The unhypocritcal church
A couple of years ago, I published three posts called “The unhypocritical church” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). The posts were based on a study of, meditation on, and comparison to Romans 12 (especially verses 9-21). Here are the three posts together:
—————————————————-
Most theologians comment about how “theological” the book of Romans is. This simply means that Paul speaks in terms that most closely resemble how modern theologians speak. Of course, Romans is far from a “systematic theology”. But Romans does include a good deal of theology – that is, Paul tells us what he things about God and people and salvation.
In fact, Chapters 1 through 11 are filled with theology. We learn that all people are sinful – all people are separated from God – all people deserve eternal separation from God. We also learn that the remedy is found in the person of Jesus Christ – his death, burial, and resurrection – and that the remedy is administered through the person and presence and power of the Holy Spirit. But, Paul doesn’t stop there.
In Chapter 12, Paul begins to show how his “theology” should work itself out in the lives of all followers of Jesus Christ. He begins by showing that a life sacrificed to God will lead to a life that is tranformed – changed – into a life that is acceptable to God. This life will demonstrate the gifts of the Spirit because it will be controlled by the Spirit. The Spirit will manifest himself differently in different people, but the manifestation of the Spirit’s gifts will always be for the same purpose. But, Paul doesn’t stop there.
In Romans 12:9-21, Paul lays down specific characteristics of the life that is led by the Spirit. This is what he says:
Let love be genuine (unhypocritical). Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:9-21 ESV)
Notice how the genuine (unhypocritical) love of Spirit-indwelled, Spirit-led believers is described:
- holding fast to good
- loving one another
- honoring one another
- serving the Lord fervently
- rejoicing
- patient
- praying
- giving to needy believers
- being hospitable (loving strangers)
- blessing
- living in harmony
- humble
- doing what is honorable
- living in peace with all
This is how the church of God should live. This is how the church of God should be described. In fact, the “theology” of the previous 11 chapters means little if the lives of believers are not being transformed by the indwelled Spirit.
So, where do you stop? Do you stop at discussing theology? Or, do you see the power of the Spirit at work in your life? How does a description of your life match up to Paul’s description of the Spirit-led, transformed life?
—————————————————-
“The unhypocritcal church – Part 2”
When I wrote the post “The unhypocritical church“, I did not plan for it to continue into a second part. However, as I have been meditating on Romans 12 for the last few days, there are a few more thoughts that I want to share.
Sunday morning, we gathered with the church like we do every week. After the formal part of our meeting concluded, people hung around talking for about an hour. At one point, my daughter and another girl her age stood by the door and, like good stewardesses, greeted those who left by saying, “Buh-bye. See you next week.” This was funny at first. Then I realized exactly what they were saying. They recognized that we would not see many of these people for seven days.
Sunday afternoon, as I published the post called “The unhypocritical church” and thought about the episode with my daughter and her friend, I realized that it would be impossible to carry out the teachings of Romans 12:9-21 if we only see one another once a week in a formal setting. Look at this list again:
- holding fast to good
- loving one another
- honoring one another
- serving the Lord fervently
- rejoicing
- patient
- praying
- giving to needy
- believers
- being hospitable (loving strangers)
- blessing
- living in harmony
- humble
- doing what is honorable
- living in peace with all
Sure, some of these we could probably do once a week, and pretend to have carried out Paul’s intention. But, can we have patience with one another if we only see each other once every seven days? Can we live in harmony with one another if we only see each other once every seven days? Similarly, we are to help one another live according to these descriptions. Can we help one another be hospitable toward strangers if we only see one another on Sunday?
This passage (Romans 12:9-21) is about community. Paul does not state, “Live as a community with your brothers and sisters in Christ”. However, he describes believers living together in such a way that they must recognize themselves as a Spirit-indwelled, Spirit-led community in order to see these descriptions carried out in their lives. There is no way to understand “church” as a once or twice a week event and have these characteristics. No, Paul is not describing an event, or a location, or an organization. Paul is describing a way-of-life for people who are following their Master together.
Among the church where God has placed me, I recognize these characteristics in many of my brothers and sisters. On Sunday, I heard that several people are spending their Labor Day Monday helping some friends work on their houses. I heard about other friends who are donating furniture and delivering it to someone that they do not know, but who is in need of furniture. Other friends are spending their day off by working on cars for their brothers and sisters. In activities such as these (and probably many others that I do not know about), the love of Christ is manifest and proclaimed both to believers and to unbelievers alike.
A community… a kingdom community, ruled by the King, looking out for one another, serving one another and the world, proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ, and warmly welcoming those who accept his grace and mercy. This is the kind of church that Paul is describing. This is the church of unypocritical love. This is how I want to live my life.
—————————————————-
“The unhypocritical church – Part 3”
I think this will be my last post on Romans 12:9-21 for now. As a reminder, this is what Paul writes:
Let love be genuine (unhypocritical). Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:9-21 ESV)
Once again, notice how the genuine (unhypocritical) love of Spirit-indwelled, Spirit-led believers is described:
- holding fast to good
- loving one another
- honoring one another
- serving the Lord fervently
- rejoicing
- patient
- praying
- giving to needy believers
- being hospitable (loving strangers)
- blessing
- living in harmony
- humble
- doing what is honorable
- living in peace with all
This is how the church of God should live. This description should characterize each believer and each group of beleivers.
Over the last few days, I have been asking myself which of these characteristics are evident in my life and which characteristics are absent. I can look back over the last few years and see where God has grown me and changed me. But, I can also see where I am not living as God intends. Specifically, God is still teaching me how to show hospitality (that is, love for strangers as opposed to love for those who I already know and love) and how to give to those who are in need. Perhaps, most of all, this is showing me areas in my life where I am not submitting to the presence of God.
As Joel pointed out in a recent post, we must begin with a proper understanind of who we are in Christ. I would also add that we should also recognize the awesome power and presence of the Holy Spirit who indwells us and changes us from the inside out.
Beginning with this understanding, I am going to ask you the same question that I have been asking myself: Meditating on the description of the unhypocritical (genuine) love of Romans 12:9-21, where is God still working in your life? In what ways are you not submitting to God’s presence in your life?
People’s Church
A good friend of mine recently sent me this quote from Jurgen Moltmann:
“The Christian idea of the people which, according to the Gospel of Mark, is defined by Jesus’ relationship to them (the ochlos) was not merely left unimplemented in the history of the hierarchical church; it was actually suppressed. We shall only rediscover it if we rise up with the cry of popular protest–this time on the part of the church’s people–claiming: ‘We are the church.’ This is what has happened since 1994 in Catholic congregations in Europe. Ever since the early Christian development of the manarchical episcopate, we have known the church as a hierarchy ‘from above’ which delegates the universal episcopate of the pope ‘downwards’, and demotes the people of Christ to the status of ‘the faithful’, or ‘the people in the pews’. The distinction between clergy and laity has split the people of God into two. The word ‘lay’ originally meant a member of the laos, the people of God; but beecause the clerics were set apart from the people, the word came to mean the ignorant and incompetent, those with no jurisdiction. A ‘complete layman’ means someone who doesn’t understand what something is about. In the hierarchical perspective, ‘the people’ are only there as the object of ‘holy rule’, of caritative care and guidance by their ‘shepherds’. For centuries, people in the church have reacted to this godless and un-Christian deprival of their responsibility with growing apathy and with silence. Since they are no longer ‘forced’ to go to church, they leave the church altogether. The result is people without a church and a church without people. This is a silent falling away from the church which the church itself has brought about. It is only if this ‘church for the people’ becomes a ‘church of the people and by the people’, and if the hierarchical church for looking after people becomes a congregational church, with many different kinds of participation, that the ancient schism between chruch and people will be overcome.
“What applies to the Roman catholic hierarchy in its estrangement from the people can alsobe said about the Protestant pastoral aristocracy, or its somewhat more modern variation in the form of a theological and pastoral expertocracy. Ideas about a blanket church-management which will cover the religious needs of the people are not enough to create what in Germany is called a Volkskirche, a church intended to meet the needs of the whole population. Even the strenuously promoted programmes ‘church for the people’, ‘church for others’, or ‘church for the world’ do not reach the people, because the word for cuts the church off from the people and makes the people an object–something to be cared for. A ‘people’s’ church which accords with Jesus and the people can grow up only through a congregational renewal that springs from the people and is implemented through the people. For this, the Catholic base communities in Latin America, and the free church, Pentecostal congregations are examples and models.” (Jurgen Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 265-66)
I like some of the distinctions that Moltmann is making in this passage. He is correct that when the church becomes the clergy’s church (either in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestantism), the people become separated from the church. The people lose sight of the fact that they are the church in identity, and the church functions only as the people function… not as the clergy functions. In reality, the church does not exist apart from the people, since the church is the people of God gathered out of the world and sent into the world.
So, the church is the people’s church in the sense that the church is composed of the people who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, the church is not the people’s church in the sense that the church belongs to the people. In the same way that the clergy cannot usurp the church, neither can the people. The church belongs to Christ. We are his, and he is our head – our only head. Just as the clergy should not attempt to pass themselves off as the head of the church, the people must not attempt to pass themselves off as the head of the church in some sort of democratic fashion.
I don’t think this is what Moltmann is saying. However, in our individualized and democratized society, it is easy to read “people’s church” as being an organization belong to and directed by the people. In the same way that the church is not for the people (using Moltmann’s language), neither is the church by the people.
Instead, the church is Christ’s church… the people are Christ’s people. The Holy Spirit works through the people, that is, through the church.
So, while the people should not allow the clergy to usurp the headship of Christ nor to usurp the functioning of all followers of Jesus (the people), neither should the people themselves attempt to usurp the headship of Christ.
A great church checklist
Joe (JR) (from “More than Cake“) has given us a great church checklist in a post (humorously) titled “Top 10 Reasons My Church Sucks“. This is what Joe says about the phrase “My Church Sucks” (it’s not what you think):
Saying “My Church Sucks!†is a proclamation that we are a drawing power that sucks people into the life of Christ and the liberty of His Church.
Saying, “My Church Sucks†is both a profession of who we are, and a confession of hope for what we must become.
Saying, “My Church Sucks†is the best thing I can say about my church and it is the dream I have for every church!
So, what is Joe’s “Top 10 List”? Here it is:
10. We are faithful neighbors to those nearby (Proverbs 27:10).
9. We are friends of Jesus who share in the life-transforming knowledge of God (John 15:15).
8. We are a countercultural community that lives in the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).
7. We bring joy to one another and live in harmony (Philippians 2:2-4).
6. We don’t just talk about maturity, we model it (Philippians 3:16-17).
5. We give financially to those in need (Philippians 4:15-16)
4. We eat with sinners and welcome them into our family (Luke 15:1-2)
3. We do not judge those outside the church, we love them (Luke 7:36-50).
2. We reject the stumbling block of religion and embrace relationship with Jesus (Matthew 18:6-9).
1. We preach the Good News of Jesus Christ crucified–and the lost get sucked in! (Acts 2:41)
Like I said… a good checklist for any church. How do you and your church compare?
The ekklesia in context
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “The ekklesia in context.” In English translations, it is easy to assume that the word “church” always refers to the same group. However, if we study the word ekklesia (which is usually translated “church”), we find that the term is often used of different groups and different types of groups. Studying these various uses of ekklesia in context can help us understand the church.
—————————————————————
During this last week, I’ve published two posts discussing the meaning of the Greek noun á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia), usually translated “church” in English translations of the New Testament. In these two posts, I’ve discussed how the English word “church” developed separately from the Greek term á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) (see “The ekklesia and the kuriakon“), and I’ve discussed how a Jewish writer contemporary to the New Testament authors used the Greek term á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) to indicate an occasional assembly of people (see “The ekklesia of Josephus“).
However, a very important question remains: “How do we interpret the term á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) in the New Testament?” As far as I can tell, the answer is both simple and complex. He must interpret this term (as with all terms in any language) in context.
There are many attributes of the group of people that we call “the church of God”. For example, Paul used terms such as “saints”, “faithful”, “brothers and sisters”, “in Christ”, “beloved of God”, and “sanctified” to describe the recipients of his letters – the same recipients that he called á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia). All of these descriptions are true of “the church”. However, this information is not intrinsic to the term á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia), but is instead found in the context.
Thus, when we read “church” in Scripture, we must be careful not to read into the “meaning” of the word itself everything that we know about the people of God elsewhere in the New Testament. The people of God are described in many ways in Scripture. One way that they are described is as the á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) of God. Whether this means an occasional assembly of a few believers, a permanent assembly of all believers, an eschatological assembly of all believers, or something in between must be determined from the context of each usage of the term á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia).
For example, when Jesus says, “I will build my church,” (Matt. 16:18) what does á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) mean in this context? Is Jesus talking about each occasional assembly, the permanent assemblies in certain houses, the permanent assemblies in a city, the entire eschatological assembly of God’s people, or something else? As we determine what á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) means in this context, we can better understand what Jesus promises to build. If we take Matt. 16:18 as a promise that Jesus will build our “local church”, but Jesus is using the term á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) differently than we are using the term “church”, then we have misinterpreted and misapplied Jesus’ statement. Is the “church” in Matt.16:18 the same á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) before whom Jesus later instructs his followers to take an unrepentant brother (Matt. 18:17)? Only context can tell us.
Similarly, when Luke reports that “Saul was ravaging the church,” (Acts 8:3) which á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) was Saul attempting to destroy? Which á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) prayed for Peter while he was in prison (Acts 12:5)? Who are included in the á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) who agreed with the apostles and elders that Gentiles are part of the people of God without keeping the law (Acts 15:22)? Who are included in the á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) that met in Prisca’s and Aquila’s house (Rom. 16:3)? Who were divided when they came together as an á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:18)? Questions such as these could be asked of every instance of the word á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) in the New Testament. Many times, we may find that two instances of the term refer to two different groups of people.
We will not answer questions concerning reference from the inherent meaning in the word á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia). We will only learn to whom a specific instance of á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) refers by studying the word in its context. Only then can we tell if we are using the word “church” in a manner comparable to the way á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá½·Î± (ekklÄ“sia) is used in that particular passage.
So far, as I’ve studied these various passages, I’ve found it is worth it to spend the time that it takes to examine the term “church” in context. Many times, my understanding of “church” has changed because of this extra study. Hopefully, my understanding has changed to become more scriptural.
Ecclesiological Significance of Houses in the NT
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m reading through the concluding chapter of Roger W. Gehring’s House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. (See my posts “Church and Meals,” “Achitectural Significance of Houses in the NT,” and “Socioeconic Significance of Houses in the NT.”) 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 the final part of his summary chapter, Gehring examines “The House as a Church”, looking at the ecclesiological significance of the use of hosues in the New Testament. He begins by answering the following question: “What the house church a church?” He says:
[I]n the primitive church in Jerusalem, houses were used for assembly, community formation and fellowship, prayer, teaching, and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. It is legitimate here to speak of house churches as churches in the full sense, as all of the ecclesiological elements that constitute the church are observable. (pg 295)
In fact, Gehring argues that the Lord’s Supper could only be taken in houses, and not in the larger Christian gatherings. However, that brings up another question: If the house church is a legitimate church, then what is the relationship of the house church to the local church (church in a location) and the whole worldwide church.
Next, Gehring continues his conclusion by comparing the church in a house, the church in a location, and the church worldwide. Gehring concludes that in Scripture (especially Paul’s letters) the “individual congregation” (that is, the church that meets in a home)Â has priority over either the church in a location or the whole worldwide church.
Thus, based on this conclusion, we can see how important the household and household structure is for the church. He says:
In some respects the architectural and particularly the social image of the ancient oikos [household] becomes the determining image for ecclesiology, church development, leadership structures, and social relationships of Christians in the community. The well-organized household becomes the model for a well-organized church. This is related in particular to the fact that many house churches were small, close-knit groups with a nuclear family as their core. Consequently, it was quite natural that household patterns impressed themselves upon the social reality of the congregation. The house churches of the Pastoral Letters understood themselves essentially as the “household of God,” and it is therefore fully legitimate to speak here of an oikos [household] ecclesiology. (pg 298)
Thus, according to Gehring, the structure and organization of the church is best seen in the structure and organization of the family or household. Any other expressions of the church (location or worldwide) should grow from our understanding of the church as a family, and should not replace or override that understanding.
I disagree with one of Gehring’s conclusions at this point. He says that since the church is based on household structures, then each congregation had a single leader just as each family had a single leader. Gehring associates the episkopos (overseer or bishop) with this single church leader. He says, “It seemed quite logical and natural that one single overseer should lead the house church, just as the household was led by one housefather…” (pg 298)
I agree with Gehring that each house church had one leader, just as each household was led by the father. However, I think Gehring missed the point that in Scripture this “housefather” was always designated to be God. Jesus Christ was recognized as the only “head” of the church, and the “head” of each house church. Note that headship language is used in Scripture both when speaking of the church worldwide and the church local and the church in a house.
Thus, it is not the episkopos (overseer or bishop) who carries the role of the housefather, but it is God himself who is ever present with his children and leads as head of the family and church. (Unless, of course, Gehring was referring to the episkopos of 1 Peter 2:25, but he wasn’t; he was referring to a human overseer.)
Otherwise, I think this is a great study of the importance of understanding the church as a household or family.
A huge problem with “house church”
First, if you haven’t read Guy’s post (from “The M Blog“) called “How house churches get started in Guayaquil“, then go read that post now. If you haven’t read Guy’s post, then this post will probably not make much sense.
Guy’s post reveals one reason that the house church “model” will have a difficult time in the United States (and probably in other “developed” nations with “developed” churches). Notice how Guy describes the start of a new house church:
Monica was hired to clean the house of a believer, Martha. Monica began to open up with Martha about the problems she was having at home with the man she was living with. Martha would cry and pray with Monica. She openly shared Christ telling her He could heal her life and home if she would just trust him. Monica thought it too good to be true what Martha shared.
One day Monica decided to invite Martha to come to her house to share the Gospel with her family. Martha took along Marlene, a gifted evangelist from the house church she attends. Marlene and Martha arrived at Monica’s and gathered the family together to dialogue about spiritual matters. Monica felt strongly that she should give her heart to Christ. She was certain that she would be the only one to do so. Much to her surprise, Medardo, her daughter Aneida, and her daughter’s live-in boyfriend, David, ALL gave their hearts to the Lord! From the very beginning, Medardo and David were changed dramatically by the power of Jesus working in their lives. Monica and Aneida were overcome with joy in the Lord.
Marlene, Martha and others began 45-minute weekly bus trips to disciple their new converts. Both couples decided early on that it would be best to get legally married. All four were baptized in a nearby river (see video here.)
The church that now meets in their home.
And, thus, we see the problem. You do see the problem, right?
I mean,churches in the United States would certainly be excited that one of their members (i.e. Martha) was interested in the salvation of her housekeeper (i.e. Monica). And, churches in the United States would certainly be excited about sending someone (i.e. Marlene) to share the gospel with Monica. And, churches in the United States would certainly celebrate with Monica, Martha, and Marlene when Monica accepted Christ as her Lord and Savior and commited her life to following Jesus.
But, then we run into the problem. You see, churches in the United States would not be excited about Monica and her family starting to meet with friends and family in their own home. No, instead, for the most part, churches in the United States would want Monica and her friends and family to make the 45 minute bus trip to meet with them.
This is the huge problem with “house church”. Actually, its a huge problem whether that new church meets in a house or not. So, perhaps the “problem” is not with the house, but with something else. What do you think?
Uncle Lionel and the church as family
Lionel at “The Gospel in 3-D” has written an excellent post called “The Church As Family: How Church Leadership is Affected By How You View The Church.” Lionel says that if we view the church as a family, it will affect how we treat one another, and it will affect how we view leadership among the church. He presents a wonderful illustration using his relationship with his nephew:
I remember my grandmother raising my nephew and I was like his big brother. We were both adopted and I was given the responsibility to helping with potty training, feeding him, carrying him, changing him, talking him for walks, playing with him in the park, and protecting him from harm, I was also given some delegated discipling power; however, the real discipline rested in the hands of the only authority in the house, my grandmother…
As I got older my nephew got older. I stopped taking him to the restroom because he could go by himself, I stopped reading to him because he had learned to read on his own, I stopped taking him to the park because he was big enough to ride his bike and protect himself, I stopped walking him to the school bus, I stopped picking out his clothes, I even became less involved in his decision making. Day by day, he matured and my role became less involved. Day by day, I saw him grow up into maturity and my influence became more of an example and less hands on…
I wonder if I were still putting diapers on my 19 year old nephew what people would think. I wonder if people saw me rocking him to sleep today, what they would think, I wonder if I brushed his teeth for him tonight what others would think?
I think this is exactly how more mature believers should help less mature believers walk with Christ. I’m guessing that while Lionel’s nephew was growing, there were times when Lionel allows his nephew to do some things by himself that Lionel could have done better. I’m assuming that there were times when Lionel’s nephew made mistakes that Lionel himself would not have made. But, this was all necessary for the nephew to grow and mature.
In the same way, mature believers need to allow less mature believers to do or say things that the more mature believers may have done or said better. Less mature believers need to be given room to make mistakes. This is the way growth happens. If this is not allowed, then those less mature believers will not mature.
Instead, leaders will always be brushing their teeth for them. But, unfortunately, I think this is what many within the church expect today.
More about the hypothetical situation
My post “Hypothetical Situation… what do you think?” from Tuesday was based on a true story. Here is the full report as I received it:
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go. The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea… (Acts 17:1-10 ESV)
There were a few details that I left out of my “hypothetical situation”. 1) The “religoius people” were Jews. 2) Paul and Silas did not have New Testament Scriptures to leave with the new believers. 3) The new believers were already facing persecution before Paul and Silas left.
Paul and Silas probably visited Thessalonika around 49-50 AD. We don’t know specifically what happened to the group of believers in Thessalonika after Paul and Silas left. But, we do know that the church – and Paul did consider them a church – continued to grow in both numbers and maturity. Notice what Paul says in his letter to this church, which he probably wrote only a year or two after visiting the city for the first time:
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-8 ESV)
So, I’ll answer my own questions concerning my “hypothetical situation” now:
1) What things do you think are most important that you would have taught them over the last few weeks? According to Acts, the most important information that Paul communicated to the Jews was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus is the Messiah. For the new believers – those to whom the gospel and the Holy Spirit had come – the most important thing for Paul was that they imitated his way of life.
For myself, I probably would not trust the Spirit as much as Paul did. I would think that I would have to present a systematic set of teachings and made sure they understood and agreed with everything.
2) What concerns would you have about this group of disciples? It seems that Paul’s main concern was that they would remain faithful in spite of persecution.
My concerns would be that they would not do or believe the things that I do or believe.
3) Would you consider this group a church? Why or why not? Paul did consider them a church because the Holy Spirit had come to them.
I would consider them a church, because they had received the Holy Spirit.
4) Do you think you left them with everything they need after only a few weeks? Paul thought that they had everything they needed.
I’m learning that they had everything they needed.
(Note: “Everything they needed” does not mean that these believers were completely mature. But, then, no believer or group of believers is completely mature. Thus, we continually need the presence of the Spirit and the help from other believers.)
5) If so, how could this be enough? Paul was satisfied that if they had the Holy Spirit, then he would provide everything they needed. This is a constant and consistent theme with Paul.
See my answer above.
6) If not, what is missing? Nothing is missing.
Next week, I will publish one more post concerning this “hypothetical situation”. In that post, I will discuss the point of these posts.
Hypothetical Situation… what do you think?
Suppose that you and some friends were traveling through a foreign city. While you were there, you met a group a people who invited you to a religious ceremony. You go with them.
At this ceremony, you realize that these people believe in God, but they do not know about Jesus Christ. At the end of the ceremony, the leader gives anyone a chance to talk. You find the courage to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with the people gathered.
Some of the people are very interested. As you leave the ceremony, they follow you and ask you more about Jesus. In fact, they encourage you to stay with them for the next several days and continuously ask you about Jesus, your beliefs, your lifestyle, etc. Many people confess their desire to follow Jesus.
The people are amazed at the way you interact with your friends, with them, and with the other people in the city. They ask you about your lifestyle, and you explain that the gospel not simply a message to be believed, but it is a life to be lived.
The religious leaders invite you back to their next ceremony. Once again you are given the opportunity to speak, but this time the leaders are ready with some questions and concerns. You explain as well as you can, and after the ceremony a few others ask if they can learn more as well. Again, many confess their desire to follow Jesus.
Others who are not religious begin to show interest, and some of them confess their desire to follow Jesus. It seems like everywhere you go in the city, people are talking about your group and about Jesus.
By the next week, when you have once again been invited to the religious ceremony, the atmosphere has changed. The religious leaders are angry and begin to threaten you and those who have began to follow Christ because of you. You are not given the chance to defend yourself or the others at this meeting, and the new believers become concerned.
That night, after the ceremony, the new believers convince you that it would be best for you and for them if you and your friends left that night. You agree, so you pack up your belongings and drive away.
As you are driving away, and as you think about what had happened over the last few weeks, you begin to think about that little band of disciples back in the city.
So… here are my questions for you, my readers: 1) What things do you think are most important that you would have taught them over the last few weeks? 2) What concerns would you have about this group of disciples? 3) Would you consider this group a church? Why or why not? 4) Do you think you left them with everything they need after only a few weeks? 5) If so, how could this be enough? 6) If not, what is missing?
(By the way, this “hypothetical situation” is based on a true story.)
Autonomous churches
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Autonomous churches” as a follow-up to another post called “Autonomous individuals“. I was commenting on a passage from a book that followed the interrelational aspect of church communities in Scripture. I think we’re missing something today when we believe and act as if our little group is “autonomous”. I think this post goes along well with my last few posts.
———————————————-
In my last post, “Autonomous individuals…“, I began discussing a book by Abraham J. Malherbe called Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1977), specifically his chapter called “House Churches and Their Problems”. In my last post I discussed how the early Christians saw themselves as part of an extended household – a family. But, how did these early Christian “households” relate to other Christian “households”?
Malherbe continues:
As the church grew in a particular locality, more than one house church would be formed. The scarcity of information on the house churches in the first century precludes our having a clear understanding of their interrelationship. Paul seems to have known of at least three such churches in Rome (Rom. 16:5, 14, 15), and there may have been more than one group in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:17) and also in Laodicea (Col. 4:15). Although they may have formed separate communities, such groups were not viewed as being separate churches. Luke’s description of the church in Jerusalem is not clear on this point, but it does convey the impression that he thought of it as one church despite the smaller groups that composed it. This is supported by his (and the Pastoral Epistles) relating presbyters, or bishops, to cities rather than to individual groups (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5). By that time, however, more than one house church would presumably have existed in most localities with which the literature is concerned. More significant is that Paul and his followers, although they knew of separate groups in an area, wrote one letter to the church in that immediate area, apparently on the assumption that it would suffice for all the groups (e.g., Romans). On this understanding, the individual house churches would together have represented the church in any one area. [70]
Malherbe recognizes, as Scripture indicates, that there were different groups of Christians in a particular area (city). But, these groups did not consider themselves separate or distinct from other groups in the area. Instead, they considered themselves to be part of the same church. Also, Paul and others outside a particular city recognized all of the believers – and all of the groups of believers – in that city to be part of the same church.
As God formed the believers into households, He did not form them into exclusive households. Just as individuals now recognized that they were part of something bigger than themselves, the individual groups of believers also recognized that they were part of something bigger than that group. Thus, it seems from Scripture, that the distinct groups in a location – while recognized by themselves and others as a church – did not see themselves as truly distinct from other groups of believers in that same location. In fact, they also recognized a connection – though perhaps a looser connection – with other groups of believers in more distant locations. For this reason, Paul could label each group of believers meeting in a home as a church, but he could at the same time label all of the believers in a city as a church.
An autonomous church did not exist in the early days of Christianity. In fact, Paul reminds the believers in Corinth of this several times in his first letter to them. In 1 Cor. 1:2, he reminds his readers that they are not alone, but “together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (ESV) Similarly, Paul reminds them that all the churches share common beliefs, activities, and teachings (4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:34; 16:1). The church in Corinth – even the church at the city level – was not an autonomous church, but was to recognize itself as being in relationship with the wider church throughout the world.
Similarly, in Romans 16, Paul expects and encourages the various “home churches” in that area to greet one another, recognizing some level of association between the different groups since the “greeting” was certainly more than a wave or a handshake. Thus, as the believers from different groups encountered one another – either in an intentional or unintentional meeting – they recognized themselves as part of the same church, not as members of distinct churches with little to no relationship between the two groups.
Invariably, when this idea of multiple groups (churches) recognizing themselves as one church is suggested, the question of leadership and control arises. If the different groups are a single church, then who is the leader? Who is in control? Who is responsible for the “meeting”? To me, these questions indicate a lack of understanding of biblical leadership. Biblical leadership is not about control, but about service. The leader is the one who serves. Thus, the true leaders are not concerned with being in control, but with serving others.
Similarly, this idea does not mandate a city-wide hierarchy of leadership. Instead, it mandates humility, gentleness, patience, love – in fact, the whole fruit of the Spirit – in accepting others and treating others as members of the same body – which we are, whether we accept it or not.
The people that meet in the building down the street – those people that we like to make fun of – they are our brothers and sisters. The people that meet across town – those people with the strange practices – they are part of the body of Christ with us. The people that rent the school auditorium – those people who are a little louder/quieter than we like – they are part of our church. We do not do service to the body of Christ by separating ourselves from other brothers and sisters who may be different from us. Instead, we demonstrate our love for one another by reaching out to one another, serving one another, accepting one another, learning from one another, especially when those “one anothers” look or act differently than us.
The autonomous church is not found in Scripture. Instead, the church in the New Testament recognized its mutual relationship with other believers in their area and their mutual need of one another (interdependence), despite their differences. And, where the believers did not think they needed each other, the biblical authors wrote against those practices and teachings.