Unity

Over the years I’ve heard a lot of talk about problems with denominations. I and many others are saddened by the division that is within the body of Christ today—I think we’re well over 1500 different denominations in the US. Historically, when a group of Christians reaches some sort of impasse in discussing (or not) a particular topic or issue, they split into two or more groups. Those groups often have little interaction going forward, and new denominations spring up as a result.

Paul seems to decry this way of doing things in 1 Corinthians 1. In essence, when we form denominations 1) we place ourselves under names other than Jesus, and 2) we divide ourselves from other believers. As a result, there is a pragmatic denial of the reality that we are all one in Him (see Ephesians 4 and Galatians 3 also).

Leaders of various groups/churches, including myself in the past, will recognize some of these issues and try to remedy the situation by arranging regular or semi-regular meetings. The hope is that there will be unity of heart and mind among the leaders, and there is at times. But the reality is this: there will never be true intimacy in the relationship. It will be like holding hands over a fence—it’s a start, but there are still huge barriers. And this says nothing of the lack of intimacy for the rest of the folks that don’t set up meetings.

There may be exceptions, but there is little inter-denominational “receiving of one another as Christ receives us” (Romans 15:7). In my opinion, denominations exist because we can’t figure out how to have real relationships with folks we disagree with. Rather than hash out our differences and continue to fellowship together, we go our separate ways. But that’s another topic……the main point is this: the reality that we are one in Christ is lost in the words that we place in front of the word ‘church’ in order to define ourselves.

Many of my conversations on this subject in the last eight or so years have been with folks who have considered finding fellowship outside of the typical American church setting. They have pursued something different for a variety of reasons, one of those being frustration with the pattern I’ve very loosely outlined above (note the irony J). But actually, those outside the “institutional church” do the same thing: we define ourselves by the word or words in front of church.

There are several different names groups will use to describe the way they fellowship: house church, home church, organic church, simple church, etc. What becomes the big deal? With the first one it’s the house. The location of the meeting is the defining characteristic of the church. With organic or simple church, it’s the way in which we meet. More important that what is the defining aspect, though, is what isn’t, namely Christ.

What defines us as believers? It’s Jesus Christ. It’s a person. He is the One who shapes everything we do, believe, and say. He is the reason we meet, He is the One that builds His church, and He is to have supremacy in all things. I personally feel that all of these names, from “Our Savior’s Holy Ghost Super Power Temple Baptist Church of God in Christ” to “house church” distract us and others from Him. Something else becomes central, something other than Jesus, and when that happens, the fullness our unity as believers is lost, for it is rooted in Him.

Dear brothers and sisters, especially those who meet in non-traditional settings, this may seem like splitting hairs. But names of any sort do nothing short of denying the reality of who Jesus Christ is. He is One, and we are one in Him. When we give ourselves names, be they general (such as “home church”) or specific (such as “First Baptist Church”), we fragment the Body of Christ and call ourselves by names other than His. Our practice undermines the unity we have. Non-institutional believers, take note of the long-term fruit of what has happened throughout church history. In our day we must choose a different path.

When Paul spoke of the churches in the New Testament, he referred to them as “the church in (fill in the name of a city)” or “the church that meets in so-and-so’s house.” He didn’t place another name in front of church; the fact that the believers were the church was of primary importance. And then the apostle distinguished the churches from each other based on the city they were in (if there was one gathering in the city) or the home they met in (if there was more than one gathering in town). This wasn’t based on doctrine or style; it was only descriptive enough for everyone to know who he was talking about. The church in each city seemed to live in unity when it was healthy. It’s not necessarily that they were intimately connected with everyone single believer in town, or that they all always met in the same place as they grew in size, but they were always of one mind. Christ had churches that were truly one in Him.

May we as the Body of Christ live in the reality of the unity that we have in Him, regardless of where or how we meet.

Fellowship Monologue

Fellowship. Its a relatively common word among Christians, but I've pretty much never used it in any other context. The word itself has no functional meaning to most Americans. You never hear athletes talk about the "fellowship" they have with other guys in the locker room. Joe College Guy never uses fellowship to describe hanging out with the dudes on his floor. Its a strange word in our culture, and I wonder if there's another word or phrase that would communicate the idea more clearly.

But in spite of that, we do need to understand what it means. And I would argue that most Christians don't really know what the scriptures are saying when they talk about fellowship. And in addition to the question of what fellowship is, I would ask this: do we need it? The assumption in virtually every Christian circle is yes, but biblically I don't think that holds water. First, though, what is fellowship?

I don't really want to come up with a definition in the strict sense; I'd like to try a different way of defining it. But I will mention the Greek word most commonly translated as fellowship: koinonia. It appears 20 times in the NT, notably Acts 2:42, where the believers in Jerusalem have fellowship with one another and all things in common, and 1 John 1, where he speaks of our fellowship with Christ and with one another. Koinonia relates to participation and community, and I think those ideas are at the core of what it means.

Interestingly enough, those passages aren't the ones that tend to come up in the discussions I have with others about fellowship. For me the conversation about fellowship begins like this:

Person X: "Where do you go to church?"
Me: "We don't." (sometimes I give a longer response)
Person X: "Oh......then what do you do for fellowship?"
Me: "Well, we meet with some other believers in homes."
Person X: "Just as long as you aren't forsaking the gathering of the bretheren......"

The passage they often refer to is Hebrews 10:24-25:

"...let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." (NAS)

I appreciate the intent behind those questions. Its usually out of genuine concern for me and my family. But at the same time I'm not sure it comes from a full understanding of what fellowship is. Most folks stop reading in the first half of verse 25--"do not forsake assembling together." But the writer isn't just saying get together with other Christians; he elaborates: encourage one another....stimulate one another to love and good deeds. Its not getting together, its what happens when you do. There's 'one-anothering' that ought to go on when we come together.

But what happens in the majority of gatherings? One brother gets up in front and gives a lecture while everyone else sits and listens. Greetings are exchanged (sometimes only when dude up front tells you to.....), and everyone goes on their way. Don't get me wrong--lectures are fine. I've heard many great lectures. But that ain't fellowship. And yet, if I'd responded to the question by saying, "we go to da-ta-da-ta-da church," they probably wouldn't have thought twice about it. Of course, I know not every gathering is like that. This isn't at all about institution vs. non-institution. Gatherings in homes can be devoid of fellowship in the same way--I've been to some that are. It's very different than that.

Here's the thing: 'fellowship' is held over the heads of many Christians as something that we need. We're told we have to be in fellowship or we'll go off the deep end. And sometimes examples are cited of folks who left and now who knows what's happened to them. But do the scriptures say we need it? I would say no. In fact, there are numerous examples of folks who didn't have fellowship for long periods of time. Consider:

- Moses was in the desert for 40 years;
- John was exiled on Patmos, and he seemed to do just fine;
- John the Baptist lived alone in the wilderness for a long time;
- Paul spent more time alone in a prison cell than with other believers in the later years of his life.

These men didn't set out to be certain they had fellowship/community/another person who followed God with them in whatever they did. They followed Him, and that led them into times of great and deep fellowship, as well as times of being alone.

Another side of it is that fellowship may not happen in the way we would expect. Personally, I've been in a situation with less fellowship recently, and what we've had has looked very different than I thought it would. When we moved to Champaign we knew some believers that were already here, but a lot of the relationships never developed into a "meet together weekly or more frequently" sort of thing (for a variety of reasons....and not because we didn't want them to). The most significant fellowship I’ve had since moving here has been with Lisa. For some reason I feel that we are trained not to associate ‘fellowship’ with our family conversations, but in reality that’s a big part of why we got married. We have always had deep fellowship with one another; I’ve just grown to appreciate that more.

But apart from that I think Father had a two and a half year period of less fellowship in store for us when we came here. We talked about attending a Sunday gathering, and even went to a couple of meetings. We had folks over to our place in hopes of something starting. We met in another family's home for a while. We have enjoyed the time with believers that we've had here, and we'll probably keep in touch with some of the folks. But none of it really became what I expected: a group of Christians we can share life with in a deeper way. A lot of it seemed like us trying to make something happen that the Lord didn't want.

Then, I walk off of the plane in San Antonio for my audition in January, and within 12 hours I've had deep, significant fellowship in Christ with a group of 20ish Christians I'd never met. I had a sense immediately that these were believers that we could live life with. It was to the point where I didn't really care about getting the job; I wanted to move and hang out with these people. It has been so easy since He has orchestrated it, and it was like banging my head against the wall when we tried to do it ourselves. As I've reflected on our time in Illinois, I think Father wanted us to have less fellowship. There were things that needed to be worked out in me, and chances are that wouldn't have happened if things had been different.

Would we have rather had more fellowship while we were here? Absolutely! Did we die spiritually because we didn't have it? Quite the opposite. Did we violate the scripture from Hebrews 10? I don't think so. All it says is "don't forsake." If there are believers God wants you to meet with, meet with them. Don't blow that off. Taking the verse beyond that is an exaggeration. I don't think it means you have to meet with whatever group of Christians is in your town. Even if you find a group, fellowship is deeper than just getting together with other Christians. He needs to lead us. And if there isn't anyone around that He wants you to meet with, He will sustain you, just like He sustained Paul and John. And they didn't just get by--they flourished.

So about fellowship I would say this: its deeper and different than just meeting together, it isn't a requirement, you won't go off the deep end if you don't have it, and God Himself will lead you into it.

Original Sin

This is a note I sent to a friend regarding original sin....

What is the effect of Adam's sin (original sin) on us today?
The easiest way to talk about this might be to walk through the second half of Romans 5.

12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Death came through one man--Adam. That's the first implication of original sin. We die because our father Adam sinned. But if death is the wage of sin (6:23), then there must be some connection between Adam's sin and us. If there's no sin, there's no death, right? So at the end of that verse Paul says that "all sinned." What does that mean? Does it refer to our individual sins? I would say no; he instead takes a detour to explain that phrase. I'll elaborate on this as I go, but I think the overarching point Paul is making here is a comparison between Jesus and Adam. We would expect him to follow his "just as" in verse 13 with a "so also," but he doesn't. We don't get the "so then" until verse 18--"so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." The comparison, then is between one act (Jesus death on the cross) leading to righteousness for many, and one act (Adam's sin in the garden) leading to death for many. If this phrase referred to individual sins, the comparison would break down, since we are not saved by individual acts of righteousness.

13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

As we discussed, sin was not counted before the law was given through Moses. But, says Paul, death still reigned between Adam and Moses. The people's individual sins were not counted against them, but they still died. Why? They had a connection with Adam's sin--this would be imputation. This is a major implication of original sin: Adam's sin is imputed to us, and that is enough to make us worthy of death. Even apart from our individual sins, we would die because of this imputation; even if we didn't sin "like the transgression of Adam," we would die because of his sin.

15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.


In addition to discussing the similarities of Adam and Christ, Paul also shows the differences. The emphasis remains on one trespass and one act of righteousness (the free gift). Not only does he show that the transgression and righteousness are opposites. He also points to there being greater certainty of the grace of Jesus Christ (verse 15). He points to the gift covering over many trespasses, not just one (verse 16). And he points to the reign we will have over sin and death in Christ (verse 17). Everything about our righteousness in Christ is much more certain and greater than our sin in Adam.


18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Summary....Paul shows in verse 19 that Adam's sin was disobedience, and that Christ's righteousness (and therefore a righteous life) is rooted in obedience. So to summarize, two of the implications of original sin for us are that Adam's sin is imputed to us, and that is why we die; and we can better understand what Jesus did for us on the cross by comparing that with what Adam did in the garden.


Now, one of the other things we discussed was the "sinful nature." That isn't the thrust of what Paul is considering here, and there are other passages that would be good to consider for that topic, but there are a couple of places that seem to allude to it. The first is verse 13: "sin was in the world before the law was given..." And the second is verse 19: "by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners....." I mention that, but I'd like to see if you have any thoughts on the above before digging into other passages.

Love vs.......

In Christian circles, it seems like love and grace are always contrasted with justice, holiness, and truth. I've heard on numerous occasions that those ideas must be "balanced." You can't talk too much about the love of God because then people will think he doesn't care if we sin. And you can't talk too much about truth, justice, holiness, and sin because then people feel beat up.

Do those things really work against each other? Does talking about the love of God mean you have to be soft on sin and holiness? Can you make God too loving? I personally find myself thinking differently about these things. Certain scriptures point to a different interaction between these ideas than the opposition to each other they are characterized as having.

Paul speaks of both sorrow (2 Cor. 7) and kindness (Rom. 2) leading us to repentance. There are times when its appropriate to be direct and harsh with sin, and there are times when speaking about the kindness of God, His tolerance and patience, will fight sin. Paul also talks about speaking truth in love, meaning that truth is a part of love, not opposed to it.

This all may sound rather rudimentary, but in terms of practice I have hardly ever seen this lived out the way Jesus did. I don't think He was trying to balance grace and truth, I think He was loving. His love for people absolutely manifested itself in different ways, be it showing grace to an adulterous woman or throwing tables around in rage, but love was always present.

Why does love have to be soft on sin? Actually, let me rephrase that: how can love be soft on sin? And how can truth be separated from love? Is it even possible to make God "too loving" or "too nice?" I don't think so. He still hates sin, and He always will. But He is love.

Perhaps more on this later....

On Creeds and Doctrinal Statements

Back in May I shared my comments on the Westminster Confession. It was an interesting exercise for me because while I agree with most of the points in the Confession, I'm actually not in favor of creeds and doctrinal statements, at least as they're used today. Historically they have been used as a means to maintain unity within the body, but I actually think they have worked against the unity they seek to achieve.

The main issue I have them is that they try to boil down truth to a list of statements. The fruit often is that if you agree you can hang around and if you don't you are told to go elsewhere (explicitly or implicitly). The problem is that truth isn't a list of statements or doctrines, it's a person. That person is Jesus (John 14:6). And the way that people are known is through relationship. I can tell you all about my wife, but if you don't actually spend time with her you won't really know her (and you probably wouldn't say you knew her). There has to be relationship for you to truly know her.

So if truth is fully expressed as a person, and known and understood in a relationship, a doctrinal statement falls woefully short in conveying it. Doctrinal statements and creeds aren't necessarily wrong, but usually they become the way that believers free themselves from having relationships with other folks. If someone disagrees, just ship them off to another meeting down the street. That doesn't build up the body in the way that discussion and dialogue does, and it also keeps the body from truly being the body. The reality is that our basis for fellowship with other believers isn't believing all of the same things. The basis is whether or not Jesus has received us (Rom. 15:7). If someone knows Jesus and has been received by Him, we are to received them just as He did. And in the context of the relationship that develops, we wrestle with the differences we have in how we read the scriptures, trusting Him to unify us in the process.

News

If it wasn't obvious, blogging has moved even farther down the list of things to do in the last six months. I have a few things I'll try to get to this week before classes start next Tuesday (when free time will disappear again), but I wanted to write about the way God has led our family in the last couple of months.

I can point to several points in my life where God has spoken very clearly to me through monetary things. Going to college, time on staff with InterVarsity, traveling to Egypt, going to grad school.....God spoke very clearly through financial means in all of these instances. So when I scheduled a saxophone audition with the Air Force Band of the West in San Antonio, TX, I took note of the ways that he took care of the expenses for the trip (they don't pay to fly you down).

First, a free plane ticket was given to us. Then, someone said they wanted to pay for a rental car, which I needed to get around while I was there. Then, a stranger offered to let me stay in his home for free while I was there (more on this in a moment). And after that someone gave me some extra money for food, gas, etc. So instead of potentially dropping $800 on getting to Texas, I was basically going for free. We were thankful.....

I arrived on Saturday night for a Monday audition and drove to Adam's home. Adam posted a comment on house churches in a random forum this summer, and Lisa found his info through an internet search. I told him a bit about myself and asked if I could stay with him, and he said ok. I was excited to have been divinely placed in the home of a brother with whom I could so quickly have real fellowship. Not only that, but Sunday morning I went with him to a meeting with a group of believers and was greatly blessed to hear their testimony of Jesus. It was indeed a joyous trip, and I hadn't even done what I originally went to do.

It almost seemed too good to be true, so I figured there was no way I would actually win the audition. Six of us were there to play, and I was chosen to play first in the morning round. I sought to walk humbly with Jesus as I went, and He heard me as I asked for peace while I played. They picked prepared pieces that I was very comfortable with, and I had played the two most difficult "sight-reading" excerpts. After playing and then sitting around for a couple of hours I found out I was one of the four selected to move on.

The second round consisted of playing lead alto with their big band (they have a concert band and a big band) and improvising. All of that went very well, and after another couple of hours they told me I was the one they wanted. Lisa and I waited until today to formally accept the position, just to allow God time to speak if He wanted. But as I look back on the experience, I think I can say that this is one of the most clear ways that God has spoken to me (us) in some time. We are thankful to have a job in a time when many are losing theirs, and to know some believers in the new city we are moving to. I'm excited to see what He has in store for us there....

....after basic training. :)