rendered this decision were themselves Unitarians. In


retrospect even some of their own party, while not going so far as to defy the court order out of conscience, expressed regret that the ruling was perhaps not as fair as it might have been.

Unitarians had been printing informational material about their beliefs since 1821, before they actually existed as a legally recognized entity to this already “charged” atmosphere the formal establishment in 1825 of the American Unitarian Association, and one has all the volatile ingredients necessary for what was about to happen throughout New England, including the First Parish of Barre, Massachusetts. Almost immediately after the official founding of Unitarianism, one hundred churches in Massachusetts joined up, with another twenty in other parts of the New England region. What had been simmering for some years in the Congregational churches was now boiling over.

Throughout “The Period of Controversy,” as Cooke calls it, between Evangelical Trinitarians and Liberal Unitarians, there were extensive, though localized, spiritual revivals. During 1807-08 several communities in Western Massachusetts had “holy visitations.” From 1815-1816 dozens of churches in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire were spiritually stirred, and extensive revival movements appeared again between 1820-1823, as well as in 1826-1827. This was the year that the Barre church split occurred. All these revivals, however, were surpassed by the religious awakenings of 1830-1831. Periodically throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century the general “revivalist” methodology would be celebrated, nurtured, and sponsored by fervent bands of Congregationalists and others throughout the New England region.

In 1825 Harriet Beecher Stow noted in the Autobiography of Lyman Beecher , who once visited the town of Barre:

“When Dr. Beecher came to Boston (in 1825), Calvinism was the despised and persecuted form of faith. It was the dethroned royal family wandering like a permitted mendicant in the city where once it had held court, and Unitarianism reigned in its stead. All the literary men of Massachusetts were Unitarian. All the trustees and professors of Harvard College were Unitarians. All the elite of wealth and fashion crowded Unitarian churches. The judges on the bench were Unitarian, giving decisions by which the peculiar features of church organization, so carefully ordained by the Pilgrim fathers, had been nullified. The church, as consisting, according to their belief in regenerate people, had been ignored, and all the power had passed into the hands of the congregation. This power had been used by the majorities to settle

ministers of the fashionable and reigning type in many towns in Eastern Massachusetts. The dominant majority entered at once into possession of churches and church property, leaving the orthodox minority to go out into school-houses or town halls, and built their churches as best they could.”

It was within this milieu the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre was born. Behind that event lay the solid and not entirely decayed traditions of Congregationalism in small town New England. Swirling all around were the ominous storm clouds of heresy and covenant unfaithfulness. In the perceptions of some twenty-seven people, drastic times called for drastic measures. Like much of New England, the spiritual atmosphere of Barre Massachusetts in 1827 was ripe for a localized confrontation between Unitarians and Trinitarians. In this one small town, here is how it happened.

Covenant and Covenant Renewal in Barre Congregational Church

For its first fifty years, the town of Barre had but one church, the First Parish, established in 1778. Its covenant, in keeping with the times, was one with which any evangelical Christian would be comfortable. It contained an explicit affirmation of the Holy Scriptures (“... acknowledging them to contain the whole revealed will of God, concerning Faith and Practice...”), a mild recognition of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity (“... deeply sensible of our own insufficiency for any good through the prevalence of sin that dwelleth in us and manifold temptations without...”), and a stated surrender to Jesus Christ (“We give ourselves to Jesus Christ who is the Lord JEHOVAH as our Prophet, Priest, and King over our Souls, and the only Mediator of the Covenant of Grace”). It is a fine, lengthy, and well thought out document which unequivocally calls for the people of the church to unite together in this covenant:

And all this we do relying on the blood of the covenant for the pardon of our sins and errors, and praying that the Glorious Lord Jesus...would by his Spirit prepare and strengthen us for every good work to do his will working in us, that which is well pleasing in his sight—to whom be Glory forever. Amen

For some twenty-five members of this Parish however, under the avowedly Unitarian minister Rev. James Thompson, the thrust of the church’s ministry had strayed too far from its original moorings. They sought out an ecclesiastical council to consider whether or not things could be worked out between them and the Parish at large. The


council perceived that the differences between this disheartened but determined little band, and the ministry under Rev. Thompson supported by the Parish, were totally incompatible. The council suggested that a new church be constituted. Those twenty-five dissidents, plus five others by profession and two others by letter, were recognized as the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre at a duly convened council on August 15, 1827.

The inevitability of this division might have been anticipated, for the original covenant of First Parish’s was in the beginning stages of revisionary work at precisely this time. Although it was not formally ratified by the Parish church until 1831, changes were being discussed during he upheaval and eventual break of 1827. To an unsuspecting eye looking back from the late twentieth century, there might seem to be little cause for alarm. But given the extraordinary theological foment of those days, the historical observer sees “red flags” all throughout the revised covenant document. It still retains, for instance, the acknowledgment “...that you have sinned and you this day profess your repentance towards God and your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ...,” but this statement is considerably “softer” than the original.

Two other significant changes must be noted in comparing the amended covenant with its parent. First, while Trinitarian language is present in each, it can in no way be called prominent, nor is it explicit. One has to search for it, and squint a bit to see it.

48 Second, and I suspect the most disturbing development to the eventual founders of Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, is this statement: “You believe the writing of the Old and New Testaments to be revelation of God’s will to men...”

It may well have been this deceptively innocuous little which finally caused the fabric of First Parish to be rent in two. I believe this to be the case largely because of the contrasting tone, substance, precision, and Biblical depth of what would become the founding covenant and Statement of Faith for Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre.

It is unfortunate that there is scant information available regarding the pastor who presided over the formal adoption of ECCB’s covenant and creed in 1845. His name was Amos Bullard, a graduate of Amherst College in its earliest days. Ordained by ECCB in 1843 at the age of thirty six, he was quite active in ministry before his ordination and had become fairly well known throughout Western Worcester County. Sadly he died in office after only a six year term of service in Barre. The building in which Barre Congregational Church now worships was built under his leadership, and he preached the dedication sermon for that meeting house. We cannot help but

suspect that his compilation, publication, and distribution of this creed and covenant was intended to coincide with the dedication of the new building to the Glory of God.

The 1845 tract has only four brief points on church order and membership. Its confession of faith however, is extraordinarily complete, precise, compelling, and not least of all, Biblical in the extreme. There are twelve “confessions.”

A belief in God, with nine of His attributes listed, followed by some twenty-1. eight references from the Bible.

An affirmation of the Scriptures as “...given by inspiration of God...”; that 2. they are “...our only perfect rule of doctrinal belief and religious practice.” (21 references)

(Quoting in full): “We believe the Scriptures teach that the mode of the Divine 3. existence is such as lays a foundation for the three-fold distinction, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that these three are one in essence, and equal in power and glory.” (65 references) We believe that man, as at first created, was in a state of moral rectitude; but that he voluntarily disobeyed the law of his Maker, thereby sinning and becoming subject to death.” (7 references)

We believe that, in consequence of the first Apostasy, all men are by nature entirely destitute of holiness; and though capable of moral action, they all have enmity against God, transgress his law, and are under his righteous condemnation.” (19 citations)

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death as a Mediator, has made an atonement for sin; that he is the only Redeemer of sinners; and that all who are saved, will be wholly indebted to the grace and mercy of God for their salvation.” (29 verses)

We believe that, without regeneration and a living faith in Christ, no man is justified and saved.” (17 verses)

We believe that the invitations of the gospel are such, that whosoever will, may come and take of the water of life freely; yet the wickedness of the human heart is such, that none will come to Christ, except the Holy Spirit so incline them.” (25 verses)

We believe that true Christians will not finally perish; but that, according to the eternal purpose of grace, by which they were chosen in Christ from the beginning, they will persevere through faith unto salvation.” (18 verses)

We believe that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies both of the just and of


the unjust; that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive a just a final retribution according to the deeds done in the body; that, at this day of judgment, the state of all will be unchangeably fixed; and that the misery of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous will be endless”. 5 verses cited)

We believe that Christ has a visible Church in the world, into which, none in the sight of God but real believers, and none in the sight of man but visible, have a right of admission.” (12 passages given)

We believe that the Sacraments of the New Testament are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; that only visible believers have a right of admission to the Lord’s Supper; and that only they and their households can properly receive the ordinance of Baptism.” (15 verses)

Following these statements, this is printed in italics:

Those who have not been baptized, here receive the ordinance of Baptism.”

This makes it evident that upon covenanting to join the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre each candidate stood before the assembled congregation to verbally and publicly affirm and recite hese twelve articles of faith. There was little room for theological ambiguity among these first founders.

After affirming these twelve articles of faith, the candidates for membership in Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre received the following covenant, given in the form of a charge by the Deacons and/or Pastor. It is entitled “Form of Covenant”.

You do now, in the presence of God and man, avouch the Lord Jehovah, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be your God — the object of your supreme love and your portion forever. You cordially acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as your only Savior, and the Holy Spirit as your Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide. You humbly and cheerfully devote yourself to God in the covenant of grace. You solemnly covenant not only to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, but each and all the commandments of God, to obey them. You consecrate yourself, and all you possess, to his service and glory; and, through help of divine grace, you promise that you will deny all ungodliness, and every worldly lust — that you will live soberly, righteously, and godly, even unto death.

You now cordially join yourself to this Church of Christ, engaging to submit to its discipline, to attend on its worship and ordinances, according to the rules of the gospel, and to walk with its members in Christian love, watchfulness, and purity. Thus

you covenant, promise, and engage.”

At this point in the worship service, the members were to rise, and say:

We then, as a church of the Lord Jesus Christ, receive you into our communion, and promise to watch over you with Christian tenderness and affection, ever treating you in love as a member of the body of Christ. This we do, imploring the great Shepherd of Israel, that both we and you may have wisdom and grace to be faithful in his covenant, and to glorify him in that holiness of life which becomes his house forever. Amen.”

In the unlikely event one did not have quite enough to ponder in going through this process, there is in the back of the pamphlet a series of fifteen

“Questions for Self Examination. ” In keeping with the Spirit of the articles of faith, each one contains numerous Bible references for further reflection and/or study.

During the same period of time in which the people of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre were “making confession” and thoroughly “examining the daily life,” across the green at the First Parish the following changes in heir covenant were adopted by unanimous vote of the church:

We whose names are subscribed unite together in the following faith and purpose:

Our Faith is in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God; And we hereby form ourselves into a church of his disciples that we may cooperate together in the study and practice of Christianity obviously there are glaring omissions. Any pretension of Trinitarian conviction, the sense of personal need for salvation, or a dependence upon the Holy Scriptures, have all been eliminated. Most notably absent is the word covenant itself.

Also voted that same day at First Parish (March 1, 1846):

“That invitation to the Lord’s Table be extended to all ‘who love the lord Jesus’, whether church members or no that the Communion service take place after afternoon services...”

A cursory examination of these two documents makes it abundantly clear that those who had joined with Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre (by 1845 now over 00 professing members) did so with a head, and hopefully a heart, full of solid biblical truth encased in classic evangelical language and formulation. Comparing and contrasting the early documents of these two churches strongly suggests that Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre arose directly out of a theological


awareness of its own need to define itself according to the Scriptures inside the recognized evangelical tradition.

For the first few generations, the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre continued in faithful adherence to its founding articles. At a number of different points during the nineteenth century, the church grew as a result of invited evangelists who would come in and conduct a series of meetings at which professions of faith would be sought. The church records note such meetings in 1836 due to the labors of evangelist Rev. Mr. Underwood, and in the 1850’s under several unnamed itinerants. One of the pastors, David Peck, who ministered during the years of the Civil War, was himself an evangelist and greatly increased the numbers in the church during those dark years.

54 Rev. J.D. Potter in 1871, assisting pastor Edwin Smith, held special revival meetings which were visited with “marked power.” Yet another wave of revivalism surged into town at the behest of the church during the fall and winter of 1879-1880. The whole community, it appears, was affected by the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. According to the records, “something of a revival interest continued for several years.”

55 This pattern of periodic revival stopped completely around 1900. After the turn of the century there are no further entries regarding revivals or evangelists sponsored by Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. An analysis of church covenants, faith statements, and various other documents produced by the church since that time will explain why.

Another manual of membership published by Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre was completed in 1874. It retains all of the vigor and precision of the first, but is somewhat shorter in its articles of faith, and somewhat more lengthy in its covenant. It adds six bylaws, and a brief passage on church discipline, quoting the relevant passages in the Bible as the standards by which they would conduct themselves.

In the 1874 version, the twelve points have been consolidated into ten. But now there is this statement before the confession of faith:

“All persons who unite with this church are expected to give assent to the following confession of faith and covenant.”

This is an addition to the founding document, and only makes definitive what had been assumed before. Stating it in this fashion places the responsibility of honesty and integrity squarely upon the shoulders of the candidate seeking admission in the congregation. In many ways, this confession is clearer and more succinct, with some

modernized language, and a smaller number of Bible verses for confirmation.

After the assent, this statement:

This you truly confess and heartily believe?

At this point the candidate “gives assent” by bowing.

The additions and changes to the covenant are well worth noting in detail, for they express, perhaps in gentler but no less firm terms, the purest evangelical spirit. In the context of the worship service, it is as follows:

Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten (Jeremiah 50.5). In the presence of God and this assembly, you do now freely and cordially enter into the everlasting covenant of grace.

You do confess the Father Almighty your Maker and Preserver; the Lord Jesus Christ, your Saviour and Master; and the Holy Spirit, your Sanctifier and Guide, to be your God.

You do trust only in His sovereign grace and almighty power.

And you do promise that you will henceforth faithfully endeavor to keep His commandments, and follow Him in all things; to walk with His disciples in love, and, denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(Baptism shall here be administered to those who were not baptized in infancy. The minister shall also say to those who were baptized in infancy, addressing them severally by their Christian names:)

You were consecrated to God by your believing parents in your infancy. Do you now recognize and take upon yourself the covenant which they entered into with God for you, that you should be the Lord’s?

You do now cordially join yourself to this church of Christ, pledging obedience to its rules and discipline so far as conformable to the rules of the gospel; and you solemnly covenant, as much as in you lies, to promote its peace, edification and purity, and walk with its members in Christian love.

This you truly confess and heartily engage?

[The candidates shall assent as before.


We, then, the members of this church,

[Here the members of the church shall rise. Affectionately receive you into our communion. We welcome you, in the name of Christ, to a part with us in the blessings of His covenant, and to a share in the duties, privileges and glories of His church. We promise you our love, our sympathy, our counsel and encouragement, and our prayers. In token of our confidence and sincerity, take the hand of fellowship, and remember these words which the Scripture faith:

Here the minister shall take each new member by the hand in turn, repeating some appropriate words of Scripture.

[Then, the church, still standing, the minister shall say:]

And now, beloved in the Lord, henceforth you are to be the servants of God. You have vowed unto Him, and you cannot go back. This confession of faith, and this covenant, will hold you while you live, will follow you to the bar of God, and abide with you forever.

Remember, you are not your own, but you are bought with a price, even the precious blood of Jesus Christ. You now are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.”

The Questions for Self Examination , also at the end of this updated booklet, remain unchanged. Clearly, some fifty years after its founding Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre still stood firmly and unashamedly in the center of the best Congregational heritage and the most uncompromising evangelical standards of faith.

The last time (before the 1980’s) any serious attention was given to the covenant and the form for the admission of members was in 1895. There is the following provision on the front page of this document, however, which states:

For a fuller statement of doctrines commonly held by members of this church, see the Manual published in 1874

This confession is considerably shorter than the previous two. The Bible citations have been dropped, and the language is simplified. It is still a good piece of work, but

one cannot help but think that the earlier vigorousness of theological thinking and reasoning has begun to wear thin in a culture rapidly becoming modernized. Evidently much of the language and biblically framed thought forms of their grandparents and great grandparents had begun to feel cumbersome, or archaic, or irrelevant to this new generation poised on the brink of a new century. Perhaps they intended to make church membership “easier” and more accessible to more people. Or maybe it was the first hint that the centrality of biblical literacy and theological intelligence had moved off center, towards the fringe. I believe this is the first tangible clue of what is destined to follow in the next eighty years; that is, a slow —but no less definite for being slow—drift way from the confessed faith of the founders, to the confessed “non-faith” of the Unitarians they (we) had originally left. 5

It is going too far to say this had already occurred in 1895. But it was beginning to happen. The signs are there. The lack of theological precision, especially in contrast to the first covenant, suggests trouble ahead.

Here is the confession and covenant of 1895:

DEARLY BELOVED – Our Lord Jesus has left us this cheering promise: Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. Having accepted Him as your Savior, you are now thus to confess Him and to unite with his church, henceforth to share its responsibilities and enjoy its sacred privileges.

Receiving the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as our only perfect rule of faith and practice, you confess your belief in the following doctrines as contained therein:

You believe in one true and living God, who is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

You believe in the common sinfulness of our race.

You believe that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, having taken upon himself our nature, has, by his life and example, his sufferings and death, and his intercession, provided a way of salvation, and that salvation is through Him lone.

You believe in the necessity of the renewing and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

You believe in the Christian Sabbath, and in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.


You believe in the resurrection of the dead, and a final judgment, from which he wicked “shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Do you thus believe?

[The rite of baptism will here be administered.] COVENANT

Thus confessing, in penitence for your sins, and having been baptized according to the command of Christ, you now publicly renew the consecration of yourself to Him, and enter into covenant with this church, engaging that you will endeavor with the Divine help, to give due attendance upon its service and to walk with us according to the rules of the Gospel, righteously, in Christian fidelity and in all good works.

We then the member of the church will here rise the members of this church, affectionately receive you to our communion. We welcome you in the name of Christ to a part with us in the blessings of his covenant, and to a share in the duties, privileges and glories of his church. We promise you our love, our sympathy, our counsel, our encouragement and our prayers. In token of our confidence and sincerity, take the hand of fellowship and remember these words which the Scripture faith:

[The minister here takes each new member by the hand and repeats some , passage of Scripture].

God grant that, loving and being loved, serving and being served, blessing and being blessed, we may be prepared while we dwell together on earth for the perfect fellowship of the saints above. Then follows the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6.24-26 and Jude’s benediction, v24.

This is not a heretical document, by any means. But when taken in comparison to its predecessors, and its followers, it becomes clear that the winds of change have begun to blow. The self-identity, mission, and definition of this church is in flux. The confession is no longer confessed by the candidate; merely agreed to.

In 1902, at the 7h anniversary of its founding, the Rev. Gaylord may well have felt uneasy regarding these signs of movement away from the evangelical heritage of the church, for he includes in the sermon he preached that day the not-so-subtle traces of a warning. In praising the founders for their “most devout Spirit” and the work they undertook which was “so faithfully done,” he recognizes that some mistakes may have been made by them, which can and will be corrected with time. “I fear,” he admits,

“we have lost (in) the profound sense (of ) the supreme importance of the great things of religion, and the intensity of conviction which they had.”

He bemoans the discrediting and the demise of the “revival efforts” of earlier days, with which Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre had had such a strong and successful history. He sees no problem in dispensing with the method, as long as the work of ingathering, so effectively accomplished by revivals, goes on through some other means. “Periods of coolness and deadness and materialistic tendencies will come, and out of this condition the churches must be aroused, and their spiritual life quickened, and their activities in leading men to Christ made more effective, and that means a revival.”

But the Rev. Gaylord’s warning fell on deaf ears. Twenty five years later, at the 100th anniversary celebration of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, the then current pastor Rev. Charles Crooks gave the address. In his sermon the lines have finally, and clearly, been crossed. While we cannot fairly assume that Mr. Crooks spoke for every member of the congregation, he was its pastor, serving there for fifteen years (1922-1937), ten of which were after the centennial.

“The authority of the letter of the Bible has passed away, and the authority of the Spirit of the Bible is not yet fully here. Human nature used to be considered different from and inferior to divine nature. Now human nature and divine nature are considered in their essence one and the same. Once Jesus was called the Son of God because He was different from men. Now He is called the Son of God because He is the normal man. Once His sacrifice on the cross was considered a purchase price which only God could pay; now His sacrifice is found to be the same in kind with all loving sacrifice differing only in degree.”

What would those who left First Parish because of “preaching” like this have thought to hear such words coming from the pulpit they had consecrated to the proclamation of the Word of God? The foundation which they had so labored to secure for Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre still remained, but the building erected upon that foundation was in serious disrepair. This drift away from the Scriptures continued, unabated, for the next sixty years.

Article III of the Constitution of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, in effect from approximately 1925 until 1955, reads:

We believe in the freedom and responsibility of the individual soul, and the right of private judgment. We join with the fellowship of Congregational Churches in the Declaration of Faith adopted by the National Council of Congregational Churches at Kansas City in 1913.


Declaring our steadfast allegiance to the faith with our fathers confessed, which from age to age has found its expression in the historic creeds of the Church universal and of our communion affirming our loyalty to the basic principles of our representative democracy, we hereby set forth the things most surely believed among us concerning faith, polity, and fellowship:

We believe in God the Father, infinite in wisdom, goodness and love: and in Jesus Christ His Son, our Lord and Saviour, who for us and our salvation lived and died and rose again, and liveth evermore; and in the Holy Spirit, who taketh of the things of Christ and revealeth them to us, renewing, comforting, and inspiring the souls of men. We are united in striving to know the will of God as taught in the Holy Scripture, and in our purpose to walk in the ways of the Lord, made known to us. We hold it to be the mission of the Church of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all mankind, exalting the worship of the one true God, and laboring for the progress of knowledge, the promotion of justice, the reign of peace, and the realization of human brotherhood. Depending as did our fathers upon the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, we work and pray for the transformation of the world into the kingdom of God; and we look with faith for the triumph of righteousness and the life everlasting.”

Once again it is clear. The evangelical distinctives of the church are becoming more distant with the passing of time. The clarity of biblical truth is being compromised, replaced by the thought forms, idioms, and categories more palatable to the social conversation of the time.

The covenant and bylaws under which the Barre Congregational Church operated while I was its pastor had been ratified in 1952. The covenant, while still far from the original, is less culture bound in its language, avoiding the phraseology (“...progress of knowledge...realization of human brotherhood,” etc.) of the previous generation. Sometime in the beginning of this era (post-1952), in conjunction with the adoption of the current bylaws, the name of the gathered covenant community at the North end of the town common was changed.

Evangelical was removed, and the name became the generic and inoffensive Barre Congregational Church.

Acknowledging Jesus Christ to be our Savior and Lord and accepting the Holy Scripture as our rule of faith and of practice and recognizing the privilege and duty of uniting ourselves for Christian fellowship, the enjoyment of Christian ordinances, the public worship of God, and the advancement of his kingdom in the world, we do now

in the sight of God and invoking His blessing solemnly covenant and agree with each other to associate ourselves to be a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, as warranted in the Word of God.

We agree to maintain the institution of the Gospel, to submit ourselves to the orderly administration of the affairs of the church, and to walk together in brotherly love.

And this we do depending upon the aid of our Heavenly Father, who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for our salvation; and of Jesus Christ who hath redeemed us with His blood, and the Holy Spirit, our Comforter and Guide.”

Though a sound document, it is devoid of the content and the intensity and the surety of its original ancestor. From 1952-1980 this covenant was interpreted from a radically liberal theological viewpoint, bordering on Unitarianism, in which the traditional evangelical formulations of the ECCB were not taken seriously. Indeed, they had literally been forgotten.

The final indication of how far away from biblical evangelical Christianity the church had drifted is revealed in a most revealing document. It is not “official,” but perhaps that makes it all the more telling. In 1972, after twenty years of ministry under the Rev. Illingworth, the following statement appeared in the church profile which was distributed to all prospective candidates considering the position of pastor: The Purpose of Barre Congregational Church “The Christian faith was founded with the desire to instruct and preach mercy, the brotherhood of man and teach the love of God to all.

The purpose of the church is to provide a group undertaking of religion. Organizing beliefs, based on traditions, teachings, and then share, instruct, and help the individual members to realize their values. Finally, leading the individual to not only attend church service or take part in group affairs but to carry out religious beliefs and teachings in his personal life.”

This “purpose” statement demonstrates graphically how far from its biblical origins the Barre church had wandered in 145 years. The above statement represents the church’s own self-conscious sense of life and ministry to prospective pastors. This was a religious community which no longer knew what faith as.

This was, by its own constitutional definition, a covenant church. Yet it no longer had any passion or, or connection to the covenant which had brought it into existence This church, though it had a remnant existing within its walls, was essentially apostate. It had deserted the beliefs and forgotten the principles of its founders. It was at this point


in time, some eight years later, that the author’s life and ministry intersected with that of Barre Congregational Church.

We have described the state of Barre Congregational Church when I was called to serve it in 1980. A comparison with the experience of ancient Israel is striking. Like Old Testament Israel, it had forgotten its covenant. Like Old Testament Israel, it no longer remembered that God had done for it. Like Old Testament Israel, Barre Congregational Church had lost its moorings, and needed to turn back once again to its foundations. It appeared that Barre Congregational Church, like Old Testament Israel, had lost its soul.

But like Old Testament Israel, God was not yet ready to abandon BCC. Like Old Testament Israel, the Lord was not content with the status quo. Like Old Testament Israel, God loved the covenant community calling itself Barre Congregational Church, and He would be faithful to the covenant He had entered into with it. If the church could be persuaded to repent of being “lukewarm,” return to the Lord, and renew its covenant with Him, Barre Congregational Church might yet again become what it had once been: a recognized witness giving uncompromising and unashamed testimony to the evangelical Christian faith.

It remains my conviction that God called me to Barre Congregational Church specifically for that purpose: To play the role of the New Testament pastor and the Old Testament prophet in her midst. While “gently leading those with young” and shepherding His sheep, I was also to call the church back to faithfulness to its own covenant. I assumed the pulpit thoroughly convinced that with faithful, careful preaching and teaching of the Word of God, the Lord would re-visit this wayward people. And at the heart of His visitation would be the call to repent and to return; to be renewed and be restored. God had remembered

His covenant with Barre Congregational Church, and He encouraged Barre Congregational Church to remember its covenant with Him.

The original impetus for implementing the program described in this paper was to give the people of the church a biblically clear and informed understanding of the dynamics involved in renewing one’s covenant with God. The call was not so much to return to the original documents, per se, as it was to return to the

Spirit and the faith and the truth which gave rise to them, and upon which they were based. It is neither an overstatement nor an oversimplification to say that the author’s theology of ministry is covenant renewal. The principle that God is faithful, that we

are not, and that He is merciful and forgiving when we turn back to Him, is the bedrock of every element of my personal pastoral work. Whether the initial presenting need is marital difficulty, financial woe, sickness, or spiritual oppression, the approach is simple and consistent: God is faithful. Turn and look to Him. He is merciful.

This was the central message presented to Barre Congregational Church for thirteen years. It became a vision for Barre Congregational Church, and also for the wider denomination of which we were a part, the United Church of Christ. Many of us longed to see Barre Congregational Church take on the same posture and role in its own denomination that we had taken on towards ourselves, that is, prophetic; lovingly, imploringly, but firmly and resolutely calling the denomination back to its own covenantal roots. Though it was considered an extension of my calling as pastor of a United Church of Christ church to seek to promote renewal in he denominationally gathered community as well, neither effort would bear the fruit which we had anticipated.

THE HISTORy OF bARRE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH

For its first fifty years, the town of Barre had but one church, the First Parish, established in 1778. Its covenant, in keeping with the times, was one with which most any self-designated Evangelical Christian would be comfortable. It affirms an explicit affirmation of the Holy Scriptures “acknowledging them to contain the whole revealed will of God, concerning Faith and Practice,” a mild recognition of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity (“deeply sensible of our own insufficiency for any good through the prevalence of sin that dwelleth in us and manifold temptations without”), and a stated surrender to Jesus Christ (“We give ourselves to Jesus Christ who is the Lord JEHOVAH as our Prophet, Priest, and King over our Souls, and the only Mediator of the Covenant of Grace”). It is a fine, lengthy, and well thought out document which unequivocally calls the people of the church to join together in this covenant:

“And all this we do relying on the blood of the covenant for the pardon of our sins and errors, and praying that the Glorious Lord Jesus...would by his Spirit prepare and strengthen us for every good work to do his will working in us, that which is well pleasing in his sight — to whom be Glory forever. Amen.”

To some twenty-five members of this Parish however, under the avowedly Unitarian minister Rev. James Thompson, the thrust of the church’s ministry had strayed too far from its original moorings. They sought out an ecclesiastical council to consider whether or not things could be worked out between them and the Parish at large. The

council perceived that the differences between this disheartened but determined little band, and the ministry under Rev. Thompson supported by the Parish, were indeed incompatible. The council suggested they constitute a new church. Thus those twenty-five, plus five others by profession, and two others by letter, by a council convened August 15, 1827 were organized as the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre.

Actually “in the works” at precisely this time (I suspect this may have been the final spark igniting the division) was a rewording of First Parish’s original covenant. It was ratified by the church in 1831, but was being discussed (so it would appear from the scanty church records) during he upheaval of 1827. To an unsuspecting eye of the late twentieth century, there might appear to have been little cause for alarm. Given however the extraordinary theological foment of the day, one sees what we might call today “red flags” all throughout the document.

It still retains the acknowledgment “that you have sinned and you this day profess your repentance towards God and your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” but this statement is considerably softer than the original. And there are two more things to note in particular when comparing the amended covenant with its parent. First, the Trinitarian language in each is present, but it can in no way be called prominent, nor is it explicit. One has to look for it, and stretch a bit to see it. Second is the statement on the Scriptures, which may have been the most disturbing to the founders of Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. “You believe the writing of the Old and New Testaments to be.”

I suggest that it may well have been this (deceptively) innocuous little that finally caused the fabric to be rent in two. I contend this is the case because of the tone, substance, and depth of the founding covenant of Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. Yet when I was ordained as pastor of Barre Congregational Church in 1980, this document was not even known to exist by anyone in the church. Our local historical society had no copy of it nor record of it ever having existed. I was fortunate enough to find (at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, MA — what a resource!) the (apparently) sole surviving copy of the first Articles of Faith for the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, published in 1845. (This, in conjunction with another re-write of the First Parish Covenant going on concurrently, gives a further clue to the extreme theological distinctions around which considerable pains were being taken to draw precise parameters).

It is a great loss that we have virtually no information on the pastor who presided over the adoption of this covenant and creed, for he must truly have been a fine man. His

Page 78 The History of Barre Congregational Church

name was Amos Bullard, a graduate of Amherst College in its earliest days. He died in office after only a six year term of service in Barre. The current building in which Barre Congregational Church now worships was built under his leadership, and he preached the dedication sermon for that meeting house (What I would not have given to have uncovered a copy of hat. I cannot help but assume that his compilation of this creed and covenant was intended to coincide with the dedication of the new building to the Glory of God. This would certainly fit the spirit of the church in those days.

A detailed examination of this covenant, the first adopted by the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, lays the groundwork for the ministry which was to follow some 135 years later through me. It is because the roots of Barre Congregational Church are so firmly entrenched in the Evangelical, Biblical heritage of Reformed Christianity that God was choosing to revisit us with the blessing of His Spirit. But I get ahead of myself.

The 1845 tract has but four very brief points on church order and membership. Its confession of faith however, is extraordinarily complete, precise, compelling, and not least of all, Biblical in the extreme. There are twelve “confessions.”

A belief in God, with nine of His attributes listed, followed by some twenty-1. eight references from the Bible. (The confession follows this format throughout: A statement, and then scores of Biblical references in support of the statement. The entire document lists more than 300 passages!).

An affirmation of the Scriptures as “given by inspiration of God...”; that they 2. are “our only perfect rule of doctrinal belief and religious practice.” 1 references.

(Quoting in full): “We believe the Scriptures teach that the mode of the Divine 3. existence is such as lays a foundation for the three-fold distinction, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that these three are one in essence, and equal in power and glory.” (Not convinced of this assertion Then just look up one or two of the sixty-five verses cited in support of it!).

“We believe that man, as at first created, was in a state of moral rectitude; 4. but that he voluntarily disobeyed the law of his Maker, thereby sinning and becoming subject to death.” Only seven verses for this one.

“We believe that, in consequence of the first Apostasy, all men are by nature 5. entirely destitute of holiness; and though capable of moral action, they all have enmity against God, transgress his law, and are under his righteous condemnation.” Nineteen citations.

“We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death as a Mediator, 6. has made an atonement for sin; that he is the only Redeemer of sinners; and that all who are saved, will be wholly indebted to the grace and mercy of God for their salvation.” Twenty nine verses.

“We believe that, without regeneration and a living faith in Christ, no man is 7. justified and saved.” Seventeen verses.

“We believe that the invitations of the gospel are such, that whosoever will, may 8. come and take of the water of life freely; yet the wickedness of the human heart is such, that none will come to Christ, except the Holy Spirit so incline them.” Twenty-five verses.

“We believe that true Christians will not finally perish; but that, according to 9. the eternal purpose of grace, by which they were chosen in Christ from the beginning, they will persevere through faith unto salvation.” Eighteen verses.

“We believe that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies both of the just 10. and of the unjust; that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive a just a final retribution according to the deeds done in the body; that, at this day of judgment, the state of all will be unchangeably fixed; and that the misery of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous will be endless”. Fifty-five verses cited.

“We believe that Christ has a visible Church in the world, into which, none in 11. the sight of God but real believers, and none in the sight of man but visible, have a right of admission.” Twelve passages given.

“We believe that the Sacraments of the New Testament are Baptism and the 12. Lord’s Supper; that only visible believers have a right of admission to the Lord’s Supper; and that only they and their households can properly receive the ordinance of Baptism.” Fifteen verses.

Following these statements, there is then printed this in italics: Those who have not been baptized, here receive the ordinance of Baptism.” This makes it evident that upon covenanting to join the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, each candidate was, before the assembled congregation, to verbally and publicly affirm and recite hese twelve articles of faith. There was little room for theological ambiguity among these first founders.

After affirming these twelve articles of faith, the candidates for membership in


Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre receive the following covenant, given in the form of a charge by the Deacons and/or Pastor. It is entitled “Form of Covenant”.

“You do now, in the presence of God and man, avouch the Lord Jehovah, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be your God — the object of your supreme love and your portion forever. You cordially acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as your only Savior, and the Holy Spirit as your Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide. You humbly and cheerfully devote yourself to God in the covenant of grace. You solemnly covenant not only to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, but each and all the commandments of God, to obey them. You consecrate yourself, and all you possess, to his service and glory; and, through help of divine grace, you promise that you will deny all ungodliness, and every worldly lust — that you will live soberly, righteously, and godly, even unto death.

You now cordially join yourself to this Church of Christ, engaging to submit to its discipline, to attend on its worship and ordinances, according to the rules of the gospel, and to walk with its members in Christian love, watchfulness, and purity. Thus you covenant, promise, and engage.”

At this point in the worship service, the members of the church are to rise, and say:

“We then, as a church of the Lord Jesus Christ, receive you into our communion, and promise to watch over you with Christian tenderness and affection, ever treating you in love as a member of the body of Christ. This we do, imploring the great Shepherd of Israel, that both we and you may have wisdom and grace to be faithful in his covenant, and to glorify him in that holiness of life which becomes his house forever. Amen.”

In the event that one did not have enough to think about in going through this process, there is in the back of the pamphlet a series of fifteen “Questions for Self Examination”. In keeping with the Spirit of the articles of faith, each one contains Bible references for further study. Question 1 for instance: “Do I study the Scriptures? And do I willingly renounce all opinions and principles which are contrary to them?” Or “Am I on guard against errors and delusions, and the many voices of the deceiver, that would seduce me from the truth as it is in Jesus?” 5 is subtle as a brick: “Is my faith a living, fruit bearing faith, or is it like the barren fig tree, showing only the leaves of an empty profession?” 14 might cause a shudder or two: “What evidence have I in my daily life, that I love the Lord Jesus Christ, and am one of his?”

At the same time these people were thoroughly examining their “daily life” and making this confession at Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, across the green at the First Parish the following changes in the covenant were adopted by unanimous vote of

the church:

“We whose names are subscribed unite together in the following faith and purpose: Our Faith is in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God; And we hereby form ourselves into a church of his disciples that we may cooperate together in the study and practice of Christianity.”

That’s it. Blaring like a siren are the omissions of any semblance of Trinitarian conviction, a sense of personal need for salvation, any dependence upon the Holy Scriptures, or — most notably — even the word covenant itself.

Also voted that same day at First Parish (March 1, 1846):

“That invitation to the Lord’s Table be extended to all ‘who love the lord Jesus’, whether church members or not” “...that the Communion service take place after afternoon services...” (so as not to offend, one wonders)?

A comparison of these two documents makes it abundantly clear that those who had joined with Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre (now up to over 00 professing members) did so with a head (and hopefully a heart) full of solid Biblical truth encased in classic Evangelical language and formulation. Not so the now essentially Unitarian members of First Parish.

Comparing and contrasting the early documents of these two churches makes the point that Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre arose directly out of a theological awareness of its need to define itself according to the Scriptures in the classic Evangelical tradition. This is the original identity of what (we shall soon see) has come to be known as Barre Congregational Church. It was back to this identity I believed God was calling the church. As its pastor, I was to be the Lord’s principle architect in that process.

And so it was for the first few generations of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. At a number of different points during the nineteenth century, the church would grow as a result of sponsoring evangelists to come in and conduct a series of meetings at which professions of faith would be sought. The church records note such meetings in 1836 due to the labors of evangelist Rev. Mr. Underwood, and in the 1850’s under a couple of unnamed evangelists. One of the pastors, David Peck, who ministered during the years of the Civil War, was himself an evangelist and greatly increased the numbers in the church during those dark years (not an entirely isolated phenomenon in those desperate times, to be sure). A Rev. J.D. Potter in 1871, assisting the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre pastor Edwin Smith, held


special revival meetings which were visited with “marked power.” Yet another surge of revivalism blasted into town at the behest of Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre during the Fall and Winter or 1879-1880. The whole town, it appears, was affected by the ministrations of the Holy Spirit According to the records, “something of a revival interest continued for several years.” It stopped, it seems, in 1900. There are no more entries of any evangelists being sponsored by Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre to come into town and help grow the churches.

An analysis of church covenants, faith statements, and various other documents as they evolved dissolved?) over the years shows how the church — in its infancy so fervently and clear-heatedly Evangelical in its approach and Biblical in its footings — slowly drifted away from its sure foundation, eroding its sense of mission and purpose.

The next manual of membership published by Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre was completed in 1874. It retains all of the vigor and precision of the first, but is somewhat shorter in its articles of faith, and somewhat more lengthy in its covenant. It adds six bylaws, and a brief passage on church discipline, quoting the relevant passages in the Bible as the standards by which they would conduct themselves. “The rule of discipline in this church is that given by Christ, as recorded in Matthew 18.15-18.” Simple enough.

In the 1874 version, the twelve points have been consolidated into ten. But now there is this statement before the confession of faith:

“All persons who unite with this church are expected to give assent to the following confession of faith and covenant.”

This is an addition to the founding document, and only makes definitive what was assumed before, but in so stating puts the onus of honesty clearly upon the shoulders of the candidate seeking admission in the congregation. In many ways, this confession is clearer and more succinct, with some “updated” language, and a smaller number of Bible verses for confirmation.

After the “assent”, the statement: “This you truly confess and heartily believe?”

At this point the candidate gives “assent” by bowing.

The additions and changes to the covenant are well worth noting in detail, for they express, perhaps in gentler but no less firm terms, the purest evangelical spirit. In the format of the worship service, it is as follows:

“Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be

forgotten (Jeremiah 50.5). In the presence of God and this assembly, you do now freely and cordially enter into the everlasting covenant of grace. {NOTE: In keeping with the Puritan tradition, to enter into the covenant of a church was to affirm that one had already entered into the covenant of grace}.

You do confess the Father Almighty your Maker and Preserver; the Lord Jesus Christ, your Saviour and Master; and the Holy Spirit, your Sanctifier and Guide, to be your God.

You do trust only in His sovereign grace and almighty power.

And you do promise that you will henceforth faithfully endeavor to keep His commandments, and follow Him in all things; to walk with His disciples in love, and, denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(Baptism shall here be administered to those who were not baptized in infancy. The minister shall also say to those who were baptized in infancy, addressing them severally by their Christian names:)

You were consecrated to God by your believing parents in your infancy. Do you now recognize and take upon ourself the covenant which they entered into with God for you, that you should be the Lord’s?

You do now cordially join yourself to this church of Christ, pledging obedience to its rules and discipline so far as conformable to the rules of the gospel; and you solemnly covenant, as much as in you lies, to promote its peace, edification and purity, and walk with its members in Christian love.

This you truly confess and heartily engage? The candidates shall assent as before We, then, the members of this church, Here the members of the church shall rise affectionately receive you into our communion. We welcome you, in the name of Christ, to a part with us in the blessings of His covenant, and to a share in the duties, privileges and glories of His church. We promise you our love, our sympathy, our counsel and encouragement, and our prayers.

In token of our confidence and sincerity, take the hand of fellowship, and remember these words which the Scripture faith: - Here the minister shall take each new member by the hand in turn, repeating some appropriate words of Scripture.

Then, the church, still standing, the minister shall say “And now, beloved in the Lord,


henceforth you are to be the servants of God. You have vowed unto Him, and you cannot go back. This confession of faith, and this covenant, will hold you while you live, will follow you to the bar of God, and abide with you forever.”

Remember, you are not your own, but you are bought with a price, even the precious blood of Jesus Christ. You now are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.”

The “Questions for Self Examination”, also at the end of this updated booklet, remain unchanged.

Clearly, some fifty years after its founding, Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre still stands squarely and unashamedly in the center of the best Congregational heritage and the most uncompromising Evangelical standards of faith.

The last time (before my ministry) that any serious attention was given to the covenant and the form for the admission of members was in 1895. There is the provision in this document, however, on the front page, which states:

“For a fuller statement of doctrines commonly held by members of this church, see the Manual published in 1874.”

This confession is considerably shorter than the previous two. The Bible citations have been dropped, and the language is simplified. It is still a good piece of work, but one cannot help but think that the earlier vigorousness of theological thinking and reasoning has begun to wear thin in a culture rapidly become “modernized.” Evidently much of the language and Biblically framed thought forms of their grandparents and great grandparents had begun to feel “cumbersome” to this new generation poised on the brink of a new century. Perhaps they wanted to travel light, go easy, or just plain

“simplify” things. Or maybe it is the first hint that the centrality of Biblical literacy and theological intelligence has moved off center, towards the fringe. I believe it is the first tangible clue of what is destined to follow in the next eighty years; that is, a slow to be sure — but no less definite for being slow — drift way from the confessed faith of the founders, to the confessed “non-faith” of the Unitarians they (we) had originally left.

It is going too far to say that this ad already happened in 1895. But I think it was

beginning to happen in 1895. The signs are there. The lack of theological precision (while we are under no illusions that such precision aves suggests trouble ahead.

Here is the confession and covenant of 1895:

DEARLY BELOVED - Our Lord Jesus has left us this cheering promise: Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. Having accept Him as your Savior, you are now thus to confess Him and to unite with his church, henceforth to share its responsibilities and enjoy its sacred privileges.

Receiving the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as our only perfect rule of faith and practice, you confess your belief in the following doctrines as contained therein:

You believe in one true and living God, who is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

You believe in the common sinfulness of our race.

You believe that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, having taken upon himself our nature, has, by his life and example, his sufferings and death, and his intercession, provided a way of salvation, and that salvation is through Him alone.

You believe in the necessity of the renewing and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

You believe in the Christian Sabbath, and in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

You believe in the resurrection of the dead, and a final judgment, from which the wicked “shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Do you thus believe?

The rite of baptism will here be administered.

COvENANT

Thus confessing, in penitence for your sins, and having been baptized according to the command of Christ, you now publicly renew the consecration of yourself to Him, and enter into covenant with this church, engaging that you will endeavor with the Divine help, to give due attendance upon its service and to walk with us according to the rules of the Gospel, righteously, in Christian fidelity and in all good works.

We then the member of the church will here rise the members of this church, affectionately receive you to our communion. We welcome you in the name of Christ to a part with us in the blessings of his covenant, and to a share in the duties, privileges and glories of his church. We promise you our love, our sympathy, our counsel, our encouragement and our prayers. In token of our confidence and sincerity, take the hand of fellowship and remember these words which the Scripture faith:

The minister here takes each new member by the hand and repeats some passage of Scripture.

God grant that, loving and being loved, serving and being served, blessing and being blessed, we may be prepared while we dwell together on earth for the perfect fellowship of the saints above.

Then follows the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6.24-26 and Jude’s benediction, v24.

Not a heretical document, by any means. But when taken in comparison to its predecessors, and its followers, it becomes clear that the winds of change have begun to blow. The self-identity, mission, and definition of this church is in flux. The

“confession” is no longer confessed by the candidate; merely greed to.

In 1902, at the 7h anniversary of its founding, the Rev. Gaylord may well have sensed something of this uneasiness in his own spirit, for he contains in that sermon the not-so-subtle trace of a warning. In praising the founders for their “most devout Spirit” and the work they undertook which was so “faithfully done,” he recognizes that some mistakes may have been made by them, which can and will be corrected with time. “I fear,” he admits, “we have lost (in) the profound sense (of ) the supreme importance of the great things of religion, and the intensity of conviction which they had.”

He bemoans the discrediting and the demise of the “revival efforts” of earlier days, with which Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre has had such a strong and successful history. He sees no problem in dispensing with the method as long as the work of ingathering, so effectively accomplished by revivals, goes on through some other means. “Periods of coolness and deadness and materialistic tendencies will come, and out of this condition the churches must be aroused, and their spiritual life quickened, and their activities in leading men to Christ made more effective, and that means a revival.”

But the Rev. Gaylord’s foretoken was to fall on deaf ears. Twenty five years later, at the 100th anniversary celebration of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, the then current pastor Rev. Charles Crooks gave the address. In his sermon the lines have finally, and clearly, been crossed. While we cannot fairly assume that Mr. Crooks spoke for every member of the congregation, he was the pastor, and served there for some fifteen years — another ten after the centennial.

“The authority of the letter of the Bible has passed away,” he said, “and the authority of the Spirit of the Bible is not yet fully here. Human nature used to be considered different from and inferior to divine nature. Now human nature and divine nature are considered in their essence one and the same. Once Jesus was called the Son of God because He was different from men. Now He is called the Son of God because He is the normal man. Once His sacrifice on the cross was considered a purchase price which only God could pay; now His sacrifice is found to be the same in kind with all loving sacrifice differing only in degree.”

What would those who left First Parish because of “preaching” like this have thought to have heard such words coming from the pulpit they had consecrated to the proclamation of the Word of God? The foundation which they had so labored to secure for Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre still remained, but the building had been knocked off of it. This drift away from the Scriptures continued, unabated

Page 88 Covenant

as far as I can glean from succeeding pastorates and records, through the remainder of the twentieth century.

The language of progress, positivistic social evolution, and national destiny — so pervasive in our culture today — has at least some small roots in Liberal Congregationalism in New England. Article III of the Constitution of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, in effect from approximately 1925 until 1955 is entitled “Faith.”

“We believe in the freedom and responsibility of the individual soul, and the right of private judgment. We join with the fellowship of Congregational Churches in the Declaration of Faith adopted by the National Council of Congregational Churches at Kansas City in 1913.

Declaring our steadfast allegiance to the faith with our fathers confessed, which from age to age has found its expression in the historic creeds of the Church universal and of our communion affirming our loyalty to the basic principles of our representative democracy, we hereby set forth the things most surely believed among us concerning faith, polity, and fellowship:

“We believe in God the Father, infinite in wisdom, goodness and love: and in Jesus Christ His Son, our Lord and Saviour, who for us and our salvation lived and died and rose again, and liveth evermore; and in the Holy Spirit, who taketh of the things of Christ and revealeth them to us, renewing, comforting, and inspiring the souls of men. We are united in striving to know the will of God as taught in the Holy Scripture, and in our purpose to walk in the ways of the Lord, made known to us. We hold it to be the mission of the Church of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all mankind, exalting the worship of the one true God, and laboring for the progress of knowledge, the promotion of justice, the reign of peace, and the realization of human brotherhood. Depending as did our fathers upon the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, we work and pray for the transformation of the world into the kingdom of God; and we look with faith for the triumph of righteousness and the life everlasting.”

The covenant and bylaws under which the Barre Congregational Church operated while I was its pastor were ratified in 1952. The covenant, while still a far cry from the original, is less “culture bound” in its language, avoiding the “buzzwords” of the previous generation, most of whom thought they had just lived through the “war to end all wars.” Sometime in the beginning of this era (post-1952), in conjunction with the adoption of the current bylaws, the name of the “gathered community” at the

North end of the town common was changed. The Scandalon of “Evangelical” was dropped, and that group became the generic and inoffensive Barre Congregational Church.

“Acknowledging Jesus Christ to be our Savior and Lord and accepting the Holy Scripture as our rule of faith and of practice and recognizing the privilege and duty of uniting ourselves for Christian fellowship, the enjoyment of Christian ordinances, the public worship of God, and the advancement of his kingdom in the world, we do now in the sight of God and invoking His blessing solemnly covenant and agree with each other to associate ourselves to be a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, as warranted in the Word of God.¨

We agree to maintain the institution of the Gospel, to submit ourselves to the orderly administration of the affairs of the church, and to walk together in brotherly love.

And this we do depending upon the aid of our Heavenly Father, who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for our salvation; and of Jesus Christ who hath redeemed us with His blood, and the Holy Spirit, our Comforter and Guide.”

Again, this is not a bad document. It is just devoid of the content and the intensity and the surety of its original ancestor. But the final indication of the slide away from Biblical Evangelical Christianity shows up in a most innocuous document; not “official,” but all the more telling for it. In 1972, after twenty years of ministry under the Rev. Illingworth, this statement appeared in the church profile which was distributed to any prospective candidates considering applying for the position of pastor:

The Purpose of Barre Congregational Church“The Christian faith was founded with the desire to instruct and preach mercy, the brotherhood of man and teach the love of God to all. The purpose of the church is to provide a group undertaking of religion. Organizing beliefs, based on traditions, teachings, and then share, instruct, and help the individual members to realize their values. Finally, leading the individual to not only attend church service or take part in group affairs but to carry out religious beliefs and teachings in his personal life.”

To my mind nothing demonstrates more graphically how far from home this church had strayed in its 145 years when it decided to have the above statement represent its own sense of itself to prospective pastors. This was a community of faith which no longer knew what faith as.

Page 90 Covenant

This was a covenant church which no longer had any passion or connection to the covenant with God which had brought it into existence This was a church which, while a remnant id exist within its walls, was essentially apostate. It had deserted the beliefs and principles of its founders. This is the state in which I found Barre Congregational Church eight years later in 1980 when I was called to serve it. Like Old Testament Israel, it had forgotten its covenant. Like Old Testament Israel, it no longer remembered that God had done for her. Like Old Testament Israel, Barre Congregational Church had lost its moorings, and needed to turn once again back to the ancient ways. Like Old Testament Israel, this church had lost its soul.

But like Old Testament Israel, God was not about to abandon it. Like Old Testament Israel, the Lord was not going to simply allow it to dissolve into a non-entity. Like Old Testament Israel, God loved the covenant community calling itself Barre Congregational Church and He would be faithful to the covenant He had entered into with it. If only she would turn again, and return to the Lord, and renew her covenant with Him, she might be restored.

I believe with every fiber of my being — and the events of the last two years have only served to confirm that conviction — that God called me to Barre Congregational Church specifically for that purpose: To play the role of the prophet. While “gently leading those with young” and shepherding His sheep, calling them back to faithfulness to their covenant. I assumed the pulpit thoroughly convinced that with faithful, careful preaching and teaching of the Word of God, the Lord would re-visit this wayward people. And at the heart of His visitation would be the call to repent and to return; to be renewed and be restored. God has remembered His covenant with Barre Congregational Church. He sought to encourage Barre Congregational Church to remember its covenant with Him.

The original reason for engaging in the project was to further that work; to give the people of the church an understanding of the dynamics of change involved in returning to God. The call was not so much to return to the original documents, per se, as it was to return to the Spirit and the faith and the truth which gave rise to them.

My ministry was the first evangelically oriented work — bearing the same Spirit and the same vision as the founders of the church — in living memory. And from what I have been able to gather from information regarding my predecessors, the first in at least fifty years, and quite possibly much longer than that.

It is neither an overstatement nor an oversimplification to say that my theology of ministry is covenant renewal. The principle that God is faithful, that we are not, and

that He is merciful and forgiving when we turn back to Him, is the bedrock of my personal pastoral work with every individual God has ever brought across my path. Whether the initial “presenting need” is a marriage problem, financial woe, sickness, or spiritual oppression, the approach is simple: God is faithful. Turn and look to Him. He is merciful.

As pastor of Barre Congregational Church this was my overriding message for 13 years. It was my vision for Barre Congregational Church, and also my vision for the wider denomination of which we were a part, the United Church of Christ. I wanted to see Barre Congregational Church take on the same posture and role in its own denomination that I had taken as pastor of Barre Congregational Church — prophetic: lovingly, imploringly, but firmly and resolutely calling the denomination back to its own covenantal roots. I considered it an extension of my calling as pastor of a United Church of Christ church to seek to promote renewal in that “gathered community” as well.

This model of covenant renewal is one model clearly spelled out for us in Scripture for all churches everywhere. The sooner we heed it, the sooner His mercies shall visit us.

CHApTER TwO FOOT NOTES

Henry Dexter, Congregationalism - What It Is; Whence It Is; How It Works 1. (Boston: Nichols Noyes, 1865), 13.

Gaius Glenn Atkins and Frederick Fagley, History of American Congregationalism 2. (Boston and Chicago: Pilgrim Press, 12), 15.

Quoted in Leland Ryken, Wordly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were 3. (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1986), 114.

Perry Miller, The New England Mind - The 17th Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 4. 1939), 433.

Ryken, 117.5.

Ibid., 132.6.

Henry Stout, The New England Soul (New York and Oxford: Oxford University 7. Press, 1986), we

Miller, 432-462. This chapter is the best summery on the Puritan defense for local 8. covenanting.

Ryken, 117.9.

Peter Y. De Jong, The Covenant Idea in New England Theology (Grand Rapids: 10. Eerdmans, 15). See pages 15-73 for a concise survey of the various contributing influences from both movements.

Atkins and Fagley, 33.11.

Ibid., 393-3.12.

I have been unable to locate in any of the literature I have examined even a mention of the possibility that God might not honor a covenant so entered into by individuals seeking to call themselves a church. It appears to be axiomatic - at least among those in the congregational movement, that He will.

(Missing)13.

De Jong, 49. “Rather than considering it a specific dogma or doctrine of the 14. church, we should regard it as a basic motif or pattern controlling and modifying various doctrines..” Covenant was what we might call today a “world view”.

David Lewis Bebee, “The Seals of the Covenant: The Doctrine and Place of the 15. Sacraments and Censures in the New England Puritan Theology Underlying the Cambridge Platform of 164 (Th.D. diss., Pacific School of Religion, 1966), 195.

Rev. William Goold, ed.,“The Works of John Owen, DD. Vol XVI (Edinburgh: 16. To To Clark, 1862), 5.

Ibid., 7.17.

Ibid., 7.18.

William Barton, Congregational Creeds and Covenants (Chicago: Advance 19. Publishing Company, 1917), 122.

Louis Gunnemann, The Shaping of the United Church of Christ (New York: 20. United Church Press, 1977), 08. In explaining the confession of faith by which the United Church of Christ is constituted he says, “...it is designed to be testimony and not a test, of faith.” I have frequently heard it voiced by former UCC colleagues that the denomination “is not a creedal church, but a covenanting church.”

It is particularly with the rise of the Unitarian controversy at the turn of the 21. nineteenth century that we begin to see explicit creedal statements being added to covenants.

Stout, 18. Y‘22.

Quoted by Williston Walker, History of the Congregational Churches, vol. 23. 3,American Church History Series (New York: Christian Literature Co., 18), 116.

Page 94 Chapter Two Foot Notes

Bebee, 187.24.

Ibid., 186.25.

Ibid., 179.26.

Ibid., 184.27.

Ibid., 179.28.

Ibid., 181.29.

At least, this is what it should mean. But the problem of “theological dilution,” not 30. originally foreseen by the founding congregational fathers, and much more clearly perceived by their descendants at the opening of the 19th century, is barely even acknowledged by the current regime in the United Church of Christ. The form of covenant may remain, but the substance is gone.

Stout, 9.31.

Ibid., 97.32.

Ibid., 98.33.

Ibid., 17634.

Ibid., 177.35.

Ibid., 177. 36.

Ibid., 54.37.

For a good overview and thorough discussion of the principle issues in the 38. Unitarian controversy at the turn of the century see

Frank Hugh Foster, A Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), 80ff. Also Atkins and Fagley, 132ff. Also Walker, 344ff. Also George Willis Cooke, Unitarianism in America (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1902), 92ff.

Jacob Meyer, Church and State in Massachusetts 0-1833 (New York: Russell 39. Russell, 1930, reissued 1968), 173.

Cooke, 107.”d 40.

41. Ibid., 118. Whether First Parish in Barre immediately followed suit in this first 41.

wave is not known. The official church records are silent (though tongues probably were not). Regardless, the storm that was gathering was about to break.

(missing)42.

Walker, 320. The impact of this turmoil and the subsequent need for theological 43. clarity and precision among Trinitarians is reflected in some of the early church documents of Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre.

This would be true of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre.44.

Quoted in Meyer, 180.45.

Church documents for First Parish, Barre are held by the Barre Historical Society. 46. This information was compiled by an extensive examination of all available records.

I suspect this may have been the final spark igniting the division. 47.

“You believe in the one only living and true God, whom you acknowledge and adore, as 48. the Creator, Upholder, and Governor of all things. You acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the son of God and Savior of men, and believe in that method of salvation exhibited in his Gospel. You believe the writing of the Old and New Testament to be a revelation of God’s will to men, and promise that you will endeavor through the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit, to understand the doctrines and practice the duties therein contained.”

When I was ordained as pastor of Barre Congregational Church in 1980, this 49. document was not even known to exist by anyone in the church. The local historical society had no copy of it, nor record of it ever having been in print. I was fortunate enough to find (at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, MA — what a resource!) the (apparently) sole surviving copy of the first Articles of Faith for the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre, published in 1845. This, in conjunction with another second re-write of the First Parish Covenant going on concurrent to this publication, gives a further clue to the extreme theological distinctions around which considerable pains were being taken to draw precise parameters.

What I would not have given to have uncovered a copy of that I tried, searching 50. through a number of possible sources (AAS, Harvard, ANTS, Amherst, etc.), to no avail. I did find in the Amherst College archives, however, a pamphlet Bullard published in 1848. On Christmas night 1847, his fourth year in Barre, Bullard delivered a sermon entitled The Glory of the Gospel.

Page 96 Chapter Two Foot Notes

It is thirty pages long, and brilliant. One can easily sense the man’s staunch faith, clear scholarly logic, adamant adherence to Scripture, and joyful grasp of the principles of redemption.

The confession follows this format throughout: A statement, and then scores of 51. Biblical references in support of the statement. The entire document lists more than 300 passages!

Question 1 for instance: “Do I study the Scriptures? And do I willingly renounce 52. all opinions and principles which are contrary to them? ” Or“ Am I on guard against errors and delusions, and the many voices of the deceiver, that would seduce me from the truth as it is in Jesus?” 5 is subtle as a brick: “Is my faith a living, fruit bearing faith, or is it like the barren fig tree, showing only the leaves of an empty profession?” 14 might cause a shudder or two: “What evidence have I in my daily life, that I love the Lord Jesus Christ, and am one of his?

So as not to offend, one presumes? 53.

Not an isolated phenomenon in those desperate times, to be sure.54.

Gaylord, Rev. J.F. “A Sketch of the History of the Evangelical Congregational 55. Church, Barre Mass. 1827-1902”. Barre Historical Society, Barre, Massachusetts.

In keeping with the Puritan tradition, to enter into the covenant of a church was 56. to affirm that one had already entered into the covenant of grace. 7. Gaylord, 2-24. 958. Crooks, Rev. Charles M. “Historical Address. August 14, 1927”. Barre Historical Society, Barre, Massachusetts, 30.

CHApTER THREE INTRO

Project Theology

The question addressed by this thesis is this: Can a church which has lost its evangelical vision be renewed by calling it to return to the doctrinal and behavioral demands of its founding covenant? The reasons for pursuing covenant renewal in BCC were previously stated in the Introduction, “The Problem In Its Setting.” The biblical justification for doing so was presented in Chapter One, “A Theology of Ministry.” The historical validity and doctrinal significance of such an approach has been delineated in Chapter Two, “The Covenant History Of A New England Congregational Church.” We now turn to an attempt to answer the question through the implementation of this project.

The first step in moving BCC toward a renewal of its covenant was to share the specifics of the proposed plan with the Deaconate. In January 1993 I outlined for the Deacons what I believed could be done to educate the entire congregation about its own legacy: a church-wide examination, during worship and in follow-up discussions, of the founding covenant of BCC and its subsequent revisions. This exercise might then lead, if it seemed timely, to a specially designated worship service for the renewal of our covenant.

I explained in some detail the reasons for adopting this plan, which prompted a good deal of lively discussion. A few of the members believed it should be the prerogative and responsibility of the congregation to define and decide its covenant. I suggested, given the Biblical definition of covenant, that precisely the opposite was the case. According to congregational polity based on Scripture, the covenant defines, describes,

Page 98 Chapter Three Intro: Project Theology

and binds the congregation that inherits it.

I then led the Deacons through a detailed outline for each one of the four sermons I intended to preach. The series would begin by building a Biblical understanding of what a covenant is, and what it means. It would conclude four weeks later with an analysis of the covenant at BCC and what it ought to mean for our corporate life.

Though a handful of church members held a hazy recollection of the covenant revision and name change of 1952 (from ECCB to BCC), it had become clear to me that the people as a whole did not perceive their church association in terms of biblical covenant at all. This was also true of the more recent additions to the church rolls, mainly new and younger converts to the faith.

3 I explained to the Deacons that it had become my conviction that we as a church needed to determine together at this pivotal juncture in our history what place the covenant would hold in our present and future life together. Every person on the twelve member Deaconate, even those disagreeing with my analysis of the conflict within BCC, recognized that we had to “do something”— and soon. I was able to persuade them that this project would at least help define the issue, and give us some common language for our ongoing debate.

I proposed that we set aside the month of March for this project. The sermons (as outlined to them) would be preached during worship as usual, followed by an open discussion period with time for questions and answers. This format was designed to give the congregation unhindered opportunity for clarification on any point regarding matters raised in the sermon.

Transcripts, audio and video tapes of the sermons would be made available for those unable to attend any one of the four Sundays. A letter would be sent to the membership of the whole congregation in February inviting and encouraging everyone to make an extra effort to be present for each session [Appendix C]. Copies of each of the five published covenants and three statements of faith would also be made available to anyone who wanted to further study them, and particularly for those planning to join in the follow-up discussions. With the exception of two members who were hesitant about the potential for even more theological controversy to erupt as a result of this series, the Deaconate was enthusiastic about the project and were among the most consistent and active participants in the follow up discussions. The two deacons who were doubtful about the methodology nonetheless supported the project and agreed that it was well planned and timely. As things would turn out, the Blizzard of 1993 came in the middle of March and threw off our carefully timed

schedule. This necessitated having the fourth sermon on the first Sunday of April, Palm Sunday. In the providence of God this added blessing upon blessing to us for reasons which were alluded to in Chapter One, and will be further elaborated upon in Chapter Four.

The initial sermon in the four part series was delivered March 7 [Appendix D]. Its theme was the idea and centrality of covenant in Scripture. What is a covenant? How does it work? What does it mean? The covenant of marriage was employed as the principal analogy to the biblical principle of covenant with God. The two elements common to every covenant were stressed.

First there is the aspect of covenant as binding contract. In marriage, this is the performance of the wedding ceremony. Whether in a church or a living room, vows are taken. Witnesses must be present. The state sanctions the decision. A new entity

-a legally recognized marriage—is born. With Christians, becoming a child of God is an equally simple and (many would say) public matter. One prays “a sinner’s prayer,” or comes forward at an alter call, or by some other means affirms that he or she has chosen to follow Jesus Christ. In God’s mind, such a decision is “legally binding.” He recognizes it, sanctifies it, blesses it, and expects it to be honored in faithfulness. But a wedding does not a marriage make. Likewise one’s decision for Christ is only the beginning of one’s life in God.

There is, secondly, the daily “living out” of the relationship created by the covenant. Covenant, as defined in the Bible and experienced in marriage, means commitment, fidelity, and love. This is what makes a marriage. It is also what makes a Christian, and a church.

When we enter into covenant with God through faith, we automatically enter into covenant with all other believers as well. The local church is God’s chosen and designated manifestation of community in covenant with Himself. How we express that reveals the true nature and extent of our commitment.

The sermon concluded with this principle: When we fall short of our marriage vows, the remedy is to repent, ask forgiveness, and renew those same vows. It is the same with God. When we wander away from the covenant we have made with Him-and we always will—we are to acknowledge our failure by repenting, pleading for mercy (being assured of its abundant bestowal), and renewing our covenant with Him. I stated my conviction that I believed it was time for BCC to do exactly that is a congregation. This first worship service, ending with the sharing of the Lord’s Table, laid the groundwork for Sermon , Covenant renewal from Joshua 4.


The first after-worship discussion held (each one lasted approximately forty-five minutes) was the best attended of the four. It was a disappointment to myself and the deacons that the number of people declined each week. But at this meeting there were some fifty participants, including every member of the Deaconate. The conversation was lively, with several questions being asked about the idea of covenant. (Copies of the covenant documents themselves were not distributed at this first meeting on March 7, but at the next one March 1). The major questions posed at this meeting:

Q: Was anything ever signed?

A: Unfortunately, we do not know. We have no such documentation.

Q: Isn’t it Jesus Christ with whom we are in covenant, and not a document?

A: Yes. Exactly. But the person of Jesus Christ, who He is, and how he is defined, as content. That is why this statement of faith/covenant spells it out so

Explicitly regarding the nature of God, Man, and redemption.

I went on to explain that due to the circumstances surrounding the birth of the church, coming as it did out of Unitarianism, our forefathers felt it necessary to make elaborate and precise documents in order to protect the church from doctrinal heresy. I described some of the theological fervor in New England during that period, suggesting the people of Barre may well have been swept up in it.

Q: Where did this original document come from? Do we know who wrote it? Did a minister present it? Did the congregation develop it?

A: I have been unable to find the answers to these questions.

We ended with a reminder of the emphasis upon commitment in covenant keeping. That, in essence, is what covenant means.

Those who participated in this first foray into our heritage (and future?) were quite enthusiastic and anxious to get hold of the original covenant and statement of faith for their own study. The theme of Sermon [Appendix E] was the Biblical imperative upon each successive generation of believers to renew the covenant of its predecessors, taking it on afresh as their own. Using the example of covenant renewal in Joshua 4, I argued that we in BCC stood in much the same position to God as did the Israelites in that passage. They were the descendants of those who had personally entered into covenant with God. They themselves (with the exceptions of Joshua’s and Caleb’s clans) had not seen what God had done in bringing their parents and grandparents out of Egypt, nor

how He had entered into covenant with them at Sinai, nor how He had provided for them in the wilderness with manna from heaven. Yet Joshua was calling upon them to choose to serve the same Lord in accordance with the same covenant their parents had taken.

Those of us in BCC in 1993 were not present when our forefathers left the First Parish in 1827 because it had abandoned its covenant with God and adopted Unitarianism. We were not there in 1845 when the covenant of ECCB was formally adopted, nor in 1874 when it was reaffirmed with even more vigor. Yet that covenant remains binding upon us who inherited it. Like the Israelites of Joshua’s day, we must now choose to take upon ourselves the covenant which brought BCC into existence, making it our own. Without our intentional adherence to that covenant, we could in no way presume God’s blessing upon any of our efforts. If we truly desired to understand our mission, our identity, and our purpose, we would need to renew and reaffirm our own founding covenant.

The second meeting for the purpose of discussion was attended by some twenty-five people, little more than half of those who had been there the week before. While this drop in numbers was somewhat disappointing, the quality of conversation was not. At the beginning of the session reprinted copies of the original Statement of Faith and Covenant of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre were passed out to all present. I read through the document as they followed along, making points of clarification where necessary (as in archaic words and/or phrases).

Following this introduction there was a lively exchange, which would carry over into the next two sessions, on Article 11: We believe that Christ has a visible Church in the world, into which, none in the sight of God but real believers, and none in the sight of man but visible, have a right of admission.

What is the meaning of the phrase...visible church...several wanted to know? Did these people “pick and choose” who was to be considered a Christian, and who was not? If so, how did they decide? And isn’t that “judging?” And who determines what “... in the sight of man...” means? Doesn’t this imply that someone would have to make a determination as to whether or not one was living a sufficiently “Christian” life, before one could be accepted into full membership of the church? One of the participants put it like this: “When someone says, ‘I am a Christian’, and affirms this statement of faith, is that enough to warrant membership, or must their be some kind of ‘investigation’ into the sincerity of one’s faith based on their behavior?”

As matters would evolve in the coming weeks, this question was close to the heart of


much of the controversy being generated by this project. This perception of “imposing a certain view” had already been manifest since the vote to try and oust me as pastor one year earlier It had continued to be troublesome to many people. As the active church membership had become decidedly more evangelical in its theology and expression of faith, many of the older (and less active) members found themselves feeling ostracized and “left out” of things. They claimed to “not feel accepted” by their more fervent and “uncompromising” brothers and sisters. The fear was that Barre Congregational Church would develop—indeed some claimed it already had—a pervasive attitude of judgmentalism, narrow-mindedness, and intolerance. This would kill our efforts to love one another, and undermine our Congregational liberty to

“believe what we want.”

This perception of classic evangelical formulations as “too rigid,” and therefore inconsistent with the freedom of Congregationalism, would soon enough prove to be insurmountable. But in the midst of executing this project, I was not yet prepared to accept that, nor were most of those who participated openly in the debate.

Having read together each one of the Scripture references supporting Article 11, we agreed to come back the following week after further prayer, study and consideration to try and untangle this Gordian knot. It was hoped that more personal reflection might shed some light on exactly what our forefathers were “getting at” with the wording of Article 11. It would later be noted that this particular article was dropped completely from the Statement of Faith and Covenant which was updated in 1895. Perhaps they had the same questions?

Having attempted to establish in the first two sermons the validity of covenant as the essence of biblical faith in relationship to God and one another, Sermon was preached on March [Appendix F]. The texts supporting this message were the founding documents of which we had been speaking. I stated that just as God bound himself to Israel through covenant, and they were to respond in faith and obedience, so too God had bound Himself to the Barre Congregational Church through its original covenant.

In the sermon I briefly outlined the twelve articles in the Statement of Faith to which each member joining the then Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre was expected to give public and verbal affirmation. Four of those articles had to do with the nature of God, two with the nature of Man, and the remaining five with redemption. Each article was saturated with Biblical references supporting the position taken. This fact, perhaps more than the actual words contained in the articles themselves, made the most important statement regarding the composition of the

covenant and its companion Statement of Faith. Our church forefathers, the founders of ECCB, were not awash in human opinions about theological trivialities. They were steeped in the Word. Their positions were rooted in Scripture. Their faith and covenant was biblical to the bone.

Such a starting point (I contended) allows maximum freedom for the people of God to learn to live out their lives together in Christ. God has bestowed upon each one of his people unique and indispensable gifts. He has called each one of us who is a part of BCC to celebrate our uniqueness, rejoice in our commonality, and exercise in ministry the gifts He has given us. But that vision can only be realized in the context of covenant. That is where we must begin. I concluded by proclaiming that it was his articular faith—so ably and precisely expounded by our founders, so deeply entrenched in Scripture—that must be our faith in 1993 if we would be true to the covenant between God and Barre Congregational Church.

Attendance at the third discussion session numbered between twenty and twenty-five people. Half of the deacons were present. By way of introduction to our time together, one of the former deacons read a passage from Chuck Colson’s book the Body encouraging us to be of one mind as we sought the heart of the Lord.

We began by comparing and contrasting the covenants of 1845 and 1875. There is virtually no difference between them, except that two earlier articles are absorbed into the latter document leaving ten instead of twelve. We also observed that the covenant of 1875 is a bit “stronger” in some spots than its predecessor. There is, for instance, the insertion of this paragraph:

“And now, beloved in the Lord, henceforth you are to be the servants of God. You have vowed unto Him, and you cannot go back. This confession of faith, and this covenant, will hold you while you live, will follow you to the bar of God, and abide with you forever.”

It was suggested from this that the second or third generations away from the founders took an even more serious view of the covenant commitment of its members than did the original fathers of the church. The challenging manner in which these early covenants helped those taking them to “count the cost” could only serve to strengthen and clarify the mission of the church and the responsibilities of its members.

We had time for a cursory overview of the next two covenants, 1895 (the last time in which a Statement of Faith appears) and approximately 1935. (The exact date of this adoption is unavailable). It was noted that although the fundamental theology was still


intact (especially in 1895), it was clearly somewhat diluted. Wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, we speculated that the 1895 adoption was an attempt to compensate for the demise of the extraordinary biblical literacy of the earlier days, making the theological underpinnings of the church more “accessible” to its new members. This document does include a reference to the 1874 covenant for fuller statement of doctrines commonly held by members of this church.

Discussion ended with a note of excitement as participants looked forward to comparing and contrasting each of the covenants during the upcoming week.

In the week before the fourth and final Sunday of the series, a Deaconate meeting was held in which we discussed the progress of the project, and where we thought it should go once completed. I proposed that we allow a certain amount of time to process what had occurred among us; to talk about it, debate it, pursue it, and then take up the matter again in earnest in the fall. Even with all the responsibilities constantly demanding the attention of both pastor and people, I felt compelled to press on with this effort until it was settled, one way or the other. The church, by everyone’s reckoning, was reaching an impasse. It would need to decide once and for all what it believed, and where it would stand. This was our best, our only hope for sharing common ground in Christian life and ministry together.

All on the Deaconate agreed it was far too premature to ask the church to renew its covenant when there was still so much misunderstanding and disagreement about what it as, or what it would mean to hold such a service. Yet all were in accord that something was needed for “closure” of what had transpired among us. For two months the covenant had dominated our church life. Our conversation, our prayer, our worship, had revolved around it and focused on it. And much good had resulted. Still we needed to finalize this first phase of our corporate consideration of the covenant.

I suggested we might try something rather unusual for Barre Congregational Church and, to my surprise, received the full support of the Deaconate for the idea. Due to the Blizzard of ‘93 forcing postponement of the second covenant sermon originally scheduled for the second Lord’s Day in March, Easter Sunday would now fall on the week following the final session. Since we were not ready to reaffirm the covenant as church, we would announce to the congregation that on Easter we would provide an occasion for individuals to come forward after the worship service, and commit, or re-commit themselves anew to the Lord.

It was agreed that this would be a good way of recognizing that we had just been through something critically important as a congregation. It would also affirm that

we as a church were pledging ourselves to continue to pursue the Lord’s mind in this whole matter. The Deaconate believed many would take advantage of this opportunity, and give us the kind of closure for which we were hoping.

The fourth and final sermon was preached on Palm Sunday, April 4 [Appendix G]. It was a direct call to the church to renew, reclaiming as its own, the original founding covenant of BCC. Three questions were posed as a means of bringing the church to a point of decision:

1) Identity: Who decides who we are?

2) Direction: Who decides where we are supposed to be going?

3) Purpose: Who decides why we are here?

Exactly these three questions have already been answered for us by God through our covenant with Him. If we are to share any common ground regarding our identity, direction, and purpose as a community of faith today, we must return to the covenant which gave birth to the church then, trusting God to be faithful to us as we rededicate ourselves to be faithful to Him now.

In concluding the sermon, I announced to the congregation the recent decision of the Deaconate to provide just such an opportunity next week on Easter Sunday. No one should feel obligated to participate in this modified alter call. It would not be a formal renewal of the church covenant, but rather a formal renewal of one’s personal covenant with the Lord. I assured those at worship that I would remind us of this again on Easter Sunday, that no one be caught unawares.

After worship, questionnaires were distributed to all present in the congregation regarding their participation in the project and their reflections on it [Appendix H]. Only twelve were completed, but these were encouraging. Most of those filling out the form had been present for at least three of the sermons and discussions. Each one who responded expressed hope that more opportunities would be offered for study and interaction on the issues raised by the project.

In the last discussion session, with a dozen people the least well attended of the four, we examined the final two forms of covenant n light of the previous three. Several of the observations made were obvious to everyone there. Most significantly, in the earliest days of ECCB there was a lengthy, detailed, and well reasoned statement of faith and covenant, with to bylaws. 166 years later in 1993, there ere even single spaced, type-written pages of bylaws, three short paragraphs of covenant, and to statement


of faith whatsoever, nor any reference to one. A deacon in attendance suggested the original priority of the church had been turned on its head. The primary emphasis normally given to the covenant and its theological content was ow being given, and hen some, to bylaws.

This led us directly us to the question at the heart of the matter (which, as noted earlier, emerged in almost identical form at a previous Deaconate meeting): Which document has higher authority in the church— the bylaws, or the covenant? Which one takes precedent over, and interprets, the other? It seemed indisputable that the founders of the church would have answered the question differently than those joining after 1952 (the last rewrite of the covenant).

It was agreed by all those present that more extensive study of our founding covenant could only be beneficial and challenging for the church. One of the members present volunteered to print out from a computer Bible program the texts of each reference of each article in the original Statement of Faith and make such a packet available to anyone interested. This would eliminate the considerable intimidation factor of having to look up over 300 Bible passages. There was little question that much more education was necessary and desirable. It was suggested that possibly as much as a year’s worth of Adult Education classes might be required to fully disseminate this information into the life, dialogue, and experience of the whole church.

A suggestion was also made that the Bylaws Review Committee (which had been at work for the previous two years on that project) be contacted to consider removing the covenant rom the bylaws, making it a separate document in our records. It was felt that this would “make a statement,” namely that the bylaws either determine nor interpret the covenant. It is precisely the other way around. This idea was passed on to the Bylaws Committee. We concluded with a spoken agreement that more study was called for, and that he whole church needed to participate in that work.

As word had gone out from the pulpit Palm Sunday, so again it was clarified on Easter morning: What we would do that day was not a church renewal of the church covenant, but rather a re-affirmation of our own personal commitments to the Lord. As a congregation we had examined the essence of what Scripture teaches regarding the sanctity of covenant. We had considered not only our own founding covenant, but each one of its revisions as well. We had struggled to reach a consensus about what it all meant.

The time had come to decide—not yet for the covenant of the original ECCB, but for the Lord Himself. Whatever one’s opinion on the past, or the future of BCC, this was

our opportunity to affirm that as a church we belonged to the Lord, and would agree to proceed as His church from there.

Of the approximately 30 people in attendance on Easter morning, about 75 came forward at the end of the service. This served as a joyful and hopeful testimony that our endeavor to be serious about our covenant with God and with one another was indeed bearing fruit. Exactly what form that fruit would take, however, was yet to be revealed. It was the end of the project, but not the end of the story.

CHApTER THREE ONE

Appendix D

TEXT: Assorted

TITLE: First in Covenant Series

DATE: March 7, 1993

I must confess to you as I begin, my friends, that I have despaired over this sermon.

To take what is the very heart of God n all his dealings with us here at Barre Congregational Church, and try to present that in a few sermons, is perhaps the most foolhardy endeavor I have ever undertaken.

Nevertheless, I am compelled to try.

I apologize in advance for the inadequacy of my efforts. I can only pray that by the grace and power of God, that He is saying to us ill somehow be heard through my paltry attempt to speak the Word of the Lord. May God have mercy.

During his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention last Summer, you may remember Bill Clinton introduced (the theme of covenant into his campaign.

He has not mentioned that word since, however. The Conventional Wisdom is that people really don’t know what he was talking about. The American People (us) didn’t

“get it”, to it was dropped. But for a Christian, here is no other single concept more important “to get” than covenant. If we understand, and trust in, covenant, he life of faith becomes dumbfoundingly simple. Not “easy” - It is never easy. But covenant,

Biblically defined, makes everything between God and Man - between God and you - between God and us - 5( perfectly clear, and plain, and simple. Today and for the next three Sundays we will consider together what it means; or the Lord, or you and me as individuals, or the Barre Congregational Church; (what it means to be in covenant with God (and with one another.

I encourage you not to take what I say for granted. Search the Scriptures yourselves, and see whether these things are so. (If you don’t care to do that, you could just get married. Then you’d have it!

For marriage is not merely one expression of covenant;

Rather, marriage defines covenant. Two elements are necessary to make a marriage:

1) There is the legal transaction — the sanction of the State, found in every culture — that proverbial “piece of paper”, making it a binding contract.

Call this the “institution” of marriage. (e : 2) There is the dynamic, growing, ever changing organism the marriage relationship, which is created by that binding contract.

There as a “relationship” present before the legal transaction.

But there was not a marriage.

The first — the legal element — takes but a moment; matter of signing a document.

That makes you married. The second, however, is what the rest of your life is all about.

That keeps you married. You cannot have one without the other. And so it is in our relationship our “marriage”, our covenant with God.

It only takes a few seconds to enter into a covenant with God; ray the sinners prayer; ask Christ into your life.

Boom! You’re married to the Lord!

The act is binding. God considers it a legal contract between Him and us. 9”Its like saying your wedding vows. But then it takes a lifetime — indeed, an eternal lifetime — living out” the new situation created by that covenant — exploring and testing and trusting and enjoying he relationship one now has with God through forgiveness in Jesus Christ. ”In covenant, as in marriage, God upholds both aspects of the arrangement: he legal contract defining the relationship; that makes me a Christian

— and the nurture, the sanctity, the celebration of the relationship created by it; that

Page 110 Chapter Three One: Appendix D

keeps me a Christian. (Am I overstating this contention of mine that Christian life is best understood Mas marriage to God? Of course, I don’t think so. But you might. Consider this: In Ephesians 5, Paul quotes the book of Genesis, hen God performs the first wedding saying: For this reason, man shall leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Then Paul adds: This is a profound mystery — but what I am really talking about here... is Christ and the church. and lest we think this is some quirk of the Apostle’s here are dozens of passages in the Bible Anywhere God uses the language and imagery and structure of marriage describe His relationship to His people. ”For your Maker is your husband,” we says through Isaiah 4.5). ”Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “For I am your husband.” Jeremiah 3.14. Jesus refers to Himself as the Bridegroom, ho has come for His bride. ’The final reunion of God and His people is pictured in Scripture as a great, joyful, wedding banquet Have you ever considered your faith is marriage to the Lord?

He does. Have you ever approached your marriage living out of your faith in God?

He would have it so.

To understand what God means by covenant, then, we ought not to think in terms of laws, or regulations we have to follow, or rules we have to obey, or even standards we are obliged to uphold.

We ought, instead, to think if terms of romance; or courtship, of God’s desire for us, of His desperate yearning for intimacy and companionship and love with each one of us. And herein lies our confidence, our security, our strength. For the heart of covenant, he heart of marriage, Dis not convenience, or satisfaction, or compatibility, or happiness. It is commitment.

This is what the Bible means by love; by relationship; by covenant:

Commitment. Biblical love is keeping one’s word; to matter what.

’Biblical relationship is being faithful regardless of the hurt.

Biblical covenant is holding to one’s promise; not counting the cost. When God asks us to marry Hi — and it is always He who initiates covenant — He finds Himself by His own Word to be eternally loyal to us, to be unshakably attached to us, to tirelessly love us, even if it costs Him His life....Which it has. Thus we need never doubt, or question, or suspect, or He has already demonstrated by the cross how far He is willing to go to prove His love. What is true of God, however, to our great sorrow and shame,

is not true of us. We stray from our covenant, our marriage.

He does not. We entertain thoughts of breaking it off.

He never does.

Our love grows cold. His burns like a consuming fire. Next week we will see that because of he inevitability of our failure to keep covenant, God calls us, in His faithfulness — regularly — to renew our vows to Him.

But in closing today, we must briefly explicate one more dimension of covenant: its application to two levels — he personal, and the corporate. When an individual receives Christ as Lord, he/she becomes married to Him.

But at the same time, and here so many of us go our own way; to the same time, that Christian also becomes married to God’s People.

It is simply not true that one can be faithfully married to the Lord, and divorced from His People at the same time. When we enter into covenant with God, we automatically enter into covenant with all other believers; and it stays that way. We are no less bound to one another than we are bound to Jesus Christ. ”To break covenant with the Church is to come dangerously close to breaking covenant with God. Thus, while Biblical faith is a personal decision, to must be lived out in community or it is not Biblical faith, at all. (The time has come for us as individuals, and as a Church, not only to reaffirm our vows with God — both personally and corporately — but also to be about the joyful task of developing and nurturing and promoting and celebrating the relationship with Him and with one another 6that our covenant — that our marriage —- affords us. It is time for a second honeymoon with God.

2It is time for a second honeymoon with each other.

I believe we are ready. now God is.

pRAyER COmmUNION

As something of a prelude to next Sunday, he Lord’s Table is a reaffirmation of covenant. When Jesus instituted it he said as much.

Every time we share it with Him and one another, we are renewing our vows, renewing our commitment, to Jesus Christ and to each other. We remember that He gave His life to prove the extent of His love for us. We remember that His blood is the legal requirement by which He binds Himself to us in covenant. We remember that because of His death, we belong to Him, and He belongs to us. Come and share in the Table of the Lord. Come renew your vows to Him. Come receive forgiveness for your unfaithfulness, and rejoice exceedingly in His faithfulness.

CHApTER THREE TwO

Appendix

TEXT: Joshua 4

TITLE: Second in Covenant Series DATE: March 14, 1993 Last Thanksgiving weekend I attended my 0th high school reunion.

I have now recovered sufficiently to be able to talk about it. Without exception, of the dozens of former schoolmates I saw and talked with that night, not one had I seen or talked with since the reunion. These are my “one night every 5 years” buddies.

For aside from graduating from Melrose High School in 1972. The 500 of us have precious little else in common. So why do we do it?

I honestly don’t know. But I think it has something to do with the marking of time — coming back to where you came from; gauging your life any the changes you have gone through since then.

I think, in other words, to has something to do with roots.

My roots as a graduate of MHS. I am only interested in once every five years.

But as believers, he roots of Christian faith re the anchor, he stability, of daily life.

The spiritual need — not just to return to, but to daily stand upon our roots, our history, our covenant, - is built into us by God; to the core of what it means to be a Christian. 7Two Sundays ago we talked about the nature of covenant; the marriage which defines

Page 114 Chapter Three Two: Appendix

God’s relationship with us, and our relationship with Him. Today we consider the necessity — or all God’s People, n every time and in every place — of renewing that covenant, or reaffirming those vows, or recommitting to this marriage with God and with one another. It is approximately 1,440 years before the birth of Christ.

Standing before Joshua are the people whose parents and grandparents had been slaves some sixty years before. God, through Moses, had led their parents and grandparents :out of Egypt by great miracles and signs and wonders.

(But when Pharaoh decided to pursue them, he defenseless Israelites were trapped between the sea in front of them and the blood-curdling hoards behind them. The people cried out, and God sent a great wind to part the waters of the sea, and so Israel passed through to safety. Only a few weeks after this “Exodus”

God entered into covenant with those descendants :of their great-great-great-great-etc.-grandfather Abraham.

The Lord would be their God, and they would be His people. With the exception of the clans of Joshua and Caleb, hese gathered at Shechem in 1440 BC ere not present with their parents when these things happened. They have heard about these events all their lives.

They know the stories of the Passover and the Exodus and the covenant at Mt. Sinai — he giving of the Ten Commandments. But they were not there for any of it. This is the next generation afterwards.

They themselves, then, re in covenant with God — but only by virtue of their parents! The time has come hen they must make their own that which has been handed down to them by their Moms and Dads. They must take upon themselves he faith they have been taught.

They must bind themselves to the God ho has bound Himself to them through the covenant of their parents. 4They must now — willingly, knowingly, trustingly — plant themselves into their own roots, make on their own heritage, make their own covenant, so that where they came from is who they will be.

When I was 16, the war in Vietnam was continuing to escalate and a lottery was instituted for the draft. M0The year I became eligible for military service, y birthday (February 16) was selected in the lottery.

Fortunately, that same year we pulled out.

3I remember so well assaulting my Dad with questions about WWII. When he was my age, everyone was volunteering to go to war Everyone! Was I going to enlist? Were any of my friends?

It fascinated me that my parent’s entire generation ad such totally different perspective on war a necessary evil to achieve a greater good. To my generation, that argument was absurd. And to many in my generation, it still is. Now what if — my generation

— We Baby Boomers — instead of a wholesale rejection of the values and principles and morality and beliefs handed down to us....., What if we had chosen to own those values, reaffirmed them, decided to take them on as our own...., would our nation be as aimless, and self-destructive, and amoral, and anti-Christian, as it is today?

I don’t think so. But we have turned way from our roots. We deny we are bound to them. 5We want to disconnect ourselves from our own history. As a nation, we are breaking covenant with those who have gone before. And we will pay a heavy price, indeed. Is anyone to blame?

I believe Scripture points the finger directly at the people of God. As we in the Church of Jesus Christ in the United States of America, have strayed spiritually from our covenant roots with God, Also too, our nation has wandered away from its founding principles to many of which are grounded in God’s Truth. And we are disassociating ourselves from what we were.

Barring a massive outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon us, or which many continue to pray, I do not foresee our country turning around and going back to where we came from. do however, see individual Christians, and individual churches, doing exactly that.

I believe you and I, ere in the covenant community of Barre Congregational Church, stand in exactly the same relationship with God, did the Israelites in Joshua 4.

They were getting cities they had not built. 8We are given custody of a building we did not construct. 9They were inheriting crops for which they had not toiled. We are granted stewardship of an endowment we did not create.

They were coming into possession of riches they had not earned. We are entrusted with a ministry we did not initiate. They were bound to a covenant to which they had not bound themselves. We are bound to a covenant to which we must bind ourselves.

But Joshua could not make hem believe, or believe for them. Nor can the founders of this church, or us.

Page 116 Chapter Three Two: Appendix

Our life’s work is to pass down to our children what we own he truths of the faith, he heritage of God’s People, he roots of the gospel. Our chief task is to build into the we is much of an understanding of the things of God as we are able. But we cannot make them believe, or believe for them.

This they must choose themselves. In May we will have confirmation classes for our young people. The tradition of Confirmation is precisely what renewing the covenant is all about.

These kids were brought by their parents — through baptism — into the covenant community of faith. They have been instructed in the ways of the Lord. (If they decide to be confirmed, that means they are choosing to take upon themselves he covenant, and making it their own personal possession. We here today — in much the same way

— just go through confirmation — reaffirmation — 8of the covenant our forefathers made for us as a church.

For they can hand down to us he roots of the Biblical heritage, he form of the faith, he substance of the covenant. But they cannot make us believe it,8 or believe it for us. It is one of my strongest convictions born out of Scripture, that each successive generation of children raised in the church, must choose themselves to own the covenant of fait handed down by their forefathers. God is calling us — this generation, this church — to renew its covenant. To openly own its own faith. To publicly proclaim its own heritage. To faithfully return to its own roots. In our discussion after worship and for the next two Sundays we will look specifically at the covenant 2of what is now called Barre Congregational Church.

Let us see to it that ours is not a “high school reunion” faith, where we “check in” periodically with God, “touch base” with our roots, “re-connect” with our history, q5and then go home to live our lives however we choose. to let us hear the call of the Spirit: To return to our roots; our heritage; our beginnings. Let us hear the call of the Spirit: To take as our own that which is handed down to us. Let us hear the call of the Spirit: To bind ourselves to the covenant by which God has bound Himself to us.

CHApTER THREE THREE

Appendix F

TEXT: 1845 Covenant of Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre

TITLE: Third in Covenant Series

DATE: March 8, 1993 4

Each one of us, at one time or another, has participated in some type of opinion poll. Every day countless polls are being conducted across the nation; businesses trying to carve out a market niche, municipalities wanting to get a feel for the public mood, churches seeking to discern a community need, polling companies who do it just to make a living. and of course, the government, very sensitive to what we are thinking about, commissions polls to find out what will make us madder than hornets, and what they can get away with. The atmosphere of opinion is one of America’s greatest assets; 8affirming anyone’s right to hold any opinion whatsoever.8

But we are Christians first, and Americans second - (or maybe third or fourth...). And as Christians, we are as entitled to our opinions as anyone else. But is Christians we are not at liberty to hold our own opinions regarding what God states as Factual Truth.

When God says:

“Salvation is found in no one else (Acts 4.12)” that is not open for discussion. We can choose not to believe it, of course.

But popular opinion about such a statement as no impact whatsoever upon its Truthfulness. When the Lord says:

Page 118 Chapter Three Three: Appendix F

“At the name of Jesus every knee will bow....(Phil. 10),” and 90 of the people polled don’t agree, ill God decide He can’t afford to go through with such an unpopular plan? As Christians, we hold opinions.

But not about what God states as FACT. The text for today’s sermon is not a passage from the Bible. -Rather it is over 300 passages from the Bible found in the first Statement of Faith of this church. These are not the opinions of the founders 3 of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. These are Truths — based upon Scripture

— of what we — who have inherited the covenant community they began — believe. There are twelve articles in this Statement of Faith, falling broadly into three categories:

God, Man, and Redemption.

I will attempt this morning to summarize his foundation of our covenant. 5 ”Four articles (1,2,3,6) articulate that we believe about God: That He is One God in Three Persons — A Tri-Unity, or Trinity; 3That Christ is the Only Redeemer of the Human Race; 1That the Lord reveals Himself to us in the Bible.

This we believe about God. ”Now why is this so important? Suppose we have just met, and I introduce myself to you:

“My name is Gary Hayward. I serve Jesus Christ as a pastor to His People. He has given me a wife and children, and placed me in Barre, MA to live and work for Him.”

But you say to me:

“No. Your name is John Jones. You work for TWA, have never been married, have no kids, and believe people can make up their own truth. And you live in Los Angeles.”

I state again who I really am.

3But you continue to insist that I am not who I say. I repeat once more my name, that I do, here I live, and what makes my life. You refuse to surrender your belief of who I am, and how I operate, and what I am all about. We don’t act that way with one another. But it is exactly what we do with God!

He says:

“I am Lord.”

And we say: “I don’t think so.” He states again:

“I am the Truth.” And we say:

“Well, that’s just your opinion.” If we insist on telling God who He is, rather than letting Him tell us (who He is), we will no more come to know God, than you would come to know me if you insisted I was John Jones when in fact I am Gary Hayward. Thus what we believe about God is what He says about Himself. Articles 4 and 5 go on to state what we believe about is he nature of Man.

That when first created, we were without sin. That through disobedience, quote:

“...all men are by nature entirely destitute of holiness, 9 and though capable of moral action, they all have enmity against God, transgress his law, and are under his righteous condemnation.” Our entire race, in other words, is at war with God a and doomed to incur his holy wrath. 5Why is this so important?

Because, simply put, he way the Bible sees us is entirely different for how we see ourselves. 4I saw a photo recently of a homosexual rights rally. A young man was holding a sign which read: Gay by nature — Proud by choice. ”Scripture says the exact opposite:9 Proud by nature — Gay by choice. And Scripture says the same of all sinful acts: Proud by nature — Greedy by choice. Proud by nature — Lustful by choice. Proud by nature — Violent by choice, irresponsible by choice, h ddicted by choice, mean by choice.

7Whether as adults we are victims of social environment, or of our own decisions, 7is no small matter in the determining of public policy. (Our culture today has abandoned what the Bible says about the nature of Man: that we are free, moral agents responsible for our own destinies. We cannot abandon what God says we are.

It is what we believe. Articles 7 - 12 deal with Redemption:

That only Jesus Christ can save us.

That we must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God.

That the offer of salvation from God’s wrath is open to all.

That all will stand before the Judgment Throne of God. 5Why is his so important? 5Because it defines the ministry of the gospel itself. 5This is why our forefathers called this.

The Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre.They wanted it explicit and unmistakable that the work of this church is to proclaim to the world the Truth about God, ”, to teach people the Truth about themselves, to tell

Page 120 Chapter Three Three: Appendix F

anyone within earshot and willing to listen ow to know the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved, and to promote, nurture, and encourage “holy living.”

They wanted everyone who came after them to understand that the reason this church is here is to proclaim, to uphold, and to teach, he Evangelical expression of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is what we believe because this is what the Scriptures teach. Our forebears included in their twelve articles very 300 passages from the Bible supporting them.

They did not develop their opinions and then go to the Scriptures to shore up their arguments. They started with the Bible, and drew their conclusions from it.

And hen they said:

“Here is how we ‘live out’ what we believe:

Covenant.”

Their words:

We openly declare the Lord; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be our God —the object of our supreme love and our portion forever. We acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as our only Savior, and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter and Guide

We humbly and cheerfully devote ourselves to God.

We solemnly covenant, not only to remember the Sabbath day — to keep it holy — but each and all the commandments of God, to obey them. We consecrate ourselves, and all we possess, to his service and glory.

And through help of divine grace, we promise that we will deny ungodliness and every worldly lust — that we will live soberly, righteously, and godly, even unto death.

And thus binding ourselves to God, we then covenant with one another in this church as follows:

We engage to submit to its discipline, to attend on its worship, and to walk with its members n Christian love, watchfulness, and purity.

And there we have it:

The root of this church; he heart of Congregationalism;” the soul of the gospel itself.

The Statement of Faith and covenant of the Evangelical Congregational Church of

Barre, Massachusetts provides the maximum freedom for us to live out the life of Christ with one another. ”Each one of us comes to this place with different burdens, and gifts, and concerns, and ministries, and strengths, and contributions to make.

One is impassioned for issues of social justice; another for art and creativity and beauty. Some are political activists; others seek the quiet way of prayer. God has bestowed upon each one of us unique and indispensable gifts. And He has called each one of us here; to live out our uniqueness, to express and rejoice in our individuality, to be who He has made us to be. How we live out what we believe is wide open — with endless possibilities — or ever-deepening joy and freedom when we are faithfully in covenant with God and one another. That, and that alone, makes it work. For being true to the covenant urns God loose within us to have his way among us. That is what He wants.

Are we with Him?

CHApTER THREE FOUR

Appendix G

TEXT: Assorted

TITLE: Fourth in Covenant Series DATE: April 4, 1993

I did something this week I don’t think I’ve done since college:

I bought an issue of TI magazine.

The cover was irresistible:

“The Generation That Forgot God” —

“The Baby Boom goes back to church, and church will never be the same.”

The gist of the article is that as the mainline denominations continue to decline, newer and younger and “non-traditional” churches re popping up all over America. One church in Chicago as grown from 10 members in 1977 to over 1,000 today.

It offers everything from self-help groups like “Debtors Anonymous” to a “pet ministry” for adopting stray animals.

On a recent Sunday, songs ranged from “Oh, what a beautiful morning” to “Danny Boy.” In between the pastor, wearing sneakers, bounced around like a high school coach:

“Everyone here was born to be a winner”, he says.

“You’ve got the choice!” As the meeting climaxed in hugging, or a benediction the

pastor raised his arms high and boomed:

“Hey God, make my day! Go for it!”

What I like about the article is that it captures the tension between churches wanting to meet people’s needs, and churches wanting to glorify God. Obviously, those two goals are not incompatible But newer churches tend to be more focused n giving people what they want; getting hem set the agenda, in other words.

The question is: 5 Is that why God started the church? To meet needs? 4 .

Or does He have his own agenda? As one professor put it: “Is the point (of the Gospel) to accommodate self-centeredness,or to attack it?” I would put it this morning:

Who decides who we are? Who decides - where we are supposed to be going? Who decides - why we are here? These are questions the new and “non-traditional” churches ill have to answer for themselves. But they are questions already answered for us y God through our covenant with Him. This morning is our last in a series of four sermons and discussions on the Biblical principle of covenant. It is my hope and prayer that this has been just the beginning; That we will take the opportunity, n the months and years ahead, to more deeply explore our own roots, and more firmly entrench ourselves n the heartbeat of the covenant with the Lord which brought this church into being. For in so doing, hese three questions:

Who are we? Where are we going? Why are we here? which every church and individual just address, reanswered. First is the matter of identity:

Who are we? Certainly the Worcester Telegram doesn’t know. Presumably you have all been following the progress of our story his week in that illustrious publication? On Tuesday we are “the other born again church” in Barre. On Thursday, in a printed correction, we are “a traditional congregational church.”

8 Friday we are the church voting on starting a school.

Someone tells them we are “born again,” so they print it.

Someone else tells them we are “traditional,” so they print that. They get wind about a possible new ministry. So they print that.

So who are we?

Perhaps even we don’t know. But our covenant does. And if we want to settle this question, that is where we start. And while this deserves far more time than I can give

Page 124 Chapter Three Four: Appendix G

it today, I would suggest to you that our covenant clearly says:

We are a traditional, born again congregational church. We decides who we are?

Not me.

Not you. Certainly not the Worcester Telegram. God decides who we are, and He describes that through our covenant. Our church covenant answers the question of Identity.

It also answers the question of Direction: Where are we to head?

Matt Meyers lives on a ranch n the Wildcat Hills of Nebraska. One day last Winter while out exploring with his dog, we was startled to find himself suddenly engulfed in the thickest fog he had ever seen.

He could not find his way back. The wind stated blowing fiercely, rain turned to snow, 7 and he was soon completely lost in a raging blizzard. He wandered aimlessly till dark, he snow swirling into drifts around him. Matt prayed, laced himself in God’s hands, rapped his dog into his park to buffet both of them against the 10 degrees below zero wind chill, and went to sleep under a tree not knowing if he would ever wake up. Matt’s ordeal is a metaphor of how most people, and many churches, exist.

We wander aimlessly around in circles, ever quite sure of the direction in which to head; of where to go. Scripture says (Isaiah 53.6):

We all like sheep have gone astray.

Each one of us has turned to his own way.

We are born to roam.

And when we as Christians, as a church, find ourselves wandering lost not knowing in which direction to go — our covenant with God shows us the way home. Matt and his dog were rescued the next day and treated for frostbite and hypothermia.

He has recovered and discovered a new found trust in the Lord. May God have mercy upon the churches of the United States of America — of Barre, Massachusetts — that we too might, by His power be rescued from our cold, dreamless slumber, and wake up revived, renewed, and restored and return to our covenant with God.

Through the covenant, we recover who we are, we know where we are going, and we learn why we are here.

And is not his the most nagging, frightful taunt that cuts us to the marrow:

Why are we here?

Is there a reason beyond our own desires?

Bigger than our own notions?

More significant than our own needs? Thirty years ago twins were born in a small town in central NJ. -Rachel was a perfectly pudgy, beautiful baby. Rebekah had bulging veins, sunken eyes, and a head that was too big. She was hydrocephalic, and adored by her parents and five siblings. By the time she was four, she had had countless brain surgeries, ”but could never get used to being left alone in the hospital. In time, though, Rebekah gained courage from a picture of Jesus aped to the foot of her bed.

“My Jesus is with me,” she would say.

“My Jesus loves me, Mommy. He hugs me at night.

My Jesus is here.” And she would pat her little chest, just over her heart.

In Rebekah’s room one day was another young girl bout to undergo brain surgery.

’She was eight, and terribly frightened. She began to cry, became hysterical, and not even her parents could comfort her. Four-year-old Rebekah was recovering at the time rom yet another operation. 7She sat quietly, listening, a serious look on her face. Then suddenly she smiled.

“I know what to do,” she said. She climbed down from her mother’s lap and walked over to the girl.

“Don’t cry,” she said softly, rubbing the girl’s cheek.

“I was afraid too. But I’m not afraid any more.”

By now the older girl was crying quietly. ”Why aren’t you afraid, anymore?” she asked between sobs. “Because I have my Jesus,” Rebekah said. 0”No one has to be afraid if they have my Jesus.”

She raised both of her hands to her heart and held them like a cup, is if scooping water from a fountain to drink. . ”Here,” she said, “Open your hands for me.” The other girl stopped sobbing, totally absorbed in Rebekah.

Solemnly she reached out Here is Rebekah transferred her most treasured possession into the cupped hands of her friend.

Page 126 Chapter Three Four: Appendix G

”Take my Jesus,” she said. If my Jesus is with you, you won’t be afraid. But I need Him too, so bring Him back when your operation is over.”

The girl smiled, and leaned over to kiss Rebekah’s swollen face. Then she clasped her hands to her own chest , and held them there as she was wheeled out. The little girl did not return from her operation. Her mother and father were the ones who carried Rebekah’s Jesus back to her, returning His presence as gently and reverently as Becky had delivered it hours before. ”How much easier it was, they said, knowing their daughter had left them with smiles and peace instead of tears and fear. Her sister says that Rebekah’s entire life on earth was spent giving her Jesus to everyone she met. She died at the age of 1, having left the mark of God’s love on those who knew her.

Why are we here?

To be like Rebekah. We are not pretty in the eyes of the world or should we hope to be... We are not loved by the world, or should we try to be... -Jesus says we will be repulsive to the world, and hated by it.

We are not strong and rich and powerful masters, or should we seek to be. 6Jesus says we are weak, and poor, and humble servants, 6 who must take up the shame of the cross and follow Him. And all we have to offer this world; To people who are scared and lonely and sick , and confused and lost and hopeless and sad; all we have to give is our Jesus. That’s it.

That’s all we’ve got. But that’s all they need. Our covenant with God could not be any clearer . than it is on this point: The reason we are here is to bring Jesus Christ to this church, to this community, to this nation, to this world. We who have been called here by God 5” to become His body in this place; We have these questions — of Identity, of Direction, of Purpose, .answered for us in our covenant with the Lord. . Let us be faithful to Hi is He is faithful to us.

CHApTER THREE FOOTS NOTES

This was not the first time these issues or possibilities had been formally raised in 1. the church. During the Spring of 1990 I had conducted a four week “goal setting” event in which a considerable amount of time was spent teaching the congregation about its own history. Since then I had seized upon every opportunity to review that information with church members in various settings. This particular project, then, was not at all out of context to what was going on in BCC in January 1993. On the contrary, the matters of our past, our present, and our future were very much in the forefronts of all our minds at that time.

The fundamental difference of opinion evident here was to take on increasingly 2. more significance as we proceeded with the project.

I clearly bear much of the responsibility for this deficiency When I first arrived 3. in 1980, the then current covenant was neglected by myself as well as by the congregation. I only began amending my ways in 1983 when I developed an educational program for prospective new church members. Although this program had been in place for almost ten years by this time, and I had encouraged the “older” members to sit in on it each time it was offered, few had ever taken advantage of the opportunity.

This coincided nicely with a Confirmation Class I would be holding. I would 4. explain in the sermon that being “confirmed” in the congregational tradition is exactly what covenant renewal is all about — the child, as an adult, taking is his own the faith he has been taught.

CHApTER FOUR

If a New England congregational church over time has drifted away from its covenantal roots, can it be renewed by calling it back to its founding charter? With careful biblical preaching, faithful pastoral care, and confident assurance in the mercies of God, we believe it can. [But given the results of this project, we do not necessarily believe it will]. A survey of the biblical material on covenant and covenant renewal demonstrates the validity of such an approach. An overview of the practice of covenant and covenant renewal ceremonies in early American congregationalism supports such an effort as central to the very tenants of a congregational church. An extensive consideration of the covenant history of Barre Congregational Church documents that just such a drift had indeed occurred. Yet none of this could guarantee that God would get what he desired. [He rarely does]. Nor that just such an effort would be carried out flawlessly, in perfect synchronization with the Spirit of God. Much if not most of the analysis of what actually transpired during the course of this project will have to wait until the final Day, when all will be seen as it should have been. [?] Nonetheless, given the Scriptures, the legacy of congregationalism, the particular historical context [?] of BCC, and the prayerful pastoral sense of the author, the time was right.

The specific results of this project are nebulous on the one hand, and glaring on the other. While most of the members of the church were, even if in spite of themselves, engaged in the debate, much of what they thought or felt about it was not always expressed openly and positively. This made it difficult to accurately gauge the readiness of the congregation to take on this challenge. I may have moved prematurely. On the other hand, as will be illustrated by yet another event concurrent with and subsequent

to the execution of the project, the controversy was theological to the core. And everyone knew it. The most documentable “result” of this project was some fifty families withdrawing their membership from BCC, many of whom would form the nucleus of a new church five months later.

What happened in BCC did not have to happen. A similar effort in a similar small town New England congregational church could well have quite different results (one would hope!). And things might have turned out differently in Barre if the project had been done differently, or by someone else, or at some other time. But I don’t think so.

The obstacle to renewal at BCC could be approached from a variety of angles, each of which would lend some light to a correct interpretation of what actually happened. Casting the debate as we have here in terms of covenant brings us to the conclusion that, in at least this particular situation, the proverbial “bottom line” was loyalty. Call it loyalty to tradition, or loyalty to past glory, or loyalty to a church building, or loyalty to a former pastor and his legacy, or loyalty to one’s fraternal organization, or loyalty to friend, or family, or loyalty to one’s own “beliefs”, whatever they be, above all else. The problem is that each of these loyalties, any loyalty, will ultimately come into conflict with loyalty to Jesus Christ. It cannot be otherwise. “The stuff of earth competes for the allegiance I owe only to the Giver of all good things” [Rich Mullins]. Our Lord was well aware of the cost to his disciples. Ultimate loyalty demands the surrender of all others [scripture verses would be good].

In BCC, all the loyalties suggested above were in play - some more than others, some stronger than others, some more virulently defended than others. The message of covenant renewal coming from the pulpit of BCC called each and every one of the loyalties to be made subservient to the personal [and corporate] loyalty each one of us owes to the Lord Jesus Christ. If He is Lord, He must be allowed to exercise His Lordship. Otherwise, regardless of what we say, something else still holds our higher allegiance. The Bible calls this idolatry.

The paradigm of idolatry helps explain what happened in BCC. The great commandment in the OT is to have no other gods before Yahweh. [Dt] The great commandment in the NT is identical to it, but put “positively”, if you will [text]. An idol is anyone or anything which is higher in loyalty in a person’s heart than Jesus Christ. At BCC, all the loyalties suggested functioned as false idols. Each one held the potential to be more important than loyalty to the True God. Collectively as a community, the call to covenant was a call to tear down idols exalting themselves above Christ. This, as a community, the church refused to do.

Page 130 Chapter Four

The execution of this project soon forced to a conclusion the issues that had been disturbing the church since 1990. No one suspected that what was standing at the alter of Barre Congregational Church that Easter morning of 1993 was, in fact, the seed of a new church. But in the context of this project, that group might more accurately be called the seed of a renewed church—one with the same identity, the same direction, the same purpose, and the same faith as the first Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. Virtually all of the individuals who came forward to reaffirm their personal covenant to Jesus Christ would resolve, in the coming months, that God was calling them out of the church which, they believed, had abandoned the very covenant they had just affirmed.

A series of events in the church, concurrent with and subsequent to this project, would serve to illustrate that the conflict inside Barre Congregational Church was fundamentally theological in character.

A small number of people within the church, in concert with several Christians from a number of other surrounding churches and communities, had been working together for almost two years to establish a Christian school in western Worcester County. Barre is squarely in the center of the geographical region represented by the members of this working group. After considerable prayer, research, and counsel, the steering committee of the Barre Christian Academy decided to ask Barre Congregational Church for permission to rent its building to house this ministry. During the Winter of 1993 they approached the trustees of Barre Congregational Church who were unanimous in their enthusiastic endorsement of the project. It was recognized, however, that this was a major decision, fraught with potential peril, given the then current climate in the church. Although not required to so do according to the bylaws, the trustees wisely opted to ask the whole church for its input and support.

This was done at a formally called church meeting in early April 1993, only days after the conclusion of this project. The steering committee of Barre Christian Academy presented a proposal outlining the vision and purpose of the school. The church voted to accept Barre Christian Academy as “an extension of the educational ministry of Barre Congregational Church,” narrowly approving (by five votes) the proposal as presented.

Within the week, however, a group within the church began collecting dissenting signatures, and called another church meeting in early June to rescind the previous vote. When it became evident that this group would be successful in their efforts to overthrow the “pro-school” vote, Barre Christian Academy withdrew its request.

What was most interesting about this controversy, coming as it did on the heels of this thesis project, was the rationale given for not supporting the school, even as a separate entity within the church building. The leader of the opposition movement, an articulate, retired professional education/administrator, pointed to the theological reasons not to have the school. His argument, supported by most all of those who had united against it, was that Barre Christian Academy would be teaching; Jesus is the Truth, the Bible is infallible, Man is sinful, etc. He did not personally agree with any of these theological assumptions. The people he represented, for whom he was speaking, did not agree with any of these positions, either. Therefore Barre Congregational Church should not support such an effort.

Given the energy we had expended that Spring on the covenant, and the ferocity of those so adamantly against the very doctrines affirmed by the covenant, this could no longer be attributed to not understanding what the covenant meant. This was rejection by a majority of the church membership, of precisely what the covenant upholds.

In the days following this meeting, therefore, I began seriously to consider whether or not my work in Barre Congregational Church might be over. Three weeks after that meeting, before the end of June, I resigned.

Any effort to bring genuine, Biblically informed and directed renewal to a church which has a history like that of Barre Congregational Church demands patience, commitment, long term vision, and a passionate confidence in God’s faithfulness to covenant. There are many Congregational churches in New England with Evangelical roots, but Unitarian fruits. It is no simple task to turn them back, nor one for the faint of heart. Any pastor entering such a situation must view his work in its entire historical context.

If there is (as some believe) a kind of “arch-spirit of power”, or “control”, or “religion”, or other idol “camped out” over New England Congregational Churches to will not roll over and die without a fight. Indeed, the proclamation of the gospel, which demands the surrender of power and control and religion, in flames such spirits with vehement determination to cling tenaciously to any influence it as. To come against that spirit, and to love the people under its sway, is perhaps the greatest challenge for any pastor called to work towards renewal in a New England Congregational church.

I have become firmly convinced of this: With varying degrees and in different dimensions, every lament of the conflict which beset Barre Congregational Church from 1990 - 1993 will eventually converge upon any Congregational church in New England in which the pastor preaches the gospel. The spirit of power/control never


goes down easily. The pastor who comes against it must be ready for the battle, and certain of God’s calling upon him to engage in it, if he is to be found faithful to the task. The cost can be great. Pastor, family, congregation and community all pay a price. But we are called to lay down our lives for the sheep. Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it cannot yield a harvest. If the dry bones of New England Congregationalism are to be brought back to life, such sacrifice will be required.

Years of uncontested dominance of many Unitarian theological presuppositions within New England Congregationalism has given birth to the following “operating assumption” in many congregational churches (and most of those associated with the UCC): To be Congregational is to be Unitarian. To be fair, most would not see it quite that way. Nonetheless, the cardinal doctrine of such churches is relativism: All hold their own truth; People are free to believe what they want; No one should “force” his views on another.

This core belief can be held so firmly, so fervently, so “religiously”, that to suggest it is not quite the point is to invite ugly criticism, determined opposition, and even unchecked, venomous rage. There may be very little if any connection with, or loyalty to, the historical legacy of a church or its ministry. People are free to “redefine” the ministry of the church according to their own beliefs, regardless of the clarity or

“narrowness” of the original covenant and/or statement of faith.

This willingness to sever the present from the past is reflected to a frightening degree in much cultural, political, and legal discussion in these days. Its infestation in the church should not surprise us. Indeed I would submit the reason why his spirit has been so successful in pervading our land today is that it as so effectively invaded and overrun so many of the churches. Pastors seeking to faithfully renew New England Congregational churches must be prepared to challenge this assumption while still upholding the time honored tenants of personal freedom and individual conscience inherent in the Bible and Congregational heritage. People do, in fact, believe whatever they want. But that does not nullify the principal demand of covenant; that we be willing to surrender what we ant to think, submitting ourselves to what God says is true. If we are to be faithful witnesses to His truth, we must be ready to sacrifice our ideas for the sake of His Word. Few “old New England Congregationalists”, I am afraid, are ready or willing to do that.

The preaching of a church covenant as the basis for church renewal, community, vision and faith is bound to invoke conflict. A Biblically based covenant nonetheless remains the single most reliable vehicle (aside from Scripture itself ) for establishing

solid common ground in a world of shifting theological, and demographic, sand. It is able to bind together with common conviction and singular vision people of varying cultural, social, political, and religious traditions. Commitment to covenant minimizes theological hair-splitting and divisiveness. To be not only effective, but faithful to its calling, a church must have a clear sense of ho it is, ow it is, and why it still exists. All of this is explicitly stated in the founding covenant of Barre Congregational Church. It behooves the pastor of any such church to “use” its covenant as a basis for establishing, or helping the people to we establish, their common ground.

Education is essential, though not panacean, if this approach to renewal is to be, to any degree, effective. Few New England Congregational church members (I suspect) know their founding covenants, where they came from, or why they say what they say. Such people need to be taught: In the historical framework of covenant theology, a church’s very existence as a community of faith stands or falls solely on the basis of its faithfulness, or lack thereof, to the church covenant. As the leaders of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre stated so emphatically in 1874: You have vowed unto Him, and you cannot go back. This confession of faith and this covenant will hold you while you live, and follow you to the bar of God, and abide with you forever.

Barre Congregational Church had lost connection with its spiritual, historical heritage. That legacy needed to be recaptured. It began with education.

As argued earlier, the story of Barre Congregational Church is the story of every Christian, the story of Israel as a nation, and the story of God’s perpetual struggle with His own people, wherever they are found. Each day we must personally reaffirm our commitment to God’s New Covenant with us, just as each day those of us who are married must recommit ourselves to faithfully living out the wedding vows we have taken. I have stood in a long and wide line of God’s servants who were called to “go to the Israelites, although they will not hear you (Jeremiah 7.27; Ezekial 3.8).” Its been good company. The conviction of my own of calling to just this work was strengthened, deepened, solidified and confirmed through the development and deployment of this thesis.

God is faithful to His Word. Is there a Biblical Truth more axiomatic than this? It rings down through the ages offering the greatest and most blessed of hopes to His people, no matter how far we have strayed or how fully we have turned from Him: God has not abandoned His people. He grieves over our rebellion. He suffers in our disobedience. But he has not rejected us. Just as He sent His prophets again and again to a people who would not listen, and finally in the fullness of the ages sent


His Son, so too the history of Barre Congregational Church runs like the story of redemption itself. The coming of the gospel once again to a church that did not even know what it was to we a church anymore, is the clearest expression to the people of Barre Congregational Church that He had not forsaken them. He had not left them to themselves. He came back to them, and called them again to return to their covenant; to return to Him.

This was not a new message. It is the oldest of messages. And it is one which God will continue to send to His Church. For His people, as long as this earth endures, will turn from Him, and need to be called back to faithfulness. Our great hope and joy is this: God is faithful. When the covenant through which a people enter into fellowship with the true, living God is sound, then the successive generations have great hope that if they pray, and seek the face of the Lord, and turn from their ways, he will visit them once again with a renewing presence of His Holy Spirit, and raise up their work, and lift up their eyes, and send His blessing once again, as He did in former times.

To this end, and with this vision, I have committed my life, and carried out this thesis project. To God be the glory.

CHApTER FOUR A

If a New England congregational church over time has drifted away from its covenantal roots, can it be renewed by calling it back to its founding charter? With careful biblical preaching, faithful pastoral care, and confident assurance in the mercies of God, we believe it can. [But given the results of this project, we do not necessarily believe it will].

A survey of the biblical material on covenant and covenant renewal demonstrates the validity of such an approach. An overview of the practice of covenant and covenant renewal ceremonies in early American congregationalism supports such an effort as central to the very tenants of a congregational church. An extensive consideration of the covenant history of Barre Congregational Church documents that just such a drift had indeed occurred. Yet none of this could guarantee that God would get what he desired. [He rarely does]. Nor that just such an effort would be carried out flawlessly, in perfect synchronization with the Spirit of God. Much if not most of the analysis of what actually transpired during the course of this project will have to wait until the final Day, when all will be seen as it should have been. [?] Nonetheless, given the Scriptures, the legacy of congregationalism, the particular historical context [?] of BCC, and the prayerful pastoral sense of the author, the time was right.

The specific results of this project are nebulous on the one hand, and glaring on the other. While most of the members of the church were, even if in spite of themselves, engaged in the debate, much of what they thought or felt about it was not always expressed openly and positively. This made it difficult to accurately gauge the readiness

Page 136 Chapter Four A

of the congregation to take on this challenge. I may have moved prematurely. On the other hand, as will be illustrated by yet another event concurrent with and subsequent to the execution of the project, the controversy was theological to the core. And everyone knew it. The most documentable “result” of this project was some fifty families withdrawing their membership from BCC, many of whom would form the nucleus of a new church five months later.

What happened in BCC did not have to happen. A similar effort in a similar small town New England congregational church could well have quite different results (one would hope!). And things might have turned out differently in Barre if the project had been done differently, or by someone else, or at some other time. But I don’t think so.

The obstacle to renewal at BCC could be approached from a variety of angles, each of which would lend some light to a correct interpretation of what actually happened. Casting the debate as we have here in terms of covenant brings us to the conclusion that, in at least this particular situation, the proverbial “bottom line” was loyalty. Call it loyalty to tradition, or loyalty to past glory, or loyalty to church building, or loyalty to a former pastor and his legacy, or loyalty to one’s fraternal organization, or loyalty to friend, or family, or loyalty to one’s own “beliefs”, whatever they be, above all else. The problem is that each of these loyalties, any loyalty, will ultimately come into conflict with loyalty to Jesus Christ. It cannot be otherwise. “The stuff of earth competes for the allegiance I owe only to the Giver of all good things” [Rich Mullins]. Our Lord was well aware of the cost to his disciples. Ultimate loyalty demands the surrender of all others [scripture verses would be good].

In BCC, all the loyalties suggested above were in play - some more than others, some stronger than others, some more virulently defended than others. The message of covenant renewal coming from the pulpit of BCC called each and every one of the loyalties to be made subservient to the personal [and corporate] loyalty each one of us owes to the Lord Jesus Christ. If He is Lord, He must be allowed to exercise His Lordship. Otherwise, regardless of what we say, something else still holds our higher allegiance. The Bible calls this idolatry.

The paradigm of idolatry helps explain what happened in BCC. The great commandment in the OT is to have no other gods before Yahweh. [Dt] The great commandment in the NT is identical to it, but put “positively”, if you will [text]. An idol is anyone or anything which is higher in loyalty in a person’s heart than Jesus Christ. At BCC, all the loyalties suggested functioned as false idols. Each one held the potential to be more important than loyalty to the True God. Collectively as a

community, the call to covenant was a call to tear down idols exalting themselves above Christ.

CHApTER FOUR b

Analysis, Interpretation, and Conclusion

The reason for initiating this project was to move BCC toward a church covenant renewal ceremony. In the immediate aftermath of the project’s completion, there was reason to believe that significant progress had been made to that end. The case for covenant renewal had been plainly and consistently articulated to the congregation. The recognition that such a matter would require careful prayer, thought, and discussion had also been made clear. Finally it had been explicitly stated that, although willing to spend whatever time necessary for study and/or deliberation, the pastor’s intention was to lead the congregation—ultimately—to a decision. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the church as a whole would be moving towards the goal outlined in the series of covenant sermons (See Appendices D, We, F, G).

In the minds of some who had opposed this goal, or at the very least were skeptical or fearful of its possible consequences, BCC’s movement in that direction accelerated dramatically only a few days after the conclusion of this project. For almost three years, a small group of people within BCC, in concert with several Christians from a number of other surrounding churches and communities, had been working together to establish a Christian school in western Worcester County. This group, calling itself the Steering Committee of Barre Christian Academy (BCA), had hosted several well publicized informational meetings over that three year period keeping BCC, area churches, and surrounding communities abreast of its findings and progress. In the Spring of 1993 the Steering Committee was ready to introduce a formal proposal to BCC. The date set for the church meeting in which they would present the proposal coincided, to within two weeks, of the project’s completion.

Barre is squarely in the center of the geographical region represented by the members of the Steering Committee. After considerable prayer, research, and counsel the Steering Committee of BCA decided to ask Barre Congregational Church for permission to rent its building to house this ministry. Many other potential sites had been considered, but BCC’s facility was the most feasible. During the Winter of 1993 the Committee had approached the trustees of Barre Congregational Church, who were unanimous in their enthusiastic endorsement of the effort. It was recognized that this was a major decision, fraught with potential peril given the then current climate within the church. Although not required to so do according to the bylaws, the trustees wisely opted to ask the whole congregation for its input and support.

This was done at a duly called church meeting in early April 1993, only days after this project’s conclusion. The Steering Committee of Barre Christian Academy presented a proposal outlining the vision, mission, and educational philosophy of the school. The church voted to accept Barre Christian Academy as “an extension of the educational ministry of Barre Congregational Church,” narrowly approving (by five votes) the proposal as presented. The Steering Committee began in earnest to plan for a September 1993 opening.

Two months later, however, in the first week of June another church meeting was called by a group who wished to rescind the vote taken in April. At that meeting, the presenter representing this group outlined their objections to having BCA become a ministry of BCC. To the astonishment of the Steering Committee, the objections were neither financial, nor practical, nor educational. They were theological. “BCC,” it was claimed, “is not a fundamentalist church.” The philosophy undergirding BCA was perceived (wrongly) to be fundamentalist, therefore not in harmony with BCC.

It seemed to many of those present at the meeting, an unusually well attended one, that the author’s ministry at BCC could well be drawing to a close. Since BCC was rejecting BCA on theological grounds, it was rejecting the theology it was defining (again, incorrectly) as “fundamentalist”. That theology was identified with the author. In an effort to avoid further disunity and dissension in the body, before the assembled meeting could take a formal vote, BCA withdrew its request. The church voted against BCA, anyway.

It was a defining moment.

What was God saying now? Should another site for BCA be sought? Should we continue to serve at BCC? Would there be another movement to oust the pastor? Some two weeks after the June meeting, two church leaders gently and graciously

Page 140 Chapter Four B: Analysis, Interpretation, and Conclusion

informed me that another petition was indeed circulating throughout the church to call for my removal. Not wanting to put myself, my family, or God’s people through another fight—and sensing my job was done—I announced my resignation the following Sunday. As of September 30, I was no longer the pastor of Barre Congregational Church.

Could events have turned out differently? Should they have? Were there flaws in the project’s design, or presentation, or implementation, which made it more likely to

“fail”? Did it fail? We now turn to these questions.

I discern three areas in which another approach might have made a difference, possibly even preserving the unity of the church for a different outcome. First, the timing may have been “off”. In retrospect it is rather remarkable that after three years of work, the BCA Steering Committee would be ready to move at exactly the same time this project was being implemented BCA was a completely independent effort; a number of people working on it had no connection whatsoever to BCC. Still the volatile combination of the thesis project and the BCA proposal within a two week period undoubtedly brought the entire theological controversy animating the church conflict into unmistakably graphic relief. Even those not generally given to speaking or thinking “theologically” saw this as a theological divide; “fundamentalists” on one side,

“Congregationalists” on the other. The theological thrust of the thesis combined with the theological content of BCA was an alarming portent to the “Congregationalists”. Fearing an eventual “takeover” (Someone actually said, “We want our church back”, as if it had been invaded by aliens), they needed to act, and quickly. Had I postponed the project’s implementation until sometime after BCA’s proposal had been thoroughly discussed, the congregation would have had more time—and perhaps more inclination—to process, digest, and integrate the significance of the changes happening within the church.

This leads to a second possible deficiency in the project. I had condensed a lot of historical material into a short period of time; perhaps too short. Even though the historical legacy of BCC had been formally introduced in detail some three years earlier, and had frequently been referred to in a variety of contexts, it still may have been too much too fast for the congregation to absorb and “own” as a group. Perhaps if more classes had been offered, or more opportunities for the congregation to learn BCC’s history for themselves, a broader base of common ground might have been established.

A third possible reason for the project’s ultimate consequence could have been simply

a matter of personality. Over the years of service in BCC, some had come to distrust me; others felt I was not being a good pastor to them; still others that I just did not understand them or respect their beliefs.Some of my relationships to the members of the congregation which had hired me in 1980 began taking “second place” to the members who had joined the church since then. Many in the original congregation sensed this, resented it, and became angry with me for what they interpreted as a change of loyalties. They felt betrayed, and that I was betraying “their” church by leading it in a direction they did not want it to go. By their reckoning, I was more devoted to the “new” church than the “old” one. Whether true or not, when the perception of such things becomes entrenched, it takes on a life of its own. Regardless of its genesis or subsequent merit, this perception had developed, and I am bound to take some responsibility for its existence.

The obstacles to renewal at BCC could be understood using a number of different metaphors or paradigms, each of which would lend some light to a correct interpretation of what actually happened (such as the “new wine” of Mk. 22). Casting the debate as we have in terms of covenant brings us to the conclusion that in BCC, the pivotal fulcrum was loyalty: loyalty to tradition, or past glory, or the church building; loyalty to a former pastor and his legacy, or to one’s fraternal organization; loyalty to friend and family, or to one’s own “beliefs”, whatever they be. The problem for every believer is that all loyalties eventually come into direct conflict with loyalty to Jesus Christ. It cannot be otherwise, for He demands our highest allegiance, devotion, and fidelity. Ultimate loyalty requires the surrender of all others, for “no one can serve two masters (Mt. 6.24).”

In BCC, each of the loyalties suggested above were in play—some more widely shared than others, some more firmly embedded than others, some more dynamically apparent than others. The message of covenant renewal coming from the pulpit of BCC called each and every one of those loyalties to be made subservient to the personal and corporate loyalty each of us—due to covenant—owes to the Lord Jesus Christ and to Him alone. If we call Him Lord, He must be given leave to exercise that Lordship according to His will. Otherwise, regardless of what we say, something or someone other than Christ retains our highest allegiance. The Bible calls this idolatry.

The Biblical paradigm of idolatry gives the clearest interpretation for the conflict of loyalties that emerged in BCC. The great commandment of the Old Covenant is to have no other gods before Yahweh (Ex.20.3). The great commandment of the New Covenant is identical to it, but with a “positive spin” (Mk. 12.30). An idol, then, is anyone or anything to which we grant a higher allegiance than we do to Jesus Christ.


At BCC, all the competing loyalties mentioned were functioning, to some degree, as idols. Each one held the potential to be more important than loyalty to the True God. The call to covenant renewal was a call to the whole church to tear down any and every idol exalting itself above devotion to Christ. This, as a community, the church refused to do.

It is seldom a pleasant task, as it is usually “violent” (Ex. 34.13). Nor is it a work God will do for us. There is not a single instance in all of the Old Testament where God tears down the idols on behalf of the people (see His commands in Ex.34.13; Dt. 12.3; Jud. 2, etc.). It is their (our) job to do that, and only when they are obedient does God honor their repentance (2 K. 18.3-7; Is. 38. -6; Chron. 34.1-7, 6-28).

Any pastor undertaking the work of God must recognize the human obsession with idols, name them as they are revealed by the Spirit, and renounce, deny and defy them. There will always be loyalties competing for our affection; family, wealth, fame, self righteousness, self gratification, power, control, influence, applause. These must be renounced—and often— for the sake of love for Christ. Covenant renewal—as individuals or as a people—is the reaffirmation that Jesus Christ remains our highest loyalty and retains our deepest affections. We must keep saying it. We must keep doing it. We must keep renewing it.

If a New England congregational church over time has drifted away from its covenantal roots, can it be renewed by calling it back to its founding charter, assuming that charter is rooted in Scripture? With careful Biblical preaching, faithful pastoral care, and confident assurance in the mercies of God, we believe it can. A survey of the Biblical material on covenant and covenant renewal demonstrates the validity of such an approach. An overview of the practice of covenant and covenant renewal ceremonies in early American congregationalism supports such an effort as central to the very tenants of a congregational church. The faithfulness of God compels us to try.

Any effort to bring genuine, Biblically informed renewal to a church which has a history like that of Barre Congregational Church demands patience, commitment, long term vision, and a passionate confidence in God’s faithfulness to covenant. There are many Congregational churches in New England with Evangelical roots, but Unitarian fruits. It is no simple task to turn them back. Any pastor entering such a situation must view his work in its entire historical context. To come against the idols of power, self righteousness, family ties or church pride, and to love the people under their sway, is perhaps the greatest challenge for any pastor called to work for renewal in a New England Congregational church.

I have become firmly convinced of this: With varying degrees and in different dimensions, every lament of the conflict which beset Barre Congregational Church from 1990 - 1993 will eventually converge upon any Congregational church in New England in which the gospel is preached.

3 The idols of tradition and control rarely surrender to gentle persuasion. The pastor who challenges them must be ready for the battle, and certain of God’s calling upon him to engage in it, if he is to be found true to the task. The cost can be great. Pastor, family, congregation and community all pay a price. But we are called to lay down our lives for the sheep. Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it cannot yield a harvest. If the dry bones of New England Congregationalism are to be brought back to life, such sacrifice will be required.

Years of uncontested dominance of many Unitarian theological presuppositions within New England Congregationalism has given birth to the following “operating assumption” in many congregational churches (and most of those associated with the UCC): To be Congregational is to be Unitarian. To be fair, most would not describe it quite that way. Nonetheless, the cardinal doctrine of such churches is relativism: All hold their own truth; People are free to believe what they want; No one should “force” his views on another. These core beliefs an be held so fervently that to suggest it is not quite the point may invite criticism, opposition, and even rage. Rarely is there an appeal to a church’s founding covenant in defense of them.

As this willingness to sever the present from the past is reflected in much cultural, political, and legal discussion these days, its infection in the church should not surprise us. Indeed this may be the reason why this tendency is so pervasive in our culture: It has so effectively invaded and overrun so many churches. Pastors seeking to faithfully renew New England Congregational churches must be prepared to challenge this assumption while still upholding the time honored tenants of personal freedom and individual conscience inherent in the Bible and Congregational heritage. People do, in fact, believe whatever they want. But that does not nullify the principal demand of covenant; that we be willing to surrender what we ant to think, submitting ourselves to what God says is true. If we are to be faithful witnesses to His truth, we must be ready to sacrifice our ideas for the sake of His Word. Few “old New England Congregationalists”, I fear, are ready or willing to do that.

The preaching of a church covenant as the basis for church renewal is likely to invoke conflict. A Biblically based covenant nonetheless remains the single most reliable vehicle (aside from Scripture itself ) for establishing solid common ground in a world


of shifting theological, and demographic, sand. It is able to bind together with common conviction and singular vision people of varying cultural, social, political, and religious traditions. Commitment to covenant minimizes theological hair-splitting and divisiveness. To be not only effective, but faithful to its calling, a church must have a clear sense of who it is, ow it is, and why it still exists. All of this is explicitly stated in the founding covenants of most New England Congregational churches, and certainly in that of Barre Congregational Church. It behooves the pastor of any such church to “use” its covenant as a basis for establishing, or helping the people to re-establish, their common ground in Christ.

Though no panacea, education is essential if this approach to renewal is to be effective. Few New England Congregational church members (I suspect) know their founding covenants, where they came from, or why they say what they say. Church members need to be taught (as were their forefathers) that in the historical framework of covenant theology, a church’s very existence as a community of faith stands or falls solely on the basis of its faithfulness, or lack thereof, to the church covenant. As the leaders of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre stated so emphatically in 1874:

You have vowed unto Him, and you cannot go back. This confession of faith and this covenant will hold you while you live, and follow you to the bar of God, and abide with you forever.

Barre Congregational Church had lost connection with the spiritual, historical heritage of its covenant. That legacy needed to be recaptured. It had to begin with education.

As stated earlier, the story of Barre Congregational Church is the story of every Christian, the story of Israel as a nation, and the story of God’s perpetual struggle with His own people, wherever they are found. Each day we must personally reaffirm our commitment to God’s New Covenant with us, just as each day those of us who are married must recommit ourselves to faithfully living out the wedding vows we have taken. I see much of my work at BCC standing in a long line of God’s servants who were called to “go to the Israelites, although they will not hear you (Jeremiah 7.27; Ezekiel 3.8).” The conviction regarding my own sense of calling to this work was considerably strengthened, deepened, solidified and confirmed through the development and deployment of this thesis.

God is faithful to His Word. Is there any Biblical Truth more axiomatic than this?

It rings down through the ages offering the greatest and most blessed of hopes to His

people, no matter how far we have strayed or how fully we have turned from Him: God has not abandoned His people. He grieves over our rebellion. He suffers in our disobedience. But he has not rejected us. Just as He sent His prophets again and again to a people who would not listen, and finally in the fullness of the ages sent His Son, so too the history of Barre Congregational Church runs like the story of redemption itself. The coming of the gospel once again to a church that did not even know what it was to we a church anymore, is the clearest expression to the people of Barre Congregational Church that He had not forsaken them. He had not left them to themselves. He came back to them, and called them again to return to their covenant; to return to Him. The story of BCC is a chronicle of God’s faithfulness.

This is not a new message. It is the oldest of messages. And it is one which God will continue to send to His Church. For His people, as long as this earth endures, will turn from Him, and need to be called back. Our great hope and joy is this: God is faithful. When the covenant through which a people enter into fellowship with the true, living God is sound, then the successive generations have great hope that if they pray, and seek the face of the Lord, and turn from their ways, he will visit them once again with a renewing presence of His Holy Spirit, and raise up their work, and lift up their eyes, and send His blessing once again, as He did in former times.

To this end, and with this vision, I have committed my life, and carried out this thesis project for the glory of God.

CHApTER FOUR C

Conclusion Results

The governing purpose of this project was to attempt to return BCC to the core of biblical faith through a church covenant renewal service. This was to be a public reclaiming, by the whole congregation, of BCC’s original covenant. To this end the case for covenant renewal had been patiently explained and consistently articulated to the church over a period of three years. That such an action would require careful prayer, thought, and discussion had been made clear. Finally it had been explicitly stated that, although willing to spend whatever time considered necessary for further study and/or deliberation, the pastor’s intention was to lead the congregation, ultimately, to a decision. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the pastor would be working to move the whole church towards the goal outlined and developed in the series of covenant sermons: a congregational renewal of the founding covenant and statement of faith of the ECCB [Appendices D, We, F, G].

As described in Chapter Three, because of the depth of theological division within the congregation, the pastor and Deaconate had agreed that a church wide covenant renewal service to conclude the project would be premature. In lieu of a congregational renewal, then, it was decided that anyone wishing to reaffirm one’s personal commitment to the Lord should be encouraged to do so on Easter Sunday, the final day of the project.

No one suspected that the group standing before the alter of Barre Congregational Church on Easter morning of 1993 was, in fact, the embryo of a new church; more accurately a renewed church—one with the same identity, the same direction, the

same purpose, and most importantly, the same covenant and statement of faith is the first Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre (ECCB). Although this embryo was not yet born, virtually all of the individuals who came forward that day would resolve in the coming months that God was calling them out of the church which, they believed, had rejected the very covenant they had affirmed.

Only a few days after the conclusion of this project, one event dramatically intensified the ongoing theological conflict within the church and accelerated the dynamics that would lead both to the author’s resignation, and the eventual birth of Covenant Evangelical Church (CEC). For almost three years, a small group of people within BCC, in concert with several Christians from a number of other surrounding churches and communities, had been working together to establish a Christian school in western Worcester County. This group, calling itself the Steering Committee of Barre Christian Academy (BCA), had hosted several well publicized informational meetings over that three year period keeping BCC, area churches, and surrounding communities abreast of its findings and progress.

Barre lies in the center of the geographical region represented by the members of the Steering Committee. After considerable prayer, research, and counsel the Steering Committee of BCA decided to ask Barre Congregational Church for permission to rent its building to house this ministry. Many other potential sites had been considered, but BCC’s facility was the most feasible. During the Winter of 1993 the Committee had approached the trustees of Barre Congregational Church, who were unanimous in their enthusiastic endorsement of the effort. It was recognized that this was a major decision, fraught with potential peril given the then current climate within the church. Although not required to so do according to the bylaws, the trustees wisely opted to ask the whole congregation for its input and support.

This was done at a duly called church meeting in early April 1993, only days after this project’s conclusion. The Steering Committee of Barre Christian Academy presented a proposal outlining the vision, mission, and educational philosophy of the school. The church voted to accept Barre Christian Academy as “an extension of the educational ministry of Barre Congregational Church,” narrowly approving (by five votes) the proposal as presented. The Steering Committee began in earnest to plan for a September 1993 opening.

Two months later, however, in the first week of June another church meeting was called by a group who wished to rescind the vote taken in April. At that meeting, the presenter representing this group outlined their objections to having BCA become

Page 148 Chapter Four C: Conclusion Results

a ministry of BCC. To the astonishment of the Steering Committee, the objections were not financial, practical, or educational. They were theological. “BCC,” it was claimed, “is not a fundamentalist church.” Since the philosophy undergirding BCA was incorrectly perceived as fundamentalist, it was therefore assumed not to be in harmony with BCC. In an effort to avoid further disunity and dissension in the body, BCA withdrew its request. The church voted against BCA, anyway. It was a defining moment.

This action by BCC made clear the direction in which the church was intent on moving. The goal of corporate renewal by a covenant rooted deeply within Scripture, Reformation theology, and the church’s own history, was being rejected.

Such an action by the church in the context of a formal meeting pointedly raised the issue of pastoral leadership, as well. Because BCC was rejecting BCA on theological grounds, it was at the same time rejecting the theology of its original covenant, which it had also defined as “fundamentalist,” a label now closely associated with the pastor. The church was fervently divided along explicitly theological lines. The possibility had to be considered that another movement could arise to call for the resignation of the pastor. It also appeared that a large segment of the congregation might leave to establish a church true to the original covenant. Each of these matters generated talk, prayer, and bewilderment on the part of many. Thus I began to earnestly seek the Lord as to whether I should continue to serve as pastor of BCC.

Some two weeks after the June meeting, two church leaders gently and graciously informed me that another petition was indeed circulating throughout the church to call for my removal. Believing now that the project goal of attempted covenant renewal had been carried as far as was possible, sensing that my role as pastor of BCC was in fact over, and desiring neither to put the evangelical constituency nor my own family through more potentially bitter controversy, I announced my resignation the following Sunday. As of September 30, I would no longer be the pastor of Barre Congregational Church.

Providentially, amid all these events a genuine movement of renewal based upon covenant was emerging. Immediately following the announcement of pastoral resignation, and on through the summer of 1993, some forty to fifty families from BCC began meeting regularly to inquire of the Lord’s will in the light of the recent developments. These soberly prayerful people became convinced that God was calling them as a group out of BCC to begin a new church that would be founded upon, and faithful to, the ECCB covenant. They believed that God desired to have a people in

Barre faithfully gathered around that particular covenant as a witness and testimony to His faithfulness. Since BCC had decided it would not be that church, they would be.

To assure themselves of a solid foundation for the action they would take, this group met at least once a week, and methodically read together every Bible reference of every Article of Faith in the original ECCB documents. In order to assure freedom and avoid any conflict of interest, I did not attend these meetings. I had plainly told them that if God were calling them to establish a church, they should proceed with no consideration whatsoever regarding me. Significantly, when ECCB took measures to leave the First Parish in 1827, it was a lay movement led by lay people motivated by sound Biblical principles. Whatever this nascent group was to become, it should likewise be a lay movement orchestrated by God and building on the same foundation. As far as we had been given to understand the will of the Lord at the time, God’s work for the Haywards in Barre was complete. I would be actively and aggressively pursuing another call to another church in another place.

The withdrawing remnant from BCC wisely elected a Steering Committee. This eventuated in action to legally incorporate the Covenant Evangelical Church (CEC). The name was chosen in order to emphasize the direct link between ECCB and CEC. The vision of the group was to rekindle the original purpose of their spiritual ancestors from ECCB: an uncompromising, biblically informed, evangelical church witness to the gospel in the community of Barre.

The first worship service was set for October 1, the first Sunday I would no longer be pastor of BCC. I was invited to preach on an interim basis until such time as I received another call, or they could call a pastor, whichever came first. I heartily agreed, as my severance package with BCC would soon be ending.

This decision to serve as interim at CEC created a personal dilemma for me regarding my professional standing with the United Church of Christ. The Committee for Church and Ministry (of which I had been an active member for six years in the late 1980’s) met and concluded that I was “breaking covenant” with the UCC by agreeing to pastor, even as an interim, a group of “dissidents” who had left the UCC church from which I had just resigned. There were several discussions with the Committee concerning this matter, continuing on into January 19.

In the first week of the new year, I received a call from Holden Chapel asking again if the Steering Committee of BCA would be willing to start its school in their facility. We believed that at last God’s will was being revealed. Since Holden Chapel wanted to house BCA, incorporating it as part of their church’s overall ministry, we decided


to remain in the general vicinity of Barre. Our ministry in part would be to assist in bringing this long incubating dream of a Christian school to life.

Since we had decided to stay in the area, I was offered, and I accepted, the pastorate of CEC. I had been informed by the Church and Ministry Committee that if I chose to stay in or near Barre and pastor the group which had left BCC, my standing in the UCC would be terminated. The Committee contended that it would be impossible for my successor to effectively minister at BCC if I remained in or near town. After much counsel and prayerful consideration of all the factors involved, I was persuaded that God was “releasing” me from my commitment to the United Church of Christ for an adventure of faith with Him into an unknown future. My professional standing as a minister in the UCC was officially withdrawn that Spring.

On the second anniversary of CEC, after much study, discussion, and prayer, CEC formally bound itself to the original covenant [Appendix K] and articles of faith [Appendix J] of its spiritual forefathers from ECCB. Some minor revisions were made. (We combined elements from the 1845 covenant and the 1872 covenant, and added a few of our own. We also simplified the article [1 addressing membership in the body of Christ). In the cover letter for the adoption of the covenant and statement of faith, mailed to the members of CEC in August 1995, the elders took care to remind the congregation, “...it is only because of His faithfulness to the covenant entered into by ECCB, that we are here today as CEC [Appendix I].” The covenant has been renewed each successive year on the first Sunday in October. The establishing of CEC as a covenanted community opens the next chapter, yet to be written, in the chronicle of God’s faithfulness to the founders of ECCB. Although not in the manner anticipated, the existence of CEC demonstrates that God honors a covenant made with Him.

We now analyze the project in retrospect, considering the several options and opportunities which ensued by carrying out the intent as delineated in Chapter Three. Naturally questions arise regarding the flow of events. Could matters have turned out differently? Should they have? Were there flaws in the project’s design, or presentation, or implementation, which made it more likely to “fail?” Did it fail? In consideration of these questions it appears that there were four areas in which another approach might have made a difference, possibly even preserving the unity of the church for a different outcome.

First, it may have been unwise to introduce a good, but extraneous element, namely BCA, into the environment at such a crucial juncture in the life of the church. In hindsight it does seem remarkable that after three years of work, the BCA Steering

Committee was ready to present a formal recommendation to the church at exactly the same time that this project was being implemented. BCA had been a completely independent effort; a number of people who were working on it had no connection whatsoever to BCC. Still the volatile combination of the thesis project’s conclusion, together with the BCA proposal, each occurring within a two week period, undoubtedly brought the entire theological controversy animating the church conflict into unmistakably graphic relief. Even those not generally given to speaking or thinking theologically saw this as a theological divide; “fundamentalists” on one side, “Congregationalists” on the other. The theological thrust of the thesis in tandem with the theological content of BCA was an alarming portent to the latter. These older members were fearful, as they put it, of an eventual “takeover.” At one meeting, a member verbalized this deeply held anxiety saying, “We want our church back!” as if it had been invaded by aliens. The old town families, therefore, felt compelled to act, and quickly. Had the project’s implementation been postponed until sometime after BCA’s proposal had been thoroughly discussed, or had BCA’s presentation been delayed several months, the congregation would have had more time, and perhaps more inclination, to process, digest, and integrate the significance of the changes happening within the church.

Second, it is possible that there had not been sufficient time for the congregation to absorb and accept the implications of its own historical legacy. I had condensed much historical material into a short period of time; perhaps too short. Even though the evangelical heritage of BCC had been formally introduced in detail some three years earlier, and had since then been referred to frequently in a variety of contexts, it still may have been too much too fast for the congregation to incorporate and “own” as a group. Perhaps if more education classes had been offered, or more opportunities for the congregation to learn and discuss BCC’s history had been programmed, a broader and less shallow consensus might have been established. It could be that the long time members clearly understood the implications of covenant renewal and purposefully took measures to obstruct it. If so, it is doubtful more time would have produced a different outcome.

Third, over the years of service in BCC, some parishioners had come to distrust me. Others felt I was not a good pastor to them, still others that I just did not understand or respect their beliefs. Some of my relationships to the members of the congregation which had called me in 1980 began taking “second place” to the members who had joined the church since then. Many in the original congregation sensed this, resented it, and became angry for what they interpreted as a shift of loyalties. They felt


betrayed; that I was undermining “their” church by leading it in a direction they did not want it to go. By their reckoning, I was more devoted to the new emerging church than the old established one.

This dimension of personality conflict was suggested by the contracted work of the Rev. Robert Johnson some two years earlier [Appendix B]. The congregation had been evenly divided between people who felt that I was too “cold” and “aloof,” and those who believed I was “devoted” and “compassionate.” Although I had made numerous attempts to bridge these two extremes in perception, clearly those efforts were unsuccessful. The church was split upon the overall opinion of the pastor just as surely as it was divided theologically, and along exactly the same lines. Johnson’s report statistically demonstrates that those who thought I showed a “lack of care,” were also unhappy with my theological orientation. Likewise, those who supported me personally affirmed the spiritual content of my ministry. By the time of the project’s implementation, the pastor and the theology he espoused had essentially fused into one in the minds of most in the congregation. When such a perception becomes that entrenched, it takes on a life of its own. Regardless of its genesis or subsequent merit, this perception had developed, and I am bound to take some responsibility for its existence and persistence

Fourth, I may have underestimated the depth and power of the New England mind set; a tendency toward parochialism, tradition, and resistance to change. In conjunction, I may have overestimated the commitment of the evangelicals and middle-of-the-roaders in the congregation to the renewal effort for BCC. Though there was a firm commitment to the covenant renewal vision and project, there turned out to be less of a determination to have BCC itself renewed. I believe the evangelical members saw with clarity the radical dichotomy between biblical truth and the refusal to affirm that truth, especially as it was blatantly manifested during the spring and summer of 1993. Thus the impetus to “move out” and found the CEC. Being fixated on the renewing of BCC, I had not seriously anticipated this possibility.

InterpretationEvery institution of long standing has built into it a resistance to change. It takes time for the “old guard” in any organization to accept the necessity for, or the advantages of, altering the status quo. This is particularly true in New England Congregational churches, where there are also potent spiritual forces to be reckoned with. The theological liberals in BCC were looking for any means available to deflect and derail

the energies of the evangelical movement for change. The BCA issue provided the tool necessary for the old guard forces to claim that the idea for a covenant renewal ceremony was bigger than just the project: it had to do with the long accepted definition of the identity of the church. This was correct, but it was more than they were willing to accept. Thus there was never a realistic chance, given these two well defined and opposing theological positions, that a conversion of the congregation could take place outside of a dramatic intervention of the Holy Spirit, for which we prayed, but which was not forthcoming.

In reflecting on the various obstacles to renewal of BCC, I came to employ a series of metaphors or paradigms, each of which lent light to an overall interpretation of what actually happened. Three of these were particularly useful for understanding events as they unfolded.

Chronologically, the first metaphor I used to introduce the concept of covenant renewal to the congregation was that of new wine and its properties as described by Jesus in Mk. 22. In the Pastor’s Annual Report of 1990, I had developed this idea and tied it directly to the many changes that were occurring in our church at the time. “There is no value judgment whatsoever on new wine being better than old. But according to His message, the new wine must be allowed to have its own integrity—its own rate of growth, its own shape, its own life. To try and squeeze it into the old will destroy both old and new.” I also noted in that same report, “In 1827, thirty-two people got together and made a covenant with God to serve him in this place, to worship him, and to hold up the gospel as a light to our community. This is our heritage. We stand within that heritage; thus, within that same covenant they made with the Lord.” Though it may take some time for such concepts to be absorbed, understood, believed, and incorporated into one’s way of thinking, covenant, covenant renewal, and the historical heritage of BCC had had an active role in our corporate conversation since 1990. Three years later, the image of new wine bursting old skins remained a useful and familiar metaphor by which to understand and talk about what was happening to us.

Second, casting the debate as we have in terms of covenant brings us to the observation that in BCC the pivotal fulcrum, animating the decisions of everyone involved, was loyalty.

More accurately, an interlocking set of conflicting loyalties was forcing each person involved in the church to choose. Loyalty to tradition, or past glory, or the church building; loyalty to a former pastor and his legacy, or to one’s fraternal organization;


loyalty to friend and family, or to one’s own beliefs; each of these was being challenged by the call to the one ultimate, highest loyalty demanded of us by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The intractable problem for every believer is that every loyalty ever held dear eventually comes into direct conflict with the call to be loyal to Jesus Christ alone. It cannot be otherwise, for He demands our highest allegiance, devotion, and fidelity, and will settle for nothing less. Ultimate loyalty requires the surrender of all other loyalties, for “no one can serve two masters (Mt. 6.24).” Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these (John 1.15)?” Whatever the precise identification of the

“these”, the question recurs to all believers repeatedly throughout life’s sojourn: “Do you love me more?”

This is nothing less than God’s way of separating of light from darkness, truth from error, wheat from chaff. In one of the last sermons I was to preach at BCC, I pointed out from John 6 that it is the very word of Jesus that divides people. The more Jesus speaks, the greater the demands He places upon His hearers, and the fewer ears there are to listen. Even, we are told, “...many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him (v66).” Jesus was, in essence, asking them all, “Do you love me more?” Most people (and this must now include BCC), to the grief of God, answer “No.”

In BCC, each of the loyalties already suggested were in place, with considerable overlap. Some were more widely shared, more firmly embedded, or more dynamically apparent than others. But the message of covenant renewal coming from the pulpit of BCC called for each and every one of those loyalties to be made subservient to the personal and corporate loyalty each of us—due to covenant—owed to the Lord Jesus Christ and to Him alone. If we choose to call Him Lord, we must give Him full permission and unhindered access to exercise that Lordship according to His will. Otherwise, regardless of what we say, something or someone other than Christ retains our highest allegiance. The Bible calls this idolatry; by definition, the betrayal of loyalty to God.

Third, the Biblical paradigm of idolatry offers ultimately the most satisfying interpretation for the conflict of loyalties that manifested themselves in BCC. The great commandment of the Old Covenant is to have no other gods before Yahweh (Ex.20.3). The great commandment of the New Covenant is identical to it, but with a positive spin (Mk. 12.30). An idol, then, is anyone or anything to which we grant a higher allegiance than we do to Jesus Christ. Loyalties competing for our affections; family, wealth, fame, self righteousness, self gratification, power, control, influence, applause, et al, are ever present. Thus they must be defied—loudly, definitively, and often— for the sake of love for Christ. Covenant renewal, as individuals or as a people,

is the renunciation of our idols combined with the reaffirmation that Jesus Christ remains our highest loyalty and retains our deepest affections.

At BCC, the competing loyalties mentioned were functioning, to some degree, as idols. Each one held the potential to become more important than faithfulness to the True God. The call to covenant renewal was a call to the whole church to renounce any and every idol exalting itself above devotion to Christ. This, as a community, the church refused to do.

It is seldom an easy or pleasant task, this dethroning of idols, as it is usually violent (Ex. 34.13). Nor is it a work God will do for us. There is not a single instance in all of the Old Testament where God tears down the idols on behalf of His people (see His commands in Ex.34.13; Dt. 12.3; Jud. 2, etc.). It is our job to do that, and only when we are obedient does God honor our repentance (2 K. 18.3-7; Is. 38. -6; Chron. 34.1-7, 6-28).

RecommendationsTo name the idols of tradition, power, self righteousness, convenience, self interest, family ties or church pride, and come against them while loving the people under their sway, is perhaps the greatest challenge for any pastor called to work for renewal in a New England Congregational church. Still if a New England congregational church over time has drifted away from its covenant roots, making treaties with idols, can it be renewed by calling it back to its founding charter, assuming that charter is rooted in Scripture? With much prayer, careful biblical preaching, faithful pastoral care, and confident assurance in the mercies of God, we believe it can. A survey of the biblical material on covenant and covenant renewal demonstrates the validity of such an approach. An overview of the practice of covenant and covenant renewal ceremonies in early American congregationalism supports such an effort as central to the very tenants of a congregational church. The faithfulness of God compels us to try. We suggest a four-fold strategy for pursuing covenant renewal in New England Congregational churches.

First, seriously prepare for spiritual warfare. With varying degrees and in different dimensions, every lament of the conflict which beset Barre Congregational Church from 1990 - 1993 will eventually converge upon any Congregational church in New England in which the gospel is preached. Idols never surrender to gentle persuasion. The pastor who challenges them must be ready for the battle, and certain of God’s calling upon him to engage in it, if he is to be found true to the task. The cost can be


great. Pastor, family, congregation and community all pay a price. But we are called to lay down our lives for the sheep. Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it cannot yield a harvest. If the dry bones of New England Congregationalism are to be brought back to life, such sacrifice will be required. And such sacrifice can only be offered as diligent prayer— the ine qua non of spiritual war— is being invested.

Second, approach the issue historically. Any effort to bring genuine, biblically informed renewal to a church which has a history like that of Barre Congregational Church demands prayer-bred patience, commitment, long term vision, and a passionate confidence in God’s faithfulness to restore the repentant through covenant. Many Congregational churches in New England have evangelical roots, but Unitarian fruits. Years of uncontested dominance of many Unitarian theological presuppositions within New England Congregationalism have given birth to the following operating assumption in many congregational churches (and a majority of those associated with the UCC): To be Congregational is, as often as not, to be Unitarian. In fairness, most would not describe it quite that way. Nonetheless, the cardinal doctrine of most UCC churches is relativism: All expressions of truth are considered equally valid. People are free to believe whatever they want, and still be considered church members in good standing. No one should force his views on another. These core beliefs an be held so fervently, and for so long, that to suggest that that is not quite the point may invite criticism, opposition, and even rage. Rarely is there an appeal to a church’s founding covenant in defense of them.

It is no simple task to turn a church, which has abandoned its covenant, back to truth. A pastor entering such a situation must view his work in its entire historical context, with the end in mind of identifying and bringing out into the open whatever dominant idol may be challenging the church’s fidelity to the Holy Spirit. The history of the particular church must be explored, understood, and owned by the congregation if the people are to see themselves as the spiritual descendants of those who went before, and successors of the covenant they have inherited.

The willingness in every layer of contemporary society to detach the present from the past is reflected in much cultural, political, and legal discussions these days. That a similar infection exists in the church which has lost connection to its biblical, covenantal roots, should not surprise us. Pastors seeking to faithfully renew New England Congregational churches must understand and be prepared to challenge this error while still upholding the time honored tenets of personal freedom and individual conscience inherent in the Bible and in Congregational heritage.

Third, prayerfully seek God’s wisdom in the naming of idols that would obstruct covenant renewal. The mere fact that Christian denominations, churches, and individuals have capitulated to the whelming tide of secularism does not nullify the principal demand of covenant. We must be willing to sacrifice human religion for the sake of God’s revealed truth. As Paul says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ (Col. 8).” We must gladly surrender our “thought-life”, joyfully submitting ourselves to what God requires. Paul again;

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10.5).” If we are to be faithful witnesses to His truth, we must be ready to renounce our ideas and tear down our idols for the sake of devotion to His Word. The minister serving in a New England Congregational pulpit will find few old New England Congregationalists ready or willing to do that.

Fourth, though it is no panacea, sound education is essential if the covenant approach to renewal is to be effective. Very few New England Congregational church members are aware of, never mind able to cite, their founding covenants. They are often unaware of the true historical roots, almost invariably evangelical, of their own churches. The members need to be taught (as were their forefathers) that in the historical framework of covenant theology, a church’s very existence as a community of faith stands or falls solely on the basis of its faithfulness, or lack thereof, to the church covenant. This was proclaimed with the clarity of conviction by the leaders of the Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre in 1874: You have vowed unto Him, and you cannot go back. This confession of faith and this covenant will hold you while you live, and follow you to the bar of God, and abide with you forever.

Across the years Barre Congregational Church had gradually lost connection with the spiritual and historical heritage of its covenant. The two stand together. That legacy needs to be recaptured by careful education, counsel, preaching, and prayer. When a congregation correctly conceptualizes its covenant, heritage, and responsibility to maintain and uphold its covenant obligations, it can “own it” as its own. Once it has named and renounced the contemporary idols which are in open rebellious competition with obedience to the Spirit, the entire church body can hold a service of covenant renewal. This should be repeated annually, lest its effect be lost. This annual rite needs to be carefully set in an environment of fellowship, nurtured by teaching, preaching, and the communion of prayer (Acts 46). Thus with careful, pastoral/prophetic interpretation of what it means to renew covenant, and a clear teaching


that it is indeed a biblical model for ongoing renewal in community life, a church can maintain singleness of vision, clarity of purpose, and determination for mission. Without this, the procedure can become an empty ritual devoid of power, and indeed harmful both to community faith and life. Covenant renewal, rightly undertaken and conducted, puts all other church programs into proper perspective.

ConclusionThe preaching of the church covenant as the basis for church renewal will undoubtedly create a degree of conflict. That is inevitable, but biblically based covenant nonetheless remains the single most reliable vehicle (aside from Scripture itself ) for establishing solid common ground in the ever shifting theological scene. It is able to bind together, in common conviction and singular vision, people of varying cultural, social, political, and religious traditions. Commitment to covenant minimizes theological hair-splitting and divisiveness. If a church is to be effective and faithful to its calling, it must have a clear sense of its being, how it arrived where it is, and why it still exists. All of this is explicitly stated in the founding covenants of most New England Congregational churches, and certainly in that of Barre Congregational Church. The pastor of such a church can employ its covenant in the process of establishing, or helping the people to reestablish, their common ground in Christ.

The story of Barre Congregational Church is comparable to the story of Israel as a nation, and the story of God’s continual dealing with His own people, the Church, wherever it is found. Just as He sent His prophets again and again to a people who would not listen, and finally in the fullness of the ages sent His Son, so too, the history of Barre Congregational Church runs like the story of redemption itself. The coming of the gospel once again to a church that did not even know what it was to we a church anymore, is the clearest expression to the people of Barre Congregational Church that He had not forsaken them.

Covenant renewal is not a new message. It is the oldest of messages. And it is one which God will continue to send to His Church because His people, as long as this earth endures, will turn from Him, and need to be called back. Our great hope and joy is this: When the covenant through which a people enter into fellowship with the true, living God is sound, then the successive generations have great hope that if they pray, and seek the face of the Lord, and turn from their ways, he will visit them once again with a renewing presence of His Holy Spirit, and raise up their work, and lift up their eyes, and send His blessing once again, as He did in former times.

In that hope and with that joy I have carried out this thesis project for the glory of God.

CHApTER FOUR

Summery, Interpretation, and Conclusion?

On the final Sunday of the series questionnaires were distributed to all present in the congregation regarding their participation in the project and their reflections on it [see Appendix C] only a dozen were completed, yet what as returned was encouraging. Most of those filling out the form had been present for at least three of the sermons and discussions. Each one who responded wanted more opportunities for study and interaction on the issues raised by the project.

I proposed that we allow a certain amount of time to “process” what had occurred among us; to talk about it, debate it, pursue it, and then take up the matter again in earnest in the Fall. Even with all the responsibilities constantly demanding the attention of both pastor and people, I felt compelled to press on with this effort until it was settled, one way or the other. The church — by everyone’s reckoning — had reached an impasse. She absolutely needed to decide once and for all what she believed, and where she would stand. It was our best hope for sharing common ground in Christian life and ministry together.

Just prior to the fourth and final session, a Deaconate meeting was held in which we discussed the progress of the project, and where it should go once completed. All agreed it was far too premature to ask the church to renew its covenant when there was still so much ignorance, misunderstanding, and disagreement about what it as or what it would mean to hold such a service. Yet all were in accord that something was needed for “closure” of what had transpired among us. For two months the covenant had dominated our church life; our conversation, our prayer, our worship, had revolved

around it and focused on it. And much good had resulted. Still we needed to conclude this “first phase” of our corporate consideration of our covenant.

I suggested we try something radically different for Barre Congregational Church, and received the full support of the Deaconate for this idea. Due to the Blizzard of ‘93 forcing postponement of the second covenant sermon originally scheduled for the second Lord’s Day in March, Easter Sunday would now fall on the week following the initial session. What if we announced to the church in advance that on Easter, since we were not yet ready to reaffirm the covenant as a church we provide an occasion for individuals to come forward after the worship service, and commit, or re-commit themselves anew to the Lord? This, it was agreed, would be a good way to recognize that we had just been through something critically important as a congregation. It would also affirm that we as a church will pledge ourselves to continue to pursue the Lord’s will in this whole matter. The Deaconate believed this opportunity would be readily taken advantage of by many, and would serve to give us the kind of closure we were hoping for.

So word went out. On Easter Sunday it was made clear that no one should feel obligated to participate in this modified “alter call”. This was not a formal renewal of the church covenant, but rather a formal renewal of one’s personal covenant with the Lord. Of the some 30 people in attendance on Easter morning, about 75 came forward. In living memory such a thing had never been done at Barre Congregational Church. It served as a joyful and hopeful testimony that our endeavor to be serious about our covenant with the Lord and with one another was already bearing fruit.

In retrospect I have wondered if on that day there were some sitting in the congregation who decided that things had now gone “too far”. Was some decision made then and there to organize once more a movement to remove me as pastor? Two months after Easter, having been “tipped off” that another petition was indeed circulating to that end, I would announce my resignation from the pastorate of Barre Congregational Church on June 6, 1993, to be effective October 1.

No one could have had any notion that what was standing in front of Barre Congregational Church that Easter morning was, in fact, a new church — or more accurately, a renewed church; one with the same vision, the same mission, and the same faith is the first Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. But it was so. Virtually every one of the individuals who came forward that Easter Sunday resolved in the coming months that God was calling them but of the church which (they believed) had abandoned the very Covenant and Statement of Faith hey affirmed.

Page 162 Chapter Four: Summery, Interpretation, and Conclusion?

That body, calling itself Covenant Evangelical Church, would seek to carry on the work God had begun 166 years earlier in Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. Indeed, it would eventually adopt as its own, with the most minor of revisions, that very same covenant and Statement which had lain at the root of Barre Congregational Church. [See Appendix E. CEC Covenant and Statement of Faith. Note on the appendix the date of its adoption by public confession]

The recovery and proclamation of the original covenant of Barre Congregational Church, and the calling of that church back to it through this project, served to force to a resolution the most fundamental issues and conflicts in the church’s life. Even without the (reintroduction of the Evangelical gospel into this liberal (Unitarian) congregational church during the 1980’s, Barre Congregational Church would have undergone very painful and trying changes during that decade. Much had changed in this small town during the 1980’s. The migratory influx of new, young families, combined with the natural attrition (through retirement and death) of older members, would naturally have given rise a stressful period, regardless of who the pastor might have been or what he might have believed.

Still, the most pressing matter for Barre Congregational Church in the thirteen years of my ministry, but particularly in the last three, had been: Who are we? Why are we here? What is our purpose? These issues could only be faithfully and adequately addressed by appealing to the Biblically supported covenant of the founders. To seek to answer questions such as these by resorting to the “democratic process” of majority opinion would not only have been unending, but unbiblical.

It was consistently my contention, in numerous forums in every strata throughout the life of the church; it is the covenant which defines the congregation, not the congregation which defines the covenant. This has long been the central conflict within the congregational heritage. There is little reason to suppose it will not remain so for some time to come. In Barre, the execution of this project “laid all the cards on the table.” The theological underpinnings of our mission, purpose, and existence as a church were “on the line”. Barre Congregational Church would have to decide — and soon — what does bind it together? Why does it exist? What is its mission? If these questions were not to be settled through the covenant, then how?

That was the question I posed. I urged the adoption of a certain answer. I could not force them to choose it. Barre Congregational Church had to make its own decision, for the time had come to do so.

A concurrent event in the life of Barre Congregational Church serves to illustrate

that the fundamental conflict there was theological, and not sociological. A group of people in Barre Congregational Church (led by my wife), in concert with Christians from several other surrounding churches and communities, had been working together for almost two years to establish a Christian school in western Worcester County. It so happened that Barre was smack in the middle of the region represented by the members of this working committee. After considerable prayer, research, and counsel, the steering committee of the Barre Christian Academy decided to ask Barre Congregational Church for permission to use its building to house this ministry. They approached the trustees of Barre Congregational Church who were unanimous in their enthusiastic endorsement of the project. It was agreed, however, that it was a big decision, fraught with potential perils. Although not required to so do according to the bylaws, the trustees wisely opted to ask the church for its support.

This was done at a formally called church meeting. The steering committee of Barre Christian Academy presented a proposal outlining the vision and purpose of the school. The church voted to accept Barre Christian Academy as “an extension of the educational ministry of Barre Congregational Church.” Within days, however, a group within the church began collecting dissenting signatures and called another church meeting two months later to rescind the previous vote (which had barely passed by five votes). When it became evident that the dissenters would be successful in their effort to overthrow the “pro-school” vote, Barre Christian Academy withdrew its request.

What was most interesting about this controversy (coming as it did on the heels of this thesis project) was the rationale for not supporting the school. The leader of the opposition movement, an articulate, retired professional education/administrator, pointed to the theological reasons not to have the school. His argument, followed by most all of those he had gathered in opposition, was that Barre Christian Academy would be teaching that Jesus is the Truth, that the Bible is infallible, that man is sinful, etc. He did not agree with any of these theological assumptions. He therefore did not believe Barre Congregational Church should support such an effort since Barre Congregational Church did not believe those doctrinal positions, either. On the basis of his presentation, Barre Christian Academy was voted down. This was just one more convincing anecdote illustrating that Unitarian “theology” verses Trinitarian theology lay at the root of the turmoil in Barre Congregational Church.

(That was not the end of the story, however. A church of “kindred spirit” a few towns away from us, Holden Chapel, had been closely monitoring our efforts to begin a Christian school. They themselves had decided to start one. They had the money, the facility, and the will. All they lacked, the pastor told us, was someone with a vision to


make it happen. When the leadership at Holden Chapel heard about our decision to leave Barre Congregational Church, they asked us if we would come and do our school in their building. We told them in the Summer of 1993 that we would love to, except that we did not expect to be “sticking around.” If God chose to keep us in the area, we would get back to them. He did, so we did.

As a result of the faith, generosity, and courage of the people of Holden Chapel, the Barre Christian Academy, now re-named Holden Christian Academy, opened its doors with some 70 students in September of 19, with my wife as the Principal. The Lord takes away. And the Lord gives back).

To bring renewal to a church with a history like that of Barre Congregational Church (of which there are hundreds in New England alone) demands patience, commitment, long term vision, and a passionate confidence in God’s call to covenant renewal. Entering any Congregational church in New England with Evangelical roots, but Unitarian fruits, is no simple task. Not for the faint hearted. A pastor coming into such a situation must view his work in its entire historical context.

If there is some kind of spirit of power/control “camped out” over and within old New England Congregational Churches (and my personal conviction is that that is precisely the case), it will not roll over and die without a fight. Indeed, the proclamation of the gospel (which urges the surrender of power/control) inflames that spirit with wrathful determination to cling tenaciously to any influence it thinks it has, at whatever cost, even to the extent of rejecting the gospel itself. To stand against this spirit, and to love the people who are under its sway, is perhaps the greatest challenge for any pastor called to renew an old New England Congregational community of faith.

I am firmly convinced of this: With varying degrees and in different dimensions, every lament of the conflict which beset Barre Congregational Church from 1990 - 1993 will eventually converge upon any Congregational church in New England in which the pastor preaches the gospel. The spirit of power/control never goes down easily. The pastor who comes against it must be ready for that battle, and certain of God’s calling for him to do so, if he is to be found faithful in the task. The cost can be great. But we are called to lay down our lives for the sheep. And unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it cannot yield a harvest. Only pastors who are willing to die can succeed in bringing the dry bones of New England Congregationalism back to life.

In New England Congregationalism, years of uncontested dominance of Unitarian assumptions has led to the following presupposition of most congregational churches: To be Congregational is to be Unitarian Most of course would not see it that way, or

say it using those categories, but that is the essence of this deeply entrenched position. The cardinal doctrine of such churches is relativism: Everyone can believe whatever they want.

This belief is held so firmly, so fervently, so “religiously”, that to suggest it is not quite the point is to invite ugly criticism, determined opposition, and unchecked venomous rage. There is very little if any connection with, or loyalty to, the historical legacy of a church or its ministry. People feel free to “redefine” the ministry of the church according to their own “comfort zones” regardless of the clarity and “narrowness” of the original covenant/statement of faith.

This willingness to sever the present from the past is reflected to a frightening degree in the national cultural and political scenes in these days. Its infestation into the church should not surprise us. Indeed I would submit the reason why his spirit has so pervaded our land is that it as so effectively invaded the churches. Pastors seeking to faithfully renew New England Congregational churches must be prepared to challenge this assumption while still upholding the time honored tenants of freedom and individual conscience inherent in the Bible and Congregational heritage. People do, in fact, believe whatever they want. But that reality does not nullify the demands of covenant that we be willing to surrender what we ant to think, submitting ourselves to what God says is true. If we are to be faithful witnesses to His truth, we must be ready to sacrifice our ideas for the sake of His Word. Few “old New England Congregationalists” are ready and willing to do that.

Despite all the conflicts that the preaching of a church covenant as the basis for church life are bound to invoke, it nonetheless remains the single most reliable document (aside form Scripture itself ) for establishing common ground in a world of shifting theological sand. It is able to bind together people of varying cultural and religious traditions in such a way that ministry can be effectively carried out with a minimum of theological hair-splitting. Congregations must have a sense of who they are, why they are there, why they still exist (the faithfulness of God) and their mission. All of this was categorical in the church covenant of Barre Congregational Church, and in virtually all other covenants of old New England Congregational churches, as well. It behooves the pastor of any such church to “use” the covenant as a basis for establishing, or helping the people to re-establish, their common ground.

Education is essential if this approach to renewal is to be in any way effective. Few New England Congregational church members know their founding covenants, or where they came from, or why they say what they say. They need to be taught: In the


historical framework of covenant theology, their very existence as a community of faith stands or falls on the basis of their faithfulness or non-faithfulness to their church covenant. As the church leaders of Barre Congregational Church said so emphatically in 1874: You have vowed unto Him, and you cannot go back. This confession of faith and this covenant will hold you while you live, and follow you to the bar of God, and abide with you forever.

Barre Congregational Church had lost connection with its spiritual historical heritage. That legacy needed to be recaptured, and the congregation needed to see that need in order to recapture its purpose and mission.

The story of Barre Congregational Church, as argued earlier, is the story of every Christian, and the story of Israel as a nation, and the story of God’s perpetual struggle with His own people — whether as one corporate body or as individuals. Each day we must reaffirm our commitment to the covenant, just as each day those of us who are married must commit ourselves to faithfully living out our wedding vows. I stood in a long line of God’s servants who were called to “go to the Israelites, although they will not hear you (Jeremiah 7.27; Ezekial 3.8).” Its good company. My sense of calling to just this work was strengthened, deepened, solidified and confirmed through the development of this thesis.

God is faithful to His Word. What could be more axiomatic? More cliche for a Christian than this simple truth? Yet it has made all the difference, and I have been honored to observe — played out in Barre Congregational Church — the demonstrable proof of God’s faithfulness to His Word and covenant. Scripture had never been more important to me than in my last three years at Barre Congregational Church, as I watched God guiding and directing me through His Word; teaching me to pray the Psalms; understanding myself to be but one in a long line of servants similarly hard pressed; keeping me straight on the road; reminding me of the True Truth and validity of my work for Him.

For this truth rings through the ages, offering the greatest and most blessed of hopes to His people, no matter where they have strayed or how fully they have rejected Him: God has not abandoned His people. He grieves over our rebellion. He suffers in our disobedience. But he has not rejected us. Just as He sent His prophets again and again to a people who would not listen, and finally in the fullness of the ages sent His Son, so too the history of Barre Congregational Church runs like the story of redemption itself. The coming of the gospel once again to a people who did not even know what it was anymore, is the clearest expression to the people of Barre Congregational Church

that He had not forsaken them. He had not left them to themselves. He came back to them, and called them again to return to their covenant — to return to Him.

This was not a new message. It is the oldest of messages. And it is one which God will continue to send to His Church. For His people, as long as this earth endures, will turn from Him, and need to be called back to faithfulness. Our great hope and joy is this: God is faithful. When the covenant through which a people enter into fellowship with the true, living God is sound, then the successive generations have great hope that if they pray, and seek the face of the Lord, and turn from their ways, he will visit them once again with a renewing presence of His Holy Spirit, and raise up their work, and lift up their eyes, and send His blessing once again, as He did in former times.

To this end, and with this vision, I have committed my life, and carried out this thesis project.

CHApTER FOUR FOOT NOTES

This was not the end of the story, however. A church of “kindred spirit” a few 1. towns away from us, Holden Chapel, had been closely monitoring our efforts to begin a Christian school. They themselves had decided to start one. They had the money, the facility, and the will. All they lacked, the pastor told us, was someone with a vision to make it happen. When the leadership at Holden Chapel heard about our decision to leave Barre Congregational Church, they asked us if we would come and do our school in their building. We told them in the Summer of 1993 that we would love to, except that we did not expect to be “sticking around.” If God chose to keep us in the area, we would get back to them. He did, so we did As a result of the faith, generosity, and courage of the people of Holden Chapel, the Barre Christian Academy, now re-named Holden Christian Academy, opened its doors with some 70 students in September of 19, with my wife as the Principal. Enrollment for HCA’s fourth academic season (97-98) is currently 145 pupils. The Lord takes away. And the Lord gives back.

Johnson’s report (Appendix B) puts the numbers of these “moderates” at of the 2. active congregants.

Barre Congregational Church Annual Report, 1990, p14.3.

ibid., p14.4.

Though not necessarily, to be sure, with the same results. In the last six years I 5.

have spoken with many New England pastors in older, traditional, churches (not necessarily congregational) who have experienced in their own ministries many of the elements present in BCC.

FILE LISTChapters

Table of Contents table Abstract

Intro and Overview intro chapter 1 theomin hapterch2b chapter 3 ch3intro chapterch4c otes for each chfoots ppendixappendxa ppendix b not on computer file ppendix c appendxb h31 h32 h33 h34 ppendxc x, ppndxi1 ppndxj ppndxk ibliography biblio

HIST23 HISTORY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

From Republic to Empire

1. During the 300’s BC, Rome became the largest city in Italy. They defeated the Etruscans (N. Italy) and the Gauls (France). During the 00-100’s, dramatic overseas expansion of the Republic brought Rome into conflict with Carthage in N. Africa. [Successful overseas expansion due to 1) Alliance of Italian cities gave Rome plenty of soldiers and Pride in their power gave them great confidence]. Each fought to control the “Mediterranean Lake” in the Punic Wars.

First Punic War (264-241) - Rome takes Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica.

Second (218-201) - Hannibal (from Carthage) invades Italy over the Alps rom the North! (Tried elephants, but they died).

It was a bold move, but Rome wore him down (supply lines!) by 02 under Scipio.

Third (149-146) - Rome destroys Carthage. 3. This has always been the “bargain” Rome has struck with its subjects: Protection in exchange for loyalty. Loyalty meant obedience (in paying taxes, following orders, not challenging the Emperor’s demand for total allegiance). Break loyalty and your protection is gone. 4. After the Punic Wars,

the Republic begins to disintegrate. With all the triumphs overseas came a growing discontent and civil war at home lasting 100 years. In 60’s BC, Pompey conquers Turkey, Syria, and Palestine. He returns a hero, but the Senate would not recognize his accomplishments (They feared his power). So Pompey, Julius Ceasar, and Marcus Crassus form The First Triumvirate in 60 BC. It is essentially an Empire, but shared by three men. 5. Crassus dies in 53. From 58-51, Julius Caesar conquer Gaul. Pompey fears JC, and orders him to give up command. But JC marches across the Rubicon (the stream separating Italy and Gaul) to invade Italy in 4 JC defeats Pompey in a civil war, leaving JC the sole rule in 45 BC, technically the first sole Emperor. But before he can fully consolidate his power, he is assassinated in 44 on the Ides of March (1h) by his confidant Brutus. 6. More civil war in the struggle for control follows his death. In 43, JC’s adopted son (and nephew) Octavian [recognizing he is not able to take sole control himself ] forms The Second Triumvirate with Mark Antony (of Cleopatra fame) and Marcus Lepidus (both army officers). Octavian and Antony defeat the remaining enemies of JC, dump Lepidus, then fight each other for control of Rome. Antony seeks help from Cleopatra. In 31, Octavian defeats Mark and Cleo at the Battle of Actium off the W. coast of Greece. Next year, he takes Egypt. 7. In 7 BC, Octavian is the unchallenged leader of Rome. He takes the name “Augustus (exalted one), but avoids the title of Emperor. Calls himself the “princeps”, or First Citizen.

8. Augustus begins a long period of stability just in time for the birth of Christ! It is called the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) and lasts 00 years. He re-establishes order and the rule of law. The Senate, consuls, and tribunes still function, but Augustus has supreme power. He controls the army, the provinces, and the Senate. He built strong defenses on the borders. Trade, literature, and art flourish during the Augustan Age. He died in 14 AD.

9. Caeser’s family was in control during the first generation of the church. Augustus’ stepson Tiberius succeeds him (Luke 3.1) until 37 AD. Then Caligula from 37-41, Claudius from 41-54, and Nero from 54-68. It was under Nero that the first systematic persecution of Christians by Rome began.

LETTER

Covenant Evangelical Church P.O. Box 14 23 Kendall St. Barre, MA. 01005 508-355-2387 WGHayward aol.com home 508-355-2387 Fax 508-355-2387

June 16, 1995

To Dr. Kerr and Dr. Fillinger Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary South Hamilton, MA. 01984

Dear Gentlemen,

It was great to speak with both of you so quickly this week. My experience has been that so called “retired” people (especially professors?) can be among the most difficult to track down. I just found out from my sister that Mom and Dad have high-tailed it down to New Jersey for a week. To think I was nervous when he left his job that he would have nothing to do with his life....

As I related on the phone, you fill find enclosed a completed draft of my long-incubating thesis project report. I apologize for sending it all at once (contrary to

tradition and wisdom), but I had the time, so I thought it best to take maximum advantage of it. Part of the delay (in addition to LIFE) was due to having to transfer all my files to my new computer. This proved to be costly in terms of time, but most beneficial in terms of product. It was (and will be) much easier to write, edit, rewrite, etc. using this new system. Praise God for Spell-Checkers!

I trust you will not be timid regarding recommendations for change in structure, format, presentation, content, etc. This has been so long in the making it is hard for me to look at it objectively. I am confident you will both help me with that. (Dr. Fillinger: I have spent considerable time with Turabian, but if I have missed some things, I know I can count on to find them). Do enjoy your Summers. I will be keeping you both in prayer.

Sincerely,

W. Gary Hayward

I have an e-mail address if that is convenient for you: WGHayward aol.com.

2) Can either of you recommend a top-notch Bible software program, preferably CD-ROM Is there a favorite among the faculty at GCTS? I am having a hard time finding something that will do what I want it to do. A lot of them are loaded with stuff I neither want or need.

Thanks!

LETTER TwO

Covenant Evangelical Church P.O. Box 14 23 Kendall St. Barre, MA. 01005 508-355-2387 WGHayward aol.com home 508-355-2387 Fax 508-355-2387 October 10, 1995

Drs. Kerr and Fillinger GCTS and GCTS South Campus Cold New England and Sunny Florida

Dear Friends, Once again thank you both for your time, energy, prayer and guidance in assisting me to complete this task. I have recast the project in accordance with your most helpful suggestions and have found matters continuing to clarify themselves as I work through them. I of course assume and anticipate that many more recommendations will be forthcoming. Spare me not! As you both have a seasoned aptitude for loving correction, I await your input without fear. God bless you and yours in the approaching Holiday Season. Your servant for Christ’s sake,

W. Gary Hayward

LETTER THREE


January 6, 1996

Drs. Kerr and Fillinger Various and Sundry Places Dear Friends, Colleagues, Gentlemen, Now that the Holidays, the Snow, and the Flu are over with (God willing!) its back to work.

Neither myself nor my wife are up to full speed yet (if you’ve gotten the flu you understand), but by God’s grace are approaching it. Here is Chapter One. Chapter Two to follow, We hope, very soon. Chapters Three and Four should come in somewhat more rapid succession, as they constitute the report of the actual project, the work for which has already been done. Will be tasting the South for a few days as I journey to Atlanta for the Promise Keepers Clergy Convention in February. Very excited about that. Trust all is well with you. Thank you Dr. Kerr for your postcard. It came the day after a day at GCTS where I put the finishing touches (for now of course) on Chap. One. I had not forgotten! God bless!

Page 176 Letter Three

Yours in the service of Jesus Christ,

W. Gary Hayward

Pastor

LETTER FOUR


May 03, 1996

Dr. Kerr and Dr. Fillinger Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary South Hamilton, MA 01982

Dear Gentlemen:

I trust God has been merciful to you this Winter. I am sure some of us may feel more “thawed out” than others. We who have had to endure the worst Winter on record in New England are at long last beginning to sense our blood flowing again. God be praised! Please find enclosed a “reformatted” Chapter— the sermons and discussion summaries relating to the project itself — will be following shortly thereafter. I await your suggestions, corrections, and insights, and look forward to coming down the home stretch. Yours in the service of Christ, W. Gary Hayward

LETTER FIvE


May 1, 1996

Drs. Kerr and Fillinger Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary South Hamilton, MA 01982

Dear Gentlemen,

Thank you for your continuing efforts to assist me (and my colleagues) in completing the task set before us. I am truly grateful for your time, energy, direction, encouragement, and critique. May God bless you for your faithful work on behalf of His people. Please find enclosed Chapter 3. The final packet, which I intend to send you before the end of June, will include Chapter 4, the appendices, and the bibliography. I anticipate making a trip to GCTS sometime next month. Perhaps we will “connect.” In the meantime, the Lord be with you. Yours in the service of Christ,

W. Gary Hayward

LETTER SIx

Covenant Evangelical Church P.O. Box 14 23 Kendall St. Barre, MA. 01005 508-355-2387 WGHayward aol.com 508-355-2387 Fax 508-355-2387

May 8, 1997

Drs. Kerr and Fillinger Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary

South Hamilton, MA 01982 Dear Dr. Kerr and Dr. Fillinger: Greetings in the Lord! I hope you are both well and continuing to look forward to our Hope, which surely can not be far away O” W lease find enclosed the final completed draft copy (oxymoron?) of my thesis project. Your helpful suggestions re: rewriting, correcting, restructuring,

“tightening up”, etc., have been incorporated. I have followed Turabian as slavishly as I am able, although I remain uncertain of the proper configuration on a few points, as Dr. Fillinger will certainly note. I also noticed that there are some minor areas in which GCTS diverges from Turabian, and these will of course be corrected in the final, official copy.

As I understand the GCTS Guidelines, if I were planning to graduate in May we

Page 180 Letter Six

would have eight weeks between the time you receive this, and the thesis exam. I would then have four weeks to make all final revisions, submitting a complete draft copy to each of you two weeks before the exam. Students that sustain the thesis defense have up until two weeks before graduation to make any final corrections submitting the three ready-to-be-bound copies to the Registrar.

So, let’s go! I am so grateful for all your help thus far. I am honored to await your continued input, encouragement, and wisdom. Yours in the service of Christ, W. Gary Hayward

LETTER SEvEN

Covenant Evangelical Church P.O. Box 14 23 Kendall St. Barre, MA. 01005 508-355-2387 WGHayward aol.com 508-355-2387

July 11, 1997 Dr. Kerr

Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary South Hamilton, MA 01982

Dear Dr. Kerr: Thank you again for your patience and encouragement in the process which can only be somewhat tedious for you. I am most grateful, and you may be assured “that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” please find enclosed two copies of a re-written Chapter 4 and a new paragraph introducing Chapter 3. I have endeavored to incorporate your suggestions as well as those you passed along to me from Dr. Fillinger. I will await your final comments with some trepidation, but no little delight in seeing the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

I am sending this to you in one express envelope, so could you please see that Dr. Fillinger receives his packet? I will be away until Friday the 18th, but should be reachable after that. Leave a message if necessary. Unless I hear from you otherwise, I

Page 182 Letter Seven

will be at the designated location Thursday the 4th at 10 AM

As always, may God bless your efforts on behalf of His people and kingdom. Yours in the service of Christ,

W. Gary Hayward

The question is this: Can a church which has lost its evangelical vision be renewed by calling it to return to the doctrinal and behavioral demands of its founding covenant? The reasons for pursuing covenant renewal in BCC were previously stated in “The Problem In Its Setting.” The Biblical justification for doing so was presented in “A Theology of Ministry.” The historical validity and doctrinal significance of such an approach has been delineated in “The Covenant History Of A New England Congregational Church.” We now turn to our attempt to answer the question through the implementation of this project. BFA Indent

AppENDIx A

TEXT: The Bible

TITLE: DATE: February , 1992. Sunday before vote.

INTRODUCTION: Some reflections on a recent meeting on AIDS curriculum at local regional high school. While there was considerable disagreement regarding the policy under consideration, there was this common ground:

Everyone wanted to save kid’s lives. When there is common ground, here is plenty of room for differences of opinion, differences in approach - even different conclusions. The issue facing our church today is over common ground:

What is it? The vote on whether or not to remove me as pastor next Saturday ill answer that question. ”In 1827, group of people decided that the church they were a part of

- the First Parish of Barre - Chad abandoned what had once been their common ground. Those individuals held a conviction that the only reason for a church to exist is to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ, nurture that trust, and thereby promote His Kingdom.

To their minds,

First Parish had become unfaithful to the Scriptures, and therefore unfaithful to Christ, and therefore incapable of fulfilling its task.

Those people began this church.

Page 184 Appendix A

In so doing, hey entered into a covenant; n agreement, pact, promise with God,

(which forms the basis and the foundation of what until the middle of this century was called

The Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre. Let me summarize for you the confession of faith each ember who joined his church had to make n its early years:

Two statements of faith in the Trinity:

One God in Three Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

To support the confessions; almost 100 Bible verses.

A statement recognizing the Bible as the Word of God. In support, over references.

Two statements regarding Man’s responsibility for his own sin; that we are by nature entirely destitute of holiness, at war with God, and under his condemnation.

30 Bible verses.

A confession of Jesus Christ as the only redeemer of sinners, which he accomplished by substituting himself in our place. A,

Over 30 references. Then there is this:

“We believe that without regeneration and a living faith in Christ, to man is justified and saved.”17 verses. And this:

“We believe that the invitations of the gospel are such, that whosoever will may come and take of the water of life freely;

yet the wickedness of the human heart is such, that none will come to Christ, except the Holy Spirit so incline them.”

And this:

“We believe that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies both of the just of the unjust; that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive a just and final retribution according to the deeds done in the body; that at this day of judgment, he state of all will be unchangeably fixed; and that the misery of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous will be endless.”

Over 50 supporting references from the Bible.

Then, after affirming these statements of faith, he following covenant was read:

(May I remind you, this is his church.) “You do now, n the presence of God and man, avouch the Lord Jehovah — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — to be your God - the object of your supreme love and your portion forever.

You cordially acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as your only Savior, and the Holy Spirit as your Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide. You do humbly and cheerfully devote yourself to God n the covenant of grace. You solemnly covenant not only to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; but each and all the commandments of God, to obey them.

You consecrate yourself, and all you possess, to his service and glory; and, through help of divine grace, you promise that you will deny all ungodliness and worldly lust - that you will live soberly, righteously, and godly, even unto death. You now cordially join yourself to this Church of Christ, engaging to submit to its discipline, to attend on its worship and ordinances,

(according to the rules of the gospel), and to walk with its members in Christian love, watchfulness and purity.

Thus you covenant, promise, and engage.”

Then , you could join. Whatever we may think of this, here can be absolutely no question ”regarding the intent of the founding fathers and mothers of this church.

Their common ground was faith in Jesus Christ as declared in the Scriptures!

Not faith according to whatever hey wanted it to be; Faith as defined and described by God, n the Bible. It was precisely because this faith was not being proclaimed or practiced or promoted to First Parish that his church began.

Now. Let me share with you why (I am convinced) God brought me here. 2For the first 75 years of this church’s existence, the vision and the passion and the common ground of its founders as evident. If you read what church records we have you will find that there was an ongoing cycle of revival and renewal. The church would bring in evangelists and hold special meetings to preach the gospel, and bring people to faith in Christ. And the numbers of the church would increase. In the 1800’s, that was how our forebears grew this church. ,Somewhere in the early part of this century, faith as described and defined by the Bible, and reflected in the founding covenant, began to lose its hold. The church started to drift away from its original moorings.

In what was perhaps a well-meaning desire to be more “inclusive”, less “restrictive”, ore “open” and “accepting”, the connection with the beginning became strained. The

Page 186 Appendix A

common ground was losing ground.

God sent me here to work with you; together to reclaim this church, his building, his ministry, for Jesus Christ; that He alone might be its only purpose, its only desire, its only Shepherd. 8The Lord appointed me as the pastor of this congregation to point the way back to its moorings; back to its origins; to return to the common ground of its founders.

He called me here to call you back to faithfulness to your own covenant with God.

3There is only one reason this church is still here:

Because God is faithful to His covenant.

He always keeps His side of the bargain. There is only one way this church can go forward into the future:

Be faithful to the covenant it made with God.

I am not suggesting we have to do everything the way they did it, or say everything the way they said it.

But we to have to share the common ground with them if we do not want to go the way of First Paris

— the church hey left - and end up as a parking lot. Proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ is God Himself sets it forth in this Bible, is our only purpose for being. It is our only legitimate right to exist.

There is no other reason for this church to be here Do we, or do we not, hare that common ground with the founders of this church?

That, and nothing less than that, is what next Saturday’s vote is all about.

This is not a matter of liberal versus conservative, or Baptist hymns versus Congregational hymns, or one kind of worship versus another. 5This is a matter of faithfulness to our own covenant, or not. There is plenty of room for disagreement. There is plenty of space for different opinions, and different approaches, and different styles, and even different conclusions.

But there is only that roo hen we are all standing on the same common ground.

This is a week for the most heartfelt, most concerted, most unceasing prayer.

For next Saturday, when this church votes on whether or not to retain me as pastor,

there is only one thing that matters:

What does God want? I have gladly given almost 12 years of my life to my conviction that God wants this church back — back on its foundations, back to its purpose, back to Himself. Back on the common ground which founded this church in 1827. My only purpose and desire and goal is to be faithful to that task.

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ s God has given it to us in the Bible, and I will not compromise it. 6Even when this book tells me what I don’t want to hear

— which is often enough — by the grace of God

I will preach it and teach it and obey it, whatever the cost to me.

Saturday’s vote is not about Gary Hayward. It is about the covenant of this church. It is about what this church is about. It is about why this church is even here.

There should be no mistake or misunderstanding:

If I am to continue to lead this church, to will be in the same direction in which it has been slowing moving or the past eleven and one half years:

Back to its covenant. 5 Because when we make promises to God, woe unto us if we do not keep them. 7The story of the Bible is one continuing, ongoing story of God’s people straying away from His covenant, and the Lord calling them back to it. That is our personal story of faith; he story of every Christian:

God claims us,” we stray and wander off, He calls us back. It is also the story of every single church ever to be founded anywhere in the world to anytime in history. It is the story of Barre Congregational Church. It is my prayer and my hope that the story of this church will be one in which its people hear the call to return wholeheartedly to the covenant, he pact, The promise with God, (and there re-discover the common ground; with our founders, with the Protestant Reformers, with the Apostles, with the Prophets, with true believers of every age; with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

AppENDIx C

February 1993 Dear Friends,

I write to you with great energy and enthusiasm, tempered with awe and humility at the mercy and faithfulness of our God. These matters to which He would have us give our attention are perhaps the most urgent, timely, and exciting since the founding of this church in 1827. So please read prayerfully. I am asking God that each one of you called to participate in this project will make every effort to engage yourselves fully in it.

Each Sunday this March I will preach a sermon on the theme of covenant. Every service will be followed by a discussion and further elaboration on the sermon (to take place during the regular Sunday School time). Since covenant is the essence not only of our Christian faith, but of our Congregational heritage as well, it is essential we understand what it means to be in covenant with God and one another if we are to faithfully live out that commitment. It is also necessary that we understand the substance of the covenant so that we can with full knowledge give ourselves to it.

Thus I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important it is for everyone who considers him/herself a part of Barre Congregational Church to be in attendance at these worship services and subsequent discussions. (For any unable to be present each Sunday, manuscripts and extra tapes of each sermon will be made available). Nothing less than the future direction, mission, and purpose of our church hinges upon your participation.

God is calling us is a church

to renew our covenant with Him. It is imperative, therefore, we know what that means, and what is expected of us. I trust we will take this as seriously as He does. Feel free to approach me with any questions or suggestions at all regarding this endeavor.

Please mark out the month of March for prayer that God’s will be done in and through Barre Congregational Church. And rejoice in the faithfulness of the Lord! His love endures forever!

Joyfully yours in the service of Christ,

Gary

AppENDIx H

1) How many of the covenant sermons did you hear? Circle one.

How many of the covenant discussions did you attend. Circle one.

3) Regarding the idea of covenant, I understand it... (circle one) much less somewhat less same somewhat better much better

4) Regarding the covenant of

BCC, I understand it... (circle one) much less somewhat less same somewhat better much better

I am (not ready) (almost ready) (ready) to renew our church covenant together. Circle one.

I (would) (would not) like to have more discussions and interaction about our church covenant. Circle one.

7)Comments.

AppENDIx

1) How many of the covenant sermons did you hear? Circle one.

2) How many of the covenant discussions did you attend. Circle one.

3) Regarding the idea of covenant, I understand it... (circle one) much less somewhat less same somewhat better much better

4) Regarding the covenant of

BCC, I understand it... (circle one) much less somewhat less same somewhat better much better

5) I am (not ready) (almost ready) (ready) to renew our church covenant together. Circle one.

I (would) (would not) like to have more discussions and interaction about our church covenant. Circle one.

7)Comments.

AppENDIx I

August 17, 1995

Dear Friends:

No, this is not our “official new stationary.” But it is our first real mailing. And as you may have gathered from the amount of paper enclosed, we are making up for lost time.

What you have in your hands is a series of documents, each with its own history, which we — the board of elders — are recommending for your prayer, consideration, and (we trust) affirmation. Our intent is to capture what CEC believes; who we are, where we are going, and what we are about.

By putting these things down on paper we establish a foundation for the future to which we can return when we “lose sight” of why we are here. It is inevitable we will do so, for all God’s People (being sinners) are afflicted with the terminal disease of forgetfulness. That is precisely why God Himself rote it down.

The Bible is our “document” recording the purposes of God and our part in them.

These documents reflect what we are persuaded are Gods’ purposes (at least some of them) for CEC.

The Statement of Faith comes directly from the original Statement of Faith for Evangelical Congregational Church of Barre (ECCB), the church that left First Parish in 1827 and eventually became Barre Congregational Church. The Proposed Covenant is also based squarely on ECCB’s. CEC is the offspring — some 165 years later — of

ECCB. We have our own identity and purpose and mission, but we have our roots in what God accomplished back then. Our spiritual kinship with that earlier generation will serve to continue (and complete?) what the Lord began with them.

The Mission Statement arises out of work the former Steering Committee did with Mark MacDonald (Church Consultant for Evangelistic Association of New England) last Winter and Spring. It is a synthesis of several hours of discussion, study, and prayer.

The Vision Statement is a document Gary had written mostly for himself, but which we also believe is God’s vision for all of us.

We therefore include it, as it states in the preamble, as “a tool to remind us of where we are going.” And so it is with each one of these pieces of work. They are tools — tools we believe are helpful for setting ourselves to the task, steering a steady course, and most importantly, finishing the race.

We ask, first of all, that you read each one - thoughtfully, prayerfully, carefully. This is no time for “skimming.” Listen for the Spirit of God to challenge and convict you, as well as comfort and encourage you. It is a serious matter to enter into covenant with the Living God. As our Covenant states (the phrase borrowed from our elder brethren at ECCB):

We have made these vows to Him, and we cannot go back.

This confession of faith, and this covenant, ill hold us while we live, ill follow us to the Judgment Throne of God, and remain with us forever.

Consider well these words. They are true. When a people enter into covenant with God, He will hold them to it. Indeed, it is only because of His Faithfulness to the covenant entered into by ECCB, that we are here today as CEC. Let us then carefully

“count the cost” even as we celebrate the unspeakable blessing of being called into eternal relationship with our Heavenly Father through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In order to allow sufficient time for these materials to be distributed, considered, and prayed through, we will set aside a time in our worship service on October 1 (our second anniversary as a church) to mutually affirm these statements as founding documents for Covenant Evangelical Church. At that time all who hear the call of God to join in this covenant will be given opportunity to sign a statement to that effect. Those who choose either not to sign, or to wait, will be witnesses. Come regardless, and rejoice with us. The signing of the covenant does not create an “in”

Page 194 Appendix I

group and an “out” group. It merely serves, again as a tool, to help us hold one another accountable for what - together - we have agreed to. It sets a standard to which we voluntarily consent to live together in the love of Christ. We are your servants for Christ’s sake, and are available to you as you seek to have the Lord’s ways accomplished in your life. May His peace and power rest upon us as we continue to follow Him together. Yours in Him, Greg Goldsmith, Alan Harty, Gary Hayward, Glenn Kunst, Jon Pervier BY Board of Elders, Covenant Evangelical Church.

AppENDIx j

CEC Confession of Faith

We believe there is only one Living and True God. He is the Creator, the 1. Sustainer, and the King of the Universe. He is infinite and perfect in power, wisdom, justice, goodness and Truth. He exists in three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - equal in essence, power, and glory.

We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the only 2. perfect guide for Christian doctrine and lifestyle.

We believe Man (male and female) was created good and upright in the sight 3. of God. Yet voluntarily and of our own free will, we chose to sin through disobedience and thereby fell under the penalty of death, and our relationship with God was severed.

We believe that, as a result of Adam’s disobedience, all his descendants are by 4. nature entirely destitute of holiness. Though capable of moral action, we are all born at war with God under his righteous and just condemnation.

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, by his suffering and death, has made 5. atonement for the sin of the world. He is the only Mediator between God and Man and the only Redeemer of Sinners. All who are saved are wholly and completely indebted to His Grace and Mercy alone.

We believe that without regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and a living faith in 6. Christ, no one is justified and saved before God.

Page 196 Appendix J: CEC Confession of Faith

We believe that the invitations of the Gospel are such that whosoever will may 7. come and take of the water of life freely. Yet the wickedness of the human heart is such that none will come to Christ except the Holy Spirit so incline them.

We believe that true Christians will not finally perish, but that according to the 8. eternal purpose of grace by which we were chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world, we will persevere through faith unto salvation.

We believe that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies both of the 9. saved and the lost; that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive a just and final accounting for the deeds done while in the body; that at this day of judgment, the state of all will be unchangeably fixed; that the torment of wicked and the joy of the righteous will never end. 10. We believe that everyone born of the Spirit is a member of Christ’s Church.

V11. We believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two ordinances of the Lord.

Appendix K6

Covenant Evangelical Church Covenant October 1, 1995¸

In the presence of God, we hereby affirm and renew our covenant with Him.

We confess the Father Almighty as our Creator and Sustainer;

Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord; and the Holy Spirit as our Sanctifier and Guide.

This Yahweh is our God, and through the sanctifying blood of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, we give ourselves to be His People.

We trust only and wholly in His sovereign grace and almighty power.

We promise that from this point forward we will work to keep His commandments, following Him in all things and in all ways. We promise to walk with His disciples — wherever they are found — in truth and love. We promise to deny ourselves, and take up our crosses daily, and follow Jesus Christ wherever He may lead us.

We renounce, deny, and defy;

Satan, our own lusts, desires, and sinfulness, and any and every other false idol and god which competes with our total allegiance and absolute loyalty to Jesus Christ.

We covenant before God with one another to be a church of Jesus Christ.

We pledge to live together in Christian community, in obedience to the Spirit of the gospel,

And to promote the peace, nurture and purity of His body through worship, mutual love and edification, and personal evangelism. We promise to use the gifts God has given to each one of us or the building up of the common good, to the glory of God. We are servants of God.

We have made these vows to Him, and we cannot go back.

This confession of faith, and this covenant, ill hold us while we live, ill follow us to the Judgment Throne of God, , and remain with us forever.

We are not our own, but we were bought with a price, even the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

We are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,

Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

Now unto Him who is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, we glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.

SELECTED bIbLIOGRApHy

Anderson, Leith. Dying for Change. : Bethany House, 1990.

Atkins, Gaius Glenn and Frederick Fag ley. History of American Congregationalism .

Boston and Chicago: Pilgrim Press, 12.

A wide ranging and even handed presentation of material. Bacon, Leonard Woos ley. The Congregationalists. New York: Baker Taylor, 1904.

A good general history, with a concise treatment of the rise of Unitarianism. Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary . Translated by David We. Green.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Barton, William. Congregational Creeds and Covenants. Chicago: Advance

Publishing Company, 1917.

An impressive array of early creeds and covenants from both the Continent and the Colonies. Demonstrates the unity of thought and the consistency of anguage and metaphor in early New England. Beebe, David Lewis. “The Seals of the Covenant: The Doctrine and Place of the P G Sacraments and Censures in the New England Puritan Theology Underlying he Cambridge Platform of 1648.” Th.D., Pacific School of Religion: University

Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, 1966. Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth Benne and Robert Chin. The Planning of Change . Fort

Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1976.

Boyton, George.The Congregational Way. Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1903. Buttry, Daniel.Bringing Your Church Back to Life. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1988.

Connington, Helen.History of Barre . Barre Historical Commission, 1992. [Cooke, George Willis. Unitarianism in America Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1902.

From the Unitarian perspective. DeJong, Peter Y. The Covenant Idea in New England Theology 1620-1847. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 15.

As the title suggests. Good discussion on how the idea of covenant began to erode after the Revolutionary War.

Dexter, Henry.Congregationalism — What it is: Whence it is: How it works. Boston:

Nichols Noyes, 1865. Dunning, Albert.Congregationalists in America Boston: Pilgrim Press, 18.

Good general history with particular insight on the “Unitarian Departure.” A lot of material directly related to the time period of ECCB’s split from First Parish, Barre.

Dyrness, William.Themes in Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: Intervarsity

Press, 1979.

Ellis, George Edward.A Half Century of the Unitarian Controversy . Boston: Crosby

Nichols, 1857.

A theological response to the issues which brought it about; Man, Christ, and the Scriptures. Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart.How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth : Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.”

Indispensable for doing so. Foster, Frank Hugh. A Genetic History of the New England Theology. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1907.

Particularly helpful on the Unitarian controversy. Goold, Rev. William, ed. The Works of John Owen, DD Vol XVI. Edinburgh: To i

Page 200 Selected Bibliography

Clark, 1862.

Gunnemann, Louis H. The Shaping of the United Church of Christ. New York:

Pilgrim Press, 1977.

Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: John

Hopkins Press, 1969.

Hoge, Dean and David Roozen.Understanding Church Growth and Decline: 1950-

1978 . New York: Pilgrim Press, 1979.

Horton, Douglas.Congregationalism: A Study in Church Polity . London: Independent

Press, 1952.

Huntington, George.Outlines of Congregational History . Boston: Congregational

Publishing Society, 1885.

Jordan, James.Through New Eyes—Developing a Biblical View of the World.

Brentwood, New Jersey: Wolgemugh Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1988.

Lovelace, Richard.The American Pietism of Cotton Mather. Washington: Christian

University Press, 1979.

Matthews, A.G. ed.The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order . London: Independent

Press LTD, 1959. _Meyer, Jacob. Church and State in Massachusetts 0-1833 . New York: Russell

Russell, 1930.

Good discussion of the development and repercussions of the Dedham ase. Miller, Perry, ed. The American Puritans. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1956.

”[__________. The New England Mind - The 17th Century . Boston: Beacon Press,

1939.

Set the standard for this topic. Several insightful chapters on the operation of covenant during that period. Milton, John P. God’s Covenant of Blessing. Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana Press, 1961.

An extensive Biblical-theological study. Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace . London: Tyndale Press, 1954.

A brief Biblical-theological study. Nuttall, Geoffrey Fillingham. Visible Saints: the Congregational Way. Oxford: Blackwell,1957.

Chapter on the principle of fellowship is well illustrated by a number of early New England covenants and statements about them.

Pope, Robert G. The Half-Way Covenant. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 5) 1903.

A study of how several different Boston area churches addressed their membership issues regarding the Half-Way covenant. 2 _Punchard, George. History of Congregationalism, Vol. IV. Boston: Congregational Publishing Co., 1880.

Series runs to five volumes, each one detailing congregationalism’s development in geographical increments. This volume focuses on early New

England. Ryken, Leland. Worldy Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were . Grand Rapids:

Academie Books, 1986.

A great smorgasbord of Puritan wisdom on a variety of topics. mUSchaller, Lyle E. The Middle Sized Church . Nashville: Abingdon, 1985. PSelbie, W.B. Congregationalism. London: Methuen Co. LTD, 1927.

Traces the historical development of congregationalism from Robert Browne

Onward with particular attention to England and the British Empire. Stout, Harry Is. The New England Soul. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. The debt to Stout is obvious and considerable. His hard core research confirmed many of my hunches.

Walker, Will is ton. The Creeds And Platforms of Congregationalism. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893.

Meticulous analysis of some of New England’s earliest covenants, AM. statements of faith, and synod declarations.

`________.History of the Congregational Churches (American Church History Series,

Vol. III). New York: Christian Literature Co., 18. llace, Dr. Willard M. and Rev. Dr. Harry J. Taylor. The Roots of

Page 202 Selected Bibliography

Congregationalism. Columbus, Georgia: Quill Publications, 1988.

Compiled for the 7h birthday of a Congregational church in

Connecticut, its historical survey starts with the Reformation and ends with the resent. Walrath, Douglas. Leading Churches Through Change . Nashville: Abingdon, 1979.

LETTER TO pUSHbUTTON

Covenant Evangelical Church P.O. Box 14 23 Kendall St. Barre, MA. 01005 508-355-2387 WGHayward aol.com

November 07, 1996

Boston Post Road West Marlboro, MA 01752

To whom it may concern: Just curious. Are you guys still in business? Are you still PushButton? I have been trying to call you, to no avail. Should someone on the other end of this fax line know what I am talking about, here is my question: I wondered if you have upgraded your PushButton products at all, particularly WORD. I have been happily using it for over two years now, but had anticipated getting regular updates from you. Que’ pasa? Please e-mail, or call if you know what I’m talking about. If not, use as kindling. Winter is coming on.

W. Gary Hayward

AppENDIx L vITA

The author of this work is W. Gary Hayward, a firstborn son entering the world on February 16, 1954 in Everett, Massachusetts. He has lived somewhere in Massachusetts his entire life. Upon graduating from Melrose High School in 1972, he attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, graduating Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology. The following school term he entered Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary in preparation for pastoral ministry. Mr. Hayward and his wife Susan graduated together from Gordon Conwell in May of 1980, he with a Master of Divinity. He completed a Doctor of Ministry Degree from GCTS in June 1997.

Born, baptized, raised, confirmed, married, and ordained in the United Church of Christ, Mr. Hayward served thirteen years as pastor of Barre Congregational Church, UCC. He still resides in Barre with his wife and their four children who range in age from eight to sixteen. He is currently pastor of Covenant Evangelical Church in Barre, Middle School teacher of History and Bible at Holden Christian Academy in Holden, Massachusetts, and adjunct faculty member of Eastern Nazarene College.

(Original) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................ iv is introduction AND OVERVIEW................................................................... 1

THE PROBLEM IN ITS SETTING The Ministry Setting................................ 6 Statement of the Problem............................... 10 Hypothesis or Statement of Outcome Expected................................................... 13 Delimitations....................................................................................................... 14 Assumptions........................................................................................................ 15 {] 5CHAPTER ONE..

.................................................................................................. 16

A THEOLOGY MINISTER Biblical Models of Pastoral Ministry.................................................................... 16

Testament Covenant..................................................................................... 2 New Testament Covenant.................................................................................... 5

Covenant Renewal in the Old Testament.............................................................. 8 Covenant Renewal in the New Testament............................................................ 32 NOTES............................................................................................................... 35 w1 1 CHAPTER TWO.

.................................................................................................. 37 THE COVENANT HISTORY OF A

NEW ENGLAND CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH Covenant and Covenant Renewal in Early New England Congregationalism.... 37

II. Covenant and Covenant Renewal in Barre Congregational Church.................. 5 NOTES.............................................................................................................. 70

CHAPTER THREE

............................................................................................... 7 PROJECT THODOLOG NOTES............................................................................................................... 91 CHAPTER FOUR..

................................................................................................ 92 8 CONCLUSION Results............................................................................................................... 92 Analysis............................................................................................................. 99 Interpretation..................................................................................................... 102 Recommendations............................................................................................. 106 u5

Page 206 Appendix L Vita

{ Conclusion........................................................................................................ 111 NOTES............................................................................................................. 113

Appendices

A. Pre-vote Sermon, February , 1992........................................................ 114

B. Report of Consultant.............................................................................. 124

C. Letter to BCC introducing Covenant Series............................................

D. First Sermon of Covenant Series............................................................ 132

We. Second Sermon of Covenant Series........................................................ 143

F. Third Sermon of Covenant Series........................................................... 153

G. Fourth Sermon of Covenant Series........................................................ 163

H. Participation Survey..............................................................................

I. Cover Letter on CEC Covenant.............................................................. 175

J. CEC Statement of Faith......................................................................... 177 K. CEC Covenant...................................................................................... 179 L. Vita....................................................................................................... 181

SELECTED B BIOGRAPHY........................................................................... 182

THEOMIN

’


Rev. Dr. W. Gary Hayward

A CH

RO

NIC

LE O

F GO

D’S FA

ITH

FU

LN

ESS: C

OV

EN

AN

T RE

NE

WA

L IN A L

OC

AL C

HU

RC

H R

EV. D

R. W G

AR

Y HA

YW

AR

D

Documents

A CHRONICLE OF GOD SFAITHFULNESS: Covenant Renewal in a Local Church