Guest Blogger: The abolition of social distinctions among the church
I’ve invited people to write “guest blog posts” for this blog. There are several reasons for this: 1) To offer different perspectives. 2) To generate even more discussion and conversation between blogs. 3) To introduce other bloggers to my readers.
(If you are interested in writing a guest blog post, please contact me at aknox[at]sebts[dot]com.)
Today’s post was written by Theo. You can connect with Theo via Twitter (@TheosJourney).
——————————————-
The Abolition of Social Distinctions Among the Church
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man.” (James 2:1-6)
I have been wondering lately, how many poor people can be found in pulpits, elderships, positions of church leadership, in councils and boards of christian organisations… and by extension how do we apply in practise the passage above in our communities, what values do our ways portray and to what degree those are representative of our Lord, communicating all the right messages about Him, in a world where we have been called to be His ambassadors and our communities a foretaste of what His reign in our world will mean.
To what degree our requirements of a higher educational level and professional success (high social standing) can exist without “becoming judges with evil motives” making “distinctions” amongst ourselves and “dishonouring” the poor whom God has chosen and lifted up, for His glory?
Were these requirements natural and expected from the beginning of the Church or something that was added down the line?
If we were to try and justify the necessity of such distinctions, based on modern reality, then how would we understand and apply the teaching that before God – in relation to salvation (the highest providence) – and thus within His Church, there is now not to be any distinction based on racial, social or gender grounds?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:28-29)
The love meals (agapes) of the first Church were a way to publicly state the complete lack of social distinctions. For the semiology of the time the fact that there were no honouring places at the table (they would all sit together) and there were no special meal portions for the distinguished individuals (they would all eat the same) was a very public and scandalous way of revealing plainly this truth, to everybody around.
This abolition of social distinctions, was scandalous to such a degree that a strife was created within the church (between the rich and the poor, 1 Cor. 11:18-22) and so Paul had to give us the teaching which we remember during the Lord’s Supper. A teaching I have never heard being interpreted rightly within its context.
I remind that the passage was written to deal with the issue of “…or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (v.22)
And concludes with… “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another — if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home — so that when you come together it will not be for judgement. About the other things I will give directions when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
So, given the flow of thought and being part of it, what do these verses mean?
Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. (1 Corinthians 11:28-29)
Replay: Community is Always Living but Never Arriving
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Always Living but Never Arriving.” When we think about community – even community in Christ – we should not think of it as something that we finally arrive at. Instead, it’s something that we always live… even in our imperfection. In fact, it’s living through the imperfections that we find deeper community in Christ. Unfortunately, many are looking for instant community or a completed community… and they won’t find it.
—————————-
Always Living but Never Arriving
Recently, while reading Lionel’s post “Pros and Cons of ‘Organic’ Church Meeting: Part 1 Cons,” I began thinking about living in community with others. You see, the thing about community is that we never “arrive.” At least, our community never becomes a perfect group of perfect people. There are always struggles.
Of course, this seems obvious, doesn’t it. But, it is always somewhat counter-intuitive. We get the feeling that if we put enough time into this thing we call community – if we live with one another like family for long enough – then life together will become easy.
In truth, we will always struggle with one another, primarily because we will always struggle with sin. I mean, think about it, even if I manage to go a day living in perfect harmony with God and others, chances are that others will not live perfect lives that day. And, on days when everyone else is living completely in obedience to God, I’m the one who has problems.
You see, we need one another, but the fact that we live together means that we will constantly struggle with one another, both because of our own sinfulness and self-centeredness, and also because of the sin and selfishness of others.
If we come together with one another with the false assumption that one day we will have perfect community, then we will be in for a rude awakening. As people change – their life circumstances – so will our community. As people move into or out of the area, our community will change. As children are born or parents die, the community will be different. There will constantly be new challenges and struggles.
So, we don’t live for that day when our community finally “makes it.” No, we live for today. We share today with one another. When someone fails, we forgive them. When we fail we ask for forgiveness. But, we keep living together, trusting in the presence and grace of God to bring us closer to one another and to him.
We must stop looking forward to that time when we can finally live in community. Instead, we must decide whether or not we’re going to share our lives with someone else today. If we choose to share our life with someone today, it won’t be perfect, but it will be a step toward more fellowship with one another – which, in John’s words, is more fellowship with the Father and with his son, Jesus Christ.
The family of God in Ephesians
In my previous post on Ephesians 1:3-14 (“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…“), I examined the structure of that long sentence and concluded that the spiritual blessings that Paul discusses are based on the fact that God has chosen us for adoption as his children. Because we are adopted by God in Jesus Christ, 1) we have redemption through his blood, 2) we have received an inheritance, and 3) we were sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Within that long sentence (Ephesians 1:3-14), Paul uses several terms to refer to our relationship as children of God: “adoption as sons,” “inheritance” (twice), and perhaps “guarantee.” But, these are not the only references in the Book of Ephesians as our status as children in God’s family.
For example, consider these passages:
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God… (Ephesians 2:19 ESV)
This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (Ephesians 3:6 ESV)
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family [the whole family] in heaven and on earth is named… (Ephesians 3:14-15 ESV)
…one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:6 ESV)
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. (Ephesians 5:1 ESV)
There are other passages in Ephesians that I could point out, such as other places where Paul refers to God as Father or when he refers to others as “brothers” or “sisters.” But, even from the passages above, it is clear that our relationship with God with him as father and with us as his children is very important to Paul and important to the point(s) that he wants to make in this letter.
I think it’s important for us to realize how fundamental this is to Paul (and, I would suggest, for the other authors of the New Testament as well). Of course, this idea didn’t originate with Paul or with Peter or with James or with any of the the other early followers of Jesus.
No, the importance of recognizing one another as God’s family originated with Jesus himself. Here is just one passage in which Jesus explains this to his followers:
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV)
Perhaps one of the most amazing (to me) passages related to our relationship with God as his children is found in the book of Hebrews:
For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them brothers… (Hebrews 2:11 ESV)
God deals with us as his children, and he expects us to interact with one another as brothers and sisters. This relationship was foundational for Paul, and if we live with one another recognizing God as our common Father and recognizing all in his family as our brothers and sisters, it would change the way we interact with one another.
Replay: And they devoted themselves
Three years ago, I wrote a post called “And they devoted themselves.” The post is an examination of that phrase (the title of the post) in Acts 2:42. What did Luke mean when he wrote, “They devoted themselves…” and specifically what did it mean for those early Christians to devote themselves to “the apostles’ teaching”? By studying this important passage (Acts 2:42-47), I think we can learn alot about the life of the church immediately after Pentecost.
——————————
And they devoted themselves
Acts 2:42 is often called a summary verse concerning the early followers of Jesus Christ. Luke records:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42 ESV)
I think the ESV missed something in the translation here. The phrase “they devoted themselves” is a translation of the Greek verb phrase “ἠσαν προσκαρτεροῦντες” (esan proskarterountes). For those who are familiar with Greek grammar, this is a periphrastic participial construction – a verb of being along with a participle. According to several Greek grammars, the periphrastic participle is the most marked verb form when it comes to verbal aspect. Thus, this verb phrase focuses on the continuous aspect of the verb. The NASB translation tries to bring out this continuous aspect by translating the phrase as “They were continually devoting themselves…”
Lexically, the verb προσκαρτερέω (proskartereo) can mean “devoted to” which we see in both the ESV and NASB translations. According to BDAG (the standard Greek lexicon), in Acts 2:42 it carries a meaning of “hold fast to, continue or persevere in”. The context should help us understand what Luke is communicating to us about these early followers of Jesus Christ.
Luke says that the believers were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. This does not mean that they were “devoted” to listening to what the apostles were teaching. Instead, it means that these early Christians were continually persevering in living according to the message that the apostles taught, as well as continuing to fellowship (share life) break bread (eat together), and pray.
Think about it this way: If the phrase “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” conjures up an image of people sitting around listening to the apostles teach, then the translation is NOT communicating the image to you properly.
On the other hand, if you read that phrase and picture the early believers attempting to live their lives in accordance with the message that the apostles taught, then you’re understanding what Luke wrote.
We see that Luke helps us understand what he means in the following verses:
And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:43-47 ESV)
This passage demonstrates how those early believers lived according to the gospel (the apostles’ teaching), and how they shared their lives and their meals with one another. On the day of Pentecost, God did not create individuals who loved to sit and listen to teaching. Instead, God created a new community who now lived new lives – lives that were not lived for themselves any longer. Instead, they lived their lives for God by sharing their lives with one another and with the world around them.
The world noticed… and the world found favor on this new community and new way of life. (2:47)
Messiness is fine… as long as it’s my mess
Last week, Fred from “On the Journey” wrote a very good post called “We All Need Abishai.” (You’ll need to read his post to find out who Abishai is and why Fred mentioned him in the title.)
In the post, Fred talks about finding a community of brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ to gather with and to share his life with. It’s not the kind of community that he was looking for. As he says, “God led us to a community of faith in what some would call a traditional church.” He then describes a group that loves God and one another, caring for one another throughout the week, not just on Sundays.
Toward the end of his post, Fred makes this statement:
Jan and I gather with this church because there is first of all a love for Jesus that is evident. The other reason is the community that we have with the people. We have felt loved and accepted from the first day we visited. We gather together on Sunday, and at various times throughout the week. We realize that our relationships will get messy and difficult from time to time, but we hope in the Gospel to bring us through the mess and into deeper relationships.
Yes, we all know that relationships are messy. But, as I read Fred’s post, I realized something: I’m not opposed to messes, as long as I can control what kind of mess there. But, when the mess is out of my control or not the kind of mess that I approve of… Well, that’s a different story!
Real community in Christ happens when we put Jesus in control of everything… even the mess.
The thin connections of social media
My son is currently taking an English course at a local community college. He is working on his first paper, which is a response to several essays that he had to read on the topic of technology and its effect on communication, relationships, etc. I’ve enjoyed talking with him about this, and I’m excited about the direction that he wants to take this paper.
Then, last night, I read a post from Dave Black on a similar topic. (I cannot link directly to Dave’s post, but you can read it on his blog dated Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.)
In his post, he responds to another blogger who refers to the difference between “thin connections” and “thick connections.” This is what Dave writes:
Personally, I have benefited tremendously from the internet, and not merely because of the outlet it provides for my saunterings. I’ve enjoyed the “thin connections” it offers. You go online, visit your favorite blogs, and read an interest post or two. No hardship, and the results are often gratifying and edifying. But my greatest satisfaction comes from those “thick conversations” one simply cannot find on the internet, try though one might… I have examined many thousands of tweets and blog posts but I do not really expect to get to “know” their authors online, congenial as they may appear to be. I have no illusions as to the value of my own blog as a serious conversation partner either. But taking all such limitations into account, the fact remains that social media are conversations of a sort, and I for one am very grateful for every conversation partner God brings my way.
In many ways, this blog and my use of social media (Facebook and Twitter especially) have paralleled this course. These various outlets not only allow for “thin connections” online, but they also provide an avenue for developing or strengthening “thick connections” with people who I know “in real life.”
I know there are many discussions going on now about the benefits and detriments of online relationships and communications. For some people, “thin connections” are all that is available for now. I think they should grow in those relationships as much as possible while also looking for opportunities to build face-to-face “thick connections” that happen when we share our “real life” with one another.
Replay: The trans-congregational church
Three and a half years ago, I wrote a post called “The trans-congregational church.” I wrote the post in a response to an article in which the author used the term “trans-congregational church.” In some ways, I think the author was onto something. But, in other ways, the term and the article point to problems among groups of Christians today that prohibit (or at list hinder) the kind of “trans-congregational” relationships that we read about in Scripture. What do you think?
——————————-
The trans-congregational church
In a recent study concern community development in the New Testament, I came across an article called “The Trans-Congregational Church in the New Testament” by Jefrey Kloha (Concordia Journal 34 no 3, July 2008, 172-190).
In this article, Kloha suggests that the term “ekklesia” was used for local congregations that generally met in houses, and more generally for the church-at-large – the heavenly assembly – the “universal church” – the una sancta. But, Kloha says there is a third usage of the term “ekklesia” in the New Testament, which he calls “the trans-congregational church”. He says this “trans-congregational church” consisted of “several (or many) local congregations conceived of corporately”. (173)
Kloha suggests several examples of “the trans-congregational church” in the New Testament. For example, he says that the “church in Jerusalem” could not have met in one place – even the temple courts – so, they must have met in many locations. However, they were considered a single “church”. Also, Kloha says the singular use of “ekklesia” in Acts 9:31 indicates that the individual congregations of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria were considered one church. (Yes, he does discuss the plural variant in this passage, albeit briefly.)
Also, Kloha suggests that the trans-congregational church is demonstrated in the relationships between churches. For example, there is a close connection between the church of Jerusalem and the church of Antioch. Kloha recalls that Paul told the church in Collosae to read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa, indicating a relational connection between the congregations – or multiple congregations – in each city. Paul recognizes the relationships between the various churches in Rome as well (Romans 16).
I think that Kloha has pointed out something that may be missing among the church today. The church has become so exclusive and independent that we often miss the fact that we are united with other brothers and sisters in Christ as well – not only with the ones that meet with us from day-to-day or week-to-week. Kloha offers this concern at the end of his article as well:
By ignoring the NT understanding of the trans-congregational nature of the church we have weakened the bonds of fellowship, mutual concern and support, and unity in doctrine and practice which should inform and indeed define our life together as church. By turning again to the New Testament we might sharpen our understanding of church and apply that understanding to our structure. (191)
I think Kloha has inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) pointed to one of the problem – structure. Many churches have structured themselves in a way that precludes trans-congregational relationships.
In the life of our community, we have seen this in action. We often encourage our brothers and sisters to meet with other churches. In fact, our elders have met with other churches. Of course, we have to explain that we are not unhappy with our church, nor are we interested in “joining” their church. We simply want to build relationships with other brothers and sisters in Christ.
When we talk about the possibility of other “church members” or leadership meeting with us to further build relationships, this seems strange and odd to them – like they would be unfaithful to their church or their pastor.
Our view of church has become so exclusive and structured that we have a hard time recognizing our relationship to those in “other churches”. So, I agree with Kloha that we have (for the most part) lost this idea of “the trans-congregational church”.
What do you think? Is it important for believers to have “trans-congregational” relationships? Why or why not?
Simple church and structure?
Katie at “Backseat Driver” has been writing posts answering questions about “simple church.” One of her latest posts is called “Questions Continued: What about Structure?”
There is an assumption that those who prefer more simple / organic church to more organized / institutional church also disdain or reject any kind of structure or organization. This is a false assumption. In fact, any time people gather together there will be some kind of structure and organization.
For example, if two people meet together for lunch, there will be some type of organization involved: where are they going to eat, what time, who is going to pay? Answering these questions define an organization for their time of eating lunch together. But, what happens if the same two people get together for lunch the next day? What if they get together for dinner? What if there are now three people getting together? Does the same organization still apply?
So, there will always be some type of organization. The question is: Is the organization flexible and fluid enough to follow the form of the people involved? As the people change (either by new people coming together or people maturing or changing life situations) the organization changes as well. As the opportunities for service change, the organization changes as well.
The other side of that spectrum features an organization that is fixed, and the people must fit themselves within that system or face being rejected (either intentionally or unintentionally).
In her post (linked to above), Katie offers several suggestions and a much fuller explanation than I have provided here.
How can we ensure that the people, giftings, service opportunities, etc. are defining the organization instead of the organization attempting to define the people?
Replay: Doctrine is not doctrine anymore
Four years ago, I wrote a post called “Doctrine is not doctrine anymore.” The point of the post is to consider how “doctrine” is usually viewed today as concepts or knowledge. But, to the authors of the New Testament, “doctrine” or “instruction” or “teaching” (all translations of the same word) goes much, much beyond concepts or knowledge and instead encompasses a way of life. Think about how much different our teaching would be if we were as concerned with a way of life instead of only facts.
—————————————
Doctrine is not doctrine anymore
In Acts 2:42, Luke begins to describe the response of those first Christians after receiving the promised Holy Spirit:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42 ESV)
What does it mean that these early followers of Jesus “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching”? As long as I can remember, I’ve been taught that this means that they listened to sermons by the apostles, or at least by those who had heard sermons by the apostles. So, they “devoted themselves” or they “continued in” or they “persevered in” listening to someone teach them.
This sounds good. We all know that “teaching” or “doctrine” is a set of biblical fact, so it makes sense that those early believers would spend time listening to what the apostles had to say. They studied “doctrine” so that they would know what they needed to know.
But, there’s a problem with this picture. “Teaching” or “doctrine” or “instruction” (they are translations of the same word – no difference) in Scripture does not point to something that is simply known. Instead, “teaching” points to something that is demonstrated in both word and deed. Words alone would not be considered a “teaching”; but words combined with a living example would be considered a “teaching”.
Don’t misunderstand me… When I say “words combined with a living example”, I’m not talking about a sermon with application points. “Applications points” are still words. Instead, I’m saying that someone who brings a “teaching” or “doctrine” only does so when the life of the “teacher” matches the words and is demonstrated before the ones who are learning. In other words, a “teaching” combines both words and a way of living that is witnessed and imitated by those who are learning.
Consider Paul’s words to the church in Phillipi:
What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me – practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:9 ESV)
Consider his reminder to the Thessalonians:
For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed – God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:5-10 ESV)
Finally, in his letter to Titus, Paul specifically connects “doctrine” and “teaching” to more than words, as he parallels “teach what accords with sound doctrine” with “show yourself”:
But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:1-10 ESV)
Titus was to teach with his words, but just as importantly, he was to teach with his life. For Paul, teaching with words could not be separated from teaching with lifestyle. Of course, this means that Titus would have to live his life among those he was teaching. It was not enough to simply see them occasionally. In order to Titus to teach “sound doctrine” he would have to live “sound doctrine” with the people.
So, those early believers that Luke described in Acts 2 were devoting themselves to the words and lifestyle of the apostles. They heard what the apostles said, and they saw how the apostles lived. In response to this and to the Spirit’s work in their lives, they spoke and lived in the same way. They did not simply listen to sermons about what to belief. They heard, watched, and lived with the apostles and other believers, and learned from their “living doctrine”.
What does this mean for us? It means that when we make a list of “beliefs” and call it “doctrine”, we are not using the word “doctrine” in a scriptural sense. It means that when we stand before a group of strangers and give them good, biblical information, we are not bringing a “teaching” in the way that the word is used in Scripture.
Primarily, for those of us who desire to make disciples of Jesus Christ, it means that our lives must demonstrate what our mouth is saying. We must live among and with people who are learning from us. Teaching cannot be done at a distance to an audience of strangers. Teaching (in the scriptural sense) occurs when people share their lives together, not when the teacher stands behind a podium.
Replay: Why is one covenant (the new covenant) not enough?
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “What is one covenant not enough?” In Christ, we are all already part of the new covenant. Because of that covenant we are all now children of God and, therefore, brothers and sisters with one another. That covenant alone covers how we should interact with and treat one another. So, why do so many feel that we still need more covenants, i.e. a church covenant?
—————————————
Why is one covenant not enough?
According to Jesus, all of those who belong to God are now covenanted with God. For example, Jesus said that his blood represents this new covenant:
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28 ESV)
In the same way, Paul recognized that he currently served people who were under a new covenant with God:
Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV)
Finally, the author of the book of Hebrews explains how Jesus (as our high priest) is a better mediator of this new covenant:
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (Hebrews 7:22 ESV)
So, all of those who are in Christ – who have been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ – are covenanted together with God… not based on their (our) ability to keep a covenant, but based on God’s promises (for example, see Hebrews 10:23).
We are in a covenant with God, and are therefore covenanted together with one another. Our covenant with God includes new familial relationships with others who are covenanted with God. Just as God is our father, his children (and all of his children) are our brothers and sisters. Our familial responsibilities toward one another are included in our relationship with God.
Thus, I cannot choose how I should treat someone who is in Christ. That relationship and those responsibilities are already ours because of our joint relationship with God.
So, the question that I’ve been struggling and wrestling with is this: If we are already covenanted with God and if we are already brothers and sisters with one another, then why do we need a separate “church covenant”?
A “church covenant” can only do two things: 1) It can remind of us our relationships and responsibilities which already exist, whether we have a covenant or not. And 2) it can specify with whom we share those relationships and responsibilities.
If we are relying on a “church covenant” for reason #1 above, then the “church covenant” is nothing more than a reminder of the new covenant in Christ. We are already covenanted with God through Christ, and therefore covenanted with all other people who are part of the same covenant. Thus, this is really not a “church covenant” but the new covenant.
The problem with #2 above is that our relationships and responsibilities extend to all brothers and sisters in Christ that God brings into our lives. If we use a “church covenant” to include some believers and exclude others, then we are dividing the body of Christ and making distinctions that only God can make. We are trying to choose who to love and who to serve. (Of course, this makes life much easier, but it doesn’t make it a life that lived according to the gospel.)
So, why do we need a “church covenant”? Why is one covenant (the new covenant in Christ) not enough?