Comment highlight: Hindering the church from being a greater witness to the world?
I want to highlight (what I think is) an awesome comment left by Scott on my post “The exclusivity of the modern local church.”
In that post, I had argued that the modern concept of “local church” tends to separate Christians from one another, such that we see each other as ekklesia (“church”) only when gathered within the context of that “local church” (but not a subset or with another group).
At the end of the post, I asked two questions. I’m not going to repeat them here, but Scott includes the questions in his comment.
Here is Scott’s comment:
Alan, you asked:
1. Do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written here?
Yes, I absolutely agree. The evidence in scripture for this kind of exclusivity is scant to non-existent. And if we think of the Christian faith in terms of a movement (which I think it is and was then) rather than an institution then this makes sense. Also, Jesus (in contrast to the religious leaders of his day) seems more inclusive than exclusive to me.
2. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, what would happen to the church (ekklesia) if we treated the assembly (“church”) as less exclusive, as I’ve talked about here?
I think a beautiful thing would happen. The church would have a greater witness to the world! But as long as we have expensive buildings and salaried pastors (I am one so this is not stone throwing) it is likely to be impossible.
There is a reason for the exclusivity you describe. It is inherent to our practice of “church.” Our practice of church today creates a competitive and protective mindset that just can’t be ignored. We have too many obligations (debt, salaries, programs, membership rolls, etc) to provide for. There is a motive behind keeping it exclusive. It’s not right and I hate this (I struggle with it all the time), but it’s the way things are.
absolutely agree
What do you think? Is the exclusivity of the modern “local church” inherent in our practice of church today? Does our modern understanding of church create a competitive and protective mindset? How do we help one another move away from that, or should we?
Comment Highlight: The Lord’s Supper and Passover
I enjoyed a discussion that I had with Mike on my post “The Lord’s Supper in Context.” The discussion focused on the connection between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover.
Unfortunately, it took several comments from Mike before I understood what he was trying to get across. (Yes, sometimes – perhaps often, depending on who you ask – I’m a bit slow.) So, I’m going to post a few of Mike’s comments, then both of our comments as we zoom in on this topic in the discussion.
Here are the relevant comments:
Mike: I don’t believe that “breaking bread” was specifically the Lords Supper
It appears to me that Jesus said that when we eat and drink the cup (to me seeming specific to the passover)
Paul also solidified this in 1 cor 11
I do however think a meal amongst brethren was a big part of fellowship that seems to be all but lost among modern day gatherings of saints
———————————
Mike: Alan I fully agree and desire to encourage the meal daily weekly and whenever
I live in a part of the state where people are so churchified that those things aren’t normal because its all about Sunday and everything else is extracurricular
Its sad really
Many times I feel compelled to go back to religious edifices but just can’t bring myself to do it because I just want to yell WHY IS EVERYONE SILENT
I never meant though that the corinthians were not eating the right stuff as much as I don’t believe that the Lords supper was ever a monthly or weekly event as much as something commerating the Lord as the passover lamb at passover
But that’s just speculation all based on the “this cup…..this bread” thing
———————————
Mike: Forgive me if no one else saw that either but that is what I was referring to that the Lords supper seems to be the new covenant passover meal
———————————
Alan: The last supper that Jesus ate with his followers before he was crucified was certainly one of the Passover week meals. Whether it was THE Passover feast or not is still being discussed and debated and argued. Either way, though, the authors of Scripture do not emphasize the Passover features, and when Paul or Jude write about the shared meals among the church, they don’t mention the Passover at all. While this might be excused for a Jewish audience (since they would certainly understand the significance of Passover), a Gentile audience would need to have things explained. 1 Corinthians 11 would be the perfect place for Paul to explain that the Gentile believers in Corinth were not correctly observing the Passover.
———————————
Mike: I think that paul expressing “this cup” was letting the corinthians know it was the passover
Just cause they were gentiles doesn’t mean they didn’t know the passover
As for the jude thing it appears that the love feast could be nothing more than a charitable feast for those less fortunate
I say this cause it wasn’t called the Lords supper and there was no mention of “this cup”
I think there is a distinction between the Lords supper and regular communions
Is the word communion IN the bible?
BTW I don’t think this has any concrete conclusion just like the pagan holidays vs jewish holy days thing
And though I 100% believe we should observe Gods Holy days over things like christmas easter and the such I don’t think any of that is salvivic
I hope we are just sharpening each other and growing closer to Christ together
———————————
Alan: I appreciate the discussion about the relationship between the Lord’s Supper / Communion / Eucharist and the Passover. I’m wondering, in what way(s) do you (all) think Jesus continued the meal as the Passover and in what way(s) do you think he changed it?
———————————
Mike: I would say that the Lords supper appears to be the “new” passover for it symbolizes a more universal complete passover
I don’t think anything changed as much as things are now complete in Him
Its kind of all still speculation to a point to sayy 100% without a doubt
I do however believe that the Lords Supper is the new covenant passover not to be confused with daily/regular breaking of bread amongst the saints
Even where the bible says about coming together on the first day of the week and breaking bread as a custom I believe the point of that statement in scripture is not the when (first day of the week) of coming together but the what (breaking bread) that is the “custom” of the coming together of the saints
now there is also a mention of sacrificing to idols (which I can’t imagine they did every day) in first cor 10 and the mention of the blood and body are in verse 16 and it seems to be in context of a certain religious event as opposed to something done often since paul (though speaking to gentiles) talks about israel (albeit in the flesh)
Now if we just pull 1 cor 10:16 out of context it may seem like a regular thing but in context it would appear it was comparing it to other sacrificial events both pagan and jewish
I have nothing specific to say about the term eucharist because I don’t know why we have to have a non-biblical term to describe something when we have many biblical things to do so……..just sayin
Communion (coming together in Christ and having all things in common) is a great ideology that no one desires to live
Put that in scripture……..how we live it =D
That’s all I got for now
Ill probably think of more as the pot stirs I’m sure
———————————
Alan: I re-read the passage in Exodus describing the purposes and practices associated with the Passover festival week. I didn’t see anything about the Messiah. Do you know if that’s somewhere else in the Old Testament?
———————————
Mike: Well since Jesus is our passover lamb and we are partaking of Him I think everything in the passover speaks of the messiah
Have you ever partaken in a messianic sedar?
Its awesom the correlation between the whole exodus account and the story of our salvation in the messiah
———————————
Alan: Yes, I’m familiar with the Seder. Do you know anything about its history or development?
———————————
Mike: yes alan I understand that the sedar is not strictly jewish and specifically from the exodus account
Its kind of like christmas and easter
However through that practice (when coupled with scripture) we can walk through the exodus and passing over of the firstborns
However we must admit that the Passover is pointing to christ
It is also good to understand that much of the laws of Judaism bear striking resemblance to the code of Hammurabi
This is why I try not to be too dogmatic about my views on Easter and Christmas
———————————
Alan: I understand. The synagogue is similar. It was an inter-testimental development of Judaism, but Jesus used the synagogue, and the church began meeting in a similar way to the way the Jews met as the synagogue. In fact, both the similarities and the differences can tell us about what was important to the church.
I think the same would be true for the Passover. Both the similarities and the differences between the Last Supper / the shared church meals and the Passover (that had developed from Exodus) can tell us what was important to both Jesus and the early church. For example, if I’m correct that for the early church all shared meals were an expression of that Last Supper (Passover), then that is an expression that Christ (the awaited Messiah of the Passover) is now always present with them in every aspect of life.
———————————
Mike: Maybe this is part of what paul is talking about when he tells us not to judge people on these things
As far as feasts days seasons etc but rather to let people do to the Lord what they feel they are led to do even if its taking what they know and making it about Him
I fully agree with the synagogue thing and I try to explain that to people but its hard until you study it out for yourself to see that everyone had opportunity to teach speak etc and the way of the house to house church made it just that more personal
You know what my conclusion is?
Happy Passover brother =D
Comment highlight: The connection between authority and the church gathering
Leighton left a great comment on my post “Does shepherding and overseeing suggest exercising authority?”
The comment demonstrates the connection between the gathering of the church and positional authority.
Here is the main part of Leighton’s comment:
————————————-
When we start discussing authority most people operate under the assumption that all these passages from the epistles were written to people who were part of churches just like ours. Looking at a conventional church from a purely pragmatic perspective it would be hard to see how the church could operate without someone in the charge.
Many people say “we need authority in the church!” In their mind they are thinking: If we don’t have someone in charge who can set the agenda for the congregational meeting? Who gets speak from the pulpit and who gets to discern the proper guest speakers? Who gets to decide what do with the money in the church bank account? How will we decide to fund our programs? Which person or group decides what programs we should continue and which ones we should end?
Very rarely do people think the pastor has the authority to tell people exactly what do in their lives. Pastors can advise, admonish, exhort and teach but it is up to the individual to respond. In only grave cases of blatant sin does church authority exercise any kind of corrective discipline. This usually involves rescinding someone’s formal membership and removing them from ministry roles in the church.
If we look at all these different kinds of roles for church authority in the context of a New Testament church not a lot of them apply.
1) No one is the primary speaker to church as all are encouraged to participate
2) The church was not a separate legal entity holding assets. No salaries were paid to local church leaders so there is no need for anyone to be in charge of the money. According to earliest descriptions most church money went straight to the poor.
3) There are no programs, as ministry happened largely from peer to peer in the context of relationships in the local church.
4) It was everyone’s job to exhort, admonish, and encourage one another. Elders had more of a specific role in teaching though, but even at that there would have been room for others to teach.
5) The church gathered together to remove an unrepentant sinner from their group (Corinth). Even though Paul advised them to do it, he told them to do it together. It probably looked more like a contemporary intervention than what we see today.
As a member of an intentionally simple church with no staff, assets or programs there really isn’t a whole lot to be authoritative over. As a leader in this context I feel my role is care for others, teach, serve and be an example. I don’t need the weight of “authority” because there is very little to exercise authority over.
I could I suppose exercise authority over people, but then you run in to that problematic passage Alan brought up a few posts ago and that strategy just doesn’t produce any real fruit. Authority as it relates to people is giving someone power to enforce punitive or corrective discipline in order to keep them behaving correctly. I am a father and I discipline my children when they do something they shouldn’t in the hopes that they would learn a batter way of doing things. Discipline in this sense isn’t about vengeance but about teaching. However adults are adults and giving them a timeout because they told a lie is a bit ridiculous. There are far better ways to minister. Using authority over people just gets people to act a certain way out of fear. It doesn’t lead people to faith in Christ where their heart and mind can be transformed.
I totally agree with Alan that one can be an elder or overseer and can fulfill their role without positional authority. It is completely unnecessary as everyone in a house church knows who to go to for advice or teaching. Even a title is unnecessary.
Even as the church evolved in the decades after the apostles church authority was more about preserving doctrine than anything. It is easy to see why they went that way with all the false teaching around. It wasn’t like people could photocopy the gospels to double check is something was on the level or not. They need “go to” people that understood the faith.
Today it seems like the more authorities we have the more heresy spreads. If you put a dozen believers with no Christian higher education in a living room with a couple bibles they probably are going to come out in good shape. Now a days with all the high profile church authorities, some with vested interests in their own status, influence, prestige, wealth and power, we see false teaching blossoming like weeds on an neglected lawn.
Comment Highlight: Leading by example
Art left a comment yesterday on my post “What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority.” His comment goes along well with my post from this morning called “In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?”
Without knowing what I was going to write about today, Art’s comment captures the distinctions between leadership based on positional authority and leadership based on living as an example and influencing others through that example.
Here is Art’s comment:
———————————
Most people assume that the way the world wields authority for leadership is the best method. One way or another, they seek to use the same methods and justify their use as the only effective way to get things done. If that is correct, then with our Lord’s denial of the use of this kind of authority for leadership in the church, is Jesus “tying one hand behind our back” to minimize the effectiveness of the church?
In leadership research, this type of authority is called “legitimate” power and “positional” power–the position itself grants legitimate authority/power over others. The leader doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with their power–they can be an awful person, which is why you hear the phrase, “respect the office (or uniform) if not the person.”
Leadership research also recognizes another form of power, called “personal” power (and the one who “leads” solely by personal power is said to be a “lateral leader,” being alongside rather than over others). This power is granted voluntarily by those who allow themselves to be influenced solely based on their friend’s character and expertise observed over time through many circumstances.
Positional power usually results in compliance (willingness to do as told but apathetic about the request/requirement), sprinkled with some commitment and some resistance, and this compliance can be harshly enforced if desired. It is “reliable.” But positional power is very corrupting to those who exercise it. These leaders devalue their followers, are comfortable manipulating them, attribute any results to themselves, distance themselves from their followers, and tend to use rewards to reinforce those who comply.
Personal power usually results in commitment (high agreement and makes great effort to carry things out), sprinkled with some compliance and some resistance. This commitment cannot be enforced and the power cannot be misused (or it ceases to exist). Personal power does not corrupt the user, being self-correcting (easily lost) when abused.
The world will settle for compliance and corrupted leaders using a rewards based reinforcement and an escalating range of enforcement measures against those who do not comply. They have chosen their tool well, and it “works.” If your goal is reliable compliance.
Our Lord is seeking committed disciples who set an example for others to follow, who will teach the same to others, on and on.
Comment Highlight: The source of pure motivation
In this post, I want to highlight a comment that was left on my post “Motivated to missions because of duty, expectations, or something else?” The comment was left by a reader named Zach.
The first part of the comment is a long quote. The end of the quote is the part that I want to focus on. Plus, we find out that Zach has been reading (lurking) for a while, and doesn’t usually agree with me. 🙂
Here’s his comment:
The gist is this: Who is running the verbs, so to speak, in regards to conversion. Is it us? Or is God? The Holy Spirit reveals Christ to us. Christ reveals the Father to us. The Father sent His Son and His Spirit. God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) works out the whole process of salvation. We respond His work in us with His good works, His love, etc.
My two cents. I lurk around these parts and really enjoy your posts. Not sure we see eye to eye an awful lot, but you certainly cause me to think through a bunch of these issues regarding mission/ ecclesia/ etc.
Thanks for the great comment, Zach! And thanks for lurking, in spite of our differences of opinion.
Comment Highlight: Ephesians 4:11 list as characteristic gifts
I’m late getting this comment highlight up, but I really appreciated it, so I want to publish it here and give it more visibility.
The comment was left by Miguel on an old post called “And he gave… (Ephesians 4:11)”
Here is Miguel’s comment:
I do not believe that Paul could have used any words in Ephesians 4:11, but only the words that were used. That said, I do believe that all believers are gifted with the characteristic ministry aspect of each of the gifts listed there. I think the other giftings in the other passages you cited are sub gifts of the ones listed in Ephesians 4.
Our primary concern in the region where we work on South America has always been whether or not the Ephesians 4 giftings are for the Church today. When I look at the greek, and find that “And He Gave,” is the Aorist Active Indicative and that it is classified as a “culminative or effective aorist,” it would seem, on the surface that those gifts “were” given at one point in time for the purpose of laying foundation and then, at some point in the future would no longer be given.
Perhaps some of my greek geek friends can correct my thinking here. Regardless, because word studies can often yield faulty conclusions, I do believe that the ministry gifts are not only still being given, but still very active.
What are your thoughts?
Translating the gospel and disciple making in American (Western) culture
Dan left a very good comment on my post “New disciples = disciple makers in Acts 13.” In this post, I want to highlight Dan’s comment as well as (hopefully) start a discussion/conversation about a very important point that he raises.
To begin with, the post itself was about the response of the Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia when Paul and Barnabas shared the gospel with them. They were so excited and so overjoyed that they immediately began sharing the same gospel with the people of their city and the surrounding area. How do we know? Because Luke tells us that the word (message) of the Lord spread throughout the whole region.
In response to this post, Dan said:
This is so true and glorious. But one thought occurs to me:
How do we translate this in America? To those people, this was brand new I think, and very liberating and so they welcomed it enthusiastically. In the U.S., the mass of population has been inoculated against the Gospel by hundreds of years of abuse by the institutional church — overpoliticized, hypo(and hyper-)critical, unloving, judgmental,ritualized professional. My wife says it seems we’re always fighting a two-front war — one with the unsaved and one with the traditional church. I feel every time I share my faith with someone i have to first issue a disclaimer that I’m not “Christian” the way they think of the term.
So… I ask you the same question that Dan asked me: How do we translate this (what we read about in Acts 13:48-49 especially) in America, or other parts of the “Christianized” Western world?
Comment Highlight: Trusting man rather than God
Georgia Ana left an amazing comment on my post “Exercise for a Healthy Church – Trusting.” I wanted to highlight this comment because it is a great addition to my post, and it demonstrates a danger to the church. As I responded to Georgia Ana, true leaders among the church will never demand that people trust them. Instead, they will always encourage people to trust God.
Here is the comment from Georgia Ana:
One of the most grave dangers–personally, physically, spiritually–the individual Christian and the collective Body faces is that of trusting in man rather than in God. The demand of ‘leadership’ that it be trusted as if it were God-in-the-flesh is what leads to so very much abuse. I could make a list of abuses based on this single theme — beyond those that have made the news or the court system in the past two months — that would stagger the minds of most. Love is a gift — we can widely and broadly affirm this in the Body relationships — but Trust MUST be earned. The Master has taken the time and pain to prove Himself trustworthy, but the first rule of trusting others inside the Body must be: Trust and Verify. If we fail to do this, we make a place for the flesh of some to dominate the spirits of all and to replace God as the sole and worthy source and object of trust and faith with that of fallen persons. My work with women, children, families damaged by religiously based/demanded ‘trust’ burdens my heart for the wider Body each day of my life. I would like everyone who speaks to the hearts of those who might at some time exercise ANY level of proper, truly loving, deeply respectful, non-controlling spiritual authority-for-service in the lives of others to keep in mind that Trust in God is not trusting in any human at his/her/Scripture-taken-out-of-sanity-context behest. Let us be vigilant in protecting the weakest among us from the flesh that would demand trust that belongs only, only to God.
Comment Highlights Changes and Such
Six months ago, I started publishing a post on Saturday highlighting 3-4 (usually 4) comments from the week before. I enjoyed reading back through the comments each week. It reminded me that God has brought together an amazing group of people through this blog.
Beginning with this post, I am changing the way that I highlight comments. Instead of publishing a weekly post with several comments, I’m going to publish posts during the week highlighting individual comments.
My goal in starting “Comment Highlights” was to increase interaction. Hopefully, by highlighting single comments, there will be even more interaction.
I’d love to hear your thoughts about this change.
Comment Highlights for Week of July 24, 2011
As I mentioned in the first post in this series, I want to highlight some of the comments that have been left on my blog posts during the past week. Hopefully, this will give more visibility to some of the reasons that I love blogging – dialog and interaction.
These comments all come from the five posts that were part of the “Three Views on Christians and Horror” project:
Brandon left this comment:
I don’t watch horror movies because I just don’t like being scared, and my wife even less.
I think there may be a confusion in the question. Many people may be relating the obviously immoral elements of some horror movies and super-imposing them on the genre. But we no more think of a comedy as being equal to nudity, although the genre of comedy would certainly have its share of 18A & R ratings.
But speaking of horror, lest we have any double speak about the genre- Left Behind or any movie, writing, or book depicting the return of Christ and the resultant terribleness of the unbelieving world and the judgment, is employing horror as a genre. It is obviously employed for the purposes of evangelism. No horror movie could compare to the horror of being left behind at the return of Christ.
Christi left this comment:
I believe that in this age, God is raising up Christians to go into the highways and byways to reach unbelievers. I met a Christian who is going into psychic fairs and new age conferences, speaking the languages of those cultures to reach people with God’s love. Why not horror if it is written with excellence, exposing sin but not glorifying it? Godspeed, Alan. The English Teacher
Lisa left this comment:
I agree with Jason’s post. It reflects the heart of God throughout scripture. Also, fear opposes faith, and it’s impossible to please God without faith. This is not a “should I or shouldn’t I” issue, but why would a believer want to indulge in something that is in such opposition to the heart, nature, and character of God? Horror (and porn as the link discusses) is about as low as you can go as a human being, much less a believer indwelt by the living God.
And Art left this comment:
Being Zombophobic from early childhood and still presently under treatment, both my fear of Zomboid reprisals and my doctor’s advice have prevented me from participating. (Thankfully, it was obvious that Jason offers the only reasonable view, so it wasn’t necessary to say so myself).
While your questions here, Alan, do provide a “safe” way to discuss differences and how we treat each other over them, I still found it hard to feel any investment, because I really have no interest at all in Zombies (nor in horror genre of any ilk). Maybe that was your purpose, to provide a safe topic to discuss how we interact on differences.
Another thing missing was having someone post opposing views to each of the three where they misrepresent/distort what the other side said, and you’ll perhaps have a more realistic landscape of differing positions among Christians.