Luther on Making Decisions for the Church
Previously, I’ve written a couple of posts concerning Luther’s “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service.” (See “Luther and the Church” and “Luther and the non-Christian ‘worship service’.”)
In this short essay, Luther describes three types of “divine services.” The first two – in Latin and German respectively – are designed for non-Christians. Concerning these two meetings, Luther says in his preface, “They [the people attending] are not yet believers or Christians.”
But, what about for those who are Christians? Luther describes a third type of meeting in his preface for those who “are desirous of being Christians in earnest.” This meeting would be less public and more discipleship oriented. While this type of meeting may appear to be a modern-day “Bible study,” Luther says that this is the time for Christians to practice the “sacraments.” For Luther, this third type of meeting is the church meeting.
Unfortunately, Luther says that he does not know enough believers to hold this type of meeting. He says, “But I cannot and would not order or arrange such a community or congregation at present. I have not the requisite persons for it, nor do I see many who are urgent for it.” So, the majority of the essay is spent describing the first two “divine services,” which are for non-Christians and after which most churches pattern their “worship service.”
As I was talking about Luther’s essay with a friend recently, a portion of Luther’s statement stood out to me. Concerning putting together the “third type” of church meeting (the one for people who are really Christians), Luther says:
In the meantime, I would abide by the two Orders aforesaid; and publicly among the people aid in the promotion of such Divine Service, besides preaching, as shall exercise the youth and call and incite others to faith, until those Christians who are most thoroughly in earnest shall discover each other and cleave together; to the end that there be no faction-forming, such as might ensue if I were to settle everything out of my own head.
Luther understands something that many Christian leaders today fail to recognize. When leaders make decisions for the church – instead of waiting for God to bring the church as a whole to make decisions – the leaders’ decisions will typically lead to “faction-forming.” Regardless of good intentions, God never intended Christian leaders (even elders) to “settle everything” for themselves.
Notice what Luther says… even though he thinks this third form of meeting would be better for the church, he’s waiting “until those Christians who are most thoroughly in earnest shall discover each other and cleave together.” Luther is not willing to force the people to do something that they are not ready to do, even though Luther thinks it is best for them.
If you read a few lines before Luther’s statement, you’ll find something even more interesting. What happens to the “form and order” of this meeting once God has changed the hearts of the people so that they are ready for it? Does Luther then move ahead and “settle everything”? No, because at that point he won’t have to!
Luther says, “In one word, if we only had people who longed to be Christians in earnest, Form and Order would soon shape itself.” People who are earnestly attempting to follow Christ in their relationships with one another – including when they meet together as the church – do not have to be forced into a certain “form and order” by their leaders – not even a leader and important and impressive as Luther! Instead, we can safely trust God to handle the form and order as well!
Certainly, at times, there will be people in our meetings who are not following the Spirit and who are not concerned with edifying other believers. When these people become unruly, others can gently remind them of our purpose in meeting together.
But, overall, we do not have to force our methods of meeting on other people. We can teach and disciple and wait for God to change people’s hearts and minds in this area. Also, we do not have to force or design a certain type of meeting. Once again, we simply need to give God time and opportunity to work, and give people an opportunity to build up one another.
Bonhoeffer, the Church, and Example
Last weekend, I read the following quote from Bonhoeffer on Dave Black’s blog (Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 7:45 am):
The Church is the Church only when it exists for others. To make a start, it would give away all its property to those in need. The clergy must live solely on the free-will offerings of their congregations, or possibly engage in some secular calling. The Church must share in the secular problems of ordinary human life, not dominating, but helping and serving. It must tell men of every calling what it means to live for Christ, to exist for others.
This quote is both very provocative and (to me, at least) very true. It was both exciting and encouraging to find out that Bonhoeffer wrote this from prison in Germany over 60 years ago.
But, I wanted to know the context of this quote. So, I started searching. It turns out that this quote is in Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison (Ed. Eberhard Bethge, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972).
The five sentences quoted above are part of a summary that Bonhoeffer wrote while in prison. He states that he wants to write a short book (“not more than 100 pages”) with three chapters: 1) A Stocktaking of Christianity, 2) The Real Meaning of Christian Faith, and 3) Conclusions. The quotation is the beginning of the chapter on Conclusions.
Here is the entire section in which Bonhoeffer summarized the “Conclusions” of his short book:
The Church is the Church only when it exists for others. To make a start, it should give away all its property to those in need. The clergy must live solely on the free-will offerings of their congregations, or possibly engage in some secular calling. The Church must share in the secular problems of ordinary human life, not dominating, but helping and serving. It must tell men of every calling what it means to live for Christ, to exist for others. In particular, our own church will have to take the field against the vices of hubris, power-worship, envy, and humbug, as the roots of all evil. It will have to speak of moderation, purity, trust, loyalty, constancy, patience, discipline, humility, contentment, and modesty. It must not under-estimate the importance of human example (which has its origin in the humanity of Jesus and is so important in Paul’s teaching); it is not abstract argument, but example, that gives its word emphasis and power. (I hope to take up later this subject of ‘example’ and its place in the New Testament; it is something that we have almost entirely forgotten.) Further: the question of revising the creeds (the Apostles’ Creed); revision of Christian apologetics; reform of the training for the ministry and the pattern of clerical life. (pg. 382-383)
Example. If “example” is something that had been “almost entirely forgotten” in Bonhoeffer’s day, it seems to be even more forgotten today. In fact, it is common for “ministers” to be taught to remain aloof from others in the church – to separate themselves and their lives from others – to seek advice and counsel only from other “ministers” outside of their church. Where is the example in this? (Granted, I think this idea of “ministry” is becoming less popular today.)
We cannot speak and teach from a vacuum. We speak and teach from a context, and that context is our own lives. The instructions “serve one another” take own a new power when they are uttered while in the process of serving. When the teacher is getting his or her hands dirty while helping other people, the lesson to help and serve others is effective.
I haven’t read further that this quote. But, I’m interested to see if Bonhoeffer had time and opportunity to “take up” the subject of example. I would love to read more, and I would love to see the church embrace example today.
Postscript: Preaching in the Apostolic Fathers
This post is a follow-up of my series this week concerning “Preaching” in the Old Testament. (See “Preaching in the Old Testament: Introduction” for the first post in that series.) In that series, I suggested that “preach” is not a good translation of the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russŠ– usually translated “preachâ€). Instead, I said that “announce” is a better translation. (Also, “proclaim” would be a good translation, as long as we understand that “proclaim” does not mean the same thing as any of the modern definitions of “preach”.)
In order to make that claim, I looked at the usage of the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) in the Septuagint (LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament), in the non-canonical books that are usually included in the LXX, and in Josephus and Philo. I included Josephus and Philo because they have similar backgrounds to the New Testament authors: they are Jewish, and they lived in roughly the same time period.
But, could it be that the New Testament authors (and Christians in that time period in general) used the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) in a new way? Of course, that’s possible. We know, for instance, that Jesus changed the meaning of the word “lead” for Christians (i.e. Matthew 20:25-28). Did the New Testament authors use the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) to mean something other than “announce” or “proclaim”?
One of the best ways for us to determine this is to follow the meaning of the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) in early Christian writings, particularly 1 Clement (80-140AD), Ignatius to the Philadelphians (105-115AD), the Shepherd of Hermas (105-160AD), Epistle of Diognetus (130-200AD), the Epistle of Barnabas (80-120AD), and the Martyrdom and Polycarp (150-160AD). The other early Greek Christian writings do not include the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ): 2 Clement (130-160AD), the Didache (50-120AD), Polycarp to the Philippians (110-140AD), and the other six letters from Ignatius (105-115AD).
How do these writings use the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ)? (I do not include all usages in the these books. There are 19 usages of κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) in these early Christian writings.)
For who ever dwelt even for a short time among you, and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly established? Who did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim [preach] the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? And who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? (1 Clement 1:2)
Again, I will show you how, in respect to us, He has accomplished a second fashioning in these last days. The Lord says, “Behold, I will make the last like the first.” In reference to this, then, the prophet proclaimed [preached], “Enter into the land flowing with milk and honey, and have dominion over it.” (Epistle of Barnabas 6:13)
For which reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world; and He, being despised by the people of the Jews, was, when proclaimed [preached] by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles. (Epistle of Diognetus 11:3)
Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed [preached] these words: “Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.” (Ignatius to the Piladelphians 7:2)
While he spoke these and many other like things, he was filled with confidence and joy, and his countenance was full of grace, so that not merely did it not fall as if troubled by the things said to him, but, on the contrary, the proconsul was astonished, and sent his herald to proclaim [preach] in the midst of the stadium thrice, “Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 12:1)
“Listen,” he said: “This great tree that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains, and all the earth, is the law of God that was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God, proclaimed [preached] to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation, and have believed upon Him.” (Shepherd of Hermas Similitude 8 3:2)
And they who believed from the eighth mountain, where were the many fountains, and where all the creatures of God drank of the fountains, were the following: apostles and teachers, who proclaimed [preached] to the whole world, and who taught solemnly and purely the word of the Lord, and did not at all fall into evil desires, but walked always in righteousness and truth, according as they had received the Holy Spirit. Such persons, therefore, shall enter in with the angels. (Shepherd of Hermas Similitude 9 25:2)
As with the usages of κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) in the Septuagint, Josephus, and Philo, in these early Christian writings the term also seems to be closer to the meaning of the English verb “announce” than to any of the definitions of the English verb “preach”. Also, note that in Shepherd of Hermas Similitude 9 25:2 (the last passage quoted), apostles and teachers are said to have both announced the gospel and taught the word of God. This is similar to what we found in Matthew 4:23:
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming [announcing] the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. (Matthew 4:23 ESV)
Thus, tracking the usage of the term κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) from about 250 BC (the start of the translation of the LXX) to about 200 AD (the latest date of the some of these Christian writings), we see that the term carried the meaning of “announce” (or perhaps “proclaim”), but not the meaning of “preach”. The meaning of this word did not change through those 450 years.
So, when did the meaning of the word κηÏÏσσω (kÄ“russÅ) change, and why do we still use the wrong translation? I don’t know the answer to either of those questions.
Christian community vs. personal religious experience
A few years ago, a friend gave me a book by Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller called The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture. As you can tell from the title, this is a book about the Roman Empire from around 27 BC to around AD 235. The book is not written from a Christian perspective, but there is a section about the rise of Christianity that is very interesting.
In a section on religion in the Roman Empire, the authors begin by stating that Christianity was rarely mentioned by Roman authors during this time:
It is striking how little we hear about early Christianity from non-Christian writers. In the Severan era alone, sometimes seen as a period of significant growth, Christianity is not mentioned in Cassius Dio [~AD 155-229], Herodian [~AD 170-240] or Philostratus [~AD 170-247]. Christians impinged more on the world by the time of Decius [~AD 201-251], but were still a small minority, and predominantly of low or modest status. (pg 176)
According to the authors (and others books that I’ve read), persecution of Christians on a large scale did not begin until the reign of Decius. Before this, there were instances of local persecutions directed at Christians and other “atheists” who refused to venerate the Roman gods or the Imperial cult.
So, if Christians still made up a relatively small percentage of the Roman Empire at this time, what caused it to suddenly flourish? The authors make an important observation:
The solution to the problem of Christianity’s success is not to evoke an alleged weakening in the fabric of polytheism (for example, a supposed increased tendency toward syncretism), which reduced its appeal and gave additional impetus to Christianity. On the contrary, paganism at the level of personal religious experience was manifesting considerable vitality, especially near the end of our period. (pg. 176)
So, according to the authors, Christianity did not begin to increase because of a decrease in interested in the Roman pagan religions. Notice particularly that the authors state that during the time that the number of Christians began to increase rapidly, there was also a rise in “personal religious experience” among pagan religions.
What, then, did the Christians have to offer? The authors offer two suggestions. First, “the power of the Christian god as displayed in miracles” played a large role in convincing some pagans of the truth claims of Christianity. But, there was a second reason that pagans who were enjoying “personal religious experiences” found Christianity enticing:
The role of Christian community in supporting the individual and nurturing spiritual growth may be readily admitted. (pg. 176)
In a time when pagans were enjoying “personal religious experience”, Christian community began to win the day. Apparently, more and more pagans began to understand that there “personal religious experiences” did not nurture their spiritual growth. As they looked around, they noticed the Christians, and apparently, they noticed something different about them.
What was different? Community. In spite of their “personal religious experiences”, the pagans began to yearn for real community… community with one another and community with God.
Today, “personal religious experience” has taken the forefront in our society as well, among non-Christians as well as among Christians. While the church should always pray that God would work wonders and miracles to draw people to himself, we can also begin to demonstrate the type of community that the Spirit desires to create among us.
We should never underestimate the importance of community both for our own spiritual growth and the growth of the community, but also for evangelism. Community in Christ that is witnessed and shared is a great testimony to the fact that “God is certainly among [us]”.
Clement on the appointment of elders
For my dissertation, I’m studying many of the writings of the early church fathers. One of the earliest Christians writings (apart from the New Testament) is 1 Clement, which was probably written just before 100 A.D.
In this letter, Clement writes to the church in Corinth because he has heard that the church has decided to “de-appoint” (?) all of their elders. Interestingly, Clement appears to use the words for “elders” (presbuteroi) and “bishops/overseers” (episkopoi) interchangeably, unlike Ignatius who favored a three-tiered hierarchy (one bishop, many presbyters, many deacons) and who wrote his letters about 10-20 years after Clement. (See my post “The bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, oh my!” for more information about the different views of leadership in the early church.)
But, there is an interesting passage in 1 Clement 42:1-4 related to the “appointment” of overseers (or elders, since Clement uses both words). This is my translation (here is another translation):
The apostles proclaimed good news to us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ [was sent] from God, and the apostles [were sent] from Christ. Therefore, both came about in an orderly way according to the will of God. Therefore, after receiving instructions and after being convinced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and after being confident in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went out proclaiming the good news that the kingdom of God was about to come. Therefore, while proclaiming from area to area and from city to city, they were appointing the first-fruits after testing (approving) them by the Spirit, to be overseers and deacons (servants) of those who were about to believe. (1 Clement 42:1-4)
There is some similarity between this passage and Acts 14:21-23 –
When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:21-23 ESV)
However, there are some differences also. In the 1 Clement passage, Clement seems to write about apostles in general, while Luke writes specifically about Paul and Barnabas in the Acts passage. Clement uses different terms (i.e., the terms for “overseers” and “appointed”) than Luke (i.e., the terms for “elders” and “appointing”). (Note, although both terms are transalted “appoint”, they are different Greek terms.)
So, Clement is probably not quoting from the Acts passage, although he may be commenting on a common recollection or story handed down from others. If this is the case, then perhaps the two passages together (Acts and 1 Clement) demonstrate that the practice of appointing elders/overseers fairly soon after new churches were formed was common during the early period of the church.
In the Acts passage, Paul and Barnabas are appointing elders on the return trip to Antioch at the end of their first missionary journey. Thus, only a few months (or perhaps weeks) had passed since they first proclaimed the good news in some of these cities.
Similarly, in the Clement passage, the apostles (customarily) appointed overseers from the among their “first fruits”, that is, from among the first people to hear and recieve the good news. However, in this passage, sufficient time has passed that the apostles and/or church could recognized that they had been “tested” or “approved” by the Spirit.
Also, in both passages, it seems that elders/overseers were appointed from among the church in a particular city. There is no indication in these passages that elders/overseers were brought in from other cities or regions.
Finally, in both passages, we see that the apostles were cognizant of the fact that it was truly God who “appointed” elders/overseers. In the Clement passage, it was the Spirit who “tested” or “approved” those appointed. While in the Acts passage, Paul and Barnabas “committed them to the Lord” with prayer and fasting.
Thus, while Clement is probably not quoting from Acts, his understanding of how elders/overseers were appointed (or recognized, depending on your perspective) aligns very well with Luke’s account in Acts 14.
Architectural Significance of Houses in the NT
Last week, I posted an excerpt from Roger W. Gehring’s House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity in a post called “Church and Meals.” I decided to read the final chapter of the book and share Gehring’s concluding remarks. Remember, Gehring does NOT argue that the early church ONLY met in houses, nor does he argue that the church today MUST meet in houses. Instead, he examines the scriptural and historical/archaeological evidence to determine the significance of houses in the early church.
In his conclusion, Gehring discusses three significant aspects of houses for the early church: the House as Building (Architectural Significance), the House as Community (Socioeconomic Significance), and the House as a Church (Ecclesiological Significance).
When discussing the architectural significance of the early church’s use of houses, Gehring concludes that they primarily (perhaps only) used normal houses. The church did not modify their houses, nor did they build special buildings, until later in history – that is, after the time of the New Testament. This is part of Gehring’s conclusion:
From an architectural point of view, the house offered certain strengths by providing space used in a variety of ways for missional outreach. The begin with, it should be pointed out that houses differ architecturally from one another. For the time period of the early Christian mission, Palestinian, Greek, and Roman types of private houses come into question. They were easily adapted, and they provided Christians with a low-cost venue for assembly. With relatively little effort it was possible to establish a Christians presence in the everyday life of ancient cities. At least in the early days, the triclinium (often in conjunction with the courtyard or atrium) provided an ideal room for teaching and preaching minisries, catechetical instruction for baptism, and other missional activities. The triclinium was also a room well suited for prayer meetings, table fellowship, and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (cf. the primitive church in Jerusalem). Because of the physical limitations of the triclinium, the numerical size of the first house churches was relatively small (on average, twenty to forty persons; in very few exceptional cases, up to a hundred). Hence by necessity these first Christian communities were small, family-like groups in which individual pastoral care, initimate personal relationships, and accountability to each other were possible. “One reason for the house church’s powerful impact on its environment is found in the fact that it was not possible to grow beyond the parameters of a small group due to lack of space.” (pg. 289-290)
(By the way, the triclinium was a dining room, perhaps a formal dining room in larger houses.)
(Gehring ascribes the last quote to H.J. Klauk, Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im frühen Christentum (House-community and House-church in Early Christianity), SBS 103, Stuttgart: Katholisches Biblewerk, 1981, pg. 100.)
According to Gehring, individual pastoral care, intimate personal relationships, and accountability to each other were possible only because the early church met in small groups (twenty to forty max, or up to a hundred in rare cases).
The question that we (the church today) must ask ourselves is this: Is individual pastoral care, intimate personal relationships, and accountability to each other necessary for health and mission of the church? In other words, did these things only occur in the early church because they were limited by their meeting space, or were these important to the early church regardless of their type of meeting space?
I think a case can be made from the New Testament that our relationships with one another – intimate relationships – are vitally important to the health and mission of the church. I am not concerned with meeting space, as long as meeting space does not hinder our relationships and our functioning as a church – that is, the entire church functioning together as we see described in the New Testament.
Gehring does offer a couple of limitations and weaknesses placed on the church by the architecture of houses:
1) “The relatively small capacity of the triclinium was not only a positive factor, as by necessity it limited the potential number of participants for the worship service.” Gehring suggests that once the number of participants grew above the space limitations, the church would be required to find a larger house in which to meet. I think there may have been other options to the early church, just as there are other options today.
2) “[W]ithout intentional Christian alteration, a private house did not outwardly testify of the faith.” In other words, these houses did not have a sign out front, or a steeple, or a big cross on the top. Again, I think the early Christians were more interested in spreading the gospel in other ways.
I want to return for a moment to the quote by Klauk:
“One reason for the house church’s powerful impact on its environment is found in the fact that it was not possible to grow beyond the parameters of a small group due to lack of space.”
This seems backwards. It would seem that a larger group would have a larger impact on its environment. But, Klauk says just the opposite: the early church had a “powerful” impact on its culture and community precisely because they remained in smaller groups. Perhaps we can learn something from this: bigger is not always better. Sometimes, bigger is a detriment.
Luther talks about the church meeting
I’ve written a couple of posts concerning Luther’s “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (1526). I think most people are surprised when they read what Luther wrote about the church meeting. Here are those posts:
———————————————————
Luther and the non-Christian “worship service”
In his essay “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (January 1526) Martin Luther explains how a Sunday meeting should be carried out. Specifically, these are his instructions (I’ve removed some of the details so that it is easier to see the outline):
[a] At the beginning then we sing a spiritual song or a psalm in German, in primo tono, as follows : Ps. xxxiv.
[b] Then Kyrie eleison, to the same tone, but thrice and not nine times. . . .
[c] Then the priest reads a Collect in Effaut in unisono, as follows : ‘Almighty God,’ etc.
[d] Then the Epistle, in the eighth tone. . . . The Epistle should be sung with the face turned to the people, but the Collect with the face turned to the altar.
[e] After the Epistle is sung a German hymn, ‘Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist,’ or some other, by the whole choir.
[f] Then is read the Gospel in the fifth tone, also with the face turned towards the people.
[g] After the Gospel the whole congregation sings the Creed in German, ‘ Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott,’ etc.
[h] Then follows the sermon…
[i] After the sermon shall follow a public paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer, with an exhortation to those who are minded to come to the Sacrament…
[k] Then the Office and Consecration proceeds, as follows : ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same night'(i Cor. xi. 23 ff)…
[l] The elevation we desire not to abolish but to retain, for it fits in well with the Sanctus in German, and means that Christ has bidden us to think of Him…
[m] The Sanctus in German, ‘Jesaia dem Propheten das geschach,’ etc.
[n] Then follows the Collect : ‘We thank thee, Almighty Lord God,’ etc.
[o] With the Blessing : ‘The Lord bless thee and keep thee,’ etc…
This looks very familiar. In fact, besides the various portions in German and/or Latin, this “order of service” is similar to what I was accustomed to experiencing while I was growing up in Baptist churches in Alabama. Sure, we called “The Blessing” by a different name (the Benediction), and we didn’t sing or speak the various creeds to one another each week. But, overall, our Alabama Baptist liturgy was very similar to Luther’s German/Latin liturgies. After moving to Georgia and North Carolina, and visiting church meetings in other parts of the USA and the world, I’ve also found that Luther’s “order” is very similar to the order of church meetings around the world.
Here’s the funny part… if you call it funny… Luther did not think this “order” was best for the church. Instead, he intended this “order” (whether in German or in Latin) to be for unbelievers. This is a quote from the beginning of Luther’s essay – which is often overlooked:
Both these kinds of Service (German and Latin) then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity.
Did you catch that? What the church today calls a “church service”, Luther says is not for the church at all – that is, not for Christians. Instead, he designed his “Mass and Order of Divine Service” for the sake of attracting those who are not Christians. In fact, he later describes what he thinks a meeting would look like for those who are already Christians (see my post “Luther and the Church“). However, without considering Luther’s purpose, we blindly follow his design. I wonder if we’re missing something…
———————————————————
In the preface of “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (1526), Martin Luther describes three different kinds of “divine service”. The first and second kinds of “divine service” are differentiated only by the languages used (Latin and German, respectively). Importantly, this is what Luther says of these two kinds of “divine service”:
Both these kinds of Service then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity.
Thus, for Luther, the public service in both Latin and German are for the purpose of exposing unbelievers to the Gospel. Notice that he does not see these services as being for Christians. So, what does Luther proscribe for believers? Keep reading for his “third sort of divine service”:
But the third sort [of Divine Service], which the true type of Evangelical Order should embrace, must not be celebrated so publicly in the square amongst all and sundry. Those, however, who are desirous of being Christians in earnest, and are ready to profess the Gospel with hand and mouth, should register their names and assemble by themselves in some house to pray, to read, to baptize and to receive the sacrament and practise other Christian works. In this Order, those whose conduct was not such as befits Christians could be recognized, reproved, reformed, rejected, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ in Matt. xviii. Here, too, a general giving of alms could be imposed on Christians, to be willingly given and divided among the poor, after the example of St. Paul in 2 Cor. ix. Here there would not be need of much fine singing. Here we could have baptism and the sacrament in short and simple fashion: and direct everything towards the Word and prayer and love. Here we should have a good short Catechism about the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. In one word, if we only had people who longed to be Christians in earnest, Form and Order would soon shape itself. But I cannot and would not order or arrange such a community or congregation at present. I have not the requisite persons for it, nor do I see many who are urgent for it. But should it come to pass that I must do it, and that such pressure is put upon me as that I find myself unable with a good conscience to leave it undone, then I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.
It seems that Luther is calling for a different type of meeting for believers. In this meeting, Luther does not have to order things. Instead, he sees that “the form and order would soon shape itself.” (I would add that it is the Spirit that forms and orders the meetings.) In fact, Luther sees baptism and the Lord’s Supper happening in this group – not in one of the public meetings that are meant for unbelievers. Notice also that in this meeting, believers would teach one another and take up money to give to the poor.
So, why did Luther not pursue this type of service? Well, he tells us here that he does not know “earnest” Christians willing to participate in this type of meeting. History tells us that Luther later relented from this position in order to appease the state church.
Everything that follows this point in “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” describes how to carry out the first two kinds of “Divine Service”, which Luther said were not intended for believers, but for unbelievers. We will never know what would have happened historically if Luther had held to his convictions: “I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.”
A History of Miracles
Christianity Today is publishing a new blog called “The Christian History Blog“. There is one post in particular that my readers may be interested in: “Signs and Wonders: The Charismatic Power of Early Christianity“. This is how the author begins his post:
When we teach about the early church, we frequently omit the story of spiritual gifts.
Cessationism is the belief that the miracles of Jesus’ lifetime and the apostolic period happened solely to attest to the authority and inspiration of the apostolic writings, and that miracles and extraordinary spiritual gifts ceased after the writing of the apostolic documents was concluded.
As writers such as ex-Dallas Seminary professor Jack Deere have argued, this is a position with no biblical foundation. But it also has a problem with the historical record. That record shows clearly that the early church was quite active in the charismatic gifts at least through 200 AD. There was a decline in the 3rd century, and then again it became active.
The remainder of the article lists historical records of miraculous works through the fourth century. Many of the writers and writings are familiar to me: the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo, for example. But, when I studied church history, no one mentioned the extent of the miraculous in the early church.
I’ve written about this before in a post called “Irenaeus and Miraculous Gifts“. Its amazing what you can learn about this early period of the church when you read their writings instead of what others say about them.
Old Testament Structures and the Church
Last December, I wrote a post called “Old Testament Structures and the Church“. Many modern church practices are justified from Old Testament practices. Notice what I said: these practices are justified from the Old Testament. I do not think they originally arose from a study of the OT. Instead, I think they were brought into the church from the cultural context of the time, and then justified by the OT. But, is it valid to justify new covenant age practices from the old covenant era? I don’t think so.
———————————————-
Old Testament Structures and the Church
Often, when I’m talking to people about church structures and organizations, they usually point me to Old Testament structure to defend hierarchies, authorities, buildings, positions, etc. After a discussion with Lew from “The Pursuit” and his Question of the Week #17, I’ve been thinking about the trend of associating Old Testament priests, temples, tithes, etc. to New Testament practices.
The conversations tend to go something like this (in a condensed form, of course):
Person #1: “The pastor has authority over the local church.”
Me: “I can’t find anything in Scripture that gives the pastors authority over anyone.”
Person #1: “Well, you have to go back to the priest system of the Old Testament.”
Person #2: “You should give tithes to the local church.”
Me: “I can’t find any teaching in Scripture that tells us to give money to a local church.”
Person #2: “Well, you have to go back to the tithe system of the Old Testament.”
Person #3: “You need someone trained in music to lead your worship.”
Me: “I’m sorry but I don’t see that in Scripture. Nor do I see music called worship.”
Person #3: “Well, you have to go back to the Levites of the Old Testament.”
Person #4: “Why are you not saving money to build a church (meaning, ‘church building’).”
Me: “I don’t see a requirement for having a church building in the new testament.”
Person #4: “Well, you have to go back to the temple in the Old Testament.”
Here’s my concern: I don’t see the New Testament authors making these connections. Instead, I see the New Testament writers calling all believers “priests” (Rom 15:16; 1 Pet 2:5,9; Rev 1:6; Heb 10:19-22 – notice the resemblance to the sanctification of priests). But, pastors/elders/overseers are never specifically referred to as “priests”.
Once again, all believers are taught to share generously with those who are in need, with those who are travelling away from home in order to proclaim the gospel, and with those who teach and lead them well (Acts 2:45; 4:34-35; James 2:15-16; Gal 6:6; 1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 5:17; 3 John 3-6). But, I do not see the New Testament authors comparing this to the tithe of the Old Testament, nor requiring a tithe to be given to the “local church”.
Similarly, all believers are encouraged to exhort one another with songs, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; 1 Cor 14:26). However, I don’t see where training, practice, or even talent is a prerequisite for this singing (although, it does seem that being filled with the Spirit is a prerequisite). Also, I can’t find any connection between singing in the New Testament and the Levites of the Old Testament.
Finally, I also see that all followers of Jesus Christ are compared to the “temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). But, as far as I can tell, “temple” is never associated with a designated meeting place for Christians.
So, where did this contemporary practices come from? When did we start going back to the Old Testament to find systems of organization and leadership and finances? When did the Book of Nehemiah start teaching how to have a successful church building campaign? The exact details of how and when and why these interpretations of the Old Testament filtered into the church continue to be debated among church historians today. I think they all started when the church ceased to be the people of God and started to become an institution. In order to justify the institution, the leaders had to go back to the Old Testament system – the very system that the author of Hebrews calls a “shadow” of the reality that we have in Jesus Christ.
Was Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus?
According to tradition, Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus. In the article on “Ephesus” in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), David E. Aune writes, “Timothy is remembered as the first bishop of Ephesus ([Eusebius] HE 3.4.6), a tradition probably based on 1 Tim. 1:3″. (415)
Notice that Aune gives Eusebius of Caesaria as the source of this early tradition. In fact, he references Eusebius’ Church History (Ecclesiastical History) 3.4.6. What exactly does Eusebius say about Timothy?
Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6)
In fact, Eusebius does not cite his source for this information concerning Timothy. In many other instances, Eusebius specifically indicates which sources he used for his history. In fact, Eusebius’ writings contain quotations or references to many sources that no longer exist in another form. We know this because he tells us these sources.
But, when it comes to Timothy being the first bishop of Ephesus, Eusebius does not give us a source. He simply says, “So it is recorded”. Where was it recorded? We don’t know because he doesn’t tell us.
Aune suggests that Eusebius bases this tradition on 1 Timothy 1:3. What does that text say?
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine… (1 Timothy 1:3 ESV)
1 Timothy 1:3 does not say that Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus. In fact, Timothy is never called a bishop or a pastor or an elder. (The same could be said of Titus as well.)
However, Paul may have called Timothy an apostle (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6), and he encourages Timothy to be a good deacon (1 Timothy 4:6).
In fact, while Paul leaves Timothy in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), we do not know that Timothy was still in Ephesus when Paul wrote his second letter to him. Whether Timothy received Paul’s second letter at Ephesus or not, Paul did not expect Timothy to remain there (2 Timothy 4:13).
Why does it matter whether or not Timothy was a bishop in Ephesus?
Whenever there is a discussion concerning senior or solo pastors, those in favor tend to point to Timothy as the scriptural example. Whenever there is a discussion of “calling” pastors from outside the local body, those in favor tend to point to Timothy as the scriptural example.
But, we must remember, that the evidence for Timothy being a pastor/bishop/elder, much less THE pastor/bishop/elder, of Ephesus is based on one line that Eusebius wrote almost 300 years later without citing his source.