D.L. Moody—A man who was turned down for church membership.

Throughout the next few weeks, this blog will examine certain “snapshots" of D.L. Moody, which I hope will bring a deeper appreciation for this servant and a greater love for the God whom he gave his life to.

In May, 1855, young Moody presented himself for membership in the Mount Vernon Church, from the records of which the following minute is taken:

“No. 1079. Dwight L. Moody. Boards, 43 Court Street. Has been baptized. First awakened on the 16^th of May. Became anxious about himself. Saw himself a sinner, and sin now seems hateful and holiness desirable. Thinks he has repented; has purposed to give up sin; feels dependent upon Christ for forgiveness. Loves the Scriptures. Prays. Desires to be useful. Religiously educated. Been in the city a year. Is not ashamed to be a Christian. 18 years old.”

As a pastor and a Christian, I am as much amazed at the confession of Moody as I am his rejection by the leaders of the church. Moody seemed to understand all the elements of the gospel and even showed some immediate signs of true conversion (i.e. new desires that stems from a new heart—Ezek. 36:26). Yet I will not criticize their decision (but I revisit this issue at the end of this blog entry), since Moody himself appreciated their hesitation. 

In light of this incident, here are a couple things we can learn from Moody:

Moody always had a high view of the local church.

Sometimes people accuse those who have iterant ministries or who create “para-church organizations” as having a “low view” of the local church. Though this may be the case with others, this is an unfair assessment of Moody. On many occasions when challenged on this issue, Moody would often say, “It (i.e. Y.M.C.A. / Northfield Schools / Moody Bible Institute) is a handmaid, a feeder to the church”. 

Moody was convinced that the visible church is God’s way of growing His children to look more like Jesus (Heb. 10:24-25). This is why he would not come to certain cities (to do his evangelistic campaigns) if there wasn’t an appropriate atmosphere of togetherness for the gospel. He wanted the city (and all of the evangelical churches) to be ready for the new converts as the wind of the Holy Spirit blew through (John 3:6-7).

I have always believed that there would be less para-church organizations, if local churches would embrace their mission (Acts 1:8).  What often happens is that Christians get weary of the politics of the local church or their lack of compassion and seek ministry outside the walls of the local church. Leaders must be careful to not to squelch the promptings of the Holy Spirit within the people of God. Lead the people, shepherd the people, even protect the people from their own lack of discernment, but let us make sure we are not hindering a mighty work of God out of fear it might “muddy up” our perfect church. 

Moody embraced what God wanted him to be.

Like George Whitefield, there were many who invited Moody to “settle down” and pastor their church. Yet he always turned them down. Why? Because he was comfortable in his own skin. He knew that God has called him to do a certain task for His glory.

Yet even with all the spiritual success of Moody, some still argue that Moody did it outside (not through) the ordained means of the local church. Is this assessment correct?

It depends how you define the “church”. If the church is an actual building, then certainly that assessment is correct. If the church is the body of Christ, living out the “one-anothers” and encouraging each other to live on mission (I Cor. 12:12-27), then Moody worked through the means of Christ’s church. Here are the facts: Moody himself was led to Christ by his Sunday School teacher, matured under solid teaching and consistently served in local churches throughout his ministry. Moody lived on mission. He worked side by side with local churches. He assumed they would be the instruments of discipleship to these new believers.

Below is my “blog rant”:

I have swung back and forth on this issue through my Christian years. As of the last few years, I am more convinced that a robust membership process is necessary. American Christianity seems to have an aversion to “making a commitment” to the local church, which is likely either because they are not truly converted or sanctification (the active pursuit of a set apart life) is not high on their priority list.

Please don’t misunderstand me. A robust membership class does not assure a purer, more committed local church. But the added emphasis and the resurrection of a church covenant (which we just created at my church) is a step in the right direction. Most people believe pre-marital counseling is vital to help couples understand the intrinsic commitment and expectation of God (who created marriage and defined the roles of it). Is the commitment to your brothers and sisters in Christ any less important before God? 

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.