The Assembling of the Church

Three years ago, our family moved out of on-campus seminary housing and into a house. Around that same time, five families who were part of our church moved. Our church became very adept at packing and unpacking, loading and unloading. During one move a little later, we helped some of our friends move. When we finished, we noticed one of the neighbors was packing a moving truck. The husband and wife were trying to pack up by themselves. We all went over – more than twenty of us – and packed their moving truck for them.

Anyway, back to the story… as I said, we moved three years. The church helped us, and it was an incredible demonstration of love for our family. I wrote a quick blog post about it then called “Love one another“. Today, I am even more convinced that the love we are commanded to share with one another and with our neighbors is a real, demonstrable, working, sweating kind of love.

—————————————–

Love one another

There have been a couple of blog entries concerning the life of our church over the last week and love for another (for example, see Theron Stancil’s entry and Alice C.’s entry, and a related article by Isabel here). Last Saturday, we were the recipients of Christian love. We moved from seminary housing to a real house in a nearby city. Our brothers and sisters began arriving at our duplex by 9:00 a.m. to help us move. Many worked tirelessly moving boxes and furniture. Others provided meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) for our family and those helping (with enough leftovers to feed our family for a couple of days). Since we could only rent a small moving truck (apparently last weekend was the busiest moving weekend of the year), we had to make two trips. Our friends not only helped us load and unload the truck twice, but they also stayed to help us set up the new house. (Yes, we still have boxes to unpack, but we can live in the house as it is.) Some stayed until after 9:00 p.m. helping us. But that’s not all… we also had help cleaning our duplex on Monday!

So, why did I go into all of that? Well, let me start with a few passages of Scripture…

Jesus said to him, ” ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12, 17)

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Galatians 5:13)

For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another… (1 John 3:11)

Sure… we’ve heard these commands to “love one another” since we were children. But how often have you (or I) been the recipients of true love… love that is patient, kind… love that demonstrates itself in unselfish ways… love that gives and gives and gives… love that lifts and carries and sweats and aches… love that sacrifices time and effort… Over the last few days, as I’ve contemplated this demonstration of love, several other Scripture passages have come to mind:

By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:16-18)

If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:15-17)

Certainly, we were not naked nor destitute of daily food, but we were in real, physical need, and the love of Christ was demonstrated to us in real, physical ways. Isn’t it amazing that James uses this (a physical demonstration of love) as one of the visible manifestations of true faith? So, our family has been the recipients of real, biblical, Christ-honoring love.

So what? Do we thank God for His goodness and go on with our lives? Well, that brings me to the last passage of Scripture:

And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25)

You see, as our church gathered on Saturday (yes, I did mean Saturday) in order to move us, we were encouraged (exhorted). We were stirred up and provoked to provide the same type of love to others. It is our prayer that God provides opportunities for us to love our neighbors in similar ways. Through our loving deeds and words (not just loving deeds and not just words!), perhaps some of them will come to recognize that it is not the Knox family alone that loves them, but it is God who loves them through us.

I recently read through a section of Roger W. Gehring’s House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. This book does NOT suggest that the early church only met in houses. Nor does Gehring suggest that the church today should only meet in houses. Instead, Gehring examines the importance of the house and household structures for the early church.

This time, I read through a section of the book concerning Acts 2:42-47. Here is the passage under consideration:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47 ESV)

In one paragraph, he discusses the meaning of the phrase “breaking of bread” in 2:42 and its significance to the early church:

The community life of the Jerusalem church was experienced most intensively and was continually renewed in the join celebration of the bread breaking in individual houses. Scholars have reflected on and written a great deal about the character of these communion celebrations. In general, it is assumed that these celebrations certainly entailed a common meal (see Acts 2:46). We can be sure that the community of goods described by Luke in Acts included common meals together. (Acts 6:1-3 clearly demonstrates this.) The expression “breaking bread” also implies a meal: it is the designation for the act of tearing the bread, which, in addition to the word of blessing, forms the opening rite at the beginning of Jewish meals (Acts 27:35). Moreover, Luke also places “bread breaking” in the context of the worship service elsewhere in Acts (Acts 20:7, 11). (page 83)

So, according to Gehring, the phrase “breaking of bread” indicates, at least, a common meal. (And I agree.) Thus, he indicates that “the community life of the Jerusalem church was experienced most intensively and was continually renewed” through a common meal. Furthermore, he says that the phrase that the Jerusalem church “had all things in common” includes sharing meals. These meals, according to Gehring, were shared in various homes.

Gehring later says that Acts 20:7, 11 (the story of Paul in Troas) and 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-25 indicate the importance of these common meals to the early churches. Thus, the early church determined that sharing food together was important for building and maintaining community and for caring for those who needed help.

Gehring goes on to say that this common meal was actually part of the church meeting – the “worship service” of the early church. As most of my regular readers would know, I don’t like the term “worship service”. However, Gehring uses the term “worship service” to specify the church meeting and separate it from other types of activities that occur in a home. He has a long section that convincingly argues that “worship services” occurred in homes, not just in the Temple area. Sharing food together was part of the church meeting, and teaching may have taken place during the meal, not separately.

However, a few hundred years after this, the church decided that these meals were unimportant and even dangerous. The Councils of Laodicea (363-364 AD) and Trullian (692 AD) outlawed the church’s common meal, which was also called the Agape Feast (Jude 12). (See my post “Why just the bread and the cup” for more details and sources.)

If Gehring is correct, then when the church stopped sharing meals together, it lost one very significant aspect of community. When the meal was turned into a rite with only bread and cup (or only bread for hundreds of years), the horizontal community aspect of eating a meal together was lost. (Eating a piece of bread or wafer at the same time is not the same as “eating a meal together.”)

As many of you know, our church shares a meal together each week. (We also share meals together from day to day in our homes.) The meal on Sunday is a casual affair. People bring food for themselves, or food to share. Some people decide to stay for the meal, others can’t stay for various reasons. However, we consider the meal a very important part of our church meeting.

A few days ago, my friend Jon said this about our meal together (see the post “What are our church meetings like?“):

The meal was also very special. It gave everyone a chance to further connect and spend time together. I loved the fact that there was no sense of hurry or “look what time it is!” … We were just content to share our time.

Like the early church, we’ve found that sharing a common meal heightens our community and fellowship. I’m glad that Jon recognized this when he met with us and shared a meal with us.

I often get emails from people asking about community. They are part of a church – big or small – that has good teaching, but they sense a lack of true community. They often ask, “What should we do?”

I never suggest that someone “leave their church.” Instead, I suggest that people began to build relationships with people who are already in their lives. One of the best ways to do this is by sharing meals together. If your church leadership will not let you share meals during or after your church meeting (”worship service”), then invite people to your house or to a restaurant. Share a meal with people during the week.

I think you’ll find as we have found – and as Gehring pointed out – that eating common meals together is a great way – an important and “most intensive” way – to experience and renew community.

Do you regularly share meals with the church? Do you share them in your homes or other places? Do you think that meals help your build and maintain community?

This post is part of my “stories” series. In this series, I share stories of how people live their lives in response to the gospel and as a demonstration of God’s love in order to teach us and to provide an example to provoke us to love and good works. (See “stories: A New Series” for more information about this series.)

In this series, I usually write about ways that I serve other people. Today, I want to do something a little different. I’m going to tell about how some friends served me, my family, and some other friends recently. It may seem insignificant to some, but it was very significant to us and our friends.

Last week, our family traveled to Alabama and Georgia to spend time with our family. Some friends of ours (the H. family) volunteered to take care of our house and our dogs while we were gone. It was very hot, so they said one or more members of their family would stay at our house so they could let our dogs go outside and come inside regularly during the day.

The week before we were planning to leave, Maël’s (pronounced like Ishmael without the Ish) grandfather passed away. Maël’s family lives in Italy. He was not able to travel back for the funeral, but he wanted to go back the week after the funeral in order to spend time with his grandmother.

This means that Maël and Cindy would be away from home the same week that we were away from home. They also have two dogs. So, our friends, (the H. family), offered to take care of their dogs and their house while they were gone as well.

The four members of the H. family traveled back and forth between our house and Maël and Cindy’s house and their house. Each night, some of them would sleep in each house. They were willing to spend time away from one another for a week so that they could care for their friends and their friends’ dogs.

Why would they do this? I’m convinced they were willing to spend their week traveling back and forth between houses to let our dogs in and out of the house, and spend their week sleeping in different houses because they love us and because they love Maël and Cindy.

Demonstrating love is not always about doing the great things (although this was a very great things for us)! Many times, demonstrating love is simply about knowing the people and serving them in the way they need and desire to be served.

—————————————————————————-

If you would like for me to include your story in this series, please send me an email at aknox [at] sebts [dot] edu.

People in the Raleigh area occasionally email me and ask if they can meet with our church. Of course, anyone is welcomed to meet with us. Sometimes, they ask me, “What are your church meetings like? What should I expect?”

Well, I recently met Jon. We had lunch together, and last Sunday he met with us. I asked him if he would tell me about his time with us. I told him that I would like to post it on my blog (before I received his description). So, this is what Jon said about meeting with us last Sunday (he wrote it as a letter to the church):

———————————————————————————

Dear Brothers and Sisters of Messiah Baptist Church,

For the last few years now, my spiritual instincts have told me that something was missing from my overall church experience. My whole life as a believer, I assumed any dissatisfaction with the “worship service” was the result of my inadequacies or my lack of “spirituality.” I’m still inadequate, and I’m still not very spiritual, but something was telling me that I wasn’t the only thing broken.

The Lord has taught me quite a bit over the last year, and I have finally taken the step of faith to leave my existing church and search for a deeper church experience … something closer to what we see in the New Testament, and what I believe Christ intended. That is why I greatly anticipated my visit to your church this past Sunday. Of course, anticipation wasn’t the only feeling I had. I was also a little skeptical, perhaps somewhat afraid. I’ve been reading a lot lately about simple / organic church, and in the back of my mind, I can picture the type of people this might attract: rebels, non-conformers, heretics, etc. (somewhat kidding). What if I was disappointed? What if what I have been envisioning for over a year was a big let-down?

Any reservations aside, I found myself being mostly excited to visit with you. I was eager to experience some of the things that we actually read about in the New Testament. I am happy to say that I was very filled and fulfilled by our meeting together. I was surprised (while also not surprised) by how natural it felt, as if I was in my element. I guess the best way to describe it is to say that it felt very “balanced.” I guess one of my fears was that it would seem like, “let’s do everything we can to not look like an institutional church!” … “let’s be extremely different!” Rather, it felt like a genuine pursuit of our Lord’s idea of church. I was comfortable in the corporate sense (as a fellow believer) but challenged in a personal sense (in light of what we studied). It was refreshing and it was very balanced.

Here are the elements of the meeting that meant most to me:

Fellowship — I felt very welcomed among the group. It wasn’t just the “hello, welcome to our service, glad you’re here today.” It was genuine, meaningful conversation. You were interested in who I was and what was going on in my life. The meal was also very special. It gave everyone a chance to further connect and spend time together. I loved the fact that there was no sense of hurry or “look what time it is!” … We were just content to share our time.

Family — I love that the entire family is included in the meeting. We love having our son in church with us now and I like the idea that he can learn with us as he matures.

Interaction — I personally liked the circle seating arrangement. I don’t know how you normally do it, but it seemed very appropriate for sharing amongst the group. I love that everyone had an opportunity to share, read scripture, and have input (and it was decently and in order). I also loved the fact that there was freedom to be vulnerable, whether it be a hard situation someone is going through or even a sin that needs to be confessed.

Music — I’m assuming you usually have a guitar or something (which I like), but I enjoyed being able to sing without a lot of extra noise. It allowed me to focus on the meaning and the message of the songs. I was glad to see a good balance in the song selections (hymns, choruses, etc) … all familiar. A couple of songs did seem to “drag’ on a little bit, mainly the ones with a lot of verses (but I’m sure that’s just the old worship leader in me). I’ve yet to develop a comfort level with “contemporary” church music or the idea that “worship” is all focused on the musical part of the service, so I was definitely pleased to see that the corporate singing (and the whole meeting for that matter) appealed to the spirit rather than the emotions.

Bible Study — What a great lesson and very good insight from the whole body. I left having discovered new truths shared by all those who had something to add. It was refreshing to see a meeting where the Holy Spirit has more control than we do. Yet, it was not a “free-for-all.” Everyone shared (with humility) according to their spiritual insight. I did not sense that anyone was trying to draw attention to themselves by what they had to say.

Now, I can finally say that I know what I’ve been missing! Thank you all again for allowing a fellow brother join your family for one day. I certainly look forward to doing it again soon.

Until we meet again,
Jon

According to Princeton’s wordnet, “reciprocity” means “a relation of mutual dependence or action or influence.” Similarly, a “reciprocal pronoun” is “a pronoun or pronominal phrase (as ‘each other’) that expresses a mutual action or relationship between the individuals indicated in the plural.”

Did you know that reciprocal pronouns are common in the New Testament? They are. They are usually translated “one another” or “each other” or even “each one”. Reciprocal pronouns are very important for us to understand how we should relate to one another. Many times, this relationship is obvious and easy to understand.

For example, in 1 John 4:7, John writes that we should “love one another.” (ESV) Most believers recognize that our relationship with one another should be expressed with mutual love. If person A loves person B, but person B does not love person A, we recognize that they are not loving one another.

Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:14, Peter writes that we should “greet (or welcome) one another.” (ESV) Again, it is easy to recognize that if one believer greets someone, but the greeting or welcome is not returned, then they are not greeting one another.

In James 5:9, James writes, “Do not grumble against one another.” (ESV) Grumbling probably means complaining. So, believers should not complain about one another. So, if one sister refuses to complain, but another sister does complain, then the two are not following James’ command. They are grumbling against one another.

We find Paul using reciprocal pronouns often. For example, in Galatians 5:13, he tells us, “Through love serve one another.” (ESV) This is also a command that recognize as a reciprocal command. If a brother is serving someone, but that brother refuses to serve, then the two are not serving one another.

But, there are other reciprocal instructions that are difficult to understand. In fact, in some circles, the reciprocity is removed from these commands.

Consider Paul’s statement in Colossians 3:16. He says that when the word of Christ dwells in us richly, we will demonstrate that by “teaching and admonishing one another.” (ESV) How reciprocal are we with this instruction? If one person teaches, but another person does not teach, do we recognize that they are not teaching one another? What if one person is admonishing but another is not admonishing? Do we allow this instruction to only apply to some believers but not to other believers?

Paul makes a similar statement in Romans 15:14, where he says that he is convinced that the Romans are “able to instruct (admonish) one another.” (ESV) Does the reciprocity in this statement apply only to the Romans? Did they have something that believers today do not have? Or, could God still expect all believers to teach/instruct/admonish reciprocally?

Another interesting reciprocal statement is found in Romans 14:19. Again speaking to the believers in Rome, Paul says, “So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding (the edification of one another).” (ESV) The reciprocal pronoun is harder to see in the ESV translation “mutual upbuilding.” But apparently Paul that it was important that all of the believers in Rome reciprocally pursue those things that led to peace and edification. Is this still something that we all pursue reciprocally.

Peter writes some of these difficult reciprocal commands also. In 1 Peter 4:10, he writes, “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.” (ESV) Do we recognize the importance – the necessity even – of all believers exercising their spiritual gifts in a manner that can serve other believers? Do we sees this as every believer’s responsibility?

There are many other “difficult” reciprocal commands. A couple would include “submit to one another” (Ephesians 5:21), “humble yourselves before one another” (1 Peter 5:5), or “count one another as more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3). These, and many, many other commands in Scripture, are reciprocal commands. That means that the commands are give to a plural group to be carried out as “a mutual action”.

Why do you think its easy for us to recognize “love one another” and “serve one another” as mutual requirements, while we tend to not recognize “teach one another” or “edify one another” as mutual requirements?

This is passage #60 in “Scripture… As We Live It“:

There was not a needy person were needy persons among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:34-35 re-mix)

Steve at “From the Pew” considers a very important topic in his post “The Sermon-Centered Life.” He wants to know why the sermon is considered central to many Christians traditions. For example, he says:

Preaching is scriptural. The sermon may have developed more as a tradition than not, but a tradition that isn’t forbidden is fine. I’m fine with sermons and preaching. But what I’m trying to get at is why it’s often so central, so much more important than all other things in the church, so often exclusionary of other things. Many times I have found myself thinking, “Gee, I’m a bit late to church for whatever reason, but at least I didn’t miss the sermon.” If the sermon goes late, sometimes other activities can be cut short for the sake of preaching. People don’t often ask how the praying or singing or offering went, they ask how the sermon went. We often make recordings of only the sermon. To many, the sermon is the most important thing in church, and even the thing around which all other Christian life is lived. It can solve our problems like nothing else. It can make or break the reputation of a pastor.

I think Steve may have inadvertantly touched on one reason that the sermon is central for many churches and many traditions: because the pastor is central. And what does a pastor do? Most would say that a pastor preaches. In fact, in many Southern Baptist churches, pastor and preacher are synonymous.

As Steve points out, you can find preaching – proclaiming the gospel to unbelievers – in Scripture. Of course, that’s not what we call “preaching” today, but it is what Scripture calls “preaching.”

So, we should ask ourselves why the sermon is central is so many churches today. We should also ask, if the sermon is not central is Scripture, then what has the sermon replaced… and why?

I’ve written a couple of posts concerning Luther’s “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (1526). I think most people are surprised when they read what Luther wrote about the church meeting. Here are those posts:

———————————————————

Luther and the non-Christian “worship service”

In his essay “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (January 1526) Martin Luther explains how a Sunday meeting should be carried out. Specifically, these are his instructions (I’ve removed some of the details so that it is easier to see the outline):

[a] At the beginning then we sing a spiritual song or a psalm in German, in primo tono, as follows : Ps. xxxiv.

[b] Then Kyrie eleison, to the same tone, but thrice and not nine times. . . .

[c] Then the priest reads a Collect in Effaut in unisono, as follows : ‘Almighty God,’ etc.

[d] Then the Epistle, in the eighth tone. . . . The Epistle should be sung with the face turned to the people, but the Collect with the face turned to the altar.

[e] After the Epistle is sung a German hymn, ‘Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist,’ or some other, by the whole choir.

[f] Then is read the Gospel in the fifth tone, also with the face turned towards the people.

[g] After the Gospel the whole congregation sings the Creed in German, ‘ Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott,’ etc.

[h] Then follows the sermon…

[i] After the sermon shall follow a public paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer, with an exhortation to those who are minded to come to the Sacrament…

[k] Then the Office and Consecration proceeds, as follows : ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same night’(i Cor. xi. 23 ff)…

[l] The elevation we desire not to abolish but to retain, for it fits in well with the Sanctus in German, and means that Christ has bidden us to think of Him…

[m] The Sanctus in German, ‘Jesaia dem Propheten das geschach,’ etc.

[n] Then follows the Collect : ‘We thank thee, Almighty Lord God,’ etc.

[o] With the Blessing : ‘The Lord bless thee and keep thee,’ etc…

This looks very familiar. In fact, besides the various portions in German and/or Latin, this “order of service” is similar to what I was accustomed to experiencing while I was growing up in Baptist churches in Alabama. Sure, we called “The Blessing” by a different name (the Benediction), and we didn’t sing or speak the various creeds to one another each week. But, overall, our Alabama Baptist liturgy was very similar to Luther’s German/Latin liturgies. After moving to Georgia and North Carolina, and visiting church meetings in other parts of the USA and the world, I’ve also found that Luther’s “order” is very similar to the order of church meetings around the world.

Here’s the funny part… if you call it funny… Luther did not think this “order” was best for the church. Instead, he intended this “order” (whether in German or in Latin) to be for unbelievers. This is a quote from the beginning of Luther’s essay – which is often overlooked:

Both these kinds of Service (German and Latin) then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity.

Did you catch that? What the church today calls a “church service”, Luther says is not for the church at all – that is, not for Christians. Instead, he designed his “Mass and Order of Divine Service” for the sake of attracting those who are not Christians. In fact, he later describes what he thinks a meeting would look like for those who are already Christians (see my post “Luther and the Church“). However, without considering Luther’s purpose, we blindly follow his design. I wonder if we’re missing something…

———————————————————

Luther and the church

In the preface of “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (1526), Martin Luther describes three different kinds of “divine service”. The first and second kinds of “divine service” are differentiated only by the languages used (Latin and German, respectively). Importantly, this is what Luther says of these two kinds of “divine service”:

Both these kinds of Service then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity.

Thus, for Luther, the public service in both Latin and German are for the purpose of exposing unbelievers to the Gospel. Notice that he does not see these services as being for Christians. So, what does Luther proscribe for believers? Keep reading for his “third sort of divine service”:

But the third sort [of Divine Service], which the true type of Evangelical Order should embrace, must not be celebrated so publicly in the square amongst all and sundry. Those, however, who are desirous of being Christians in earnest, and are ready to profess the Gospel with hand and mouth, should register their names and assemble by themselves in some house to pray, to read, to baptize and to receive the sacrament and practise other Christian works. In this Order, those whose conduct was not such as befits Christians could be recognized, reproved, reformed, rejected, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ in Matt. xviii. Here, too, a general giving of alms could be imposed on Christians, to be willingly given and divided among the poor, after the example of St. Paul in 2 Cor. ix. Here there would not be need of much fine singing. Here we could have baptism and the sacrament in short and simple fashion: and direct everything towards the Word and prayer and love. Here we should have a good short Catechism about the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. In one word, if we only had people who longed to be Christians in earnest, Form and Order would soon shape itself. But I cannot and would not order or arrange such a community or congregation at present. I have not the requisite persons for it, nor do I see many who are urgent for it. But should it come to pass that I must do it, and that such pressure is put upon me as that I find myself unable with a good conscience to leave it undone, then I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.

It seems that Luther is calling for a different type of meeting for believers. In this meeting, Luther does not have to order things. Instead, he sees that “the form and order would soon shape itself.” (I would add that it is the Spirit that forms and orders the meetings.) In fact, Luther sees baptism and the Lord’s Supper happening in this group – not in one of the public meetings that are meant for unbelievers. Notice also that in this meeting, believers would teach one another and take up money to give to the poor.

So, why did Luther not pursue this type of service? Well, he tells us here that he does not know “earnest” Christians willing to participate in this type of meeting. History tells us that Luther later relented from this position in order to appease the state church.

Everything that follows this point in “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” describes how to carry out the first two kinds of “Divine Service”, which Luther said were not intended for believers, but for unbelievers. We will never know what would have happened historically if Luther had held to his convictions: “I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.”

As I mentioned previously, I’ve been reading The Jesus Paradigm by David Alan Black. (see my posts “The Jesus Paradigm“, “Summer Reading“, and “Not about me… seriously“.) I read it slowly, mainly because I had several other things going on at the same time. I should make a couple of disclosures before my review.

First, Energion Publications sent me the book for review. (I am very appreciative!) See their page on this book here: jesusparadigm.com

Second, David Alan Black is my PhD mentor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Black’s purpose in writing this book is to encourage his readers toward “radical discipleship”. He is concerned (rightfully so, I would say) that many believers have forfeited following Jesus, and have instead placed their trust in their traditions, their leaders, or their politics.

This is not a book about the church. Nor is this a book about politics or leadership. However, Black touches on each of these subjects, and in some cases he grabs them with both hands. No, this book is strictly about discipleship – about following Jesus in the simple – yet extraordinarily radicaly – ways in which Scriptures describes and prescribes.

For much of the book, Black uses the radical reformers of the sixteenth century – the Anabaptists – as exemplars for our own discipleship. He explains how the Anabaptists refused to compromise their way of life:

Above all, the Anabaptists believed in obeying Christ’s call to abandon self and follow his example of humility, service, and suffering. The way of Jesus, they taught, is the way of suffering servanthood. It is the ultimate in downward mobility. (39)

Using the Anabaptists’ way of life as an example, Black exhorts every believer to consider him or herself to be a minister (servant) and a missionary. Every believer is responsible to teach, admonish, serve, give, evangelize, disciple, etc. These responsibilities cannot be given to or taken by others, even those in leadership.

However, Black does not want his readers to follow the Anabaptists. Instead, he says, the Anabaptists were simply attempting to live according to the pattern that they found in Scripture. Were they perfect? Of course not. But, they lived their beliefs.

And, Black does not write only to those who follow in the footprints of the Anabaptists historically. In fact, I think any believer from any tradition can benefit from reading this book. Black even concludes by calling all believers to radical discipleship and unity in Christ:

It’s time to summarize and conclude. Are you in a mainstream congregation? In an emergent church? In a home meeting? It really doesn’t matter.  The paramount question to ask is this: Are you willing to wash the feet of others? Are you willing to use your gifts to enrich the Body of Christ? Are you willing to forego pyramids of power? Are you willing to surrender what is rightfully “yours”? In the end, it doesn’t matter what evangelical church we belong to. What matters is that we faithfully pursue the Jesus paradigm regardless of the religious structures around us. What matters is that we work from the bottom up… And we are to do this whether or not we agree with our brother or sister in every area. (126)

On one hand, Black’s book is an academic work. His years of study in Greek, New Testament, hermeneutics, and history are ably demonstrated in this work. On the other hand, this book stands apart from many works of academia, because Black is unable (and does not desire to) separate this work from his life. In fact, he uses examples from his own work in the seminary in North Carolina, at his home in Virginia, and in countless villages and cities around the world – especially in Ethiopia – to exhort his readers to consider their beliefs and live them out!

I have to admit that I did not first come across these lessons while reading this book. Instead, I’ve spent many hours discussing these concepts with Black. We’ve talked about being servants and ministers. We’ve talked about a church full of priests. We’ve talked about the church relying on the state.

This book is a great reminder of the many discussions that I’ve had with my PhD mentor, and the reason that I asked him to be my mentor in the first place. Everyone reading this book will quickly realize that Black is not writing from an ivory tower. Instead, he’s writing with hands covered with Ethiopian dust.

This is a book that I would recommend to anyone. Read it… and share it with others… then live the pattern of life that you find in Scripture… the pattern of life in which only the Holy Spirit can direct you and empower you.

This post is part of my “stories” series. In this series, I share stories of how people live their lives in response to the gospel and as a demonstration of God’s love in order to teach us and to provide an example to provoke us to love and good works. (See “stories: A New Series” for more information about this series.)

Ms. Jennie has had a rough time lately. She is the 85 year old lady from New York who lives in a local nursing home and who my family spends time with each week. About a month ago, she developed pneumonia. She had not been sick, but she woke up in the middle of the night unable to breathe. She has been on oxygen off and on for the last several weeks.

She’s also had hip problems. Her hip has been hurting her alot, and she’s been taking pain medicine that makes her groggy. She has to shift positions often because of her hip.

During the last few weeks, when we’ve visited her, we’ve been unable to stay for very long because of her breathing problems, or because her hip was hurting, or because she became groggy from her pain medicine.

But, the last time that I visited with her, she was back to her normal self. Her breathing was back to normal, and they had taken the oxygen tanks out of her room. She had had a few physical therapy sessions, and her hip was feeling much better.

When I walked in the room she smiled at me and immediately began talking. She talked about things that had happened over the last few weeks – things she had not been able to talk about before because of her breathing and her hip.

She also wanted to talk about “religious things”. This is always somewhat funny to me, because she starts by saying that she does not talk “religion” with anyone but me. She says that she tells people, “If I want to talk about religious things then I’ll talk to Alan.” I asked her why she talks with me but not with other people, and she says, “Because I know you care about me”.

While we were talking about God, she started talking about her children again. She’s angry with God because “he took” her sons in separate automobile accidents when they were both twenty-one. She also has a daughter, but her daughter is not “good” like her sons, at least according to Ms. Jennie.

She was almost in tears when she told me that her daughter once threw hot coffee in her face and yelled at her, “I hate you! I wish you were dead!”

I told her that I can’t imagine the pain that that caused. I told her that I could imagine Miranda telling me that. It would break my heart.

Then I said, “I know that I can’t make up for what your daughter did and said to you. I don’t want to try to make up for it. But, I want you to know that I love you, and I’m glad that you’re not dead”. She smiled again in spite of the pain that her memories had caused.

I don’t know why God has chosen me to love Ms. Jennie. I pray that God will use my relationship with her and my words to her to bring Ms. Jennie to himself. Only he can do that. All I can do is make myself available to him and to her.

—————————————————————————-

If you would like for me to include your story in this series, please send me an email at aknox [at] sebts [dot] edu.