August 16, 2010

According to Jesus, all of those who belong to God are now covenanted with God. For example, Jesus said that his blood represents this new covenant:

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28 ESV)

In the same way, Paul recognized that he currently served people who were under a new covenant with God:

Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV)

Finally, the author of the book of Hebrews explains how Jesus (as our high priest) is a better mediator of this new covenant:

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (Hebrews 7:22 ESV)

So, all of those who are in Christ – who have been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ – are covenanted together with God… not based on their (our) ability to keep a covenant, but based on God’s promises (for example, see Hebrews 10:23).

We are in a covenant with God, and are therefore covenanted together with one another. Our covenant with God includes new familial relationships with others who are covenanted with God. Just as God is our father, his children (and all of his children) are our brothers and sisters. Our familial responsibilities toward one another are included in our relationship with God.

Thus, I cannot choose how I should treat someone who is in Christ. That relationship and those responsibilities are already ours because of our joint relationship with God.

So, the question that I’ve been struggling and wrestling with is this: If we are already covenanted with God and if we are already brothers and sisters with one another, then why do we need a separate “church covenant”?

A “church covenant” can only do two things: 1) It can remind of us our relationships and responsibilities which already exist, whether we have a covenant or not. And 2) it can specify with whom we share those relationships and responsibilities.

If we are relying on a “church covenant” for reason #1 above, then the “church covenant” is nothing more than a reminder of the new covenant in Christ. We are already covenanted with God through Christ, and therefore covenanted with all other people who are part of the same covenant. Thus, this is really not a “church covenant” but the new covenant.

The problem with #2 above is that our relationships and responsibilities extend to all brothers and sisters in Christ that God brings into our lives. If we use a “church covenant” to include some believers and exclude others, then we are dividing the body of Christ and making distinctions that only God can make. We are trying to choose who to love and who to serve. (Of course, this makes life much easier, but it doesn’t make it a life that lived according to the gospel.)

So, why do we need a “church covenant”? Why is one covenant (the new covenant in Christ) not enough?

March 2, 2010

I came across an interesting quote concerning the following passage in 1 Thessalonians:

Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.  We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,  and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.  And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. (1 Thessalonians 5:11-14 ESV)

F.F. Bruce wrote the following concerning 1 Thessalonians 5:14 (the instructions for “brothers and sisters” to “admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, etc.”):

The various forms of service enjoined in the words that follow [in 1 Thess 5:14] are certainly a special responsibility of leaders, but not their exclusive responsibility: they are ways in which all the members of the community can fulfill the direction of v 11 to encourage and strengthen one another. (F. F. Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco: Word Books, 1982),122)

I think the church would be stronger and healthier if all believers would understand and function in this manner. Yes, leaders are to teach, shepherd, admonish, etc. It is their special responsibility, but not their exclusive responsibility. In fact, leaders alone cannot do what is necessary for the maturity of the church. (Ephesians 4:16)

February 25, 2010

Last weekend, someone mentioned Markus Barth’s (son of Karl Barth) commentary on Ephesians. During the conversation, I remembered this great paragraph concerning Ephesians 4:16 -

(1) It is Christ, the head, alone “from whom” the body derives unity, nourishment, growth – but Christ’s monarchy and monopoly do not exclude but rather create the activity of a church engaged in “its own” growth and upbuilding. (2) All that the body is, has, and does is determined by its (passive and active) relationship to the head – but this (“vertical”) relationship establishes an essential and indispensable (“horizontal”) interrelation among the church members. (3) While Christ provides for the body as a whole and makes it a unity, and while the body grows as a unit – no individual growth is mentioned here – the distinct personality of each church member is not wiped out but rather established by Christ’s rulership and the church’s community. What Christ is, does, and gives, is appropriate “to the needs” (lit. “to the measure”) “of each single part.” If the only things affirmed in Eph 4:16 were Christ’s own activity, Christ’s rule over all Christians, Christ’s relationship to the community, then this verse would have been phrased more clearly in Greek and could be more easily interpreted in a modern language. But in this verse there are several accents, not just one: the church’s and each member’s responsive activity is not only recognized or tolerated but receives an emphasis of its own: “The body makes its own growth so that it builds itself up in love.” (Markus Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4-6, Anchor Bible 34a, Garden City: Doubleday: 1974, 446-47)

February 19, 2010

As far as I can tell, there are only two options: 1) I accept that someone is a child of God and I treat that person as a brother or sister in Christ, or 2) I do not accept that someone is a child of God and I treat that person as if they are not a brother or sister in Christ.

Unfortunately, denominationalism tends to teach a “middle ground” where we accept that someone is a child of God, but we don’t have to treat that person as a brother or sister in Christ.

February 15, 2010

As I’ve been studying ecclesiology (the study of the church), especially the church meeting in Scripture, I’ve found that our understanding of the church touches – and often demonstrates – our understanding of other scriptural teachings (doctrine).

For example, our understanding of God as Father, Son, and Spirit will affect the way we think about the church. In other words, it is impossible to separate the various teachings of Scripture from one another.

In this post, I would like to consider the doctrine of justification and how it affects our understanding of the church and especially the church meeting.

The doctrine of justification is a way to express the scriptural teaching that some are made right (justified) with God. Here are a few passages that deal with this concept:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it – the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:21-25 ESV)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV)

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7 ESV)

Now, there is much talk in the church about justification. Who is justified? How are they justified? How are faith and works related in justification? And many other questions. But, in this post, I’d like us to consider the concept of justification and it’s relationship to the church.

Those who are justified – who are made right with God – are also filled with the Holy Spirit. They are recognized by God as part of his family… children of God and brothers and sisters of one another. Those who are justified gather together with others who are justified, not because they are ordered or commanded to do so, but because their recognize their dependence on God and their relationship to one another. Just as a physical family desires to be together, God’s family wants to gather together as well.

The church meeting then – by definition – is primarily for those who are justified, who are children of God. This does not mean that others are excluded from the church meeting, but that the church meeting is not specifically for them. The church meeting is for the church – for those who are God’s children, who are justified.

Similarly, as the Scripture passages above indicate, we are made right with God by the work of the Holy Spirit. We are not only justified, we are also indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Again, the Scriptures indicate that all who have been baptized (indwelled by) the Holy Spirit are members of one another. They are also given gifts by the Spirit. Thus, the Spirit works through those who are justified.

As we gather together with brothers and sisters in Christ – i.e., those who are justified and are part of God’s family – we also recognize that each one of us have been gifted by the Spirit. In the context of the church meeting, the Spirit gifts people so that they can benefit others. This is not true of only some who are justified, but of all who are justified.

Notice that we have not discussed the idea of sanctification at all (that will be my next post). Neither growth nor maturity are a requirement for someone to be indwelled by the Spirit and gifted by the Spirit.

So, as we meet together, drawn together by our common relationship to one another through God and drawn together by the Spirit who indwells each of us, we recognize each other as brothers and sisters based on our common justification by God through Jesus Christ, not based on what any one of us has said or done or failed to say or do in the past. Similarly, we come together recognizing that just as the Spirit has indwelled each of us, he also desires to use each of us for the benefit of the entire group.

So, our understanding of justification greatly affects how we treat one another when the church meets. Similarly, how we treat one another when the church meets demonstrates what we truly believe about justification.

February 11, 2010

The language of “membership” (or more specifically “member”) is used in several places in the New Testament (primarily in Paul’s letters) to indicate our relationship to one another and to Christ:

For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Romans 12:4-5 ESV)

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14 ESV. See also 1 Corinthians 12:18-27)

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. (Ephesians 4:25 ESV)

For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. (Ephesians 5:29-30 ESV)

The misunderstanding in these passages, unfortunately, is that the English word “member” carries connotations that the Greek term translated “member” above does not carry. The Greek term translated “member” is closer to the English terms “limb” or “part”.

What’s the danger? Well, someone can become a “member” of a group by decision of either the individual or the group. However, a “limb” (i.e., arm or leg) does not decide to become part of a body, nor does a body decide that a “limb” is now part of it. The “limb” is part of the body by definition… identity.

In fact, this is exactly what Paul is teaching in the passages above. If you read the context, you’ll find that are “members” of one another – we do not have to choose to become “members” of one another. We find that God through his Spirit makes us “members” of one another, the group does not decide that someone may become a “member”. While this language of choosing and deciding is applicable for the English term “member”, it is not applicable in the Pauline usage of this concept.

Thus, we cannot translate the scriptural language of “members of one another” into an organizational concept of membership, in which either party can choose or decide to become a member of a group.

If God brings one of his children into my life, then we are automatically members of one another, we do not have to decide to become members of one another. Our relationship with one another is wrapped up in our identity as children of God and, therefore, we relate as brothers and sisters with one another, and are thus responsible for one another as family.

Unfortunately, too often, the scriptural language of “members of one another” is translated and interpreted as organizational membership. Thus, we choose who will be “members” with us, even though, according to Scripture, this is not our choice. We choose to be “members” with one person or group and choose NOT to be “members” with another person or group.

We need to understand that our organizational choices concerning “membership” bear no relationship to the scriptural idea of “members of one another”. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we are members of one another in Christ, and are thus responsible to live as family with one another.

We can’t choose otherwise.

January 25, 2010

Please remember: though you receive the life of God personally, yet the life you receive belongs to tens of thousands of the children of God; yours is but a part of the whole. The very nature of your new life is not independence – it requires you to fellowship with the rest of the brethren. (Watchman Nee, Assembling Together, New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1973, p. 4)

Don’t get caught up on the “tens of thousands of others”… the new life you receive from God belongs to those around you, to those that God brings you into contact with every day. God gives you a new life that you can give away.

December 22, 2009

So far in this series, I’ve introduced the topic of mutuality (“Considering Mutuality – Introduction“), contrasted mutuality with both individualism and collectivism (“Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism“), demonstrated that the concept of mutuality is prevalent in the New Testament (“Considering Mutuality – Where in Scripture?“), and explored the scriptural connection between mutuality and maturity for believers (“Considering Mutuality – And Maturity?“). Finally, in my previous post in this series, I discussed some of the implications of living mutually interdependent lives for leaders among the church (“Considering Mutuality – Implications for leaders”).

There are many, many among the church who desire to live mutually interdependent relationships with other believers, and who recognize the importance of these relationships for the maturity of the church. However, these people are not considered “leaders” among the church. They are not elders, or deacons, or pastors, or teachers, or whatever other titles the church may use to recognize leaders. What do these people do? Is it hopeless? Must they “leave their church” in order to find and nurture these kinds of mutually interdependent relationships?

The simple answers are: No, it is not hopeless, and no, they do not have to “leave their church” in order to live mutually with one another.

However, they many need to become leaders. What?!?!? Am I saying that people will need to become elders or pastors for their church in order to seek and see these mutual relationships? No. That’s not what I said.

Instead, I said that they may need to become leaders… meaning, they may need to lead others in forming mutually interdependent relationships. They may need to become the examples that others will need in order to recognize the importance of mutuality.

I get calls and emails from believers all the time. I meet with people for lunch. And, eventually, a question like this comes up: “But, how do I begin to form and live in this kind of relationship with others when our church and church leaders don’t seem interested? Should I leave my church?”

I have never suggested that someone “leave their church” for this reason. Instead, I encourage people to begin forming and living in relationships with those people who are already in their lives. They may know these people through church organizations, work, neighborhoods, etc. Eat together. Serve together. Get together. Play games together. Go to movies together. Help one another.

Invite your church leaders to your house and spend time with them outside of the “formal programs” of the church. Relate to them as brother and sister. Ask them about their problems and concerns and hopes and struggles etc.

In other words, if you want live mutually with others, then you may need to “lead” in this type of relationship. Share your life with others and provide opportunities for others to share their lives with you. And… be PATIENT! People do not naturally think mutually. You may need to listen to others for months, years, decades before they start listening to you. You may need to care for others for a long time before they start caring for you.

But, that’s okay… even though it is very difficult. The goal of mutuality and maturity in Christ is worth the hard work… and it IS hard work. In fact, once there is a group of people living mutually with one another, the hard work remains.

But, mutuality and maturity are worth the hard work. And, remember, you are never working along. In fact, you are never working at all… you are simply allowing the Holy Spirit to work through you doing the work that he already wants to do.

December 17, 2009

In my previous posts in this series, I’ve introduced the topic of mutuality (“Considering Mutuality – Introduction“), contrasted mutuality with both individualism and collectivism (“Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism“), and demonstrated that the concept of mutuality is prevalent in the New Testament (“Considering Mutuality – Where in Scripture?“).

However, there is one more step that we need to take before we consider some implications for today. In my introduction, I suggested that mutuality – that is, interdependent relationships between followers of Jesus Christ – is necessary for maturity. In other words, my hypothesis is that Scripture teaches that in order for believers to grow in maturity toward Christ, those believers need mutually interdependent relationships.

One of the clearest scriptural presentations of the relationships between mutuality and maturity is found in Ephesians 4, especially verse 16:

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16 ESV)

Notice that in this passage “growth” is both from Christ and into Christ. If we remove most of the modifying clauses, we get this: “We are to grow up into Christ from whom the body makes the body grow.”

Thus, the growth of the body is related to both the source of the growth (i.e. Christ) and the channel through which the growth occurs (i.e. the body). But, how does the “body make the body grow”?

Paul says this happens when the whole body (explicitly the “whole” body) is both joined together (again explicitly through two synonymous clauses) and each one (again explicit) does his or her part. Paul is pointing repeatedly toward mutually interdependent relationships – that is, relationships in which each part of the body depends on Christ and also depends on each other in such a way that if either Christ or one of the parts of the body were missing then growth would not occur.

But, what kind of growth is Paul talking about? In this passage, he only mentions “love,” but more than likely “love” stands as a placeholder for the fuller description that he gave earlier which included bothy unity of faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:13). He explicitly calls this type of growth “mature manhood… the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

However, this is not the only passage in Scripture in which maturity is related to mutually interdependent relationships. In the book of Hebrews, the author often instructs his readers toward mutuality. Perhaps the most straightforwards passage is this one:

But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Hebrews 3:13 ESV)

or this one:

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV)

Notice that in each case above, the mutual exhortation is not for the purpose of mutuality. Instead, mutuality serves the further purpose of aiding maturity in Christ – either in a negative sense (“that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin”) or in a positive sense (“to love and good works”).

Similarly, the author of Hebrews provides a very strong call to mutual relationships and demonstrates its relationship to maturity in chapter 12:

Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled… (Hebrews 12:12-15 ESV)

While not as obvious in English translations, the commands in this passage are plural (“strengthen,” “make straight,” “strive”). Similarly, the participles (which carry imperatival force – i.e. they act like commands) are also plural (“See to it”). These plural commands are given so that the readers may grow in maturity, once again with both positive and negative implications of maturity (i.e. strengthening or lifting vs. no one fails to obtain).

While there are many more passages of Scripture that could be consulted, the passages above demonstrate that according to Scripture mutuality is not just a good thing, but instead mutually interdependent relationships are necessary for believers to mature in their faith, in their knowledge of Jesus Christ, and in the demonstration of love.

October 2, 2009

About two and half years ago, I wrote an article called “Adolf Schlatter on the Church“. In the post, I responded to something that Schlatter wrote concerning the unity of the early church. I still wonder why we can’t live in that same unity today.

————————————–

Adolf Schlatter on the Church

Adolf Schlatter was an anomaly in late nineteenth and early twentieth century German theological scholarship. Though holding a teaching position at Tübingen, a university well-known for approaching the Bible through higher criticism, Schlatter maintained conservative (evangelical?) beliefs. I have wanted to buy his two volume set The History of the Christ and The Theology of the Apostles for some time. I was finally able to buy them, and I flipped through The Theology of the Apostles looking for Schlatter’s view of the church. There is certainly much more to read, but I found this paragraph very interesting:

Moreover, the public confession of Jesus’ lordship produced in them a union that oriented everyone’s conduct toward the same goal, and the Spirit’s presence invested the community with a thoroughly spiritual dimension. Baptism did not result in a multitude of autonomous congregations but the one church, because baptism called its recipients to the Christ. Likewise, the table around which the community gathered was not the table of a teacher or baptizer or bishop but Christ’s table. By receiving their share in Christ, they simultaneously entered into communion with all other believers. The concept of the church thus took on a universal dimension from the start that remained undiminished, just as the individual local Jewish congregation had always been considered to be part of the one Israel.

According to Schlatter, the universality and the unity of the church was more than an ideal. The church was universal and united because of its shared confession, conduct, goal, baptism, table, and portion in Christ, not to mention the common presence of the Spirit of God.

As I look at that list – a list of items that, according to Schlatter, once brought the church together – I recognize that many, perhaps all, are now used to divide the church instead of unite the church. While the confession (“Jesus is Lord”) was originally intended to separate believers from nonbelievers, we now use expanded confessional statements to separate one group of believers from another group of believers. While the one baptism originally represented death to self and new birth in Christ, baptism is now used to divide the body of Christ into different factions. Similarly, the Lord’s table and even conduct are often used to separate churches instead of uniting them.

Do we recognize that who we are as the church has little (if anything) to do with the things we say or even the things we do? I would suggest (along with Schlatter) that who we are as the church is instead associated with us having received a “share in Christ”. But, that also means that who other people are does not depend on the words they say or the things they do. Instead, those who have received Christ have “simultaneously entered into communion with all other believers” – not because of their actions or a prayer or a confession, but because they now belong to Christ and they now belong to the Father’s family. Certainly, there may be a need for discipleship and teaching people to live as a part of the Father’s family, but we do not have the right nor the authority to dismiss someone from the Father’s family nor to choose to disassociate with someone who Christ has claimed as His own.

Can we know with certainty that someone belongs to Christ? No. But, then again, no one can know with certainty about us either. With the “confession of Jesus’ lordship” (“Jesus is Lord”) someone claims acceptance into the family of God and the presence of the Spirit. As a family, we are then required (yes, I do mean required) to accept that person, to disciple that person, to bear with that person, to love that person, to serve that person, to teach that person, to forgive that person even if (especially if!) that person disagrees with us. We come together in community, but that community is not based on us and our beliefs and our confessions. That community is based solely on our individual and mutual relationships with God through Jesus Christ enabled by the Holy Spirit.

When we separate from someone that we consider a brother or sister in Christ, we are usurping the authority of God. And, when we refuse to hold brothers and sisters accountable to their confession “Jesus is Lord”, then we are ignoring our mutual responsibilities as part of God’s family.