THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH

 

By Forrest Keener

 

Open your Bibles to Ephesians 5:23, "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. I want you to notice the word head and the word body here, because they are extremely important in this passage of Scripture. Then, for the sake of time, go to verse 32. We'll make other references later. Ephesians 5:32 says, "This is a great mystery." He's talking about the relationship of the husband and the wife. And he says, "but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Then I want you, with that in your mind, to go to Matthew 28:18. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." And then notice that verses 19 and 20 are based upon verse 18. Matthew 28:19-20 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap­tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

 

You will not get the real impact of Matthew 28:19-20, unless you lay it squarely upon the foundation of verse 18. May I say just a word about this. You have often heard men relegate the word "power" in this particular case, (the Greek word "exousia") to simply mean authority. But that is true only to an extent. The word "dunamis" means the ability to do something, but this word "exousia," if I understand it rightly in its context, carries not only the authority to do a thing, but also the full ability. I might have the authority to get out of my car and carry it out of a mud hole. It's my car and my mud hole, but I don't have the ability to do it. And the Lord's logic for this commission, is laid on the fact that He has both the authority to send you, and the power to sustain you, and give His purpose success. "Go ye therefore." As we look at the subject, "The Head of the Church," we realize that it is a biblical statement that Christ is the Head of the church. No one here would question that I don't think. But often this is frustrated by a great many confusing approaches to what it means for Christ to be the Head of the church. 

 

Please be aware of the biblical use of metaphors. When the Bible speaks of the church being the body of Christ, it is metaphorical, not literal. Please don't declare war on me until you listen to what I have to say here. Scripture is not saying the church is His literal body. It is not to be taken as a literal statement. When He took the loaf of bread and broke it and said, 'This is my body, take and eat," He was not saying, that loaf of bread was His literal body. If you embrace the idea that He was, you have embraced the heresy of transubstantiation, claimed by the Catholics. And you will do the same thing if you literalize other metaphors of the church, such as, the vine. I believe the vine is a metaphor of the church. My Father is the Husbandman, I am the Vine, ye are the branches, it teaches a wonderful relationship. The body, in 1 Corinthians 13 speaks of the human body, "the hand cannot say," "the eye cannot say," it is speaking of a human body, and it is an illustration of the local churches. Those metaphors make no sense applying to any kind of church except the local church. But understand that the Lord uses those metaphors to teach us proper relationships. And this is extremely true, totally true, when it comes to this doctrine of the headship of the church. Now, when we take a metaphor and literalize it, or when we take something that is literal and we make it metaphorical, we frustrate its purpose. When you take a meta­phor that the Lord has given you in the Bible, and you literalize it, you not only will teach error, as the case of transubstantiation taught by Catholicism, but you’ll rob yourself of the beauty, and the enlightenment of the metaphor itself. For instance, the metaphor of the body shows the inter­dependence of members within the church. The metaphor of the headship of Christ shows us the authority, the power, and the control. The metaphor of the bride shows us the proper subjection, of the local church to Christ. God didn't just happen to throw those things into Scripture loosely. They are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and they are there to give us great pictures, and to teach us things that we would not be able to learn, if we did not have them. So take them very, very seriously. Consider then, that the body that is not connected to the head will putrefy every time. It is very important that the church has the right relationship to the Head. So let this metaphor teach us subjection. But subjection is not really what I'm going to talk about this morning, I'm going to talk chiefly about dependency. Not only subjection to the Head, but dependency upon the Head. I believe this is an extremely important issue for us today, and it is my subject this morning.

 

THE DEPENDENCY OF THE NATURAL BODY UPON THE HEAD

 

These metaphors, as I said, are not carelessly thrown into the Bible. They are not incidental thoughts that God just happened to drop in passing, as I often do. These are inspired by the Holy Spirit, they are very deliberately placed where they are, and it is extremely important that we be analytical enough in looking at them to see what they intend to teach us. For instance, He gives us the teaching of the husband and the wife, and I believe all Ephesians chapter 5 says on that subject is to be taken as fundamental truth. But notice that in verse 32 He says, "this is a great mystery, but I speak of Christ and His church." So this truth concerning the husband and wife is given to us, and we are to look at that, and make application, draw a parallel and see, not only the interdependency of church members, and the proper subjection to Christ, but the absolute dependency of the church on the headship of Christ. Did you know that when the head is not in charge, that is, when the brain is not functioning, when the brain ceases to function, the rest of the body fails and will soon begin to deteriorate in some sense. Now, you can keep certain things alive. For instance, we have great machines now that will pump the blood through your body, and even make your heart beat. I have attended at least two that I can remember, perhaps more cases, where they unhooked the hu­man body from these life support machines. These are, in many cases, instances where I have stayed in the hospital room the night before, or visited several times. Here lies a man upon the bed, in the intensive care unit, being attended constantly. I can look up at the monitors, and they indicate that he has a good, regular heartbeat. He even has good blood pressure. I'm serious! You look at him, and you see that he is breathing. He just looks pretty good. Now if you know enough about the machine, you will see a section that will show you what percentage of that activity is him, and what percentage is the machine. And as the percentage of activity generated by the man goes down, the machine percentage goes up, this man is dying. After a while they have to do something with him. Just a .couple of weeks ago, a man I had known since he was a teenager, died, and his cousin, who is my sister-in-law, said to my wife, "Wayne died today." She told my wife that on Wednesday night in the church services. Lo and behold, my wife got the paper in a couple of days and it said that Wayne died on Thursday. She asked her sister-in-law, something like, did you have a premonition? You told me he died Wednesday night, the paper says that he died on Thursday. The explanation was that actually he died on Wednesday, but his wife just couldn't bring herself to have him un­hooked, until they got some other family members who talked her into it. I don't know that I got all the story straight, but it is basically accurate, and it makes the illustration accurate for my purpose. There are a lot of so-called churches today that are, in fact, like this man was on that heart machine. They are dead, as one man said, "dead, but too rich to bury." And they are just being kept alive by an artificial means, and they are not living churches. They are like the church at Sardis, Rev.3:1, "thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." It can happen to us. Yes, It can. We don't want that to be our condition, do we? It's not what we want. Just as the brain directs the bodily functions, I'm talking about the kidneys and all of those things, so Christ directs the church. The church cannot function rightly unless Christ is the Head. And saying Christ is the Head of our church isn' t worth a spit in the wind, if Christ is not the Head of our church. We can talk about it, we can confess it, we can claim it, we can even hope that it is true, but we are dependent upon the fact that it really is true. Let me say something else. This headship of Christ over the church, like the headship of the husband over the wife is not vicarious. Do you fellows get somebody to communicate with your wife for you? Do you carry on your relationship with your wife intermediately, or immediately? I don't mean to be gross or irreverent, but I am simply saying that this has to be a direct relationship with Christ. Separate the body from the head, or place an intermediate between them, and you will soon have a dead body.

 

ARTIFICIAL HEADS OF SOME SO-CALLED CHURCHES IN OUR DAY

 

Now, let me move on to a second thought. I want to speak to you  briefly about some artificial heads of some churches, and other so-called churches, in our day. And I could talk about this for two hours. Of course, we have the pope that operates through his hierarchy. He doesn't make any bones about it. One thing you've got to say for the Catholics in that area, they tell the truth about the system that they operate under. The pope is the head, under him are the cardinals. If you go to any local thing that is called a Catholic church, you will find that, no matter what anybody in that congregation thinks, what God said, or what Christ said, or any­thing else, I will tell you what they are going to do. They are going to do what the pope says. It's going to come down to that, and that's the way they are going to operate.

 

And then there are those inter-church boards, like the Methodists, and I don't have time to get into how all of them operate. There are bishops over the Methodists, and of course, you have the cardinals under the pope, in the Catholic church. And all of these things work out to be the head or heads of the church, whatever they are called. All authority comes down through these men. And then you have fellowships and mission boards which operate subtly, very subtly. I pulled out of a fellowship in 1961, a fellowship of good men. Let me tell you something, I am not mad at anybody. And I am not here to pick on any group, not the Southern Baptist Convention, not the North American Baptist Association, not the South Wide Baptists, not the GARB. I am going to stand before God a whole lot too soon to spend my time picking on other men's mistakes. And I believe that, in general, the men who started these groups, whether it is the WBF, the BBF, or whatever it is, were decent men with very, very few exceptions. They were men who felt that what they were doing was beneficial to the Lord's work. And I wouldn't walk around the block to hear you tell me what is wrong within the ABA, the BMA, or any of those other things because what is wrong within them is not the problem. It never has been. Oh, they have a lot of problems, but their problems are not the problem. What is wrong about them is their existence because in every instance the very existence of those groups, at the best men can do, becomes an interference between the church and a direct ability to follow Christ without pressure. Brother Wayne Camp and I agree on most things. So let's say that Bro. Wayne and I decide that we are going to start a cooperative school between our churches. Now we don't disagree on much, but what do we do with those few things upon which we disagree? Well, if we fight about them, obviously we're not going to have school. So we're going to decide, necessarily, that we must at least go easy on those areas, two or three, one or two, it doesn't matter. So let's now enlarge this just a little, we will just grow a little, and Brother Ron joins us. And lo and behold, something else is different. It is just a small disagreement, but we must ignore another issue. And let's bring in Brother Royce over here, who agrees with me on almost everything. The only places we disagree are just a couple of places where he is wrong. But we will bring him in. Now, we have a little problem, and it is growing every day. We brought in the second man, and doubled the issues that must become "non-issues." We brought in Bro. Royce. Now we've increased those non-issues. We bring in Bro. Laurence Justice, and we increase it even more. My point is this, all our organization has to do is to grow, in order for it to come to the point that we cannot be emphatic about anything. Dr. Frank Godsoe, who has been with the Lord now for many years, was an old friend of mine. He used to tell the story of when he was a farm boy. He started to preach when he drove a horse and buggy. He could tell you some stories that would thrill your heart. But he said that when he was a boy they would go out to the fields, and they always went in a wagon. That was before very many people had automobiles. And he said that they had a little dog that always was their fearless leader. He said this little dog would get out in front of the wagon and trot along, just the proudest little dog you ever saw. He was leading the caravan, and everyone had to follow him. They come to a fork in the road, and the little dog would go the wrong way. The team and wagon, would go the way the driver chose, and the little dog would run back to the right road, get in front of them, and there he would go again, trotting along with great pride. He's leading the group. He went wherever he wanted to go, but where he wanted to go was in front of the wagon. He was probably afraid to go anywhere else. I will tell you some­thing else, that little dog wagged his tail, because that is what little dogs do. And that is what preachers do, and churches do, a lot of times, they wag their tongues like a dog wags his tail. They talk about how independent they are, how surely they do their own thing, how they do as they please. And, like the little dog, they wag their tails any way they want to wag them. It doesn't make a dime's worth of difference about the wag in their tongue or tail, because the tail goes with the dog, and the dog goes with the wagon. It is our nature to follow bigness. And as this happens, the headship of Christ becomes strangely lost in that fear of men and the dependency upon numbers. And again, I don't care what group it is, the necessary dependency upon the approval and the cooperation, and the help of those brethren becomes a snare. It doesn't make any difference whether it is a dependency upon the support of your missionary, or whether it is a retirement fund within the group, it will still put a measure of pressure upon you, and you can't help it. It's going to happen. We can't get away from it, if we are part of such an ecclesiastical machine. Again, I'm not mad at any of these people. I feel sorry for people who are having those problems.

 

Well, let me say something else. I'm not going to just pick on those folks on the outside. They probably won't hear this tape or read the book anyhow. Let's pick on ourselves a little. Let us see some things we can and should change. Among a lot of independent Baptists churches, I see some internal ruling presbyteries. Now I do not know of any church, represented here this morning, unless you are something other than an independent Baptist, who would immediately admit to a Presbyterian form of government in your church. By that I mean a rule of elders within your church. I wouldn't and I don't think anybody else in this assembly would. But I want to tell you something, you don't have to call them elders. We don't refer to our deacons by the title "deacon" in our church. We voted not to refer to them that way some years ago. We decided that we would refer to them by the particular office they fill. That's our right, it's not unbiblical because they are called something else a lot more in Scripture, than they are called deacons. Sure, we have deacons. Every church has them. You can't help it. Wherever, whatever office of service in the church, you have elected a man to, you've actually made him a deacon. The reason we don't call them deacons is because the name has been perverted. We don't call this man over here, Bishop Smith. He is a bishop, but we don't call him that. Why not? Well, it's because of the mess that has been made out of the name by some other groups. You don't have to call him a bishop, it would be all right if you did, and it's all right if you do not. It's all right if you call men deacons, it's all right if you don't. I want to tell you something. In many churches, men are made deacons, and in a little while become self-destructive, and hurtful to their church. With good understanding and leadership, they will not. But in many cases they make the church unpastorable. I have seen good pastors almost crucified, by decent people, in decent churches, because they allowed an internal headship to arise. Most pastors know that it is a lot easier to control seven men than seventy. Isn't that true? So get those seven men together and call them deacons, make friends out of them, take them out to eat, entertain them, make them your bosom buddies, and they will follow you like a pack of fox hounds, and do your bidding until you displease them, and you have trouble. And those men often act destructively, listen now, believing, truly believing, that they are protecting, and directing, the Lord's church. Listen now, this is a thing they have no right or commission to do, as a deacon, not ever! The problem is not that they are bad men, or insurrectionists, or that they have sinister plots to destroy. No, no. It is that they have been put into a position that should never have existed, as far as they are concerned. Many Churches and pastors, by practice of an unbiblical tradition, have built this evil machine, and it robs Christ of the headship. No, I think it more accurate to say it robs the church of the headship of Christ. They become the head of the church. And I will tell you this, they become a presbytery over that church. It doesn't make any difference if you call them deacons or donkeys, they still are ruling the church, which the whole congregation should rule, and it is wrong. Such practice is always destructive to the church.

 

And then there are pastors, who by their charisma, become dic­tators of the church. In the eyes of the congregation, it's right because the pastor says it is right. They do what they do because the pastor said do it, not because he showed them that the Bible taught them to do it. "If you don't do this," says he, "you are not following pastoral leadership." Such pastors become the head of the church. If the pastor acts that way in the church, if he conducts himself that way, don't expect that you will not have people within the church trying to shoot you off that pedestal and climb on. That's what you're teaching them to do. Don't do that, it's a mistake. Let the Lord be the head of the church. Don't try to rule by cliques, or by boards, or by groups. Let Scripture be your scepter, and always use it to point the church to Christ. There is nothing wrong with the office of a deacon. It is scriptural. But if you have a board of deacons that makes policy decisions, now listen, that the church is not part of, you have moved in the direction of letting men become the head of the church. And you have made trouble for yourself, and for the flock over which God has made you overseer. It may not come back to bite you tomorrow, but it will appear if you stay in that church long enough. And if you don't, some other pastor will be bitten later on.

 

A PROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

 

Now I want to move, finally, to briefly address a proper relation­ship between the head, which is Christ, and the church. First of all, what is the body? Now I believe the body, as we see it in 1 Corinthians 12, is a metaphor for the local church, and that exclusively. I believe that the bap­tism there, as you are baptized by one Spirit, is water baptism. It is by the leadership of the Holy Spirit that we are baptized into the local body. You can get a copy of my tract on "Baptized by one Spirit in one Body" if you want to, and you will get what I believe to be simple and biblical information on that. You can read a clear exposition of 1 Cor. 12:13. I believe it is accurate. It has been used all across the country. It shows that the baptism of I Cor. 12:13 is not the Holy Spirit baptizing anybody. He has never baptized anybody yet. The Bible never says He did, no not ever. But anyhow, you can take a look at that. But when I look at this metaphor of the body, it seems so important in the Scripture, that I say we need to know what this is talking about. It is talking about the local church, and as far as I am able to tell, nothing else. I'm not going to throw rocks at everyone who may disagree with me, all it proves, if you disagree with me, is that I'm right and you're wrong. Of course, I'm teasing. I don't believe that, and I don't mean that. But I believe that passage is talking about the local church and nothing else, no not ever. Now here is what I am saying. Look to your Bible, not to men, to discern the truth in this area. Bro. Cozart did a tremendous job on the nature of the church last night. He brought out the fact that the church is an ecclesia, and that truth is so fundamentally important. All churches are assemblies, but not all assem­blies are churches. I hope you understand what I am saying. All churches are assemblies. You cannot have any other kind of a church. It is a called out and covenanted assembly, and that principle holds true even when it is not assembled. That was a good point you made on the church roll, Bro. Royce, if you're the one that brought that out. If you consult your Bible, you will find that there are 112 references to this word "ecclesia" where it's talking about the Lord's church. I believe there are 115 appearances of the word "ecclesia" altogether, but if you take away those that Bro. Cozart mentioned last night, which do not refer to the Lord's New Testament Church, if my memory serves me accurately, you have 112 refer­ences to this word church, where it comes from this Greek word ecclesia. Then, if you will take all of the places where it is obviously referring to a local congregation, again if my memory serves me right, you have only seven left. Only seven! I'm talking about taking those places where it says the church at Corinth, when you come together in the church, tell it to the church, or where the word is used in the plural, for those are, obviously, all local church references. You're going to have seven references left, such as "on this rock will build my church." If you didn't know what that word "ecclesia" meant, and if that were the only reference you had in your Bible, you wouldn't know what he was talking about, when He says on this rock I will build my church. But as you go to these others, you will clearly know what He is talking about. And it seems to me that if you have, granting that I'm right on my memory of words, 105 references to this word church, and we see that they are talking about a local congrega­tion like Victory Baptist Church, in Kansas City Missouri, this congregation that meets here on Blue Ridge Extension, we have a simple conclu­sion to which we are clearly pointed. In those cases a local congregation is what Scripture is talking about, and you clearly see that 105 of those usages are speaking of a local congregation, is it not logical and reason­able then, to assume that the other seven are talking about the same thing, unless there is something in the text that forbids you to give the word that meaning? And friend, you just won't find such an indication in the text. Now, I know that those other usages are generic usages. For instance, when you come together in the church, that is a generic usage. What church? Well, he is writing to the church at Corinth, but it would be equally applicable to any church and there are many, many generic usages, but the generic usages are not talking about something that is different from the local congregation. They are talking about local congregations, in general, and that precisely. So when we say, in church context, the body of Christ, we are talking about a local church, and absolutely nothing else.

 

There are different members and capacities within each church. Now lis­ten carefully to this, there are different members within each local body but none of them are priests. None of them are intermediaries between you and Christ. They are not. Every one of them have a direct access to Christ. Now let me say this, our jobs and responsibilities are not all the same. There are sovereign appointments. God calls preachers. God calls pastors. God sovereignly appoints us to jobs, responsibilities, and posi­tions of oversight in the church. That's not merely an invention of Baptists. God tells us that in the Scripture. He speaks of the elders taking the over­sight, that is, the pastors in the churches taking the oversight. That is their appointed business. These are sovereign appointments, and I could not emphasize sovereignty in that area too much. Remember what Peter said to Simon the sorcerer? You have neither part nor lot in this matter. Why? Because you're such a wicked fellow? It had nothing to do with that. It just was not a gift or an assignment that God had given to Simon the sorcerer, or Wayne Camp, or Laurence Justice, or to Forrest Keener. It was given to the apostles and then I believe to the other seventy, and finally to Paul. I don't believe it goes any further than that. The gifts of healing, didn't go any further than that. God made those appointments, and men can't volunteer for them. Now understand this, good people hurt good churches by trying to be pastors. When I hear somebody in the church say "Me and sister so-and-so got together, and prayed about this," I think, oh Lord help me. Lord help us. I'm serious about that folks. I surely believe that we ought to pray, but I'm telling you something folks, and I say this to all of you folk here, who are not pastors, all of you, don't try to be the pastor of your fellow church members. Pastors' wives, never, never, never be presumptions enough to try to pastor the women of the church. God did not call you to do that. And you will make a mess of it one hundred percent of the time. One hundred percent of the time, either directly or indirectly, you will make a mess. God called your husband to be the pastor. Leave that to him. Pray for fellow members, but don't do too much praying with individual members. Especially, don't let them con­fess their sins to you. Leave that alone. God has placed particular people in church oversight and you are not one of them. But the point is this, God placed pastors there. They are overseers of the flock, but they are not appointed dictators, and they are not owners. 

 

There are two important metaphors here that we need to see, in respect to Christ's headship over the church. They are the body and the wife. The one has to do with our relationship to each other, our interdependency upon each other as members of the body. That is, of course, with the head being the authority, and the power, and the director, over the body, and over the wife. And incidentally brethren, I've heard some Baptists make an application here, which I am fully persuaded is a mistake. Do not take this word "espoused," anywhere in your Bible, and define it as meaning an engagement. It is no such thing. It is not an engagement. It is a marriage. Ask anyone who is familiar with Spanish languages about the word Es­pouse. Does it mean I am engaged? "This is my spouse, we are engaged." That is pure foolishness, it speaks of a wife. When Paul says "I have espoused you to one husband," that word espoused means joined, jointed, it means married, not engaged. A woman is not a bride until she gets married. A bride is a wife. If we use this word wife we'll see some truth that we often miss with today's traditional, ecclesiastical use of the word bride. There is a relationship there. It is a relationship not only of subjec­tion, but of dependency. Time fails me to be able to say too much about this, but let me say it in these words. Scripture says, "And He is the sav­iour of the body." Paul is talking about the husband and the wife, The husband is the head of the wife, and He is the saviour of the body. Wives, you need your husband. You are dependent upon him. The greatest curse upon women today is they're being taught, they're being raised, they're being educated, not to be dependent upon a man. I am afraid that is a terrible indictment against the character, and maturity of men. I mean, I understand why, as sorry as a lot of men are today, nobody would want their daughter to be dependent upon one of these critters. I can under­stand that. But it is contrary to God's Word of instruction for the relation­ship. God uses instructors, and preachers, but they are not daysmen, they are not mediators. Christ is the Mediator between men and God. We are not. The head has authority and He rightly controls every member.

 

There is often an impropriety here in member's conduct. For in­stance, the church will plan a business meeting, and some members will get together and decide what to do. Their format of reasoning is, "Hey, brother, what do you think about this? What do you think we ought to do tomorrow night? We're going to have this business meeting, we're going to make a decision on this matter, what is your opinion?" That's an ungodly thing to do at worst, and a serious mistake at best. If we go back to the Acts 15:22, we read these words." Then it pleased the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas..." When they got there, they listened to the account, they listened to what was said, and then they sought the Lord for the basis of their decision. It was not a consensus of human opinion, but rather a seeking of the headship of Christ. If you look in the first chapter of Acts, where they met together to choose a replace­ment for Judas, they said,' 'Lord, thou knowest the hearts of all men, shew us whom thou hast chosen." That ought to be the desire of every member. Listen, we practice congregational rule, but that does not it mean that the church is a democratic society. That's not what it means. We're supposed to be very deliberately under Christ, our Head, carefully seeking Him.

 

Let me close, with an illustration. When I was a little boy, we used order chickens by mail. Did you ever do that? We would order three or four hundred little chickens by mail. Most of them would drown, the first or second time a rainstorm came. Some of them would die from the heat on a hot day. And we would finally end up with 50 or 60 fryers which wouldn't last long, if momma turned us loose on them, because there were 9 children in our family. And there were several boys, including myself, who could eat a whole fried chicken if that much were prepared. I expect I still could, and I would probably enjoy every bite of it. I would probably weigh 400 pounds if I ate so foolishly, but I love fried chicken. My wife could vouch for that. As boys, we would go out and catch some chickens for Mom to clean and fry. Sometimes we used the chicken hook, and sometimes we would throw out a little corn and just reach down and catch one. When we had caught the unfortunate creature we would dispatch it for the purpose of the preparation. You could dispatch him two or three ways. You could ring his neck, or you could just pop his head off, and there were other methods. It didn't make too much differ­ence how you got his head off. When that chicken was separated from his head, he could jump higher than he had ever been able to jump any time in his life. He was more lively than you'd ever seen him be before. We used to have the little kids, running and screaming over the antics of those headless chickens. But let me tell you some things about that chicken. It wasn't going to lay any more eggs, if it ever had laid any. If it was a rooster, it wasn't going to crow any more. The chicken wouldn't grow up to produce anything else. That chicken didn't know what it was doing. It was as likely to jump one way as another. And that is exactly the way any church is going to be, if Christ is not the Head. Now listen, it doesn't make a dune's worth of difference, if you've got seven of the best men in the world running that church as deacons, or if you have the best pastor in the world, or the wisest man you could find anywhere in this world running that church, it's still going to be like a chicken with his head off, unless we are all walking in the fear of God, and in humility, pleading that Christ would be the Head of the church. We are as dependent upon Him being our head, as my human body is dependent upon its head. The church just can't continue to live any other way. Though it may be jumping higher than ever before, growing in attendance, and it may be the city's centerpiece of conversation, if Christ is not the head, it is no longer a church, in any biblical sense. Let us plead for, and bow to, the headship of Christ over our churches. Let us plead that we may know how to look to Him as our head.