“Do you believe in the Five Fold Ministry?”
Someone asked me this very question the other day, and after a lot of thought and research I’ve finally got my answer – “No. I don’t.”
Perhaps it would help if I were to clarify what I mean? First of all, in case you don’t know what I’m talking about, the Five Fold Ministry is a concept taken from one single passage in the New Testament (Ephesians 4:11-13) which says:
“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
Notice that there are five gifts mentioned here. They are Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, and for those who swear by the Five Fold Ministry model, this list represents both a hierarchy of giftings, and an essential list of gifts that must be present in every church for health and growth.
First, let me explain why I reject the Five Fold concept. It’s because Paul himself gives us other lists of giftings elsewhere in his epistles and those other lists are slightly longer, and in a different order, than the one he gives here in Ephesians.
Before we look at those other two, let’s go ahead and say that this fact alone should tell us that Paul didn’t intend for his list in Ephesians to be taken as the only model for church dynamics. If he gave other church members in other cities a different list, then that means he wasn’t trying to be dogmatic about this, and that he was speaking loosely about the various gifts that God releases into the Body of Christ for growth, strength, and life.
Got it? Ok, now let’s look at those other two lists, starting with the one in 1 Corinthians 12, verse 28 where Paul says:
“And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.”
So, even though Paul starts out the same in Corinthians as he does in Ephesians – with Apostles and Prophets – he strangely promotes Teachers to third place (up from last place in our Ephesian list. Way to go Teachers!), and then introduces Miracle Workers, Healers, Helpers, Guidance (or Wisdom) and Tongues. This might be called the Eight Fold Ministry since here Paul expands the length of his list by three.
Notice that, if we were ignorant of the other lists, the one in Ephesians and the one in Romans (which we’ll look at in a second), we could easily conclude that God’s plan is all about this (and only this) order of gifts to lead the church. We might conclude from this list that Pastors and Evangelists are lower class citizens in the church since they’re not mentioned at all. We could also easily make a case that Paul’s list is hierarchical since he enumerates these by saying, “First of all…second….third…” and so on. This clearly indicates that the first ones are more important and the last ones are less important.
Right?
Wrong. Why? Because Paul said something different to the church in Ephesus and in Rome. And, since his order in those other cases was different, we can safely assume that when Paul says “First of all apostles…” he’s talking chronologically and not hierarchically. The Apostles were the first ones to be “sent out” by Jesus and once the Gospel was preached and people responded, they needed to have others who could prophesy and teach, and serve, etc.
But wait, we’re not done. Let’s look now at Paul’s essential list of gifts in Romans 12. It goes like this:
“For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully."
(v. 4-8)
Personally, I like this list a lot more than the other two. This Seven Fold Ministry of God drops leadership to the very bottom, just ahead of showing mercy, and it moves service, teaching and encouragement to the top. That’s my kind of list.
But, again, the Christians in Rome could easily have taken this list and deduced from it that Apostles, Evangelists and Pastors are unnecessary in the Church, and that what really counts is Prophecy, Service, Teaching, Encouragement, Giving, Leadership and Mercy. But, again, they would be wrong about that.
What’s fascinating to me is that, while we have all three of these epistles in front of us and they didn’t, our tendency is to take one of those lists as authoritative while ignoring the other two. There is no evidence that the churches in Ephesus, Rome or Corinth took Paul’s instructions in this manner to be exhaustive and exclusive of the others.
The main thing I believe we can learn from all of this is that Jesus was serious when he said that we are all brothers and sisters and that none of us was meant to play the Father, or the Ruler over anyone else. (See Matthew 23:9) The goal in the Body of Christ is that we are all members of one another, and that no one person is given the preeminence over the rest of us.
Having said all of this, let me clarify that yes, I do believe that there are those today who are “sent ones” (or “Apostles”) in the church today. Their function is to go out and preach the Gospel, plant churches, recognize gifts in the Body, and move on when needed to plant more churches. I also believe that there are those in the church today with the gifts of prophecy, and tongues, and teaching, and mercy, and giving, and all those many, many other gifts.
What I reject is the idea that there are only five main gifts in the church today, or that these five should be exalted above all the other gifts mentioned in the New Testament as if they are more special or more necessary or more crucial than any of the others.
At face value, the message of the New Testament is that you matter. Your gift – whatever it is – is necessary. You are important. You have something the rest of us need. We have something that you need. We need one another to grow and to thrive.
As Paul says in each of these passages, there are many gifts, and they are all given by the One Spirit, and we are all members of each other. Our gifts are not for us, they are not about us, they are about one another and the purpose of these gifts is to be a blessing to everyone else and to exalt them, not ourselves.
So, I’m not sure about you, but since there are something like 28 different spiritual gifts mentioned in the Bible, and 58 "one anothers", I’m a big fan of the 28 or the 58 Fold Ministry of God.
How about you?
-kg
**
Showing posts with label ecclessia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ecclessia. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
REVIEW: LETTERS TO THE HOUSE CHURCH MOVEMENT
I am drowning in books. Literally, I have over 25 books stacked next to my bed. Three new books came in the mail this week. I am overwhelmed with books. Which is why when Rad Zdero’s book, “Letters to the House Church Movement” first dropped into my mailbox I wasn’t eager to crack it open on the spot and devour it in one sitting. You see, I’m drowning in books.
However, once I did start reading Rad’s book I quickly placed all those other books into stand-by mode. Why? Because this book is so practical, and so fascinating, that I had to keep reading to learn more about what God is doing through house churches in his neck of the woods, which incidentally is Toronto, Canada.
The format of the book, as you might have guessed from the title, is a series of letters (always from Zdero’s side of the conversation) to different people and addressing different situations in various house churches within Zdero’s circle of influence. Much like the epistles of Paul or John or Peter in the New Testament, we get to hear how Zdero responds to conflict in the house church, how he deals with church discipline, what he believes about women in the house church, and much, much more.
Zdero has been involved in the house church movement since 1985. That is roughly when I officially entered the ministry and was licensed and ordained as a Southern Baptist minister of the Gospel. But I’ve only been involved in the house church movement for about five years now. So, Zdero’s level of experience is much broader than mine, and so I can understand why some of the ways he deals with things is different from the way I might deal with the same issue. Plus, he’s Canadian. We can’t forget that.
But on a more serious note, one of the things I have always loved about the house church movement from the very beginning was the level of freedom and the variety of expression exhibited across the board. I remember reading Robert and Julia Banks’ “The Church Comes Home” and marveling at how no two house church groups seemed to approach anything the same way. Whether it was communion or baptism or bible teaching or children’s involvement, or whatever, the variety was overwhelming and refreshing to me. And this is what I try to keep in mind as I read Zdero’s book. In some chapters, as when he comments about women in the church for example, I find that I agree with him exactly. When he encourages one couple to break off fellowship with another couple because they disagree on doctrine, I find myself disagreeing sincerely. When he writes to house church members and draws the line in the sand and asks them to commit to certain things or disband their church, I find myself unsure of how I feel about that. But, in all of these things, I have grace and respect for Zdero. One, because he’s my brother in Christ, and two, because as I’ve said many times before, we should not base our fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ on an agreement of doctrine as much as we base it on our common love for Christ and our commitment to love and serve Him.
Frankly, I found myself inserting my own style of leadership into Zdero’s letters at every turn. I found that I could hardly focus on what he was saying to his audience without pausing to ask myself what I might say in the same situation, or how I might respond differently if I were writing a letter to these same people.
I think, on a basic level, Zdero and I are two different kinds of leaders. Whereas he might be more of an Apostolic leader whose calling is to plant many churches and to (as he says in his book), “help spawn the house church movement”, I am more like a guy who heard God call him to plant a specific church where 100 percent of the offering could go to help the poor in our community. There’s nothing wrong with either calling, of course. But understanding our different roles in the Church is helpful (at least to me) in understanding why Zdero and I are different leaders.
Before you get the idea that I disagree with Zdero on some critical level, let me affirm that most of what he counsels people to do in this book is agreeable to me. I do think that it’s important for Churches to develop real community, to be involved in mission outside the four walls, and to practice loving church discipline whenever necessary. We might disagree on “how” to do those things, but we do agree on doing them as best as we can.
Again, Zdero and I agree on many, many more things than we disagree on. I want to make that abundantly clear. This book would make a wonderful contribution to anyone who was curious about how to handle difficulty in a house church setting, how to respond to critics of the house church, and even how to lovingly correct people who are overzealous for all things “house church”.
To be fair, I am probably the most permissive and passive leader I have ever met. Almost no one I know takes such a hands-off approach to leadership as I do. And I don't say that to brag. Maybe I'm too footloose when it comes to these issues? I'm not saying I've got it all figured out. But, if you read Zdero's book you should know that not everything he does is typical of all house church practitioners. The reality is more on the side of variety, as I mentioned earlier.
Much like, “The Church Comes Home” by Robert and Julia Banks, Zdero’s book does provide a nice snapshot of house church life and addresses many typical challenges faced by those who are involved in this movement. What might be missing from Zdero’s book is that variety of experience or perspective found in their book. Due, of course, to the fact that Zdero's book is from his viewpoint only (but then again, my books and articles reflect my bias as well). So, there’s not much you can do about this fact except to listen to what he has to say and weigh it against your own understanding of the Scriptures and decide for yourself what you think.
Either way, Zdero’s book is an enlightening and challenging collection of thoughts from someone who has invested a large portion of his life to the nurturing of others as they follow Christ into deeper community. I highly recommend this book.
-kg
**
NOTE: I have asked Rad Zdero to talk with me for an interview about our various perspectives on leadership and house church dynamics. Hopefully this will appear on this blog in the next few weeks.
However, once I did start reading Rad’s book I quickly placed all those other books into stand-by mode. Why? Because this book is so practical, and so fascinating, that I had to keep reading to learn more about what God is doing through house churches in his neck of the woods, which incidentally is Toronto, Canada.
The format of the book, as you might have guessed from the title, is a series of letters (always from Zdero’s side of the conversation) to different people and addressing different situations in various house churches within Zdero’s circle of influence. Much like the epistles of Paul or John or Peter in the New Testament, we get to hear how Zdero responds to conflict in the house church, how he deals with church discipline, what he believes about women in the house church, and much, much more.
Zdero has been involved in the house church movement since 1985. That is roughly when I officially entered the ministry and was licensed and ordained as a Southern Baptist minister of the Gospel. But I’ve only been involved in the house church movement for about five years now. So, Zdero’s level of experience is much broader than mine, and so I can understand why some of the ways he deals with things is different from the way I might deal with the same issue. Plus, he’s Canadian. We can’t forget that.
But on a more serious note, one of the things I have always loved about the house church movement from the very beginning was the level of freedom and the variety of expression exhibited across the board. I remember reading Robert and Julia Banks’ “The Church Comes Home” and marveling at how no two house church groups seemed to approach anything the same way. Whether it was communion or baptism or bible teaching or children’s involvement, or whatever, the variety was overwhelming and refreshing to me. And this is what I try to keep in mind as I read Zdero’s book. In some chapters, as when he comments about women in the church for example, I find that I agree with him exactly. When he encourages one couple to break off fellowship with another couple because they disagree on doctrine, I find myself disagreeing sincerely. When he writes to house church members and draws the line in the sand and asks them to commit to certain things or disband their church, I find myself unsure of how I feel about that. But, in all of these things, I have grace and respect for Zdero. One, because he’s my brother in Christ, and two, because as I’ve said many times before, we should not base our fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ on an agreement of doctrine as much as we base it on our common love for Christ and our commitment to love and serve Him.
Frankly, I found myself inserting my own style of leadership into Zdero’s letters at every turn. I found that I could hardly focus on what he was saying to his audience without pausing to ask myself what I might say in the same situation, or how I might respond differently if I were writing a letter to these same people.
I think, on a basic level, Zdero and I are two different kinds of leaders. Whereas he might be more of an Apostolic leader whose calling is to plant many churches and to (as he says in his book), “help spawn the house church movement”, I am more like a guy who heard God call him to plant a specific church where 100 percent of the offering could go to help the poor in our community. There’s nothing wrong with either calling, of course. But understanding our different roles in the Church is helpful (at least to me) in understanding why Zdero and I are different leaders.
Before you get the idea that I disagree with Zdero on some critical level, let me affirm that most of what he counsels people to do in this book is agreeable to me. I do think that it’s important for Churches to develop real community, to be involved in mission outside the four walls, and to practice loving church discipline whenever necessary. We might disagree on “how” to do those things, but we do agree on doing them as best as we can.
Again, Zdero and I agree on many, many more things than we disagree on. I want to make that abundantly clear. This book would make a wonderful contribution to anyone who was curious about how to handle difficulty in a house church setting, how to respond to critics of the house church, and even how to lovingly correct people who are overzealous for all things “house church”.
To be fair, I am probably the most permissive and passive leader I have ever met. Almost no one I know takes such a hands-off approach to leadership as I do. And I don't say that to brag. Maybe I'm too footloose when it comes to these issues? I'm not saying I've got it all figured out. But, if you read Zdero's book you should know that not everything he does is typical of all house church practitioners. The reality is more on the side of variety, as I mentioned earlier.
Much like, “The Church Comes Home” by Robert and Julia Banks, Zdero’s book does provide a nice snapshot of house church life and addresses many typical challenges faced by those who are involved in this movement. What might be missing from Zdero’s book is that variety of experience or perspective found in their book. Due, of course, to the fact that Zdero's book is from his viewpoint only (but then again, my books and articles reflect my bias as well). So, there’s not much you can do about this fact except to listen to what he has to say and weigh it against your own understanding of the Scriptures and decide for yourself what you think.
Either way, Zdero’s book is an enlightening and challenging collection of thoughts from someone who has invested a large portion of his life to the nurturing of others as they follow Christ into deeper community. I highly recommend this book.
-kg
**
NOTE: I have asked Rad Zdero to talk with me for an interview about our various perspectives on leadership and house church dynamics. Hopefully this will appear on this blog in the next few weeks.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
MEMBERS OF ONE ANOTHER
Christians pride themselves on being people of the Book. By this we mean that we love the Bible and we strive to follow what’s written in the Word of God as closely as possible.
However, in practice we quite often fall very short of that mark. Strangely, one of the areas where we stray from the clearly written instructions of the New Testament is the practice of gathering as a Church.
Hear me out.
If we read the letters of Paul, Peter and James we'll see what they considered to be essential for the life and growth of the Church. Therefore, there's no reason for us to do anything other than exactly what the Apostles say when it comes to gathering together. In fact, the very word for "church" in the New Testament is "ekklesia" which means "sent ones" or "a gathering together".
In other words, it should go without saying that if Paul were to enter one of our Church buildings today he should expect to see us participating in the ways that he and the other Apostles commanded.
Let's look at what the Apostles considered normative ekklesia:
“What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:26
According to this verse, Paul considers the following things to be essential to the health of every Church:
Coming together (“When you come together”)
Open participation (“Everyone”)
People-led worship (“Everyone has a hymn”)
People-led teaching (“Everyone has...a word of instruction”)
People exercising their spiritual gifts freely(“Everyone has...a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation”)
How do we know that Paul considers these activities to be important and essential? Because he tells us: “ALL of these MUST BE DONE for the STRENGTHENING of the Church.”
If we ask Paul's opinion about church growth, he would tell us that it's vital that every believe participate in the leading of worship, the teaching of God's Word, and the sharing of the gifts of the spirit. Do we care what Paul's opinion is on this subject? Is it up to us to just decide for ourselves to dismiss Paul's instruction as mere suggestion and go with what we prefer?
Notice also that Paul's concern is for the Church to be "strengthened". His priority is for the believers to grow deeper, not larger in number. It's quality, not quantity that he is concerned with here.
But this isn't the only place where we find the Apostle's instruction regarding the activities of the Church.
According to the New Testament:
We should confess our sins to one another and pray for one another when we gather together: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” James 5:16
We should instruct one another when we gather together: “I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another.” Romans 15:14
We should teach and admonish (gently correct and encourage) one another and sing together: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Colossians 3:16
We should comfort and build up one another: “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” 1 Thessalonians 5:11
We should urgently warn one another to follow Christ: “But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” Hebrews 3:13
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Hebrews 10:25
We should encourage good works in one another: "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works" Hebrews 10:24
We should use our spiritual gifts to bless others: "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." 1 Peter 4:10
Notice all the "one another's" here? The ongoing ministry of the members to one another was one of the fundamental elements of church in the New Testament.
There are 58 "one another's" in the New Testament. Twenty one of these verses (the vast majority) command us to love one another. Four of them command us to encourage one another. Three of them command us to serve one another and two of them remind us to forgive one another. The rest speak of instructing one another, being patient and kind to one another, submitting to one another, singing to one another, or putting the needs of others above our own.
Taken all together, these "one another's" remind us that we are responsible for one another spiritually. Helping our brothers and sisters move towards greater Christ-likeness is dependent upon our active participation as contributing members of the Body of Christ.
This means we cannot do it alone. We need one another. And that also means that you are an important part of this process. You are necessary. You matter. We cannot grow as the Lord Jesus intends us to grow without your willing obedience to God's command to love, serve, and encourage your brothers and sisters in Christ.
My prayer has been that the Lord would help me to invest more of myself in the community of believers I find myself in today. Honestly, I've been holding back a little too much lately, and I know that I can only get out of the experience what I pour into it.
We are given as a gift to the Body and the Body is God's gift to us. Let us practice these "one another's" with all that is within us and trust Jesus to build His Church, just as He promised He would.
"But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be." (1 Corinthians 12:18)
"Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one another." (Ephesians 4:25)
-kg
However, in practice we quite often fall very short of that mark. Strangely, one of the areas where we stray from the clearly written instructions of the New Testament is the practice of gathering as a Church.
Hear me out.
If we read the letters of Paul, Peter and James we'll see what they considered to be essential for the life and growth of the Church. Therefore, there's no reason for us to do anything other than exactly what the Apostles say when it comes to gathering together. In fact, the very word for "church" in the New Testament is "ekklesia" which means "sent ones" or "a gathering together".
In other words, it should go without saying that if Paul were to enter one of our Church buildings today he should expect to see us participating in the ways that he and the other Apostles commanded.
Let's look at what the Apostles considered normative ekklesia:
“What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:26
According to this verse, Paul considers the following things to be essential to the health of every Church:
Coming together (“When you come together”)
Open participation (“Everyone”)
People-led worship (“Everyone has a hymn”)
People-led teaching (“Everyone has...a word of instruction”)
People exercising their spiritual gifts freely(“Everyone has...a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation”)
How do we know that Paul considers these activities to be important and essential? Because he tells us: “ALL of these MUST BE DONE for the STRENGTHENING of the Church.”
If we ask Paul's opinion about church growth, he would tell us that it's vital that every believe participate in the leading of worship, the teaching of God's Word, and the sharing of the gifts of the spirit. Do we care what Paul's opinion is on this subject? Is it up to us to just decide for ourselves to dismiss Paul's instruction as mere suggestion and go with what we prefer?
Notice also that Paul's concern is for the Church to be "strengthened". His priority is for the believers to grow deeper, not larger in number. It's quality, not quantity that he is concerned with here.
But this isn't the only place where we find the Apostle's instruction regarding the activities of the Church.
According to the New Testament:
We should confess our sins to one another and pray for one another when we gather together: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” James 5:16
We should instruct one another when we gather together: “I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another.” Romans 15:14
We should teach and admonish (gently correct and encourage) one another and sing together: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Colossians 3:16
We should comfort and build up one another: “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” 1 Thessalonians 5:11
We should urgently warn one another to follow Christ: “But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” Hebrews 3:13
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Hebrews 10:25
We should encourage good works in one another: "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works" Hebrews 10:24
We should use our spiritual gifts to bless others: "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." 1 Peter 4:10
Notice all the "one another's" here? The ongoing ministry of the members to one another was one of the fundamental elements of church in the New Testament.
There are 58 "one another's" in the New Testament. Twenty one of these verses (the vast majority) command us to love one another. Four of them command us to encourage one another. Three of them command us to serve one another and two of them remind us to forgive one another. The rest speak of instructing one another, being patient and kind to one another, submitting to one another, singing to one another, or putting the needs of others above our own.
Taken all together, these "one another's" remind us that we are responsible for one another spiritually. Helping our brothers and sisters move towards greater Christ-likeness is dependent upon our active participation as contributing members of the Body of Christ.
This means we cannot do it alone. We need one another. And that also means that you are an important part of this process. You are necessary. You matter. We cannot grow as the Lord Jesus intends us to grow without your willing obedience to God's command to love, serve, and encourage your brothers and sisters in Christ.
My prayer has been that the Lord would help me to invest more of myself in the community of believers I find myself in today. Honestly, I've been holding back a little too much lately, and I know that I can only get out of the experience what I pour into it.
We are given as a gift to the Body and the Body is God's gift to us. Let us practice these "one another's" with all that is within us and trust Jesus to build His Church, just as He promised He would.
"But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be." (1 Corinthians 12:18)
"Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one another." (Ephesians 4:25)
-kg
Friday, October 08, 2010
FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Part 2
"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” - (1 Timothy 5:17-18)
What is “double honor” referring to here? What if when Paul suggested that the elders among us are worthy of double honor he meant that we should honor them? If we read the entire passage in context, this would seem to be the case. After saying that they are worthy of “double honor” he goes on to say that accusations against elders shouldn’t be taken at face value but must be supported by two or three witnesses. This seems to imply that what is due the elders who teach is respect, or “double honor”.
The examples of the ox treading out grain and the worker deserving his wages is simply meant to support his original statement that, because they work to preach and teach their brothers and sisters in the church, we should reward them with double honor. How? Well, by not listening to rumors about them or entertaining false accusations against them for one thing.
If “double honor” is financial support, then when Paul commands us to “Honor one another above yourselves” (Romans 12:10) does this mean we should financially support everyone and that the elders should receive twice as much? Far from it.
If Paul meant to suggest that they should receive financial compensation, then why doesn’t he just come out and say so? He doesn’t give any guidelines for how much they should be paid, or how how often, etc. In light of the passage in 1 Corinthians 9 we’ve already examined, it would seem that Paul would be violently opposed to the idea of providing “a material harvest” to someone just for teaching the scriptures in love.
For this verse to be taken to mean that elders in the body are to be supported financially, we should find evidence elsewhere that this was ever practiced in the early Christian church and no such evidence exists. Even in the second century when Cyprian attempted to introduce the idea of tithing in the Church to support the overseers, no one supported the idea and it was rejected. What does this tell us? First of all, that it wasn’t the custom or practice of the early church to financially compensate the elders or overseers. If it were, why would Cyprian propose it as if it were a new idea? Secondly, we learn that the idea was so foreign and objectionable that no other church leader agreed with Cyprian’s idea. The church did not financially support their leaders. In fact, we know historically that the Church didn’t formally introduce tithing until the year 777 a.d. under Charlemagne.
“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules. The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops. Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.” - (2 Timothy 2:6)
This passage, taken in context, is using 3 different metaphors: A soldier, an athlete, and a farmer, to communicate 3 different principles to Timothy. First, that as a soldier of Christ, Timothy should not concern himself with the affairs of the world but instead should focus completely on obedience to Christ. Secondly, that as an athlete who runs the race to win it, he can only emerge victorious if he obeys the rules of the race. Third, Paul reminds Timothy that if he is faithful and obedient to Christ he will receive a share in the harvest that is to come. This is not a verse about financial support, as far as I can tell.
If you want further proof, beyond the New Testament accounts, I'd recommend looking at the Apology of Tertullian, a 2nd Century Church Father. As he attempts to explain what early Christians believe and practice regarding money he says:
“Even if there is a treasury of a sort, it is not made up of money paid in initiation fees, as if religion were a matter of contract. Every man once a month brings some modest contribution- or whatever he wishes, and only if he does wish, and if he can; for nobody is compelled; it is a voluntary offering...to feed the poor and to bury them, for boys and girls who lack property and parents, and then for slaves grown old..."
Once again, no mention of the offering being used to support elders or leaders within the local assembly of faith.
As I’ve already said, there is little historical or new testament evidence to support the idea that leaders within the Christian church were financially compensated. Apostles, missionaries and traveling church planters were offered support in the form of a place to sleep and food to eat and perhaps a care package to take with them on their journey to the next village. But the idea of financial support for those who teach and edify the local Body of believers is unknown in the new testament scriptures.
I understand that this is a hotly debated issue in the Body of Christ and so I leave room for others to believe differently about this than I do. I’m not against anyone who serves as a full time senior pastor or who takes a salary as a servant of a local church. I think it’s wonderful that these people have felt God’s calling on their life to serve others for the sake of Christ.
However, it is my personal conviction that everyone who follows Jesus is a member of the priesthood of all believers and that we are all ordained into the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. All of us are called by God to serve others, preach the Gospel and teach those who respond to follow Jesus daily. We should all rejoice that our true reward is the same as Paul’s:
“What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” (1 Corinthians 14:18)
-kg
What is “double honor” referring to here? What if when Paul suggested that the elders among us are worthy of double honor he meant that we should honor them? If we read the entire passage in context, this would seem to be the case. After saying that they are worthy of “double honor” he goes on to say that accusations against elders shouldn’t be taken at face value but must be supported by two or three witnesses. This seems to imply that what is due the elders who teach is respect, or “double honor”.
The examples of the ox treading out grain and the worker deserving his wages is simply meant to support his original statement that, because they work to preach and teach their brothers and sisters in the church, we should reward them with double honor. How? Well, by not listening to rumors about them or entertaining false accusations against them for one thing.
If “double honor” is financial support, then when Paul commands us to “Honor one another above yourselves” (Romans 12:10) does this mean we should financially support everyone and that the elders should receive twice as much? Far from it.
If Paul meant to suggest that they should receive financial compensation, then why doesn’t he just come out and say so? He doesn’t give any guidelines for how much they should be paid, or how how often, etc. In light of the passage in 1 Corinthians 9 we’ve already examined, it would seem that Paul would be violently opposed to the idea of providing “a material harvest” to someone just for teaching the scriptures in love.
For this verse to be taken to mean that elders in the body are to be supported financially, we should find evidence elsewhere that this was ever practiced in the early Christian church and no such evidence exists. Even in the second century when Cyprian attempted to introduce the idea of tithing in the Church to support the overseers, no one supported the idea and it was rejected. What does this tell us? First of all, that it wasn’t the custom or practice of the early church to financially compensate the elders or overseers. If it were, why would Cyprian propose it as if it were a new idea? Secondly, we learn that the idea was so foreign and objectionable that no other church leader agreed with Cyprian’s idea. The church did not financially support their leaders. In fact, we know historically that the Church didn’t formally introduce tithing until the year 777 a.d. under Charlemagne.
“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules. The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops. Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.” - (2 Timothy 2:6)
This passage, taken in context, is using 3 different metaphors: A soldier, an athlete, and a farmer, to communicate 3 different principles to Timothy. First, that as a soldier of Christ, Timothy should not concern himself with the affairs of the world but instead should focus completely on obedience to Christ. Secondly, that as an athlete who runs the race to win it, he can only emerge victorious if he obeys the rules of the race. Third, Paul reminds Timothy that if he is faithful and obedient to Christ he will receive a share in the harvest that is to come. This is not a verse about financial support, as far as I can tell.
If you want further proof, beyond the New Testament accounts, I'd recommend looking at the Apology of Tertullian, a 2nd Century Church Father. As he attempts to explain what early Christians believe and practice regarding money he says:
“Even if there is a treasury of a sort, it is not made up of money paid in initiation fees, as if religion were a matter of contract. Every man once a month brings some modest contribution- or whatever he wishes, and only if he does wish, and if he can; for nobody is compelled; it is a voluntary offering...to feed the poor and to bury them, for boys and girls who lack property and parents, and then for slaves grown old..."
Once again, no mention of the offering being used to support elders or leaders within the local assembly of faith.
As I’ve already said, there is little historical or new testament evidence to support the idea that leaders within the Christian church were financially compensated. Apostles, missionaries and traveling church planters were offered support in the form of a place to sleep and food to eat and perhaps a care package to take with them on their journey to the next village. But the idea of financial support for those who teach and edify the local Body of believers is unknown in the new testament scriptures.
I understand that this is a hotly debated issue in the Body of Christ and so I leave room for others to believe differently about this than I do. I’m not against anyone who serves as a full time senior pastor or who takes a salary as a servant of a local church. I think it’s wonderful that these people have felt God’s calling on their life to serve others for the sake of Christ.
However, it is my personal conviction that everyone who follows Jesus is a member of the priesthood of all believers and that we are all ordained into the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. All of us are called by God to serve others, preach the Gospel and teach those who respond to follow Jesus daily. We should all rejoice that our true reward is the same as Paul’s:
“What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” (1 Corinthians 14:18)
-kg
Thursday, October 07, 2010
FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Part 1
In the debate over whether or not pastors or church leaders should receive financial support for their service to the Church there are three main verses to look at.
In part one I will look at 1 Corinthians 9:7-18. In part two I will combine the verses found in the two epistles to Timothy in one article.
Comments are welcome, but please first take the time to read my entire article before you respond. Please also keep this conversation friendly and focused on the topic, not the author or the commenters.
Thanks,
-kg
**
FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - PART ONE
Before we can even begin to have this discussion it must be pointed out that there is no New Testament analog for our modern day senior pastor. The closest you can get to leadership in the New Testament church is a group of elders, or overseer, but not one single leader who handles all teaching, preaching, counseling, and administrative duties.
This fact makes it very difficult for us to effectively guess what the Apostles might have taught on the subject of whether these senior pastors should receive financial compensation. One might wonder if the Apostles would be even more concerned that one single person was leading the local church himself than whether or not that person should be compensated financially. But, I digress.
If we can attribute the function of the local senior pastor to the work done in the New Testament church by elders, then there might be grounds for arguing that a pastor in our modern day churches should be supported financially. That's more of what this article will attempt to discuss.
Let's begin by looking at 1 Corinthians 14 and what Paul has to say regarding whether or not Apostles should receive financial compensation for their work.
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?" - (1 Corinthians 9:7-12a)
If we stop right here, (and most do), it would seem that Paul believe quite strongly that those who minister in the Body of Christ should rightfully expect to “reap a material harvest”. However, let’s continue to read further and see where Paul is going with this argument before we make up our minds.
“But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
“But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” - (1 Corinthians 9:12b-18)
Here, Paul affirms that Jesus has commanded that those preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. This sounds pretty convincing for those who believe that pastors should be put on the payroll. But “those who preach the gospel” are evangelists, and like Paul and the other apostles, travel from town to town preaching to the lost and helping to establish churches. That's not what senior pastors do. They, like the elders and the overseers in the New Testament church, remain with the local assembly to provide ongoing spiritual guidance under the leadership of Christ.
Paul is not arguing that those who remain behind and who facilitate the regular gathering should be financially supported here in this passage. What’s more, he goes on to say, in the strongest words possible I might add, that “he would rather die” than to “hinder the gospel of Christ” and to offer his preaching of the gospel “free of charge.”
Does this really come across as a glowing endorsement for financially supporting those who preach the gospel to you? To me, taken all together in context, it would seem that Paul feels that it’s more than a little possible for such practice to “hinder the gospel of Christ.” This should give us pause, I believe.
I also believe it’s no small distinction to point out that travelling missionary evangelists like Paul and the other apostles are the only ones who have any right to material harvest, according to the New Testament. Historically, we know that this support was usually in the form of a place to sleep and food to eat for as long as they remained in the city preaching the gospel to the lost. It did not correlate to $50k a year and a housing allowance with medical and dental benefits.
In 2 Corinthians 11, verses 7-9 Paul reveals more of his attitude about receiving support from the Church:
"Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so."
Here Paul tells us that receiving support from another church in order to preach to the Corinthians was comparable to "robbery" in his mind. Suffice it to say, he didn't feel comfortable with doing it, but he did agree to this at least in this instance in order to devote himself to the service of the Believers in Corinth.
The Didache, written in the late first or early second century, was a collection of teachings used by the early Christian church to guide them in church matters. Here we find the following instruction:
“Let every Apostle, when he comes to you, be received as the Lord; but he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need, a second likewise; but if he abide three days, he is a false prophet. And when he departeth let the apostle receive nothing save bread, until he findeth shelter; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.” – (Didache 11:4-6)
So, clearly, there were those, even in the early Christian church, who desired to fleece the flock and the leaders of the church provided instruction on how to deal with them. Specifically, those who ask for money were considered to be false profits, which suggests also that Paul’s passionate example (in 1 Cor 9:12-18) had an impact on how the church supported those who were apostles.
Now, I'm not saying that our senior pastors are trying to fleece the flock. Most of them are humble servants of Christ who have responded to a genuine call on their life to encourage their brothers and sisters in Christ and teach them to obey the words of Jesus. Many of my dear friends are senior pastors and I have been an associate pastor myself who served alongside these men and have myself been supported financially by the church.
But that was before I felt God calling me to leave that model in favor of one where all of the offering from the church could go to help the poor in the community. I, like Paul, felt that it hindered the gospel, and my own walk with Christ, to participate in a system where the church spent most of the money received on herself and not on the poor and the broken around us.
In our next article we'll see what Paul has to say in his letters to Timothy regarding elders in the church and what compensation - if any - they are due.
-kg
In part one I will look at 1 Corinthians 9:7-18. In part two I will combine the verses found in the two epistles to Timothy in one article.
Comments are welcome, but please first take the time to read my entire article before you respond. Please also keep this conversation friendly and focused on the topic, not the author or the commenters.
Thanks,
-kg
**
FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - PART ONE
Before we can even begin to have this discussion it must be pointed out that there is no New Testament analog for our modern day senior pastor. The closest you can get to leadership in the New Testament church is a group of elders, or overseer, but not one single leader who handles all teaching, preaching, counseling, and administrative duties.
This fact makes it very difficult for us to effectively guess what the Apostles might have taught on the subject of whether these senior pastors should receive financial compensation. One might wonder if the Apostles would be even more concerned that one single person was leading the local church himself than whether or not that person should be compensated financially. But, I digress.
If we can attribute the function of the local senior pastor to the work done in the New Testament church by elders, then there might be grounds for arguing that a pastor in our modern day churches should be supported financially. That's more of what this article will attempt to discuss.
Let's begin by looking at 1 Corinthians 14 and what Paul has to say regarding whether or not Apostles should receive financial compensation for their work.
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?" - (1 Corinthians 9:7-12a)
If we stop right here, (and most do), it would seem that Paul believe quite strongly that those who minister in the Body of Christ should rightfully expect to “reap a material harvest”. However, let’s continue to read further and see where Paul is going with this argument before we make up our minds.
“But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
“But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” - (1 Corinthians 9:12b-18)
Here, Paul affirms that Jesus has commanded that those preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. This sounds pretty convincing for those who believe that pastors should be put on the payroll. But “those who preach the gospel” are evangelists, and like Paul and the other apostles, travel from town to town preaching to the lost and helping to establish churches. That's not what senior pastors do. They, like the elders and the overseers in the New Testament church, remain with the local assembly to provide ongoing spiritual guidance under the leadership of Christ.
Paul is not arguing that those who remain behind and who facilitate the regular gathering should be financially supported here in this passage. What’s more, he goes on to say, in the strongest words possible I might add, that “he would rather die” than to “hinder the gospel of Christ” and to offer his preaching of the gospel “free of charge.”
Does this really come across as a glowing endorsement for financially supporting those who preach the gospel to you? To me, taken all together in context, it would seem that Paul feels that it’s more than a little possible for such practice to “hinder the gospel of Christ.” This should give us pause, I believe.
I also believe it’s no small distinction to point out that travelling missionary evangelists like Paul and the other apostles are the only ones who have any right to material harvest, according to the New Testament. Historically, we know that this support was usually in the form of a place to sleep and food to eat for as long as they remained in the city preaching the gospel to the lost. It did not correlate to $50k a year and a housing allowance with medical and dental benefits.
In 2 Corinthians 11, verses 7-9 Paul reveals more of his attitude about receiving support from the Church:
"Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so."
Here Paul tells us that receiving support from another church in order to preach to the Corinthians was comparable to "robbery" in his mind. Suffice it to say, he didn't feel comfortable with doing it, but he did agree to this at least in this instance in order to devote himself to the service of the Believers in Corinth.
The Didache, written in the late first or early second century, was a collection of teachings used by the early Christian church to guide them in church matters. Here we find the following instruction:
“Let every Apostle, when he comes to you, be received as the Lord; but he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need, a second likewise; but if he abide three days, he is a false prophet. And when he departeth let the apostle receive nothing save bread, until he findeth shelter; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.” – (Didache 11:4-6)
So, clearly, there were those, even in the early Christian church, who desired to fleece the flock and the leaders of the church provided instruction on how to deal with them. Specifically, those who ask for money were considered to be false profits, which suggests also that Paul’s passionate example (in 1 Cor 9:12-18) had an impact on how the church supported those who were apostles.
Now, I'm not saying that our senior pastors are trying to fleece the flock. Most of them are humble servants of Christ who have responded to a genuine call on their life to encourage their brothers and sisters in Christ and teach them to obey the words of Jesus. Many of my dear friends are senior pastors and I have been an associate pastor myself who served alongside these men and have myself been supported financially by the church.
But that was before I felt God calling me to leave that model in favor of one where all of the offering from the church could go to help the poor in the community. I, like Paul, felt that it hindered the gospel, and my own walk with Christ, to participate in a system where the church spent most of the money received on herself and not on the poor and the broken around us.
In our next article we'll see what Paul has to say in his letters to Timothy regarding elders in the church and what compensation - if any - they are due.
-kg
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
TEACHING IN THE BODY OF CHRIST
My friend Tom Crisp and I have been engaged in a fascinating email discussion lately and I wanted to share some of what we’ve been talking about here to get more reactions and thoughts from you guys.
The conversation started when Tom observed that many in the Organic Church arena tend to read 1 Corinthians 14:26 as if it says that everyone can teach as opposed to the more American model where only one person stands up front and teaches everyone else.
Tom said that while Paul's Body metaphor suggests active participation in church meetings where all use their various gifts to minister to one another, it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is therefore a teacher.
He goes on to say, “I think Paul is better read in 14:26 as saying each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue OR an interpretation. He's not saying to the Corinthians that, when they meet, everyone has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue and an interpretation. He'd just finished saying in chapter 12 that different gifts are given to different members of the body for the common good, then in verse 29, he asks rhetorically, "All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? ... All do not speak with tongues , do they? All do not interpret , do they?" where the context strongly suggests the answer to those questions is 'no'. Thus his saying in chapter 14 that he wishes everyone spoke in tongues, but more so that all would prophecy, the implication being that not everyone had these gifts.
[Therefore] I'm inclined to read 14:26 as suggesting, then, that, when the Corinthians met, everyone contributed his/her gift to the meeting, but that only some contributed the gift of teaching.”
In response, I said that I totally agree with Tom’s assertion that not everyone in the Body is a teacher, or has the gift of prophecy, etc. No disagreement there. But, the more I thought I about it I realized that there was another way to look at the situation.
While the scriptures suggest that there are a variety of different spiritual gifts given to the Church and that not everyone has the same gifts, the Bible also tells us that all should be able to share their faith with unbelievers, for example. Dose this mean that everyone has the gift of evangelism? Of course not. But it does suggest that every believer is a member of the priesthood of believers. (see 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 5:10) Therefore, even if one does not have a specific gift to evangelize, or to pray for the sick, etc., it does not excuse that Christian from sharing their faith or praying for someone in need. In other words, in the Kingdom of God we are not allowed to say, “that’s not my job!” because we’re all members of the priesthood of believers.
Looking again at the passage:
"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church." – (1 Cor 14:26)
As I read this I wonder if teaching is really so central to Paul's concept of what is important when the Church gathers? As I read through his epistles I tend to come away with the idea that Paul has a greater concern that the people of God love one another and know the love of Jesus. It seems that Paul is much more concerned, at least to me, with edification and the "strengthening of the church" than he is with teaching. Especially when we read through the entire epistle of 1 Corinthians I think Paul leaves a stronger impression that he values "Love" and "Prophesying" over teaching.
“Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.” – (1 Cor 14:1)
Over in 1 Cor 14, in verse 31 Paul says; "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."
Doesn't this suggest that Paul does think that "all can prophesy" in the gathering? Or is that "can" more about having the freedom to do so, if not the ability or gifting?
Tom’s response to this is that Paul is speaking only to the prophets here and not to the entire church. This may be the case. (In fact, I think he’s correct.) But, again, the prophesying done here is by a group of people, not only one person, and the purpose is that “everyone may be instructed and encouraged.” This suggests, again, that the goal of the meeting is not only instruction but encouragement and it’s being accomplished through a participation of everyone in the Body – whether those prophesying or those teaching or singing, etc.
However, later on I realized that we were both taking an academic approach to this subject. If we were talking about a group of people who got together to discuss Trigonometry or to study the Chinese language, we would expect that they might require a teacher - an expert - to help them understand the material. But in the Church we are not only gathering for the purpose of understanding information. In fact, whenever two or more gather, the Author of the Book is in the room! The main character of the book is on site and available to explain Himself to us!
The Holy Spirit - the author of the Bible - is living within us. We are capable of reading the Word and asking Him to lead us and reveal the Truth to us. And He will!
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” – Jesus (John 16:13)
“If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” – James 1:5
“As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.” – 1 John 2:27
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." – Jesus (Matthew 18:20)
So, even if the people who have the "gift of teaching" are not present for one of our gatherings, it's still possible for everyone else in the room to read the Scriptures, and pray, and ask God for wisdom and insight. If they do this they should expect to receive revelation from God Himself through the Holy Spirit.
In this way, the Church is never without a teacher. She has been filled with the Spirit of God, and the head of the Church is in her midst. Jesus has promised that He is the Good Shepherd and that His sheep can hear His voice. (see John 10:14-16)
Again, this doesn't make everyone in the room a teacher, but everyone in the room does have access to hear The Teacher and share what they learn from Him. Therefore, it’s still possible for everyone in the Body to come together under the Headship of Christ and share the gifts they’ve received from the Holy Spirit and participate in the life of Jesus together.
What do you think?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
ORGAN CHURCH
"The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ." - 1 Corinthians 12:12
What's the most important organ in your body? Is it your heart? Or your lungs? Or you kidneys? Certainly you need all of them to stay alive, and if you took one away (your liver for example) the rest of the organs would be essentially useless because the body would die.
For a human body to function as it was designed to function, every part of the body must be present and healthy and operating at full capacity. Otherwise, the body grows weak and the health of the body is at risk.
In the Body of Christ, every member is essential for life. According to the scriptures, no part of the body is more important than another. They are all designed to work in harmony and for the benefit of one another, as directed by the brain - or the head - who is Christ.
In the Body of Christ we are called to elevate (or edify) one another, not ourselves, and not any one person or group of persons.
Because every part of the Body is essential, it's wrong to elevate one member above another in terms of importance. The only part of the body that should ever be exalted over another is Jesus and He is always at the top.
This doesn't mean that none of us in the body is important, it means all of us are important. Not just important, but essential, because we need one another to function as a healthy, living organism. However, we are all equally essential. None of us is more essential, or less essential. Only Christ is the Head. We are all only organs within the Body. Our purpose is to encourage one another and to hold the Head high.
Just as our physical bodies need every organ to work as designed, so too our churches need to be composed of equally essential members who are equipped to serve one another in love.
If we understand this concept, as Paul lays it out for us in 1 Corinthians 12, we begin to see how important it is for everyone in our fellowship to understand their spiritual gifting, and to participate when we gather, and to fully realize their potential in the Body of Christ. When everyone works as God designed them to, the Body is healthy and Christ is exalted as our Head.
Who is the head of your church? Is it one of your fellow organs? Or is it Jesus Himself?
In the Church that God designed, only Jesus is the head, and all of the members of the Church are gifted individually to serve and edify and encourage and teach and help one another in love. Your heart cannot pump blood and also do the work of the liver or the lungs. It can only do what it was designed to do. When only a few organs attempt to do all the work in the Body, the rest of the members suffer because they are not allowed to do what they were designed and gifted to do. The organs doing triple duty are also suffering because they are taking on more than their fair share of the work.
"But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body." - 1 Corinthians 12:18-20
If a body's organs aren't working as God intended, you have a sick body. If the church doesn't operate as an organism, with every member contributing to the health and well-being of others, it's not the Body of Christ. At least, not in the sense that Paul outlines in 1 Corinthians 12.
Some have argued that what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 12 is "descriptive" but not "prescriptive". To those people I would ask, "What is this passage descriptive of?" Is it not descriptive of what Paul understood to be God's model for how His Body should function? Is it not a description of how we can truly serve one another in love and humility? Is it not a description of a New Testament form of Church?
Whether or not you take Paul's instruction as prescriptive or not, I think you at least have to admit that he was describing how the Church was designed to operate and in what way we can actually function as a Body, with Christ as our Head.
-kg
"Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." - Romans 12:10
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." - Ephesians 5:21
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
MISSION HOUSE CHURCH UPDATE
Our house church was started about 5 years ago. My wife and I really felt God calling us to plant a church where 100% of the offerings would go to help the poor in our community. So, we stepped out in faith to obey Jesus in this vision. It wasn't easy. We lost a few friends along the way who didn't understand what we were doing, or why. But God was faithful. He brought many others to join us who shared this vision.
It's been very exciting, and encouraging, to know that God has brought so many to join us and to share in this simple vision to give all of our offering to bless the poor and help people we can touch and see and know and be in real relationship with.
I've learned a lot during this time. Especially about how to take my hands off of the wheel and allow Jesus to do what He promised - to build His church. In fact, the less I am in the way, the more Jesus takes control. He truly is the Head of the Church! He also is faithful to build His own church without my help.
Non-Denominational
We're not part of any denomination at all. The only church we're part of is Jesus' Church...because that's the only one anyway. In fact, we're all from wildly divergent streams within Christianity including Church of Christ, Baptist, Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, Pentecostal, Lutheran, etc. In spite of the fact that most of us disagree on many peripheral issues such as eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc., we love one another and consider one another to be family. Why? Because we've made a decision that the only criteria that matters is whether or not one loves Jesus and is following Him daily. If so, you're in the family. The rest doesn't really matter to us as much.
This means that not everyone agrees with me on everything. Most people don't share my views on every single point. We're not seeking agreement or homogenization. My goal is not to be part of a church family where everyone is just like me. (Can you think of anything more depressing?) No, our goal is to follow Jesus together and to encourage one another to seek Him and obey Him daily.
Missionaries
We believe that everyone who follows Jesus is a missionary. Your personal mission field will be different and unique. Your actual neighbors and co-workers are the people you're called to love and serve. Our hope is to encourage one another to discover our mission and to continue to work daily in our misson field by the grace of God.
Sending Out/Multiplication
One family recently felt called to leave and move to Indiana. They're praying that God might breathe life into a Church in their home soon. However, they are not part of my network....because I don't have a network. They're part of whatever God might be doing in His Kingdom, so that's enough for me to support them and pray for them. But, I don't expect them to answer to me in any way. I know that this brother will follow Jesus and that if a house church is formed in their household it will be exactly what God wants, not necessarily what I might want. That's the way it should be.
Also, another man recently felt God calling him to start a house church in his home with another family, locally. He still joins us on Thursday evenings, but on Sunday's he is gathering with a new church in his home. Still, they do not answer to me, nor do they follow any patterns established here in our house church. We do love them and pray for them and support what God is doing through them, but they are not part of my network. I am not their pastor, or their leader, etc. Just a brother who loves them and supports them and encourages them to follow Jesus.
So, neither of these house church groups are called "The Mission", (I'm not sure either will ever have any name at all, actually), and they do not consider me their leader. I am not their Pope or their Father. I did not plant these churches. Jesus has, or will, as He directs. I'm only one of the many brothers in the Body of Christ who love them and support them and encourage them in their efforts to obey Jesus.
New Chapter
Just a few weeks ago, the very week after we said goodbye to these brothers and sisters who left us to follow Jesus elsewhere, the Lord brought another wonderful family to join us. We're not sure if they will stay with us, but we're hoping they might decide to call this home.
I have no idea what the next five years might look like, but I'm excited to find out what God has in store.
As I've often said, this is still the best thing I've ever done with the word "Church" on it.
Our house church website is:
MISSIONHOUSECHURCH.COM
I also put together a website to help local believers find or start their own house church at OCHOUSECHURCH.COM
-kg
It's been very exciting, and encouraging, to know that God has brought so many to join us and to share in this simple vision to give all of our offering to bless the poor and help people we can touch and see and know and be in real relationship with.
I've learned a lot during this time. Especially about how to take my hands off of the wheel and allow Jesus to do what He promised - to build His church. In fact, the less I am in the way, the more Jesus takes control. He truly is the Head of the Church! He also is faithful to build His own church without my help.
Non-Denominational
We're not part of any denomination at all. The only church we're part of is Jesus' Church...because that's the only one anyway. In fact, we're all from wildly divergent streams within Christianity including Church of Christ, Baptist, Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, Pentecostal, Lutheran, etc. In spite of the fact that most of us disagree on many peripheral issues such as eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc., we love one another and consider one another to be family. Why? Because we've made a decision that the only criteria that matters is whether or not one loves Jesus and is following Him daily. If so, you're in the family. The rest doesn't really matter to us as much.
This means that not everyone agrees with me on everything. Most people don't share my views on every single point. We're not seeking agreement or homogenization. My goal is not to be part of a church family where everyone is just like me. (Can you think of anything more depressing?) No, our goal is to follow Jesus together and to encourage one another to seek Him and obey Him daily.
Missionaries
We believe that everyone who follows Jesus is a missionary. Your personal mission field will be different and unique. Your actual neighbors and co-workers are the people you're called to love and serve. Our hope is to encourage one another to discover our mission and to continue to work daily in our misson field by the grace of God.
Sending Out/Multiplication
One family recently felt called to leave and move to Indiana. They're praying that God might breathe life into a Church in their home soon. However, they are not part of my network....because I don't have a network. They're part of whatever God might be doing in His Kingdom, so that's enough for me to support them and pray for them. But, I don't expect them to answer to me in any way. I know that this brother will follow Jesus and that if a house church is formed in their household it will be exactly what God wants, not necessarily what I might want. That's the way it should be.
Also, another man recently felt God calling him to start a house church in his home with another family, locally. He still joins us on Thursday evenings, but on Sunday's he is gathering with a new church in his home. Still, they do not answer to me, nor do they follow any patterns established here in our house church. We do love them and pray for them and support what God is doing through them, but they are not part of my network. I am not their pastor, or their leader, etc. Just a brother who loves them and supports them and encourages them to follow Jesus.
So, neither of these house church groups are called "The Mission", (I'm not sure either will ever have any name at all, actually), and they do not consider me their leader. I am not their Pope or their Father. I did not plant these churches. Jesus has, or will, as He directs. I'm only one of the many brothers in the Body of Christ who love them and support them and encourage them in their efforts to obey Jesus.
New Chapter
Just a few weeks ago, the very week after we said goodbye to these brothers and sisters who left us to follow Jesus elsewhere, the Lord brought another wonderful family to join us. We're not sure if they will stay with us, but we're hoping they might decide to call this home.
I have no idea what the next five years might look like, but I'm excited to find out what God has in store.
As I've often said, this is still the best thing I've ever done with the word "Church" on it.
Our house church website is:
MISSIONHOUSECHURCH.COM
I also put together a website to help local believers find or start their own house church at OCHOUSECHURCH.COM
-kg
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
REVIEW: A Church Building Every Half Mile by Jon Zens
Jon Zens is a gift to the modern Church. Much like A.W.Tozer a generation ago, Zens writes thought-provoking and intelligent books to stir the Body of Christ and awaken Her from slumber.
In "A Church Building Every Half Mile", Zens employs practical, down-to-earth New Testament scholarship to examine the modern day Church in light of Biblical ecclesiology. He lingers especially on the plight of the modern pastor in this book, bringing a sympathetic voice to the discussion rather than an accusatory tone. If anything, the reader comes away with a genuine sense of Zens's sincere concern for the mental, emotional and spiritual health of the clergy. One does not in any way read condemnation into his observations, rather, Zens makes it clear that those hurt most by the Pastor-centric model of Church are the pastors themselves.
This spare, yet potent book also takes a good, honest look at how our traditions, (which are not found in the New Testament), are so hotly defended while the elements of God's ecclesia (which are found in the New Testament) are summarily dismissed by the modern Church as being "descriptive not prescriptive".
What Zens does here is provide an elegant, common sense apologetic for the New Testament model of ecclesia, in a clear and informed study of scripture. This book holds up a mirror to the Bride of Christ, and even though she may not like what she sees, it's very important for Her to take a good, hard look and answer questions of form, function, fruit and open fellowship in light of the commands of Jesus and the example of the New Testament church founded by Christ and promoted by His Apostles.
I cannot recommend this book enough for those who are seeking to learn more about the simple, organic form of New Testament ecclesia.
More than simply asking, "What's wrong with the Church?", Jon Zens asks us to consider what it might look like to put things right again.
"A Church Every Half Mile" by Jon Zens is available online at www.jonzens.com or at Amazon.com.
-kg
**
FULL DISCLOSURE: Jon Zens sent me the review copy of this book at no charge and without any stated or implied expectation of receiving a positive review in exchange. I receive no monetary return on the sale of Jon's books or materials and I have received no compensation of any kind in exchange for this review. These are my own opinions and convictions, independent of my interaction with the author.
-Keith Giles
In "A Church Building Every Half Mile", Zens employs practical, down-to-earth New Testament scholarship to examine the modern day Church in light of Biblical ecclesiology. He lingers especially on the plight of the modern pastor in this book, bringing a sympathetic voice to the discussion rather than an accusatory tone. If anything, the reader comes away with a genuine sense of Zens's sincere concern for the mental, emotional and spiritual health of the clergy. One does not in any way read condemnation into his observations, rather, Zens makes it clear that those hurt most by the Pastor-centric model of Church are the pastors themselves.
This spare, yet potent book also takes a good, honest look at how our traditions, (which are not found in the New Testament), are so hotly defended while the elements of God's ecclesia (which are found in the New Testament) are summarily dismissed by the modern Church as being "descriptive not prescriptive".
What Zens does here is provide an elegant, common sense apologetic for the New Testament model of ecclesia, in a clear and informed study of scripture. This book holds up a mirror to the Bride of Christ, and even though she may not like what she sees, it's very important for Her to take a good, hard look and answer questions of form, function, fruit and open fellowship in light of the commands of Jesus and the example of the New Testament church founded by Christ and promoted by His Apostles.
I cannot recommend this book enough for those who are seeking to learn more about the simple, organic form of New Testament ecclesia.
More than simply asking, "What's wrong with the Church?", Jon Zens asks us to consider what it might look like to put things right again.
"A Church Every Half Mile" by Jon Zens is available online at www.jonzens.com or at Amazon.com.
-kg
**
FULL DISCLOSURE: Jon Zens sent me the review copy of this book at no charge and without any stated or implied expectation of receiving a positive review in exchange. I receive no monetary return on the sale of Jon's books or materials and I have received no compensation of any kind in exchange for this review. These are my own opinions and convictions, independent of my interaction with the author.
-Keith Giles
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Not Perfection, Just Obedience
I had a wonderful lunch meeting today with my friend Jim Belcher. Jim's book, "Deep Church" is the number one book on Amazon.com right now in the religion section. His book is an attempt to find a middle ground for the traditional and emerging christian church to dialog in civil tones.
Jim himself is an ambassador, and an embodiment, of such an idea. I met him a few months ago when he interviewed me and visited our house church family while he was writing his book. That first meeting at Starbucks (which he recounts briefly in his book) came at a time when I was at odds with some brothers in Christ who would not sit down with me and make peace. Here was Jim, a total stranger to me, and not only did he sit down and have coffee with me, he openly, and lovingly, disagreed with me on matters of ecclesiology. When we were done I had made a new friend and discovered a new brother in Christ after spending over an hour disagreeing on the very same issues that divided me with other men of faith.
The difference was that Jim honestly believed that he and I were brothers in Christ in spite of our differences on the practice of church. It was refreshing beyond belief to hear him say, "We may disagree on ecclesiology but we still serve the same Lord. We're still Family." I must confess I nearly burst into spontaneous tears when he said that.
Today over lunch Jim and I met again. He handed me an autographed copy of his book and, once more, we shared as brothers and rejoiced over the (mostly) peaceful dialog that God was creating through his book and the ideas represented. Although I haven't read the book I'm sure there are some things I agree with, and probably a handful of other things I disagree with, but that doesn't change the fact that Jim and I are still family. I love him as a brother and I left today's lunch meeting feeling that Jim felt the same.
Driving home after work I couldn't help but think further about the different ideas of church that Jim and I have. I'm in the process of putting the final touches on my own book about the church. In it, I am sure that there are many ideas that Jim would agree with, and probably more than a few ideas that he might disagree with. Still, there's room for open dialog and honest disagreement between member of the Family of God. Jim has wonderfully demonstrated this to me and this inspires me to do the same as I look towards the inevitable backlash my book might create.
One final thought: Our ecclesiology doesn't make us better people. One look at the New Testament will proove this. You can have the most New Testament model church since the one in Jerusalem and you will still have weak, foolish, selfish, broken people who need to be constantly immersed in the presence of Christ and daily in need of forgiveness and grace.
What our ecclesiology can do is to help us to be more like what Jesus intended His Church to embody- a family where He is the Lord, a body where He is he Head, and a temple where He is the center of everything.
At minimum we who are called by His name are commanded to be known by our love.
My hope is that God will continue to show us, especially me, how to love in truth and not just in word or tongue, especially when it comes to the household of faith.
Peace,
Keith
Jim himself is an ambassador, and an embodiment, of such an idea. I met him a few months ago when he interviewed me and visited our house church family while he was writing his book. That first meeting at Starbucks (which he recounts briefly in his book) came at a time when I was at odds with some brothers in Christ who would not sit down with me and make peace. Here was Jim, a total stranger to me, and not only did he sit down and have coffee with me, he openly, and lovingly, disagreed with me on matters of ecclesiology. When we were done I had made a new friend and discovered a new brother in Christ after spending over an hour disagreeing on the very same issues that divided me with other men of faith.
The difference was that Jim honestly believed that he and I were brothers in Christ in spite of our differences on the practice of church. It was refreshing beyond belief to hear him say, "We may disagree on ecclesiology but we still serve the same Lord. We're still Family." I must confess I nearly burst into spontaneous tears when he said that.
Today over lunch Jim and I met again. He handed me an autographed copy of his book and, once more, we shared as brothers and rejoiced over the (mostly) peaceful dialog that God was creating through his book and the ideas represented. Although I haven't read the book I'm sure there are some things I agree with, and probably a handful of other things I disagree with, but that doesn't change the fact that Jim and I are still family. I love him as a brother and I left today's lunch meeting feeling that Jim felt the same.
Driving home after work I couldn't help but think further about the different ideas of church that Jim and I have. I'm in the process of putting the final touches on my own book about the church. In it, I am sure that there are many ideas that Jim would agree with, and probably more than a few ideas that he might disagree with. Still, there's room for open dialog and honest disagreement between member of the Family of God. Jim has wonderfully demonstrated this to me and this inspires me to do the same as I look towards the inevitable backlash my book might create.
One final thought: Our ecclesiology doesn't make us better people. One look at the New Testament will proove this. You can have the most New Testament model church since the one in Jerusalem and you will still have weak, foolish, selfish, broken people who need to be constantly immersed in the presence of Christ and daily in need of forgiveness and grace.
What our ecclesiology can do is to help us to be more like what Jesus intended His Church to embody- a family where He is the Lord, a body where He is he Head, and a temple where He is the center of everything.
At minimum we who are called by His name are commanded to be known by our love.
My hope is that God will continue to show us, especially me, how to love in truth and not just in word or tongue, especially when it comes to the household of faith.
Peace,
Keith
Friday, July 24, 2009
FOUR UNBIBLICAL MODELS FOR CHURCH
"And he (Jesus) said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" - Mark 7:9
Regardless of the fact that our New Testament never reveals anything close to the form of Church we practice today, the majority of Christians in America embrace traditions of men rather than follow the Biblical model.
James Rutz, in his book "Megashift" outlines four non-Biblical models for the modern Church:
The Harvard Model - Where the professor is the preacher, the lectern is the pulpit, and the students are parishioners. Trouble is, they can sit and take notes for forty years, but they'll never graduate, never get a degree, and never ever become professors themselves.
The Hollywood Model- With its stage, entertainers, polished performances, costumed singers, applauding audiences, etc. All the church needs is popcorn.
The IBM Model - Where a board of directors runs everything from the top down, where permission to do things is denied or granted by the CEO (Pastor) and committees, where finances are the overriding factor behind policies, and where the institution competes with other churches for market share.
The Wal-Mart Model- Where aisles and aisles of tempting merchandise offer something for everybody. Seeker-sensitive mega-churches, with their array of 100+ programs, mirror beautifully the "consumer heaven" ideal of Wal-Mart."
Why is it that Christians will adopt the pattern of anything under the sun when it comes to the Church except the New Testament model?
The modern Church loves the fruit of such models. They hold up the church in Acts as the model for every Christian believer, and yet they refuse to even seriously consider practicing their faith in such a way.
Why is that? Is it because we are afraid of truly embracing the Priesthood of the Believer where every baptized believer is empowered to build up the Body and receive direction from the Holy Spirit?
Is it because we want a system where paid professionals can take responsibility off of our shoulders?
Is it because we don't want to seem "weird" to the rest of the world?
I'm sure there are a variety of reasons why we refuse to embrace the New Testament model, but the bottom line is, we love and trust our traditions more than we love and trust the Word of God.
We take the words of the Apostle Paul more seriously when it comes to head coverings and women leadership than we do when it comes to instructions on gathering to worship and glorify God in the assembly. Even though the number of chapters regarding the practice of our faith and God's design for His Church vastly outnumbers the handful of verses regarding the other debated topics, we cannot seem to take these verses seriously.
When we first left to start our house church there were those who told us, with a straight face, that what we were doing wasn't Biblical. Others claim that the New Testament is silent regarding how the Church should gather and worship. Neither claim could be more laughably untrue.
There are 58 "one anothers" in the New Testamnent. These verses instruct the Body to love, teach, train, equip, correct, admonish, restore, encouarge and share with one another. The New Testament was written to the Body. It wasn't written to Pastors or Leaders, but to encourage and strengthen the Body and to remind the Body "to build one another up in love".
We are the Church. We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
If there's any model we should be following it should come from the New Testament, not the corporate structures and systems of this World.
"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." - Jesus (Mark 7:13)
**
-kg
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Re-Empowering God's People
Over the last few months I have been personally challenged by the study of the New Testament in regards to who we are as the Body of Christ and the Priesthood of Believers.
According to the New Testament, the Body of Christ was empowered to minister to one another by the Holy Spirit. Every baptized believer in Christ was "in the ministry" and capable of planting a church, baptizing new believers, and teaching the Gospel.
Today, only trained professionals with seminary degrees are allowed, or expected, to start churches, baptize new believers, teach the Gospel or minister to the Body.
By complicating the message and placing obstacles in the way, the average follower of Christ today is not empowered to actually behave like a member of the priesthood of believers, nor are they expected to.
A few weeks ago I attended an evening service where a well-known travelling preacher exhorted us all to be more active in sharing our faith. He told us why it was important. He made us feel inadequate for failing to be more evangelistic. He prayed for us to become more active in our faith. But what he didn’t do was to affirm our identity as priests in the Kingdom of God. It was insanity: To berate us all for not behaving as members of the priesthood while denying the priesthood every step of the way.
For us to fully become the people God made us to be, we have to understand who we were made to be. For us to be the New Testament church, we have to embrace our identity as living stones, living sacrifices, and priests of the Kingdom.
Most of us really have no idea what it really means to be one of the priesthood of believers. We’ve never heard it taught, or preached and certainly we’ve never seen it modeled for us.
Lately I’ve been trying to really practice the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The reality that God is as much with me, even within me, as He is when I am in the act of corporate worship or prayer is powerful. God is here with me now. His Spirit is alive within me. His voice is whispering to my heart. His power to love and heal and forgive and transform lives is as close as my own fingertip. What does that mean? How does that affect my interactions with my co-workers, my neighbors, my children, my wife?
I fear that the Church today has largely forgotten who she is. We do not live daily in the awareness of God’s empowering presence. We do not think of ourselves as priests. We do not behave as if our lives are living sacrifices to Christ. I include myself in this group, by the way. I know I need to fully grasp who I am in Christ and to start living every single day with a greater awareness of my identity.
I believe it is vitally important for us to become the empowered Body of believers who behave as a Spirit-enabled priesthood.
According to Revelation, our identity in the priesthood of believers is part of what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross:
"You (Jesus) are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth." - Revelations 5:9-10
From now on I intend to center my life on the practice of the presence, the reality of the priesthood and the daily, living sacrifice of my life to Christ. After calling myself a Christian for nearly 34 years, I think it’s about time.
**
kg
According to the New Testament, the Body of Christ was empowered to minister to one another by the Holy Spirit. Every baptized believer in Christ was "in the ministry" and capable of planting a church, baptizing new believers, and teaching the Gospel.
Today, only trained professionals with seminary degrees are allowed, or expected, to start churches, baptize new believers, teach the Gospel or minister to the Body.
By complicating the message and placing obstacles in the way, the average follower of Christ today is not empowered to actually behave like a member of the priesthood of believers, nor are they expected to.
A few weeks ago I attended an evening service where a well-known travelling preacher exhorted us all to be more active in sharing our faith. He told us why it was important. He made us feel inadequate for failing to be more evangelistic. He prayed for us to become more active in our faith. But what he didn’t do was to affirm our identity as priests in the Kingdom of God. It was insanity: To berate us all for not behaving as members of the priesthood while denying the priesthood every step of the way.
For us to fully become the people God made us to be, we have to understand who we were made to be. For us to be the New Testament church, we have to embrace our identity as living stones, living sacrifices, and priests of the Kingdom.
Most of us really have no idea what it really means to be one of the priesthood of believers. We’ve never heard it taught, or preached and certainly we’ve never seen it modeled for us.
Lately I’ve been trying to really practice the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The reality that God is as much with me, even within me, as He is when I am in the act of corporate worship or prayer is powerful. God is here with me now. His Spirit is alive within me. His voice is whispering to my heart. His power to love and heal and forgive and transform lives is as close as my own fingertip. What does that mean? How does that affect my interactions with my co-workers, my neighbors, my children, my wife?
I fear that the Church today has largely forgotten who she is. We do not live daily in the awareness of God’s empowering presence. We do not think of ourselves as priests. We do not behave as if our lives are living sacrifices to Christ. I include myself in this group, by the way. I know I need to fully grasp who I am in Christ and to start living every single day with a greater awareness of my identity.
I believe it is vitally important for us to become the empowered Body of believers who behave as a Spirit-enabled priesthood.
According to Revelation, our identity in the priesthood of believers is part of what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross:
"You (Jesus) are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth." - Revelations 5:9-10
From now on I intend to center my life on the practice of the presence, the reality of the priesthood and the daily, living sacrifice of my life to Christ. After calling myself a Christian for nearly 34 years, I think it’s about time.
**
kg
Monday, June 22, 2009
My Letter to the Editors of Cutting Edge Magazine
As a former member of the Vineyard movement I am still on the mailing list for their church-planters magazine called "Cutting Ege". The most recent issue was 22 pages long and was entirely on the subject of "Church Planting and Money".
Having planted a church myself over 3 and a half years ago with no money, no leadership team, no building and no salary, I found their assertion that one must have a sizable financial investment to begin planting churches slightly spurious.
Here's a letter I sent to their editor on May 30th. To date I have not received a response so it's highly likely that I am no longer on their mailing list.
**
Dear Editor,
Thanks for the most recent issue of "Cutting Edge" Magazine.
As a church-planter myself I had to make a few observations that I believe you left out of the discussion.
Several church-planters today (like myself) have discovered that planting and growing a healthy, vibrant, disciple-making Body of Believers actually costs very little, if nothing at all.
My wife Wendy and I started our house church over 3 years ago. Our vision was to plant a church where 100% of the offering would go to the poor, just like in the New Testament. I have been working as a copywriter for a marketing agency to support my family and everyone in our house church (over 6 families and several singles) have collectively given over $15 thousand dollars to help the poor in our community and support the poor in our own Body over the last 3 years.
Our church is growing very quickly. We have about 40 people who join us in our home every Sunday morning for shared breakfast and shared teaching. We also gather on Thursday evenings for shared dinner and througout the week as well.
Your article suggests that it is a "false dualism" to pit spiritual matters against earthly matters. I wonder if it it's actually a "false ecclesiology" that tells us that without $10k and a paid pastoral staff, etc. we cannot be the Church and establish vibrant communities of faith.
How did the New Testament Christians manage to plant so many churches and make so many hundreds of thousands of disciples without all that money? I find it fascinating that they actually took their property and their money and surrendered it for the good of others rather than to horde it for themselves.
Today the downturn in the economy is adversely affecting many businesses, as you point out, but if your church is not run like a business it's amazing how the downturn has zero affect. We are free to continue giving and to plant more churches regardless of the economy.
Our house church does not pass the basket. It sits on a table in the corner of the room and only twice a year do we ever mention the offering-- and then only to read a list of ways we have used this money to help the poor in our community and within our own Body.
Even though I never make a big deal about the offering, people are giving with great joy because they know that every single penny they place in the basket will be given away to people in need. They are truly, honestly "Hilarious givers"!
We, the Body of Christ, are never referred to in the NT as anything other than a Body, a Family, a Bride and an Organism. We, the Church, are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. We do not need to build temples in order to fulfill our calling to embody Christ as living stones.
Does it really cost all that money to plant a church? Only if you abandon the New Testament model and embrace a business model.
Thanks, again, for this issue of Cutting Edge. I really do appreciate the great work you (and your staff) put into this labor of love each and every issue. Please take my comments as an alternate perspective on the subject of planting churches and money.
In Him,
Keith Giles
Mission House Church
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Myth of the Pastoral Epistles
Search it up on Wikipedia.org and you'll find a brief entry about how 1 and 2 Timothy and the book of Titus (and sometimes Philemon) are referred to as the Pastoral Epistles of Paul the Apostle.
Nevermind that these are not written to Pastors.
Nevermind that Timothy is, like Paul, a travelling missionary and church-planting evangelist.
Nevermind that Titus is also not a pastor but has been "left behind in Crete" to help establish a church community there before he moves on to plant other churches elsewhere.
Nevermind that Philemon isn't anything other than a slave-owner who needs encouragment from Paul regarding treatment of said slave.
Nevermind that both of the epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus deal primarily with the character of elders (plural) within the church community.
Nevermind that the word "Pastor" does not appear in any of these so-called "Pastoral Epistles".
Nevermind that the word "Pastor" only appears once in the entire New Testament.
As long as you can overlook all of these minor details, you should have no problem referring to these as the Pastoral Epistles of Paul.
-kg
Nevermind that these are not written to Pastors.
Nevermind that Timothy is, like Paul, a travelling missionary and church-planting evangelist.
Nevermind that Titus is also not a pastor but has been "left behind in Crete" to help establish a church community there before he moves on to plant other churches elsewhere.
Nevermind that Philemon isn't anything other than a slave-owner who needs encouragment from Paul regarding treatment of said slave.
Nevermind that both of the epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus deal primarily with the character of elders (plural) within the church community.
Nevermind that the word "Pastor" does not appear in any of these so-called "Pastoral Epistles".
Nevermind that the word "Pastor" only appears once in the entire New Testament.
As long as you can overlook all of these minor details, you should have no problem referring to these as the Pastoral Epistles of Paul.
-kg
Monday, June 15, 2009
JON ZENS - SATURDAY, JULY 11TH
JON ZENS - SATURDAY, JULY 11TH
Author and theologian Jon Zens will be coming to Orange County to speak to the local Orange County house churches on Saturday, July 11th from 9am to 12pm.
(LOCATION TO BE ANNOUNCED)
Event is Free. Must RSVP to attend. Please send an email to register or to get more info to:
ochousechurch@gmail.com
About Jon Zens
Dr. Zens has a wide-ranging theological background. He holds a B.A. in Biblical studies from Covenant College, a M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, and a D.Min. from the California Graduate School of Theology.
Zens' groundbreaking articles in the late 1970s, "Is There a 'Covenant of Grace'?" and "Crucial Thoughts on 'Law' in the New Covenant," were highly instrumental in developing what came to be called "New Covenant Theology."
For the last thirty years, Jon has been the editor of a magazine entitled Searching Together. He's not only a NT scholar, but he's an expert on church history. Jon also served as a pastor for a number of years, but moved on after concluding that full reformation within the existing institutional church system was unworkable.
Also, for the past thirty years he and his wife, Dotty, have been ministering in small fellowships concerning living under grace and learning to extend grace to others.
If you'd like to read more about Jon Zens I've included a link to an excellent debate between Jon and Ben Worthington on hierarchy in the New Testament church
HERE
More details on this as we get closer to the date.
Blessings,
Keith
Author and theologian Jon Zens will be coming to Orange County to speak to the local Orange County house churches on Saturday, July 11th from 9am to 12pm.
(LOCATION TO BE ANNOUNCED)
Event is Free. Must RSVP to attend. Please send an email to register or to get more info to:
ochousechurch@gmail.com
About Jon Zens
Dr. Zens has a wide-ranging theological background. He holds a B.A. in Biblical studies from Covenant College, a M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, and a D.Min. from the California Graduate School of Theology.
Zens' groundbreaking articles in the late 1970s, "Is There a 'Covenant of Grace'?" and "Crucial Thoughts on 'Law' in the New Covenant," were highly instrumental in developing what came to be called "New Covenant Theology."
For the last thirty years, Jon has been the editor of a magazine entitled Searching Together. He's not only a NT scholar, but he's an expert on church history. Jon also served as a pastor for a number of years, but moved on after concluding that full reformation within the existing institutional church system was unworkable.
Also, for the past thirty years he and his wife, Dotty, have been ministering in small fellowships concerning living under grace and learning to extend grace to others.
If you'd like to read more about Jon Zens I've included a link to an excellent debate between Jon and Ben Worthington on hierarchy in the New Testament church
HERE
More details on this as we get closer to the date.
Blessings,
Keith
Sunday, June 07, 2009
A WALK ON THE KETCHERSIDE
W.C. Ketcherside's amazing book, "The Royal Priesthood" was written over 50 years ago, yet it packs an incredible punch today.
Just reading from the first chapter today and wanted to share this:
"The early church gathered around a table; the modern church sits before a pulpit.
The Lord placed the table in the church so it could remember its debt to him; the clergy placed the pulpit in the church to bring it into debt to them.
In the early church they all spoke one by one; today all the speaking is done by one.
Then the Spirit was kindled; now it is quenched.
Then they claimed to love each other and talked about Jesus; now they claim to love Jesus and talk about each other.
In those days all exerted an effort to exhort; now all must be exhorted to exert any effort.
The primitive disciples did not ask the world to come and get the gospel, they took it to them. They gathered to eat the Lord's Supper, then scattered to preach the Word.
Wherever there was a Christian and a sinner, there was a gospel meeting."
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE BOOK FOR FREE
HERE
Just reading from the first chapter today and wanted to share this:
"The early church gathered around a table; the modern church sits before a pulpit.
The Lord placed the table in the church so it could remember its debt to him; the clergy placed the pulpit in the church to bring it into debt to them.
In the early church they all spoke one by one; today all the speaking is done by one.
Then the Spirit was kindled; now it is quenched.
Then they claimed to love each other and talked about Jesus; now they claim to love Jesus and talk about each other.
In those days all exerted an effort to exhort; now all must be exhorted to exert any effort.
The primitive disciples did not ask the world to come and get the gospel, they took it to them. They gathered to eat the Lord's Supper, then scattered to preach the Word.
Wherever there was a Christian and a sinner, there was a gospel meeting."
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE BOOK FOR FREE
HERE
Saturday, June 06, 2009
INTERVIEW: DR. G.K. BEALE (Part 1)
G.K. BEALE – “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”
(Part 1)
Dr. Beale is Professor of New Testament, Biblical Theological Studies at Wheaton College. He is also the author of an amazing book called “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”.
As I’ve been researching the New Testament Church a friend recommended the book and it has proven to be a goldmine of great insight for me.
I was honored to have Dr. Beale agree to a phone interview a few months ago. Here is part one of a transcript of that conversation.
Keith: What is the main thesis of your book and what lead you to write about this subject?
Dr. Beale: The motivation was really from a commentary I wrote on the Greek text of Revelations for the New International Greek Testament Commentary series. As I was near the end of finishing the book I was looking at the last vision from the book of Revelation and as I finished studying that section I saw that John said, “I saw the new heavens and the new earth and the old heavens and earth have passed away and were no more and there was no more any sea” and the rest of the vision doesn’t appear to talk about a new creation. It speaks of what’s envisioned as a city in the shape of the Holy of Holies that is garden-like.
The way to simply solve this is that John sees this vision of the new heavens and the new earth and then he focuses in on a particular location which is the New Jerusalem, or the city itself, shaped like the Holy of Holies that is garden-like. That’s one possible understanding. But, in fact, from a number of considerations exegetically from chapters 21 and 22 of Revelation it is apparent that the reason John doesn’t go on to describe the undulating valleys and rivers is because in fact he is equating the new heavens and the new earth with the City, the new Jerusalem.
So, then the question arises once we are convinced of that, is “Why is that?” I mean, it’s very odd. You can maybe picture a Star Trek episode where they find a planet that is square and is garden-like but it’s a very weird picture. So, in the commentary I actually had a two page explanation of what I thought was going on. Of course, part of the solution is to see that the Garden of Eden was a temple of God’s presence and Adam was the first priest and he should have faithfully spread the boundaries of God’s presence until the Garden covered the entire earth. Of course, that immediately answers the question of why the new heavens and the new earth is equated with a garden (in Revelation). Because now Eden has now finally become co-equal with the New Heavens and the New Earth.
In terms of the city, the book traces the idea that the expansion of the end-times temple, prophetically, reveals that the Holy of Holies is first to expand to cover the city, then the land of Israel and then the whole world. So, the idea is that at some point the Temple and the City become one.
At any rate, the book is a 450 page expansion of that first two-page excursis. It just felt to me like an important enough topic to warrant further study and illumination.
Keith: As you began to go through the Old Testament prophecies concerning the End Times Temple you started to connect all these same dots. You point out that God refers to the Temple as being a garden, a temple, and a mountain almost interchangeably.
Dr.Beale: For example, the reason that many haven’t seen that Eden is a temple is that the word isn’t used (in Genesis) to describe it. But, one wants to be careful of making the word/concept confusion. Certainly the Bible, for example talks about the concept of new creation without using the actual phrase “new creation”. It talks about eschatology without using the phrase “latter days” or “end times”. It’s the same with the Temple. You can go too far the other way and just be too wild and just claim the concept is there even though the concept, in reality, isn’t there. You have to be very careful.
Keith: Right. How did you avoid this pitfall?
Dr. Beale: One of the ways was to trace these various themes, in this case the Temple, to demonstrate that Eden is a sanctuary of God, hence a Temple, and then begin to see how the Old Testament itself literarily develops by allusion the references to Eden and the Temple. From the Patriarchs to the Sanctuary to the Temple in Israel, as well as the Tabernacle before the Temple, and on into the New Testament and Revelation. There are a lot of what I call intertextual trails and trajectories that can actually be traced literarily. I think that’s one of the areas that much more work in Biblical Theology can be done. It’s not just tracing concepts and themes, because that can get very subjective, but you can begin to see how themes trace literarily and textually. I’ve just written another book using this same method called, “We Become Like What We Worship” which is subtitled “A Biblical Theology in Idolatry”.
So, at any rate, that’s basically what I did in my book.
Keith: Let me ask you, especially with current events today, it’s nothing really new but ever since I’ve been alive there have been waves of End Times extremism. Books like “The Late, Great Planet Earth” and films like “Thief in the Night” and more recently, “The Left Behind Series”, tend to take a very unique view on the rapture and the return of Christ. My whole life I’ve been told how to read scripture and understand the End Times prophecies and story. Especially today as we look at Israel and Gaza and turmoil in the Middle East, what are we to believe? Taking into account the things you’ve studied, is it true that any day now we should expect to see the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem in order to fulfill the prophetic, end times prophecies?
Dr. Beale: I think that, first of all, there are two main groups of Christians in the United States, speaking very generally. One group is very pro-Israeli, basing their stance on the notion that what happened in 1948 with the creation of the Jewish nation is the beginning of the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel and that it will be climaxed in the dispensational scenario with the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple and so on.
The other group of Christians would be very much against that and would attempt to argue from the Bible, in some cases well, that there is really no legitimacy for what Israel is doing. I can understand that from the perspective that Israel has all the armament and the Arabs have none, and that sort of thing.
So, I think those are two extreme views. Now, in terms of attempting to support Israel because what’s happening now is the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the restoration of Israel and waiting for the temple to be rebuilt I just don’t think scripture supports that. So, I wouldn’t support any political, pro-Israeli position on the basis of what the Bible says. I think Israel was not faithful and disobeyed and I think God raised up a true Israel. I think that Jesus is true Israel, which he is actually in Isaiah 49:3, “You’re my servant Israel,” it’s one of the servant songs which is developed most famously in Isaiah 53. But Jesus is actually called “Israel” and is actually referenced in Luke 1:2 and Acts 13. Isaiah 49:8 is referenced in 2 Corinthians 6:2 and following as either applying to Christ, or even more intriguingly to Paul and the rest of the church as being identified as true Israel, being a light to the nations. When the New Testament says that Jesus is the seed of Abraham this is another way of saying that Jesus is true Israel in Galatians 3.
I can go on if you want me to, but the point is that Jesus is true Israel, he is the apple of God’s eye, not any particular ethnic nation including Israel in the land. So, the promises as 2 Corinthians chapter 1 says, “as many as may be the promises of God, (the eschatological promises), are yes in Him.” They’re inaugurated, but not consummated, in Jesus. He’s the locus, not any particular ethnic nation.
Keith: Can I just interject that to me, one of the most powerful verses along those lines is where Jesus talks about how God could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones of the ground and that the true son of Abraham is the one who does the will of the Father. It doesn’t matter then if you are born of Abraham’s seed physically, ethnically, or not.
Dr. Beale: Right. I mean, Jesus brothers and sisters and mother are outside calling for him and he says, “Who is my mother and my brother and my sister except those who do the will of God?” Romans chapter 2 says that the true Jews were the ones who were circumcised spiritually and not physically and has in mind even Gentiles there.
For myself, I think that Jesus is the true Israel, and what that means actually is that you have prophecies of the restoration of Israel that are applied to Jesus and the Church. The Dispensationalists just take these as analogies, but in fact I think it’s more probable that these are beginning fulfillments. So the restoration of Israel began, not in 1948, but in Jesus and His Church, and I think this can be demonstrated exegetically.
So, I do believe that whatever we’re seeing in the Nation of Israel today is part of God’s plan. It’s part of His decretive plan. If a bird falls from heaven it doesn’t fall apart from God, but the bird isn’t prophesied to fall from heaven. So, likewise I think that what’s going on in the middle east today and in Israel isn’t prophesied but it’s part of God’s plan but it’s the wrong direction to go.
With regard to the Temple, again, (and I think I might use this illustration in the book), but it reminds me of when I was doing doctoral studies in Cambridge and I had a picture of the girl I ended up marrying on the desk. I would get her letters from back home in the States and I might have hugged and kissed her picture, who knows, I don’t remember. But certainly I looked endearingly at it. But now that we’ve been married thirty years if I were to spend every evening in our den continuing to stare at her picture when she is right there in the room then there is something wrong. She’d probably call our pastor to come over and counsel me.
The point is, the substance is here with my wife. I no longer need the picture. Christ is the true Israel. He is the true Temple. So, to look longingly at the picture of a physical temple is to make the same mistake. The substance is here. In fact, Hebrews chapter 9 uses the word parable, in verses 8 and 9, to refer to the physical Temple. The physical, Old Testament Temple is not the literal Temple, it’s the illustrative Temple. The Temple that Jesus has begun to establish is called the “True Temple”. So, to look at the picture is not to see the substance that is already here. I think to expect something in the future is to try to put the progress of redemptive history into reverse while you’re going seventy miles an hour.
Keith: That sounds like it could be very dangerous. (laughs) Now that I begin to see these things in a different light it makes me stop and question so much of what I have been told to expect in terms of signs and prophetic expectation. I believe that Christ will return but now the signs and the conditions of that return seem to be up in the air.
Dr. Beale: That’s why he says he’s coming like a thief. Yet I think there are some signs but I don’t think we’ll know definitively until after he comes. So, we should always be alert.
Keith: Right.
Dr. Beale: I, like you, believe that there is a final, personal coming of Christ. I think that there’s going to be a final, actual, literal anti-Christ, but I think that anti-Christ is also already here. All the prophecies of the Old Testament have begun fulfillment but not consummated.
Keith: I think I agree because the danger is when we read something like Revelation or other eschatological books or prophetic verses and, I believe they’re written, almost on purpose if you will, in a cryptic way. That it’s not so much for the purpose of allowing us to predict what’s going to happen in advance, but that it’s more so for the benefit of those who are living at the time when it is being fulfilled to say, “Oh, this is what’s happening now,” or even after the fact to look and see that God knew it would happen and He told us it was going to happen and we have the benefit of hindsight, if you will. He’s enlightened us by His Word but, I believe, more to comfort those who are enduring persecution and living through these end times events, and less for us to plan the next hundred years, or to anticipate what will happen in advance.
Dr. Beale: Fulfillment always fleshes out the details of prophecy so there are always some surprises just as there was with Christ’s first coming. There’s no doubt that God does prophesy and He does so specifically. Mathew 2 says that Micah 5 prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and He was, and so forth. So, Isaiah 53 is a direct verbal prophesy, so you do have specific prophecies but there are always surprises because that’s the nature of fulfillment. Fulfillment always fleshes out the details.
Keith: I agree. The best example of that is the Messiah. There were very strong opinions based on Biblical evidence that the Messiah will do this and say that. So, people being so dogmatic about what the Messiah must do and how he must come and they’re standing an inch away from Him and they don’t recognize Him. So, I think we can also be in danger of being so sure of ourselves that “this absolutely must mean that” and we could miss what God’s really doing because it doesn’t fit what we’ve decided it is supposed to look like.
Dr. Beale: Right.
(END OF PART ONE)
(Part 1)
Dr. Beale is Professor of New Testament, Biblical Theological Studies at Wheaton College. He is also the author of an amazing book called “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”.
As I’ve been researching the New Testament Church a friend recommended the book and it has proven to be a goldmine of great insight for me.
I was honored to have Dr. Beale agree to a phone interview a few months ago. Here is part one of a transcript of that conversation.
Keith: What is the main thesis of your book and what lead you to write about this subject?
Dr. Beale: The motivation was really from a commentary I wrote on the Greek text of Revelations for the New International Greek Testament Commentary series. As I was near the end of finishing the book I was looking at the last vision from the book of Revelation and as I finished studying that section I saw that John said, “I saw the new heavens and the new earth and the old heavens and earth have passed away and were no more and there was no more any sea” and the rest of the vision doesn’t appear to talk about a new creation. It speaks of what’s envisioned as a city in the shape of the Holy of Holies that is garden-like.
The way to simply solve this is that John sees this vision of the new heavens and the new earth and then he focuses in on a particular location which is the New Jerusalem, or the city itself, shaped like the Holy of Holies that is garden-like. That’s one possible understanding. But, in fact, from a number of considerations exegetically from chapters 21 and 22 of Revelation it is apparent that the reason John doesn’t go on to describe the undulating valleys and rivers is because in fact he is equating the new heavens and the new earth with the City, the new Jerusalem.
So, then the question arises once we are convinced of that, is “Why is that?” I mean, it’s very odd. You can maybe picture a Star Trek episode where they find a planet that is square and is garden-like but it’s a very weird picture. So, in the commentary I actually had a two page explanation of what I thought was going on. Of course, part of the solution is to see that the Garden of Eden was a temple of God’s presence and Adam was the first priest and he should have faithfully spread the boundaries of God’s presence until the Garden covered the entire earth. Of course, that immediately answers the question of why the new heavens and the new earth is equated with a garden (in Revelation). Because now Eden has now finally become co-equal with the New Heavens and the New Earth.
In terms of the city, the book traces the idea that the expansion of the end-times temple, prophetically, reveals that the Holy of Holies is first to expand to cover the city, then the land of Israel and then the whole world. So, the idea is that at some point the Temple and the City become one.
At any rate, the book is a 450 page expansion of that first two-page excursis. It just felt to me like an important enough topic to warrant further study and illumination.
Keith: As you began to go through the Old Testament prophecies concerning the End Times Temple you started to connect all these same dots. You point out that God refers to the Temple as being a garden, a temple, and a mountain almost interchangeably.
Dr.Beale: For example, the reason that many haven’t seen that Eden is a temple is that the word isn’t used (in Genesis) to describe it. But, one wants to be careful of making the word/concept confusion. Certainly the Bible, for example talks about the concept of new creation without using the actual phrase “new creation”. It talks about eschatology without using the phrase “latter days” or “end times”. It’s the same with the Temple. You can go too far the other way and just be too wild and just claim the concept is there even though the concept, in reality, isn’t there. You have to be very careful.
Keith: Right. How did you avoid this pitfall?
Dr. Beale: One of the ways was to trace these various themes, in this case the Temple, to demonstrate that Eden is a sanctuary of God, hence a Temple, and then begin to see how the Old Testament itself literarily develops by allusion the references to Eden and the Temple. From the Patriarchs to the Sanctuary to the Temple in Israel, as well as the Tabernacle before the Temple, and on into the New Testament and Revelation. There are a lot of what I call intertextual trails and trajectories that can actually be traced literarily. I think that’s one of the areas that much more work in Biblical Theology can be done. It’s not just tracing concepts and themes, because that can get very subjective, but you can begin to see how themes trace literarily and textually. I’ve just written another book using this same method called, “We Become Like What We Worship” which is subtitled “A Biblical Theology in Idolatry”.
So, at any rate, that’s basically what I did in my book.
Keith: Let me ask you, especially with current events today, it’s nothing really new but ever since I’ve been alive there have been waves of End Times extremism. Books like “The Late, Great Planet Earth” and films like “Thief in the Night” and more recently, “The Left Behind Series”, tend to take a very unique view on the rapture and the return of Christ. My whole life I’ve been told how to read scripture and understand the End Times prophecies and story. Especially today as we look at Israel and Gaza and turmoil in the Middle East, what are we to believe? Taking into account the things you’ve studied, is it true that any day now we should expect to see the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem in order to fulfill the prophetic, end times prophecies?
Dr. Beale: I think that, first of all, there are two main groups of Christians in the United States, speaking very generally. One group is very pro-Israeli, basing their stance on the notion that what happened in 1948 with the creation of the Jewish nation is the beginning of the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel and that it will be climaxed in the dispensational scenario with the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple and so on.
The other group of Christians would be very much against that and would attempt to argue from the Bible, in some cases well, that there is really no legitimacy for what Israel is doing. I can understand that from the perspective that Israel has all the armament and the Arabs have none, and that sort of thing.
So, I think those are two extreme views. Now, in terms of attempting to support Israel because what’s happening now is the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the restoration of Israel and waiting for the temple to be rebuilt I just don’t think scripture supports that. So, I wouldn’t support any political, pro-Israeli position on the basis of what the Bible says. I think Israel was not faithful and disobeyed and I think God raised up a true Israel. I think that Jesus is true Israel, which he is actually in Isaiah 49:3, “You’re my servant Israel,” it’s one of the servant songs which is developed most famously in Isaiah 53. But Jesus is actually called “Israel” and is actually referenced in Luke 1:2 and Acts 13. Isaiah 49:8 is referenced in 2 Corinthians 6:2 and following as either applying to Christ, or even more intriguingly to Paul and the rest of the church as being identified as true Israel, being a light to the nations. When the New Testament says that Jesus is the seed of Abraham this is another way of saying that Jesus is true Israel in Galatians 3.
I can go on if you want me to, but the point is that Jesus is true Israel, he is the apple of God’s eye, not any particular ethnic nation including Israel in the land. So, the promises as 2 Corinthians chapter 1 says, “as many as may be the promises of God, (the eschatological promises), are yes in Him.” They’re inaugurated, but not consummated, in Jesus. He’s the locus, not any particular ethnic nation.
Keith: Can I just interject that to me, one of the most powerful verses along those lines is where Jesus talks about how God could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones of the ground and that the true son of Abraham is the one who does the will of the Father. It doesn’t matter then if you are born of Abraham’s seed physically, ethnically, or not.
Dr. Beale: Right. I mean, Jesus brothers and sisters and mother are outside calling for him and he says, “Who is my mother and my brother and my sister except those who do the will of God?” Romans chapter 2 says that the true Jews were the ones who were circumcised spiritually and not physically and has in mind even Gentiles there.
For myself, I think that Jesus is the true Israel, and what that means actually is that you have prophecies of the restoration of Israel that are applied to Jesus and the Church. The Dispensationalists just take these as analogies, but in fact I think it’s more probable that these are beginning fulfillments. So the restoration of Israel began, not in 1948, but in Jesus and His Church, and I think this can be demonstrated exegetically.
So, I do believe that whatever we’re seeing in the Nation of Israel today is part of God’s plan. It’s part of His decretive plan. If a bird falls from heaven it doesn’t fall apart from God, but the bird isn’t prophesied to fall from heaven. So, likewise I think that what’s going on in the middle east today and in Israel isn’t prophesied but it’s part of God’s plan but it’s the wrong direction to go.
With regard to the Temple, again, (and I think I might use this illustration in the book), but it reminds me of when I was doing doctoral studies in Cambridge and I had a picture of the girl I ended up marrying on the desk. I would get her letters from back home in the States and I might have hugged and kissed her picture, who knows, I don’t remember. But certainly I looked endearingly at it. But now that we’ve been married thirty years if I were to spend every evening in our den continuing to stare at her picture when she is right there in the room then there is something wrong. She’d probably call our pastor to come over and counsel me.
The point is, the substance is here with my wife. I no longer need the picture. Christ is the true Israel. He is the true Temple. So, to look longingly at the picture of a physical temple is to make the same mistake. The substance is here. In fact, Hebrews chapter 9 uses the word parable, in verses 8 and 9, to refer to the physical Temple. The physical, Old Testament Temple is not the literal Temple, it’s the illustrative Temple. The Temple that Jesus has begun to establish is called the “True Temple”. So, to look at the picture is not to see the substance that is already here. I think to expect something in the future is to try to put the progress of redemptive history into reverse while you’re going seventy miles an hour.
Keith: That sounds like it could be very dangerous. (laughs) Now that I begin to see these things in a different light it makes me stop and question so much of what I have been told to expect in terms of signs and prophetic expectation. I believe that Christ will return but now the signs and the conditions of that return seem to be up in the air.
Dr. Beale: That’s why he says he’s coming like a thief. Yet I think there are some signs but I don’t think we’ll know definitively until after he comes. So, we should always be alert.
Keith: Right.
Dr. Beale: I, like you, believe that there is a final, personal coming of Christ. I think that there’s going to be a final, actual, literal anti-Christ, but I think that anti-Christ is also already here. All the prophecies of the Old Testament have begun fulfillment but not consummated.
Keith: I think I agree because the danger is when we read something like Revelation or other eschatological books or prophetic verses and, I believe they’re written, almost on purpose if you will, in a cryptic way. That it’s not so much for the purpose of allowing us to predict what’s going to happen in advance, but that it’s more so for the benefit of those who are living at the time when it is being fulfilled to say, “Oh, this is what’s happening now,” or even after the fact to look and see that God knew it would happen and He told us it was going to happen and we have the benefit of hindsight, if you will. He’s enlightened us by His Word but, I believe, more to comfort those who are enduring persecution and living through these end times events, and less for us to plan the next hundred years, or to anticipate what will happen in advance.
Dr. Beale: Fulfillment always fleshes out the details of prophecy so there are always some surprises just as there was with Christ’s first coming. There’s no doubt that God does prophesy and He does so specifically. Mathew 2 says that Micah 5 prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and He was, and so forth. So, Isaiah 53 is a direct verbal prophesy, so you do have specific prophecies but there are always surprises because that’s the nature of fulfillment. Fulfillment always fleshes out the details.
Keith: I agree. The best example of that is the Messiah. There were very strong opinions based on Biblical evidence that the Messiah will do this and say that. So, people being so dogmatic about what the Messiah must do and how he must come and they’re standing an inch away from Him and they don’t recognize Him. So, I think we can also be in danger of being so sure of ourselves that “this absolutely must mean that” and we could miss what God’s really doing because it doesn’t fit what we’ve decided it is supposed to look like.
Dr. Beale: Right.
(END OF PART ONE)
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
CAN WE IMPROVE ON JESUS?
As someone who writes marketing copy for a large technology company I'm familiar with big business strategies and the rules of marketing. I've attended seminars and workshops and sat through corporate sponsored tutorials on image, branding, messaging and the ABC's of marketing based on how humans behave, how they react, and what they respond to.
At the end of the day it's all about manipulation.
Of course, as I've read and studied and discussed these concepts on a professional level, it's easy to see how someone in the church business might want to take adavantage of these ideas in order to attract more attendees on Sunday morning and put more butts in the seats. Why not? If we know that people today like this or prefer that or expect X, then what's wrong with giving them what they want so that we can achieve what we're shooting for?
Perhaps because, as I have already mentioned, it's really all about manipulation. Perhaps it's also because utilizing these methods blurs the actual, intended purpose of the Church itself?
Jesus did not command us to gather large crowds of people. Good Marketing can help you attract and keep a crowd, but that's not what being a Christian, or following Jesus, is all about.
I ran across a quote today from Janet Schijns of Motorola. At a recent conference for Data Capture and Point of Sale (DC/POS) vendors and resellers she said, "You cannot achieve tomorrow's results with yesterday's methods." From a business perspective this makes sense. Things change and in order to continue to remain profitable it's necessary to keep up with the changing trends and latch onto the most cutting edge technologies available. This works for big biz, but does it work in the Church?
Well, for one thing success in the world of big business is about selling things. It's not about making friends or loving people or serving others or coming alongside the poor or the lonely or the broken. It's not about teaching people how to follow Jesus. Big business defines success as making money, and lots of it, as fast as possible and at the expense of the business down the street from you.
Success in the big business world is about competition. It's about growing your profits. It's about money.
Sadly, the Christian Church in America has decided that success for them is also about competition with the church down the street and about growing larger and making more money. But, if we scan the New Testament we can plainly see that this isn't what Jesus had in mind for His Church.
The major disconnect is that the Church was never meant to be run like a business. The Church, according to the New Testament, is a relational army of servants who give and share and love those around them. It is a family, a bride, an organism and a body. It is a living, breathing, loving, giving, serving representation of Jesus on this Earth.
Was Jesus concerned with competition? Did he affirm his disciples when they chased away someone who was healing in his name, or did he rebuke them for that behavior?
Was Jesus concerned with money? Or did he celebrate both the widow's mite and the harlot's extravagant alabaster expression of love?
Was Jesus concerned with attracting large crowds? Or did he do his best to thin the crowds? Did he retreat to the mountains to be alone? Did he guard his time with his disciples and pour his life into a few?
The quote from Motorola's executive may work for big business, but in the Church if we abandon the example of Jesus and the patterns of the early church in favor of a more business-savvy approach we are in effect improving on Jesus. Is that even possible? Can we improve Jesus?
As a contrast to the quote above let me suggest that if we really hope to enjoy the fruit that the original christians experienced in the book of Acts we must plant and water and nurture as they did. I would suggest that if we want what they had we will have to do what they did.
Let me respectfully suggest an alternate take on this quote for the church: "You cannot achieve yesterday's results with today's methods."
Instead I see pastors beating their heads against the wall trying this method or that program to achieve the community and the discipleship and the passion for Christ that they see in the book of Acts. They continually attempt to get what the Acts Christians had without trying to do what they did.
I call this BBQ Waffles because it's like trying to duplicate someone's waffle recipe by reading and following the advice of gourmet BBQ chefs.
Big business executives know how to make money and increase profits and beat the competition. They do not know how to teach people to love or to serve or to give or to share and they most especially do not know how to teach people how to follow Jesus in their everyday life.
-kg
At the end of the day it's all about manipulation.
Of course, as I've read and studied and discussed these concepts on a professional level, it's easy to see how someone in the church business might want to take adavantage of these ideas in order to attract more attendees on Sunday morning and put more butts in the seats. Why not? If we know that people today like this or prefer that or expect X, then what's wrong with giving them what they want so that we can achieve what we're shooting for?
Perhaps because, as I have already mentioned, it's really all about manipulation. Perhaps it's also because utilizing these methods blurs the actual, intended purpose of the Church itself?
Jesus did not command us to gather large crowds of people. Good Marketing can help you attract and keep a crowd, but that's not what being a Christian, or following Jesus, is all about.
I ran across a quote today from Janet Schijns of Motorola. At a recent conference for Data Capture and Point of Sale (DC/POS) vendors and resellers she said, "You cannot achieve tomorrow's results with yesterday's methods." From a business perspective this makes sense. Things change and in order to continue to remain profitable it's necessary to keep up with the changing trends and latch onto the most cutting edge technologies available. This works for big biz, but does it work in the Church?
Well, for one thing success in the world of big business is about selling things. It's not about making friends or loving people or serving others or coming alongside the poor or the lonely or the broken. It's not about teaching people how to follow Jesus. Big business defines success as making money, and lots of it, as fast as possible and at the expense of the business down the street from you.
Success in the big business world is about competition. It's about growing your profits. It's about money.
Sadly, the Christian Church in America has decided that success for them is also about competition with the church down the street and about growing larger and making more money. But, if we scan the New Testament we can plainly see that this isn't what Jesus had in mind for His Church.
The major disconnect is that the Church was never meant to be run like a business. The Church, according to the New Testament, is a relational army of servants who give and share and love those around them. It is a family, a bride, an organism and a body. It is a living, breathing, loving, giving, serving representation of Jesus on this Earth.
Was Jesus concerned with competition? Did he affirm his disciples when they chased away someone who was healing in his name, or did he rebuke them for that behavior?
Was Jesus concerned with money? Or did he celebrate both the widow's mite and the harlot's extravagant alabaster expression of love?
Was Jesus concerned with attracting large crowds? Or did he do his best to thin the crowds? Did he retreat to the mountains to be alone? Did he guard his time with his disciples and pour his life into a few?
The quote from Motorola's executive may work for big business, but in the Church if we abandon the example of Jesus and the patterns of the early church in favor of a more business-savvy approach we are in effect improving on Jesus. Is that even possible? Can we improve Jesus?
As a contrast to the quote above let me suggest that if we really hope to enjoy the fruit that the original christians experienced in the book of Acts we must plant and water and nurture as they did. I would suggest that if we want what they had we will have to do what they did.
Let me respectfully suggest an alternate take on this quote for the church: "You cannot achieve yesterday's results with today's methods."
Instead I see pastors beating their heads against the wall trying this method or that program to achieve the community and the discipleship and the passion for Christ that they see in the book of Acts. They continually attempt to get what the Acts Christians had without trying to do what they did.
I call this BBQ Waffles because it's like trying to duplicate someone's waffle recipe by reading and following the advice of gourmet BBQ chefs.
Big business executives know how to make money and increase profits and beat the competition. They do not know how to teach people to love or to serve or to give or to share and they most especially do not know how to teach people how to follow Jesus in their everyday life.
-kg
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH
The New Testament church did not collect money to be spent on salaries, programs, buildings or itself.
The New Testament church was primarily concerned with making disciples and caring for the poor, the orphan and the widow.
The New Testament church did not elect a separate “clergy class” to perform special religious duties, instead everyone was “in the ministry” by default.
The New Testament church did not attempt to follow an old testament code of worship.
The New Testament church affirmed the priesthood of the believer and allowed every member to share, participate and take an active part in the regular functioning of the church itself- including baptism, sharing communion, preaching the Gospel and making disciples.
The New Testament church did not keep a bank account, instead it gave away all the funds laid at the Apostles feet in order to plant churches and care for those in need- both within and without the church body.
The New Testament church leaders were humble servants who waited on tables, washed feet, served others, laid hands on the sick, encouraged the persecuted and understood that true greatness was found at the feet of men, rather than at the top of the ladder.
The New Testament church did not segregate the body based on age, sex, race, music preference, ethnic background, or any other criteria. Everyone who named the name of Christ, regardless of age, sex or race, was immediately a fully functional and valued member of the Body of Christ.
The New Testament church did not verbally, politically or physically oppose the oppressive Roman government or pagan religions of the day. Instead they simply lived extravagant lives of love among their neighbors and served anyone in their path as Jesus commanded.
The New Testament church was not in favor of violence, nor did it participate in armed conflict, not even in self-defense. Instead, the early followers of Jesus quietly imitated their Lord and gave up their property, submitted to prison and went to their deaths peacefully.
The New Testament church allowed every member, male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile, to preach the Gospel, plant churches, teach the Word, and lead worship every single day.
The New Testament church had no one single location where “Church” was located. Worship was not seen as something that happened in a particular location or on a particular day or with the assistance of particular people. Instead, worship was seen as a life continually submitted to Christ as a living sacrifice for the good of others, to the glory of God.
The New Testament church understood the Gospel of the Kingdom to be about God’s Kingdom (rule and reign) being released in the heart of every follower of Jesus, not something that would come one day after the death of the saints or the return of Christ.
The New Testament church did not consider the work of the Holy Spirit to be weird or strange. Instead they accepted the moving of the Holy Spirit within the Body as the natural and continual ministry of Jesus being released in the Body to heal, teach, instruct, correct, rebuke, inspire, encourage and empower the people of God to carry the Gospel of the Kingdom and live a life of love for others.
The New Testament church was always being taught to love one another and to imitate the love of Christ and to humbly serve others as Jesus did. They were not concerned in any way with amassing wealth, getting healed, gaining status in the community, becoming politically powerful, being respected, changing laws, picketing the funerals of homosexuals, speaking out against pagan practices, or selling products with their church name, cross, or scripture verse attached.
The New Testament church did not have a name.
The New Testament church did not brand itself.
The New Testament church did not provide a salary or ongoing stipend to those within the Body who acted as Elders, Teachers, Pastors or Facilitators. The people who performed these functions within the Body did so out of love and were only compensated by the Holy Spirit with joy.
The New Testament church did not have a Bible, or even a copy of the entire Old Testament, yet this Body managed to preserve the teachings of Jesus, the doctrines of the faith, the creeds and Gospel of the Kingdom with only the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit to guide them.
The New Testament church did not market itself or the Gospel. Instead the original followers of Jesus concentrated on loving as Jesus loved, giving and sharing as Jesus did, and concerned itself with the welfare of others in need; both inside and outside the Body.
Anyone else in favor of a return to a more New Testament form of church besides me?
-kg
The New Testament church was primarily concerned with making disciples and caring for the poor, the orphan and the widow.
The New Testament church did not elect a separate “clergy class” to perform special religious duties, instead everyone was “in the ministry” by default.
The New Testament church did not attempt to follow an old testament code of worship.
The New Testament church affirmed the priesthood of the believer and allowed every member to share, participate and take an active part in the regular functioning of the church itself- including baptism, sharing communion, preaching the Gospel and making disciples.
The New Testament church did not keep a bank account, instead it gave away all the funds laid at the Apostles feet in order to plant churches and care for those in need- both within and without the church body.
The New Testament church leaders were humble servants who waited on tables, washed feet, served others, laid hands on the sick, encouraged the persecuted and understood that true greatness was found at the feet of men, rather than at the top of the ladder.
The New Testament church did not segregate the body based on age, sex, race, music preference, ethnic background, or any other criteria. Everyone who named the name of Christ, regardless of age, sex or race, was immediately a fully functional and valued member of the Body of Christ.
The New Testament church did not verbally, politically or physically oppose the oppressive Roman government or pagan religions of the day. Instead they simply lived extravagant lives of love among their neighbors and served anyone in their path as Jesus commanded.
The New Testament church was not in favor of violence, nor did it participate in armed conflict, not even in self-defense. Instead, the early followers of Jesus quietly imitated their Lord and gave up their property, submitted to prison and went to their deaths peacefully.
The New Testament church allowed every member, male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile, to preach the Gospel, plant churches, teach the Word, and lead worship every single day.
The New Testament church had no one single location where “Church” was located. Worship was not seen as something that happened in a particular location or on a particular day or with the assistance of particular people. Instead, worship was seen as a life continually submitted to Christ as a living sacrifice for the good of others, to the glory of God.
The New Testament church understood the Gospel of the Kingdom to be about God’s Kingdom (rule and reign) being released in the heart of every follower of Jesus, not something that would come one day after the death of the saints or the return of Christ.
The New Testament church did not consider the work of the Holy Spirit to be weird or strange. Instead they accepted the moving of the Holy Spirit within the Body as the natural and continual ministry of Jesus being released in the Body to heal, teach, instruct, correct, rebuke, inspire, encourage and empower the people of God to carry the Gospel of the Kingdom and live a life of love for others.
The New Testament church was always being taught to love one another and to imitate the love of Christ and to humbly serve others as Jesus did. They were not concerned in any way with amassing wealth, getting healed, gaining status in the community, becoming politically powerful, being respected, changing laws, picketing the funerals of homosexuals, speaking out against pagan practices, or selling products with their church name, cross, or scripture verse attached.
The New Testament church did not have a name.
The New Testament church did not brand itself.
The New Testament church did not provide a salary or ongoing stipend to those within the Body who acted as Elders, Teachers, Pastors or Facilitators. The people who performed these functions within the Body did so out of love and were only compensated by the Holy Spirit with joy.
The New Testament church did not have a Bible, or even a copy of the entire Old Testament, yet this Body managed to preserve the teachings of Jesus, the doctrines of the faith, the creeds and Gospel of the Kingdom with only the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit to guide them.
The New Testament church did not market itself or the Gospel. Instead the original followers of Jesus concentrated on loving as Jesus loved, giving and sharing as Jesus did, and concerned itself with the welfare of others in need; both inside and outside the Body.
Anyone else in favor of a return to a more New Testament form of church besides me?
-kg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)