Listening to Theological Experts
In my post, “Listening to the Experts,” I suggested that the early Reformers, while trying to distance themselves from the clergy-laity divisions within the Catholic Church, ended up creating their own clergy-laity divisions because of their insistence on a particular type of teaching for the church.
This problem persists today, even among people who understand that the church should work together to understand Scripture (that is, community hermeneutics). For example, in his book The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005) Kevin Vanhoozer argues for a type of community interpretation of Scripture. He says:
There is safety, although not surety, in numbers. Truth is not defined by consensus; but consensus, especially the kind formed by the Spirit is often a good indication of where and what the truth is. Orthodoxy does not describe a single, authorized version of Christian theology, however, but only delimits the parameters—the space, as it were—within which discussions about particular shapes and translations may take place. (pg 324)
But, how does Vanhoozer understand the church to come this consensus within Orthodoxy?
He describes theology as drama with Scripture as the script, the Holy Spirit as the director, the scholar as the dramaturge, the pastor as assistant director, and the church as the audience/actors. What is the theologian/scholar’s responsibility as “dramaturge”?
The dramaturge is the person responsible for helping the director to make sense of the script for both the players and the audience… The theologian is an advocate both of the script and of the performing company, with a dual responsibility to understand the play and to make it intelligible to a contemporary audience. (pg 244-47)
Thus, in Vanhoozer metaphor, both the theologian and the pastor stand apart from “the players and the audience” (closer to the Holy Spirit) in order to help them understand the Script. But, in the church, both the theologian and the pastor cannot stand apart from “the players and the actors” because they are also part of the church.
By the way, I appreciate much of what Vanhoozer has written. In fact, I have scheduled this post to be published on the same day that he is speaking in our seminary chapel, and I plan to listen to his lecture. However, I think his metaphor demonstrates the continued divisions between the experts (in theology) and the rest of the church.
While Vanhoozer recognizes the importance of community interpretation of Scripture, his view of the roles of the theologian scholar and pastor as separate from the church and closer to the role of the Holy Spirit works against community interpretation.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the problem is not with experts or expertise. It is good and natural for some people to have expertise in certain subjects. However, the problem here is that obtaining expertise through education in a certain area seems to automatically give that person a right to interpret Scripture for others (that is, those who do not have the same expertise).
Of course, if our desire is for the church to gain knowledge of ancient texts and cultures, of theological systems, or of linguistics and grammar, then experts in these fields would be necessary. However, as important as these fields are for the church – and they are important – this type of knowledge is not what the church needs.
Expertise is important… but not just expertise in areas of theology, biblical studies, ancient history, linguistics, and grammar. In my next post, I will try to give a more balanced approach to experts and expertise, and demonstrate how this balanced approach better lends itself to community interpretation of Scripture.
What do you think?
Listening to the Experts
A few weeks ago, my friend Rodney was teaching the church from Matthew 23:1-12 where Jesus begins to warn the people about following the example of the scribes and Pharisees. At one point, Matthew writes:
They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. (Matthew 23:5-7 ESV)
While discussing the Jewish leaders’ desire to have the “place of honor at feasts,” Rodney read a similar statement from Luke’s Gospel:
When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 14:8-11 ESV)
Since I’ve been studying “religious feasts” in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, I shared a few things about what might be the “place of honor” and the “lowest place” at such a feast.
Rodney thanked me for sharing, and reminded everyone that they could share something to help in the teaching. He said (something like), “If you have expertise in any certain area, feel free to share about that.” Now, I agree with what Rodney said, but as I’ve been thinking about this, I also realize that the idea of “expertise” and “experts” can be a problem for the church. (By the way, I talked to Rodney about this, and, as I suspected, we both agreed on this subject.)
You see, the problem is not that some people have expertise in a certain area. This is certain. For example, I know a little about Greek and a little less about Hebrew. Thus, when we’re studying Scripture together as the church, there will be some things that I may be able to offer to the discussion because of that knowledge.
But, like I said, this is not the problem. Expertise becomes a problem when the church begins to believe that only certain areas of expertise or knowledge gives someone the right or even the responsible of interpreting Scripture. I think this is one of the problems that we still have today from a decision that was made by the Reformers. (I’ve written about this in more detail in my post “Reformation period church meetings.”)
During the Reformation, I think the early Reformers correctly wanted to turn the church’s attention back to Scripture. However, their understanding of “teaching” came primarily from their University background. Since the majority of people did not have a university education, they could not teach Scripture in the way that it “should” be taught. Thus, while the Reformers attempted to do away with the clergy-laity divide, they actually perpetuated it between those who could (were allowed) to teach Scripture, and those who were not.
Today, that same mentality persists. In fact, when I talk with many Christians about interactive church meetings and community hermeneutics, I’m usually asked one of these questions at some point: 1) But I’ve studied Scripture more than they have, and I’ve been taught how to interpret Scripture… or 2) But what if someone teaches heresy (meaning, what if someone teaches something that I – or my denomination – disagrees with).
I think it is good to have a theological education – obviously, since I’m in a PhD program at a theological seminary. I think that people can gain certain types of expertise (knowledge) from this type of education, and this knowledge can help the church in understanding Scripture.
The question that we should ask ourselves, though, is this: Is theological education the only type of expertise that can benefit the church in interpreting Scripture?
I think for many Christians, the answer to this question (whether expressed or not) is, “Yes.” We can see this answer in the way that churches meet.
However, I think that the answer to this question is “No.” I think there are other types of knowledge that can help the church interpret Scripture. I’ll discuss this more in my next few posts.
For now, what do you think?
21st Century Church Contest Entries
Energion’s blogging/essay contest is finished. All the submissions are in, and the judging has begun. I know, because I’m one of the judges. Without giving away my preferences or rankings, I thought I would share some thoughts from each essay (in the order listed by Energion):
From A. Amos Love’s submission:
This congregation of “Disciples of Christ,†“the ekklesia of God,†“ sons of God,†will;
Forsake all…
Love not the world…
Love not their own life…
Just want to know Him…
Count all things but dung…
Always take the lower place…
Make themselves of no reputation…
From Arthur Sido’s submission:
Scripture does not lay out a specific, liturgical schedule of events to govern the lives of believers nor is one desirable. All too often we have tried to push Scripture aside when it comes to the gathering of the New Covenant people as the church and replaced it with our own pragmatic solutions, rituals and traditions which may bring us comfort and a sense of being religious but bring little glory to God. Isn’t bringing glory to God what the gathering of the church is supposed to be about?
From Lew Ayotte’s submission:
When the Assembly of Christ is about building one another up, not dividing over leaders or denominations, focused on recognizing their own leaders, they will inherently be about fulfilling the Great Commission. In fact, I believe following Jesus’ command here may be like second nature to them. They will see the world through His eyes instead of their own. As the Assembly of Christ, reaching our neighbors will not be based on a program, chant, or weekly exercise… it will be according to Christ’s example. Each member in the assembly will recognize their responsibilities, although different, each one has an extremely important role.
From David Blanton’s submission:
Finally, a Jesus Christ ministry cannot help but look like Christ Jesus, the only mirror that is worth measuring itself against. What did the Good Samaritan look like? The parable never gave the listener a physical description because it wasn’t important. The only radical ministry is the one that has Christ Jesus as its center, who said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. If a ministry does that, then it cannot help but look like a Jesus Christ ministry. Does the ministry look forward or backward or does it abstain from the obtuseness of looking anywhere but its center?
From Lionel Woods’ submission:
When the disciples met with Christ, He was modeling community before them. They asked “where are you staying†and He answered “come and seeâ€. From that day forward they lived in a community, sharing, eating, living amongst, and knowing one another. They would have looked at what we giggle at today as a cult. We think that type of life on life is appalling, idiotic, unnecessary, we believe that type of life is too radical, ridiculous, we cling on to our autonomy like it is a right, my friends it is not. We belong to a King. A King who has created us for this community a community to reflect who He is.
From James Lee’s submission:
This aptly demonstrates the need for our ministry to each other and provides a point of commonality that will equip us to be true salt and light in the world while loving each other. We cannot accomplish the tasks of discipleship and proclamation of the Gospel through political agendas, legislated morality, bully pulpits, and sectarian distinctions that scream we are right and you are wrong. We can only accomplish true ministry in this century through the power of Christ, His Holy Spirit, and a love for one another that strengthens us to face the enemy head on, and storm the gates of hell with the victory that was wrought in the spotless Lamb’s blood.
From Christopher Larson’s submission:
Such ministry will seek to avoid the two pitfalls of pragmatism on the one hand and self important hyper-spiritual perfection on the other. it will celebrate the freedom to do many things so that one thing might in the end be done, and it will celebrate all who share that calling as brothers and sisters in the ministry that takes many external forms, but in the end is one, (Pslam 119:63). Our goal will be to always ‘remember Jesus Christ’ in whatever form our work may take, and to know however difficult the path may seem He is Lord and He is not in chains, but freely working in and through us to bring forth a people for Himself, (2 Timothy 2:1-9).
I enjoyed all of the submissions. They all caused me to think about the church of Jesus Christ in the 21st century in different ways. I encourage you to read each of the essays.
What if we met to edify one another?
A couple of years ago, I wrote a post called “What if we met to edify one another?” In that post, I said that the way churches meet would change if our purpose was to allow each believer the opportunity to exercise their spiritual gifts in order to build up the church toward maturity in Christ. I still think this is true, so I thought I would share that post again. I also hope that you will think about the questions that I ask at the end of the post and share your thoughts with us.
————————————————————————
What if we met to edify one another?
Occasionally, I’m asked if I think churches today should meet in the same way that churches met in the first century, as described in the New Testament. This questions is usually followed by a statement such as, “Should we also wear robes and sandals when we meet together?”
Certainly there are major differences between the twenty-first century and the first century. While I do not believe that we should do everything exactly like the church did in the New Testament, I do believe that we who live in the twenty-first century can learn something from those who lived in the first century – even when it comes to the church meeting.
First of all, consider the standard church meeting of today. These meetings usually center on locations, leaders, music, preaching, and money. Are these bad things? No. People need a place to meet. It is good to recognize leaders. Singing praise to God is a good thing. Preaching and teaching are important. Money is necessary for some of the things that we do. But, do we find these things the focus of the church meeting in the New Testament.
I suggest that if we study the meeting of the church in the New Testament, we will not find a focus on location, leaders, music, preaching, or money. Are they important. Yes, but they are not most important. I suggest that instead of changing the way the church meets today, we would learn more by changing our focus during the meeting to the focus of the gathered church in the New Testament.
What was the focus of the gathered church in the New Testament? The purpose of the church meeting was to allow each believer an opportunity to exercise his or her spiritual gifts in a manner that built up other believers, that is, that encouraged them toward maturity in Jesus Christ. If the church changed its focus today, would it change the way that we meet? I think that it would. However, if we start with changing the way that we meet, then we are starting with the wrong thing. Let’s start with our purpose. If we start with the purpose of building up one another in Christ, then the format of the meeting will fall into place.
If we start by recognizing that we should meet together so that we can build up one another, then the reason for locations, leaders, music, preaching, and money also falls into place. Similarly, we can make decisions based on the reason that we meet together as a church.
Think about the way your church meets. Does the meeting of your church reflect the purpose of allowing each believer to exercise his or her spiritual gifts in order to build up others toward maturity in Christ?
SECSOR 2010 Presentation: A Theology of Mutuality
At the beginning of October, I submitted a proposal to SECSOR 2010. SECSOR is the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion. Here is their Call for Papers for their meeting in Atlanta on March 5-7, 2010.
Last week, I learned that my submission had been accepted. So, in a few months, I’ll be presenting “A Theology of Mutuality” at the SECSOR 2010 meeting.
Here is a short summary of my presentation:
Twenty years ago, David Peterson began a “limited” study of the concept of encouragement by briefly examining the use of the παÏακαλÎω / παÏάκλησις word group in Paul’s letters and in the Book of Hebrews. [David G. Peterson, “The Ministry of Encouragement,” in God Who is Rich in Mercy (Eds. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986), 235] However, in his short article, Peterson suggested that “there is need of a comprehensive study” of encouragement. This presentation begins a further investigation into one aspect of Peterson’s study: mutuality. A theology of mutuality recognizes the importance that New Testament authors placed on the work of Christians in the lives of other Christians. The research in this presentation suggests that mutuality in the New Testament (especially as a subset of a more general theology of encouragement) does not apply necessarily to individuals separately, but to the group as a whole. Thus, mutual encouragement (as used by Peterson and others) does not point to the spiritual growth of individuals, but to the spiritual growth of the group.
The research into this presentation will also be beneficial for my dissertation.
Peterson’s concluding remarks on edification
One of my favorite books is David Peterson’s Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship. This book was very influential in my decision to continue my eduction toward a PhD. Peterson was able to present a biblical theology on a topic (my own area of interest) in a manner that is both scholarly and accessible. Also, this book intersects my own interests because Peterson includes a chapter called “Serving God in the Assembly of His People.” One section of this chapter even deals with edification, the topic of my dissertation.
Peterson calls the conclusion of that section “Concluding remarks on edification.” You could say that Peterson’s concluding remarks are the jumping off point for my own studies. When I read through this section again as I was working on my prospectus, I decided that I would share these few paragraphs with my reader. I hope this except is an encouragement to those who already agree that edification is the purpose of the church assembly, and a challenge to those who disagree:
The apostle regularly, but not exclusively, employs the terminology of edification to oppose individualism, either in the ethical sphere or in the sphere of congregational ministry. Edification is first and foremost the work of Christ, ‘fashioning the whole life of the Church in its members in faith, hope and love’. (G. Delling, Worship in the New Testament, London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962, 40) As Christians utilize Christ’s gifts, made available through the Spirit, they participate in this divine activity and further God’s purpose for his people collectively. Although the edification of the church is a principle that should govern the thinking and behaviour of Christians in all circumstances, Paul normally employs this notion with reference to the activities of Christian assembly. When Christians gather together to minister to one another the truth of God in love, the church is manifested, maintained and advanced in God’s way.
The apostle’s teaching calls into question the validity and helpfulness of much contemporary thinking and practice in relation to church services. Mention has been made of the inappropriateness of designing out gatherings primarily to facilitate private communion with God. This can happen in Catholic, evangelical and charismatic traditions alike. Paul would urge us to meet in dependency on one another as the vehicles of God’s grace and to view the well-being and strengthening of the whole church as the primary aim of the gathering. There ought to be a real engagement with other believers in the context of mutual ministry, shared prayer and praise, not simply a friendly chat over a cup of coffee after church!
Again, 1 Corinthians 14 challenges the tendency of many Christian traditions to undervalue spontaneity and variety of input in the congregational gathering. Paul expected that members of the congregation would come with some contribution prepared for the occasion or that individuals might be prompted by the Spirit to offer prayer or praise or some other ministry on the spot. Ephesians 4 certainly indicates the importance of pastor-teachers in the equipment of God’s people for their work of building up the body of Christ, and the pastoral epistles highlight the teaching role of those identified as leaders in the congregation. However, as noted previously, there should be some public opportunity for spontaneous and informal ministries as well as for the ordered and prepared.
It is sometimes said that the size of our gatherings or the physical context makes it impossible to put such New Testament teaching into practice. People who argue this way show little imagination or willingness to reassess their traditions, even though others in the contemporary scene have found helpful solutions to these problems. It may be a matter of finding appropriate spots in the regular pattern of Sunday services where contributions can be made. It may be a matter of rearranging the furniture or encouraging people to gather together differently so that those who contribute can be more easily seen and heard.
Of course, it is equally possible to lose the vertical dimension and consider congregational meetings as little more than an occasion for human fellowship. The balance of Paul’s teaching suggests that we view mutual ministry as the context in which to engage with God. Edification and worship are different sides of the same coin. (pg 213-215)
To continue Peterson’s last paragraph (in my own words, not his), we worship God in our church gatherings when we mutually build up one another toward maturity in Christ. And what if we are not involved in mutual edification when the church assembles? What if we are not given that opportunity or if we do not take advantage of the opportunities that we are given? Are we worshiping?
Church Life #7 – Sunday
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
In this post of my Church Life series, I want to talk about the Sunday (or weekly) church meeting. There are ways to modify the traditional method of meeting in order to foster community and fellowship. These are some of the things that we’ve done, but certainly not all of the changes that could be made. Similarly, some of these changes may not be helpful in your situation.
One of the first changes that we made to the traditional method of meeting (at least the tradition that we were all accustomed to) was in the area of teaching (preaching). In Scripture, it seems that multiple people had opportunity to speak, teach, exhort, etc. when the church met. So, we wanted more than one person to have the opportunity to teach.
To begin with, we maintain a teaching schedule. Any of the men can sign up to teach a passage (we teach through books of the Bible, and we currently do not allow women to sign up to teach). This means that from week to week, different people will be speaking as the main teacher (preacher).
Each person that teaches has the option of teaching in whatever method they choose, since people both teach differently and learn differently. More and more have recognized the value of discussion and have included discussion in their teaching method.
Also, besides the main teaching (through a book of the Bible), we also leave time in our meeting for anyone to speak, exhort, give a testimony, ask for prayer, etc. So, not only is the main teacher (preacher) changing from week to week, but there are also several people speaking during each meeting. Although several people speak, they always take turns so as not to be disorderly.
We’ve also changed the way we sing together. Each week, instead of having the same person or people choose songs for everyone to sing, there is a different person from week to week. Sometimes, this person chooses a few songs. Usually, there is also opportunity for anyone to choose a song for the church to sing. Also, anyone is allowed to take part by playing an instrument if they want to.
Another change that we’ve made is in the way we arrange our chairs. (Yes, this would be difficult for those with pews.) We typically arrange our chairs in consecutive circles. (If there is a presentation – slideshow, etc. – then we set the chairs up in a horseshoe pattern.) This arrangement allows much more interaction than is possible in rows of chairs. We’ve also found that we no longer need our sound system, since people are facing one another.
Finally, we eat together almost every Sunday. Usually, this is an informal meal. People bring food (or go to fast food restaurants to pick up food) for themselves. Occasionally, a few families will get together and decide to fix food together. For example, a few weeks ago, three families decided to fix soup. They emailed everyone and invited the church to join them.
All of these changes were not made for the sake of changing. Also, the changes were not forced on the church from the elders. Instead, the changes were made as the church recognized that something was hindering their meeting together.
NT Theology Lecture: The Assembled Church in Corinth
Yesterday, I had an opportunity to present a lecture in New Testament Theology. Dave Black asked me to speak in his class on the topic of the assembling of the church in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
I presented the lecture titled “The Assembled Church in Corinth” as an exercise in New Testament Theology, hopefully to not only encourage the students in their understanding of the church, but also in their understanding and practice of New Testament and Biblical Theology.
I’ve added the mp3 file to my Resources page. You can either download the recording, or stream it online. Also, I’ve included a pdf file of my outline on that same page.
This is the outline that I used for my presentation:
——————————————-
The Assembled Church
I. Introduction and Background
Andrew Chester – “The Pauline Communities†– A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997):
Paul’s vision for the communities that he wrote to can be summed up quite succinctly. He sees them as being a new creation in Christ, filled with the Spirit, possessing gifts of the Spirit and overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit, controlled above all by love; they are communities that should be pure and holy, mutually supportive and interdependent, completely united, transcending the oppositions and tensions between different groups within the community, and with every kind of barrier that would divide them in normal society broken down.
This brief summary may seem over-idealized; it may indeed seem somewhat grandiose and abstract, especially in the light of the occasional letter that Paul wrote to quite different communities, often on very specific and mundane issues… It is also to be said that theory and practice in any case often fail to coincide, and the way that a particular community lives can be very far removed from Paul’s vision of what it should be. Paul himself is made painfully aware of this. Indeed, it is probably true to say that we have a semblance of Paul’s vision for his communities, to a large extent, because of the problems that have arisen in a number of those communities and that Paul feels the need to counter. That is, Paul finds himself faced with what he considers false practice, or even a complete negation of his ideal of the Christian community, and hence has to urge those in these communities that he has founded to become what they know they should be, and not remain as they are. (105)
As Chester points out, we have Paul’s vision for the church because the churches that Paul wrote to were not living according to that vision.
The church in Corinth is a good example of a church that failed to live according to that vision.
Margaret Mitchell (Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation) suggests that Paul’s purpose in writing to the church in Corinth was to reconcile the many factions that had formed. Why? Because division and factions were contrary to what he taught in all the churches.
A. Division from one another
- In Chapters 1-3, they were dividing around certain leaders / apostles.
- In Chapters 6-8, they were dividing around certain doctrines (strong/weak)
- In Chapter 11, they were dividing on economics
- In Chapters 12-14, they were dividing around spiritual gifts
B. Division from other churches
Paul consistently reminds them that all churches practice the same things. This begins in the greeting while Paul reminds the Corinthians that they are not independent but, “to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.†(1 Corinthians 1:2)
- (1 Corinthians 4:17) That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.
- (1 Corinthians 7:17) Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
- (1 Corinthians 11:16) If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
- (1 Corinthian 14:33-34) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
Paul expected consistent behavior and practices in all the churches.
II. Paul’s Corrections
Paul corrects the divisive attitudes and actions of the Corinthians believers.
A. Identity
In spite of their problems, Paul continually recognizes them as the church, as separated from the world (i.e. holy) by God, as called by God, as brothers and sisters.
- (1 Corinthians 1:2) To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints
- (1 Corinthians 1:4) I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus
- (1 Corinthians 1:9) God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
- (1 Corinthians 1:30) He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.
Notice that this is all in the first chapter! Paul does not say that the Corinthians WILL BE the church if they do certain things right. They ARE the church. This becomes very important when we begin discussing the church meeting.
B. Character and Practices
Paul expects children of God to display a certain character and do certain things, not in order to become God’s children, but because they ARE ALREADY God’s children.
In fact, Paul dedicates much of his letter to demonstrating that their character and practices are not aligned to their identity.
C. Who is responsible for correcting these problems?
Paul addresses his letter to the church. He describes the problems to the church. He calls on the church to take action to correct the issues involved. While leaders (elders/pastors) can help the church understand their identity and their responsibilities as children of God, leaders cannot correct the church or obey for the church.
Once again, this becomes very important as we begin to think about the church meeting.
III. The Question about Spiritual Gifts (Analysis)
Paul talks about the church gathering in 1 Corinthians 14. But, we must not separate these passages from their context. 1 Corinthians 14 is part of a longer section concerning spiritual gifts. This section begins in 1 Corinthians 12 with the phrase “Now concerning spiritual gifts…â€, and ends at 1 Corinthians 14:40, after which there is a change of subject. There are other linguistic connections throughout this section and especially between the beginnings of chapter 12 and the end of chapter 14.
So, Paul’s primary teaching about the church meeting falls in a section of Scripture where he is answering questions or dealing with issues concerning spiritual gifts.
A. Corinthians 1-11
Before we begin analyzing 1 Corinthians 12-14, we should realize that this letter is a whole discourse. We should place the section within the letter, and also look for information within 1 Corinthians 1-11 that may lead up to this section:
- (1 Corinthians 1:4-8) Paul is grateful that the grace of God has enriched the believers in Corinth such that they do not lack any spiritual gift.
- (1 Corinthians 8:1) All of us possess knowledge. This knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. (Key concepts that bridge the entire letter – also found in 1 Cor 12-14)
- (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) Men and women prophesying. Since we learn later that prophesy is for the purpose of edifying the church, the setting seems to be a church meeting.
- (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) Problems when the Corinthians are sharing the common meal (Lord’s Supper) together. In this passage in particular we see that carrying out certain activities is not the point of meeting together.
B. Corinthians 12-14
Meaning is found primarily is paragraphs. Paragraphs are made up of sentences which offer propositions, illustrations, arguments, etc. But, the author’s meaning is found at the paragraph level. Thus, we should analyze our passage paragraph by paragraph.
There are 14 paragraphs in 1 Corinthians 12-14:
Paragraph 1: (12:1-3) (3 sentences)
Introduction: Although once they were guided by idols that could not speak, now they are guided by the Holy Spirit who leads them to proclaim “Jesus is Lord.â€
Paragraph 2: (12:4-11) (17 sentences)
Despite the many different ways that God gifts, serves, and empowers, all of the gifts are given for the same reason: for the mutual benefit of the church.
Paragraph 3: (12:12-26) (21 sentences)
Though our gifts are different, we are all part of the same body, and we need one another, especially those whose gifts seem less significant.
Paragraph 4: (12:27-30) (9 sentences)
We are not part of just any group. We are part of God’s group – Christ’s body – and God decides how to place us in his group.
Paragraph 5: (12:31-13:3) (5 sentences)
Exercising our spiritual gifts is not as important as demonstrating love to one another.
Paragraph 6: (13:4-8a) (16 sentences)
Love causes us to give preference to others, always.
Paragraph 7: (13:8b-10) (6 sentences)
Spiritual gifts will one day cease to be necessary.
Paragraph 8: (13:11-12) (8 sentences)
Today we are like immature children, but we are growing toward a mature state.
Paragraph 9: (13:13) (2 sentences)
Even in that mature state – when faith and hope are not necessary – we will still love one another.
Paragraph 10: (14:1-5) (11 sentences)
We demonstrate love in the use of our spiritual gifts when we use them primarily to build up others, especially when the church is assembled together.
Paragraph 11: (14:6-14) (13 sentences)
If I exercise a spiritual gift (such as tongues) in way that you do not understand, then I am not building up the church.
Paragraph 12: (14:15-19) (9 sentences)
When the church is meeting together, it is more important that the church is built up than for someone to exercise their spiritual gifts, even someone who is very spiritual.
Paragraph 13: (14:20-25) (11 sentences)
While there is a purpose for those gifts that do not build up the church, that purpose is not carried out when the church is assembled.
Paragraph 14: (14:26-40) (27 sentences)
So, whenever the church is gathered together, everything that we do together should be done for the purpose of building up the church.
Once we understand Paul’s argument and progression, we also need to determine why he wrote this passage. Obviously, he was answering a question or dealing with an issue concerning spiritual gifts, but could there have been another reason for 1 Corinthians 12-14?
The linguistic concept of prominence can help us to determine Paul’s focus. By examining grammatical and syntactical structures, rhetoric, repetition, and other linguistic devices, we can attempt to discern what was most important to Paul.
Two paragraphs stand out as prominent in this passage:
- Paragraph 9 stands out because of the rhetorical devices that Paul used. Thus, Paul was emphasizing the importance of love in the exercise of spiritual gifts.
- Paragraph 14 stands out because of the grammatical and syntactical structures. Thus, Paul was also emphasizing the use of spiritual gifts whenever the church assembled.
Since Paragraph 14 is prominent, let’s consider it in more detail:
Whenever the church comes together… whatever is done should be done for edification.
I. 2-3 people speak in tongues if there is interpretation, otherwise they should be silent.
II. 2-3 people prophesy, while others weight what they say.
- Prophecy
- If one person is prophesying and another stands to speak, the first is to be silent.
- Everyone is able to prophesy in a manner that allows everyone to grow.
- The prophets are in control of their gift, because God does not cause confusion.
- Weighing Prophecy
- Women should not weigh prophesy, but should remain silent during that time of the meeting.
- God does not speak only to the prophets.
- True prophets should recognize the truth of what Paul writes here.
Whether prophecy or speaking in tongues (with interpretation) (or the exercise of any other spiritual gift) everything should be done decently and in order (as described above).
Why would Paul only focus on tongues and prophecy in this section?
It is a paradigm:
1.   “Tongues†represents any gift that is not immediately understandable and thus is not edifying to the church.
2.   “Prophecy†represents any gift that is immediately understandable and thus is edifying to the church.
How do you think Paul would treat interpreted tongues?
Where would “teaching†fall in this paradigm? So, which instructions should we follow for teaching?
These are the types of questions that we need to consider as we “synthesize†the information into a New Testament theology.
IV. The Church Assembled (Synthesis)
In this section, I’m going to make some general remarks concerning the assembling of the church according to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Much of this will come from the passage that we just analyzed (1 Corinthians 12-14), but in order to determine a theology of the book, we must consider the entire book. To do a complete study, we would need to analyze each section – paragraph by paragraph – and consider the purpose of each section and paragraph and how each one relates to the entire letter.
1. When the church in Corinth came together, they ate together. Eating was not considered a separate part of their meeting; instead, they considered it “The Lord’s Supper.†Paul encouraged this thinking as long as there were no factions. Paul exhorted them to treat one another as equals in the way that they ate together.
(1 Corinthians 11:17-33)
2. Men and women both took part in the church meeting. Paul encouraged men and women to pray and prophesy. He also recognized the importance of the spiritual gifts of all believers. Certainly, there were limitations, as with all aspects of the church meeting. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Corinthians 12)
3. There was no distinction between different kinds of church meetings. Paul gives his instructions in the context of “whenever you come together.†This does not mean that the church in Corinth did not meet at different times for specific activities (service, prayer, etc.), but Paul would expect the same principles to guide each type of meeting. (1 Corinthians 14:26)
4. The purpose for the church assembling is mutual edification. Whenever the church in Corinth came together, he expected them to work together in order to build up one another. When the church is meeting, the spiritual giftedness of an individual is not as important as the edification of the church. (1 Corinthians 14:1-26)
5. The precise nature of the spiritual gift is not as important as the manner in which it is exercised and the intended result. Paul does not define the various spiritual gifts, and he never gives us the same list twice. We do not decide if our speech is encouraging or instructing or both. (1 Corinthians 12)
6. Several people should speak during the church meeting, and everyone is responsible for discerning what is said. This makes more sense when we understand that the main form of teaching during this time was discussion, not lecture. But, Paul’s vision included multiple people speaking in order to build up the church, while other have the opportunity to consider and question what is said, again in order to build up the church. (1 Corinthians 14:26-40)
7. Love is more important than anything else. We must never forget this. If we are not demonstrating love for one another (especially for those who seem less significant or less gifted or less anything), then we are not meeting as the church as Paul envisioned. (1 Corinthians 13)
When placing this passage within the context of the whole letter, it may be beneficial to consider how we as the church can demonstrate certain key ideas while the church is meeting. For example:
1. I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
2. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people… but now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of … not even to eat with such a one. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
3. I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be served. (1 Corinthians 10:33)
What about teenagers?
There is a very provocative article at “LeadershipJournal.net” called “Is the Era of Age Segmentation Over?” The article is based on research that shows that the most important factor in the life of a teenager who remains “in church” through and after college is the number of mature believers with whom that teenager has a real relationship.
Hmmm… imagine that. Its not the programs offered, or the skill of the teacher, or the videos and dramas. Its relationships. And, not just any kind of relationship. Well, here, listen to the researcher (the article is in interview format):
What can churches do to increase the likelihood that our kids stay in church after they graduate?
I think the future of youth ministry is intergenerational youth ministry.
At this point in our research, we’ve found that one thing churches can do that really makes a difference is getting kids actively involved in the life of the church before they graduate.
There is a strong link between kids staying in church after they graduate and their involvement in intergenerational relationships and worship. It’s important, we’re finding, to get beyond a token youth Sunday and start thinking about how to involve kids as ushers and greeters and readers and musicians in our services.
We’re also finding a relationship between teenagers serving younger kids and their faith maturity when they graduate from high school. Teens should not only be the objects of ministry; they need to be the subjects of ministry as well. It’s the 16 year old that has relationships with 66 year olds and 6 year olds who is more likely to stay involved in a faith community after she graduates…
It sounds like you have high expectations of what youth can and will do.
Teenagers are up to the challenge. In our college transition project, we asked high school seniors what they want more of in youth group. Time for deep conversation ranked highest. Games ranked last. That’s one example of how we’re currently undershooting. Tenth graders study Shakespeare. What are we offering them at church? Nothing comparable to Shakespeare.
How else can churches foster intergenerational relationships?
There’s a standard ratio in youth ministry: one adult for every five kids. My colleague here at Fuller, Chap Clark, says we need to reverse the ratio and strive for having five adults build into one kid.
When I say that to youth workers or pastors, they tense up. I’m not talking about five Bible study leaders or five small group leaders per teenager. I’m talking about five adults who care enough about a kid that they learn her name, ask her on Sunday how they can be praying for her, and then the following Sunday ask her, “How did it go with that science test?” Our study shows that even these baby step connections can make a real difference.
So relationships are as important as worship styles?
More important. And I think one of the real advantages of being a smaller church is that there is a lot more potential for intergenerational relationships and longer lasting faith. It’s a general rule that the bigger the church the more segmented the age groups and generations are from each other. So I look at a church of a hundred and think, Man, what potential there is to have meaningful relationships.
By the way, I’m not interested in whether or not teenagers stay “in church.” I am interested in whether or not they are maturing in their faith and remaining faithful to God.
Also, if you read the entire article, you’ll see that the researcher offers examples and suggestions of how to add “intergenerational relationships” into the standard youth programs. I’m not concerned about the youth programs. I’m not convinced they are beneficial, but that’s not the point.
The point is that we cannot “program” relationships. For example, the author discusses a six week class where teenagers are brought together with 70 year olds. That’s great. But, what happens after that class. Strong, life-changing relationships are not built in six one-hour classes.
So, what are parents and churches to do? Foster relationships between teenagers and more mature believers. Invite teenagers to spend time with you and your family. Invite them to serve with you. Get to know them. Find out where their struggles are and help them with those struggles.
If your teenager is more introverted, or if you know a teenager that keeps to himself or herself, then it may take more intentionality on the part of the parents and other believers to get to know that person. (Of course, that would be true of any person who is more of an introvert.)
We must recognize that fellowship and discipleship are everyone’s responsibility. The same is true when it relates to teenagers. The teenagers, their parents, and others in the church must take an active role in one another’s lives. If teenagers want deep relationships, then they should initiate the contact. If the parents want their teenagers to have discipling relationships, then they should offer the opportunities for their teenagers to get to know other people. If others want relationships with teenagers, then they should approach the teenagers. It is all of our responsibility.
As I think about this, and as I think about the teenagers that I’ve interacted with, I recognize that teenagers are much like all other believers. They have struggles and doubts and sins and uncertainties and strengths and weaknesses. For many that I’ve talked to, they don’t need another apologetics series, they need to someone to encourage them when they’re having times of doubt. They don’t need another True Love Waits campaign, they need several mature friends who can encourage and challenge them daily when they are facing those temptations.
Again, I’m not talking about adding a time of “intergenerational ministry” to a youth program. I’m talking about including teenagers in our lives. Parents, we should certainly include teenagers in our own lives, but they need relationships with other mature believers, too.
As we are attempting to live in community with one another, we must not forget the teenagers. They are also brothers and sisters in Christ. We can disciple them and we can be discipled by them.
Church Life #3
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
Monday: I was able to have lunch with Jonathan today. Jonathan and I had lunch together several times during the summer. But, with his new work schedule and school schedule, we’ve had a hard time getting together. I think we’ll both be available on Mondays now! We talked about school and work and games and elders and Bible studies and missions and many, many other things.
Tuesday: My new friend Jeremiah had to take his van to the shop. So, he called and asked if I could pick up him and give him a ride home. I was able to spend a few minutes talking with him and one of his daughters. Once we got to his house, I think we talked longer than either of us intended… lots of good topics though.
Wednesday: After work, we went over to the Henry’s house. They had mentioned that they were painting their house that night, so we wanted to help them. They fed us some very delicious chili before we started painting! We were able to get the first coat on their living room and hallway before going home.
Thursday: A friend of mine (not a “member” of Messiah Baptist Church) was dealing with depression. He told me over the phone, so he and I got together for a few minutes to talk about his situation.
Thursday afternoon, a young man asked if he could meet with me. He had met with us one Sunday and had questions about the church. We talked for a while about elders and ministry (service) and other things. Usually, when I talk to someone like this, I end up saying “Well, we do things a little differently” several times.
Friday: Margaret and I went to New Bern, NC for the weekend to celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary. Our anniversary was actually back in January, but Margaret’s dad had heart surgery then and she spent a month with him to take care of him. Some friends stayed at our house and took care of Jeremy and Miranda while we were out of town.
Saturday: Our good friends Kevin and Misty moved to the New Bern area last year. So, Saturday night we got together with them for dinner. Kevin is a football coach at a local public high school, and I am so excited about what God is doing through them there!
Sunday: Since we were out of town, we did not intend to meet with the church Sunday morning. However, it turns out that downtown New Bern closes Sunday morning. So, we ate breakfast and drove back home. We go to the meeting place around 1:00, and the church was still meeting. This was a very encouraging meeting because four men who had been nominated to be elders by the church were leading a discussion. The church was asking them questions as the church prepares to recognize some or all of them as elders.
Sunday night, Jeremy and I and Jeremy’s friend Jason went to Jeremiah and Kerri’s home for a bonfire. We had a great time getting to know them better and eating s’mores!