One more from the last few months.....this was part of an email discussion I had with a couple of friends. A book on this topic that I have found helpful is Frank Viola's "Who Is Your Covering?"
So, regarding authority........I agree that it's going too far to say that there isn't any authority in the body. The question is one of where that authority rests. Obviously we would all agree that the ultimate authority in the body rests with Jesus. He's the head and He builds His church. He has all authority on heaven and earth (Mt. 28). He lives in us who believe, and we who believe receive gifts by His Spirit. The instruction in the scriptures is for us to be subject/submit to one another (Eph. 5:21, 1 Pet. 5:5--see below) because the Lord expresses Himself through all of us (lots of stuff in 1 Cor. 10-14 about that). He vests authority in the church as a whole (Mt. 18:15-20, Eph. 1:22-23), and so subjecting ourselves to the church as a whole is part of that. I appreciate the body passage in 1 Cor. 12 because it points to the need we have for one another. And a practical expression of the fulfillment of this is in 14:26, where each brings something for the building up of all. There should be an openness to hearing what the Lord would say through any believer. This is not without discernment, certainly, but the body as a whole does that, too (see the end of 1 Cor. 14).
In addition, Jesus expresses His authority through a couple of different means. One is official authority. God gives authority in several relationships: husbands and wives, parents and children, king/rulers/government and the people of a nation. The authority in these relationships comes because of the position and doesn't change. If the person under authority is asked to do something against God's will, or if the authority is improperly expressed, disobedience may be appropriate, but the authority is still there as long as the same person is in the position, "in office." Bush has authority as long as he's president. We may not obey everything he says, but we should be subject to him--that is, treat him with respect, consider how he says the country should be run, etc. Folks in these "offices" are set over other people.
But that type of authority is actually discouraged by Jesus among the church (Mt. 20:25-28). A second type of authority, one that is organic and not official, comes from communion with Jesus. The Head signals the hand to move, and it moves. The hand doesn't have authority in and of itself, but it expresses the will and authority of the Head. Sometimes God uses the hand, other times He uses the knee, or the mouth, or the spleen. Those parts have authority when they express Christ, when they function as they ought to function, not because of what parts they are. No part is above another; they all need each other. And no part has the authority all of the time; authority is fluid based on the will of the Head who gives it. The focus is on the function, not the person or office.
Naturally the more mature brothers and sisters will more accurately express the will of God in what they say and do, and those that do express it should serve as a model for those who are younger. Also, God gives some brothers and sisters particular gifts that are to help the rest of the body function as it ought (Eph. 4). But those folks need the rest of the body in the same way that the rest of the body needs them. And God even shows a propensity to speak through the things which are lower/less. So to give the more mature/gifted folks the floor or to give them authority beyond the authority that comes from the Spirit moving in them undermines the authority of Jesus and limits the full function of the body.
It makes sense that the more mature believers would share more, offer insight to others, correct, etc., but if they monopolize the time as most pastor-types do they actually end up quenching the Spirit. You mention in your email that the Spirit is like a wind (pneuma). When believers come together they don't know exactly how God wants to speak. He will place things on the heart of just about everyone if they are filled in Spirit, and the body will grow as it should only if the full expression of this is allowed/realized. The authority of the Spirit is expressed in the entire body, not just through one or two brothers. And the only One who has authority over believers is Jesus. It isn't given in the scriptures to any man.
Note: 1 Peter 5:5 is interesting. In most of the translations I've read it says we should "clothe ourselves in humility," but if you look at the Greek it says something closer to the KJV: "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." The word for subjection/submission is used twice, once for younger to older, and once for all to each other. I'm certainly no Greek scholar, but it seems like the Greek is more extreme than most modern translations give credit.........score one for the KJV?
Thanks for prodding this. It's a relatively new idea for me, and I'd like to know if I'm off my rocker or not. Another place to look if you want someone to explain some of this better than I could is on Frank Viola's website (no, not the Cy Young Award winner....). That's at www.ptmin.org. He has a book on there called 'Straight Talk to Pastors' that is short and explains a lot.
Jun 1, 2008
May 27, 2008
On the WC
For those who don't know, the Westminster Confession is a lengthy document written in the 17th Century that outlines much of Reformed theology. There are 33 chapters, and I agree with most of them. I've listed the points on which I differ below, along with my reasons. This is by no means an exhaustive discussion of these topics--just a cursory statement about each of them. Feel free to ask for further thoughts.
A Critical Response to the
I am in agreement with the vast majority of the Westminster Confession. Points with which I have scruples are listed and commented upon below:
CHAP. I. - Of the Holy Scripture.
I agree with everything written here, but I do think it is worth noting that because of the early date of this document, it does not specifically affirm the more contemporary doctrine of biblical inerrancy. There is little doubt that the writers of this confession would have done so had the controversies of the 17th Century led them to express such a position. Please allow me to take this opportunity to say that I personally believe the scriptures to be inerrant in accordance with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
CHAP. XXI. - Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
7. “As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.”
No evidence in the scriptures has been sufficient to convince me that Jesus intended for the Sabbath to move from Saturday to Sunday. The Sabbath is distinguished from the first day of the week in each of the gospels (Mt. 28, Mk. 16, Lk. 24, Jn. 20) and in Acts (13:14-15, 42-44; 16:12-15; 20:7). Christians certainly seemed to meet on the first day of the week in the scriptures, but this does not mean that the Sabbath was “moved.” History indicates that this may have developed later and been cemented as common practice upon the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire under
8. “This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”
While observance of the Sabbath is a blessing if one feels led to keep it (Mark 2:27-28), doing so is not required of Christians (
CHAP. XXIV. - Of Marriage and Divorce
5. “Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce. and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”
While divorce in the case of adultery is allowed in the scriptures, remarriage while the spouse is still alive is not (
CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism
1. “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.”
Admission to the visible church occurs once a person repents, believes, and receives the Holy Spirit; this occurs before baptism (Acts 10:44-48).
3. “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.”
Much of the significance of baptism is lost in sprinkling; when a believer is baptized by immersion there is a more literal picture of our burial and resurrection in Jesus (Romans 6:4). Therefore immersion is a more correct interpretation of the act of baptism; there may still be room for sprinkling if there is no feasible alternative.
4. “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.”
I see no solid evidence of the practice of infant baptism in the scriptures, nor do I see evidence of its practice in church history before the 3rd Century. Baptism accompanies repentance at every mention in the New Testament, and infants are not capable of understanding their sinful nature, their need for Jesus, and repenting in response. Therefore they are not to be baptized.
7. “The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.”
Baptism should only be administered one time once a person is saved. If a person was baptized as an infant, they may be baptized again later in life once they begin to follow Jesus, since their infant baptism was not accompanied by saving faith and repentance.
CHAP. XXIX. - Of the Lord's Supper
3. “The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.”
Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that only a special class of “clergy” can administer/lead the Lord’s Supper. Also, in the scriptures, the Lord’s Supper was not a special ceremony; it was part of a meal, the “love feast” (Jude 12). Jesus instituted this practice during a meal, and the Corinthians also practiced it as part of a meal (1 Cor. 11:17-32). So the most accurate observance of the Lord’s Supper is as part of a meal, not as a ceremony. The shift to a more ceremonial form occurred around the time of Tertullian, and was complete by the late second century.
CHAP. XXX. - Of Church Censures
1. “The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.”
The governing of the church is not in the hands of officers, but in the hands of the church itself. All of the letters written by the writers of the New Testament were written to the churches themselves, not to the elders or some kind of officers. The instructions given by Jesus do not leave governing/confronting sin in the hands of the church as a whole (Mt. 18:15-17). The discussion of circumcision in Acts 15 was not left to only the elders, but to the whole church (15:22).
2. “To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require”
“Officers” did not exist in the New Testament church. All authority (exousia in Greek) was given to Jesus (Mt. 28:18); nowhere in the New Testament is exousia given to one believer over another. And the Greek vocabulary used for official leadership is noticeably absent from the scriptures (such as arche—ruler, time—officer, and hazzan—worship leader, just to mention a few). Rather than being named, selected, or appointed as an “officer,” men who functioned in the roles of elders were recognized by the travelling workers (Paul, Timothy, Titus) so that others would know to consider what they had to say. Nowhere in the New Testament is there mention of a static office which someone must fill. Therefore, again, the power to do things like censure is vested in the church as a whole, not in an official.
4. “For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.”
Suspension from the Lord’s Supper as a punishment for sin does not appear in the New Testament.
CHAP. XXXI. - Of Synods and Councils
1. “For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or Councils; and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.”
Churches as a whole, not officers, should decide who takes part in Councils.
Statement of Faith
For a job application I am to compose a statement of faith. In addition to the difficulty of writing something that is accurate according to the scriptures, I also find it tough to decide what to mention and what to leave out. If you have ideas of things that should be changed, included, or removed feel free to share them. I can't promise I'll comply, but I appreciate the feedback. :) Also coming soon: a critical response to the Westminster Confession (for the same application).
Statement of Faith
The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.
There is one true God in all existence, in all places, and in all time, who is the Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He lived a life without sin and died on the cross, a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. He rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, at the right hand of the Father, and He is now the only mediator between God and man.
The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and, during this age, to convict men concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, regenerate the believing sinner, and indwell, guide, instruct and empower the believer for godly living. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit no one would come to saving faith.
Man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is separated from God. Adam’s sin has been passed on to man, leaving us sinful from our mother’s womb and enslaved to sin in this like. Only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.
That the shed blood of Jesus Christ and His resurrection provide the only grounds for justification and salvation for all people. This justification and salvation is obtained by grace through faith alone for all who believe; and only such as receive Jesus Christ, by faith, are born of the Holy Spirit and thus become children of God. By His blood and resurrection we are reconciled to God, are freed from enslavement to sin, and overcome death.
Our life in Christ is lived in response to the love Father has shown us in Jesus. His love sanctifies us, compels us to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations, and allows us to experience true freedom. This life is lived with other brothers and sisters in Christ, the true Church, which is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the Body of Christ of which He is the Head.
It is our blessed hope that at the end of the age Jesus Christ will return to this earth personally, visibly, physically, and suddenly in power and great glory; and that He will gather His elect, raise the dead, judge the nations, and establish His kingdom. We believe that the righteous will enter into the everlasting joy of their Master, and those who suppressed the truth in unrighteousness will be consigned to everlasting conscious misery.
Quote
A quote from Wayne Jacobsen:
"The free person in Christ and the rebellious will always look the same to those who labor under religious obligation, because both ignore the conventions that govern men and women. But there is a major difference between the two. The rebel does it to serve himself and his passions, always harming others in the process and leaving a wake of anarchy behind him. The free person in Christ, however, does so because they no longer have a need to serve themselves. Having embraced God's love at a far deeper level than any method of behavioral conformity will touch, they will guard that freedom even if it means others will misunderstand their pursuits. They reject the conventions of control not to please themselves, but Father Himself."
This came from www.lifestream.org.
"The free person in Christ and the rebellious will always look the same to those who labor under religious obligation, because both ignore the conventions that govern men and women. But there is a major difference between the two. The rebel does it to serve himself and his passions, always harming others in the process and leaving a wake of anarchy behind him. The free person in Christ, however, does so because they no longer have a need to serve themselves. Having embraced God's love at a far deeper level than any method of behavioral conformity will touch, they will guard that freedom even if it means others will misunderstand their pursuits. They reject the conventions of control not to please themselves, but Father Himself."
This came from www.lifestream.org.
May 19, 2008
On Christmas
More from the same lengthy post I attempted to write in January.......I've added to it just now.
This is the first year that Lisa and I have not celebrated Christmas. It's something that we feel the Lord has led us to do over the last few years. A lot of different factors have been a part of that process, but I think the central reason we have chosen this is that we don't personally feel drawn to worship Jesus in our hearts through observing that holiday. It's great if others do, but that's not the case for us. Romans 14 seems to imply that either way is ok as long as we are “fully convinced” in our own minds. For Lisa and me, our hearts very clearly lean away from celebrating Christmas.
There are a lot of things surrounding that holiday that we don’t particularly like, including materialism (a sin that I particularly struggle with at this time of year) and the non-Christian origin of Christmas. But I think there is freedom for believers to separate themselves from the way the world celebrates this holiday and still remember the birth of Jesus in this manner. This simply isn’t what we feel the Lord wants us to do. By the way, don’t worry, it’s ok to talk about Christmas with us. It isn’t some taboo subject. We’re open to questions about it, and we don’t want others to feel like they have to walk on eggshells around us either. The same goes for Easter, which we also don’t celebrate for the same reason.
From January
I started this in January fully intending to post it here.......and then I gave a recital......and then the semester started......but here it is now. :) More to come.....
As someone who is not an active part of a group of believers that meets in an institutional setting, I've wrestled a great deal with the question of what is important about being "inside" or "outside." I think it's very easy for folks in both settings to get caught up in that question. Not only that, but my experience on InterVarsity staff showed me that a lot of time is spent on figuring out the best way to "do church." It's the same now that I meet with folks in other ways. So much emphasis is placed on finding the right model.
But the reality is that if believers aren't connected to Jesus, if we don't know Him and walk with Him as a way of life, it doesn't really matter how we come together; God won't move as He truly wants. And if we ARE walking with Jesus, if we do know Him and spend our days enjoying His love, He will move powerfully among us no matter how we come together--don't take that statement too far :) .
To say that it is a matter of whether we meet in an institutional setting or in homes misses the main issues in the church today. The "right model" doesn't matter if we aren't walking with Jesus. I've recently read a book that gets at the core of this, and I highly recommend it to anyone willing to take the time to read it. Please don't let the title turn you off before you check it out, as it could easily do that. It's called So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore, and it's available here.
The Lord continues to open my eyes to the system of religious obligation that has been at work in me for many years. So often in the past I've been much more concerned with living up to the expectations placed on me than on simply knowing Jesus more each day. I'd be happy to take some time to explain more anyone that wants to hear, and I may do that sometime soon on this blog.
Addendum: Sorry if this post doesn't explain things very well; The God Journey podcast has a great deal to say about some of these ideas if you're interested in learning more. Please know that I'm not on some crusade to say that Sunday morning meetings in church buildings are wrong or that everyone should meet exclusively in homes. The Lord has each of us where where we are for His purpose. And if you find life in Him in a more traditional setting, I praise Him for that! When I mention the "system of religious obligation" above, I'm not referring a type of meeting; that sort of obligation can exist in any environment. What I am referring to is obeying rules and following certain patterns of life in order to manage our own shame and gain a high opinion of ourselves from others, thinking that this is what God wants from His people--that is religious obligation (at least in part).
As someone who is not an active part of a group of believers that meets in an institutional setting, I've wrestled a great deal with the question of what is important about being "inside" or "outside." I think it's very easy for folks in both settings to get caught up in that question. Not only that, but my experience on InterVarsity staff showed me that a lot of time is spent on figuring out the best way to "do church." It's the same now that I meet with folks in other ways. So much emphasis is placed on finding the right model.
But the reality is that if believers aren't connected to Jesus, if we don't know Him and walk with Him as a way of life, it doesn't really matter how we come together; God won't move as He truly wants. And if we ARE walking with Jesus, if we do know Him and spend our days enjoying His love, He will move powerfully among us no matter how we come together--don't take that statement too far :) .
To say that it is a matter of whether we meet in an institutional setting or in homes misses the main issues in the church today. The "right model" doesn't matter if we aren't walking with Jesus. I've recently read a book that gets at the core of this, and I highly recommend it to anyone willing to take the time to read it. Please don't let the title turn you off before you check it out, as it could easily do that. It's called So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore, and it's available here.
The Lord continues to open my eyes to the system of religious obligation that has been at work in me for many years. So often in the past I've been much more concerned with living up to the expectations placed on me than on simply knowing Jesus more each day. I'd be happy to take some time to explain more anyone that wants to hear, and I may do that sometime soon on this blog.
Addendum: Sorry if this post doesn't explain things very well; The God Journey podcast has a great deal to say about some of these ideas if you're interested in learning more. Please know that I'm not on some crusade to say that Sunday morning meetings in church buildings are wrong or that everyone should meet exclusively in homes. The Lord has each of us where where we are for His purpose. And if you find life in Him in a more traditional setting, I praise Him for that! When I mention the "system of religious obligation" above, I'm not referring a type of meeting; that sort of obligation can exist in any environment. What I am referring to is obeying rules and following certain patterns of life in order to manage our own shame and gain a high opinion of ourselves from others, thinking that this is what God wants from His people--that is religious obligation (at least in part).
Again........
After yet another long layoff, let's try this again.......I've had a lot of things on my mind over the last SIX months since my last post. Rather than blogging about them, I've put some of them into emails. I'll try to post those things here soon (stop me if you've heard that one before). Here's something from a couple of days ago:
I've heard a lot of folks over the years talk about understanding the scriptures "in context." By this it seems that we usually mean understanding a particular verse in the bible within the paragraph or chapter (and sometimes letter/book) in which it was written (we'll call this Context #1). For example, one verse that is often taken out of context is 1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." I often hear folks try to use that verse as a proof text to say that we should have an understanding of how God works because "God is not a God of confusion." But the context is a discussion on order in worship, and Paul is making no such statement. In addition, the larger context of the whole of scripture (Context #2) clearly shows that the idea that we should relatively fully understand how God works is preposterous (see Isaiah 55:8-9).
Through some reading I've done recently (particularly the writings of Frank Viola--the church planter, not the Cy Young winner from the Twins and Mets) I think I'm seeing the idea of context in a an additional way (Context #3) that much of the time we neglect. This is in the larger narrative context of the New Testament. Take Paul's letters.......they are listed from longest to shortest, completely separated from the narrative that surrounds them. Most of the time, in a good bible discussion, we will mention a few things about when the letter was written, the audience, where Paul was, etc., but I personally have not taken a close enough look at how the story of the church fits into the larger narrative context. So often it seems that historical study and bible study are separated, but for us to have a full understanding of what the scriptures say we need to study both. Perhaps the best way to explain this is with an example........
One topic that is interesting to examine in this way is that of church planting. The NT picture of church planting becomes clear as we study the pattern in the scriptures. Jerusalem is a unique church for obvious reasons, and Antioch was a product of the dispersion of Acts 8. After that a clear pattern emerges. Paul and others would travel to a town. They would preach the gospel, see a group of believers raised up, leave after a relatively short amount of time, usually return to check up on things and maybe acknowledge some elders (they acknowledged elders rather than appointing them), and wrote letters if they heard of problems they needed to address. What didn't they do? Stay for long periods of time in order to direct everything that goes on. They also didn't immediately appoint elders; they left the brethren to figure things out themselves by the Spirit. Several churches, including Antioch and Corinth, are never mentioned as having elders. And we don't know that Jerusalem has them until Acts 11--fourteen years after the church began there.
In his letters Paul uses the word 'brethren' 130 times; he mentions 'elders' five times, and he uses the word pastor once. His letters were never addressed to elders; it was always to 'the church.' Time and again we see that the brothers and sisters under the headship of Christ were the ones to discern the direction things should go, even as the churches grew. This picture of church planting is very different from the modern method of getting a few families from an existing place, setting up shop in a living room, and sticking around for the next 10+ years. Also, the role that Paul, Timothy, Silas, Barnabus, and others functioned has been pretty much lost in the Western church. They weren't pastors or elders, they were apostles, church planters, itinerant workers in the body of Christ. They were the ones who watched over the churches until elders emerged, and they did so from afar. A more thorough treatment of this particular matter was undertaken by Viola in an e-book you can read for free on his website--"Straight Talk To Pastors" at ptmin.org. It's an interesting and quick read if you can take the time to check it out.
All of this is to say that I want a better understanding of the historical context of the scriptures. I think God has a lot to say if we are willing to look at what He did chronologically. Lisa and I are reading through the lives of Saul and David in the OT in this manner, which means Psalms are mixed in with 1 and 2 Samuel. I hope to undertake a chronological reading of the NT sometime soon.
I've heard a lot of folks over the years talk about understanding the scriptures "in context." By this it seems that we usually mean understanding a particular verse in the bible within the paragraph or chapter (and sometimes letter/book) in which it was written (we'll call this Context #1). For example, one verse that is often taken out of context is 1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." I often hear folks try to use that verse as a proof text to say that we should have an understanding of how God works because "God is not a God of confusion." But the context is a discussion on order in worship, and Paul is making no such statement. In addition, the larger context of the whole of scripture (Context #2) clearly shows that the idea that we should relatively fully understand how God works is preposterous (see Isaiah 55:8-9).
Through some reading I've done recently (particularly the writings of Frank Viola--the church planter, not the Cy Young winner from the Twins and Mets) I think I'm seeing the idea of context in a an additional way (Context #3) that much of the time we neglect. This is in the larger narrative context of the New Testament. Take Paul's letters.......they are listed from longest to shortest, completely separated from the narrative that surrounds them. Most of the time, in a good bible discussion, we will mention a few things about when the letter was written, the audience, where Paul was, etc., but I personally have not taken a close enough look at how the story of the church fits into the larger narrative context. So often it seems that historical study and bible study are separated, but for us to have a full understanding of what the scriptures say we need to study both. Perhaps the best way to explain this is with an example........
One topic that is interesting to examine in this way is that of church planting. The NT picture of church planting becomes clear as we study the pattern in the scriptures. Jerusalem is a unique church for obvious reasons, and Antioch was a product of the dispersion of Acts 8. After that a clear pattern emerges. Paul and others would travel to a town. They would preach the gospel, see a group of believers raised up, leave after a relatively short amount of time, usually return to check up on things and maybe acknowledge some elders (they acknowledged elders rather than appointing them), and wrote letters if they heard of problems they needed to address. What didn't they do? Stay for long periods of time in order to direct everything that goes on. They also didn't immediately appoint elders; they left the brethren to figure things out themselves by the Spirit. Several churches, including Antioch and Corinth, are never mentioned as having elders. And we don't know that Jerusalem has them until Acts 11--fourteen years after the church began there.
In his letters Paul uses the word 'brethren' 130 times; he mentions 'elders' five times, and he uses the word pastor once. His letters were never addressed to elders; it was always to 'the church.' Time and again we see that the brothers and sisters under the headship of Christ were the ones to discern the direction things should go, even as the churches grew. This picture of church planting is very different from the modern method of getting a few families from an existing place, setting up shop in a living room, and sticking around for the next 10+ years. Also, the role that Paul, Timothy, Silas, Barnabus, and others functioned has been pretty much lost in the Western church. They weren't pastors or elders, they were apostles, church planters, itinerant workers in the body of Christ. They were the ones who watched over the churches until elders emerged, and they did so from afar. A more thorough treatment of this particular matter was undertaken by Viola in an e-book you can read for free on his website--"Straight Talk To Pastors" at ptmin.org. It's an interesting and quick read if you can take the time to check it out.
All of this is to say that I want a better understanding of the historical context of the scriptures. I think God has a lot to say if we are willing to look at what He did chronologically. Lisa and I are reading through the lives of Saul and David in the OT in this manner, which means Psalms are mixed in with 1 and 2 Samuel. I hope to undertake a chronological reading of the NT sometime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)