Look also to the interests of others
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Look also to the interests of others.” This post considers the modern-day practical implications of the Paul’s instructions to the church at Philippi.
——————————————–
Look also to the interests of others
In his letter to the church at Philippi, Paul wrote:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus… (Philippians 2:1-5 ESV)
Many of us know what follows this passage. We’ve memorized it and studied it because of its Christological implications (pertaining to Christ and his divinity). Christology is very important. We should study Scripture to help us understand who Christ is – in our limited, human ability to understand Christ.
But, what do we do with these first five verses of the second chapter of Philippians? What does it mean to be “of the same mind”, to have “the same love”, or to be “in full accord and of one mind”? What kind of things should we not do out of “rivalry or conceit”? To what extent do we consider others as “more significant than” ourselves? How do we look out for “the interests of others” as we also look out for our own interests?
At first glance, these questions deal with the concepts of fellowship, community, and unity – very important concepts, but not as important as Christology. Right? Actually, I suggest that these concepts are directly related to our understanding of who Christ is, what Christ has done for us, what Christ is doing for us, and how Christ empowers us to interact with one another. In fact, I would suggest that when we get these things wrong – when we fail to live a life that demonstrates our love for one another – then all the facts that we know about Christ mean very little. Our Christology must be built on Philippians 2:1-5 as much as it is built on the verses that follow.
But, how do we apply Philippians 2:1-5 today?
Without trying to unwrap everything that Paul means in these sentences, we can begin with one thing that should be very obvious, but that we often overlook: we will not always agree with one another. If we always agreed, there would be no reason to consider the interests of others. If we always had the same opinions about things, then Paul would not have exhorted us to consider the other person’s opinion as more significant than our own. If we all had the same priorities and the same desires and the same attitudes, then Paul would not have to warn us about rivalries and conceit. If we always treated one another as Christ treated us, then Paul would not exhort us toward love and like-mindedness.
Yet, Paul expects us to act like Christ in spite of our differences with one another. In fact, the way the we deal with our differences toward one another demonstrates whether or not we are walking in the Spirit or not.
If we deal with believers who differ with us in attitudes of anger, jealousy, stubbornness, conceit, or pride, then this is an indicator that we are not living the abundant life of Christ. If we force people to agree with us, or if we refuse to fellowship with those who disagree with us, then again we are demonstrating that we are walking in our own understanding instead of walking in the Spirit.
If, however, we can give up our rights and give in to the opinion of others and welcome differences with love and acceptance, then we demonstrate that we are living in the unity and love that only the Spirit of God can produce within us.
When the Spirit controls our life, then the Spirit demonstrates himself by producing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control in our lives – especially toward those who are different from us and who disagree with us.
stories: Helping others serve
This post is part of my “stories” series. In this series, I share stories of how people live their lives in response to the gospel and as a demonstration of God’s love in order to teach us and to provide an example to provoke us to love and good works. (See “stories: A New Series” for more information about this series.)
As most of my regular readers know, my family spends time with some people in “The Neighborhood” – a government assisted housing project. Not only has this given us the opportunity to get to know and to serve some wonderful people, it has also given us the opportunity to help others serve.
For example, on most Saturdays when we go to the Neighborhood, one or two people go with us. Sometimes, these friends will end up spending alot of time in the Neighborhood. Sometimes, they’ll only go with us once or twice. Either way, we are able to help them learn to serve others and to help them learn how God wants them to serve.
Also, recently, several families that we know have started giving us vegetables to take to our friends in the Neighborhood. When we started going last Summer, we would buy fresh produce from a roadside produce stand. We divided the produce into small bags and gave a bag to each family that we talk to in the Neighborhood.
Starting last month, three different families have started giving us produce from their own gardens to take to our friends on Saturday. They’ve given us cucumbers, zucchini, squash, tomatoes, and peppers. Plus another family has offered to give us more vegetables, but our schedules haven’t worked out yet.
We’re grateful not only for the free vegetables to give to our friends, but we’re grateful that others are learning to think about how to serve others. Giving away part of the blessings that God has given to us is a great way to serve!
Finally, we have been completely surprised the last couple of weeks. When we went to our local produce stand, the lady that runs the stand offered us some baskets to deliver our produce in! This was great! The baskets are much better than the plastic grocery bags we’ve been using. Plus, she gave us some banana peppers to give away.
The next week, once again, she gave us some baskets, plus several cantaloupes and watermelons. In fact, we think she gave us more produce than we bought last Saturday.
We do not know the people who run the produce stand very well – not yet anyway – but we’re excited that they are also serving others through us. Plus, our friends in the Neighborhood have been very excited about the baskets. We also have the joy of telling them that our friends and the people who run the produce stand helped provide the fruit and vegetables.
So, when you are serving others, think about ways that you can include friends in your service. Allow your service to be a time for discipleship as well as service.
—————————————————————————-
If you would like for me to include your story in this series, please send me an email at aknox [at] sebts [dot] edu.
Κοινωνία
(I originally published this post three years ago as a series. I’ve combined the series into one post here, with only slight editing.)
Acts 2:42 states that the early believers in Jerusalem “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” (ESV). In this verse, “fellowship” translates the Greek noun κοινωνία (koinÅnia). In various passages of Scripture, this word is also translated as “association, communion, close relationship, generosity, contribution, partnership, sharing” (BDAG – a standard Greek lexicon). My questions in this article include:
- What is κοινωνία?
- What is the source of κοινωνία?
- How does the church ‘devote themselves’ to it?
The noun κοινωνία is never used in the Gospels, and Acts 2:42 contains the only use of the word in Acts. However, the author balances κοινωνία in Acts 2:42 by using the noun κοινός in 2:44. Luke uses κοινός four other times, but only one (4:32) carries the same meaning as in 2:44. In these two instances, κοινός means “being of mutual interest or shared collectively.”
Witherington comments on Luke’s use of κοινωνία in 2:42 in The Acts of the Apostles – A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, p.160):
The term itself means a participation or sharing in common of something with someone else, in this case eating and praying. Thus, fellowship is not a very helpful translation, for fellowship is the result of κοινωνία, of sharing in common; it is not the κοινωνία itself. Κοινωνία is an activity which can result in fellowship of some sort, and it can entail things like sharing not just spiritual activities such as prayer but also physical food or other goods in common (v. 45, cf. 4:32-37).
If Witherington is correct, then κοινωνία is not fellowship. Instead, fellowship is the product of having κοινωνία. According to Acts 2:42-47, the believers had all things in common and shared with others. They prayed and shared meals together. However, this did not produce κοινωνία. Instead, κοινωνία resulted in these activities. These activities flowed naturally from their devotion to (persistence in) κοινωνία.
This is important for the church today. Our fellowship with one another cannot be manufactured artificially through planned meals or activities. Instead, our fellowship/sharing/communion with one another will flow naturally as we devote ourselves to κοινωνία.
What is the source of κοινωνία?
That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship (κοινωνία) with us; and indeed our fellowship (κοινωνία) is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3 ESV)
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation (κοινωνία) in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, . . . (Philippian 2:1 ESV)
God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship (κοινωνία) of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:9 ESV)
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship (κοινωνία) of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14 ESV)
Κοινωνία is the common union between believers that is produced by God through the Holy Spirit. Our κοινωνία with other believers is a direct result of our κοινωνία with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As such, κοινωνία cannot be produced by believers through activities. Instead, all who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, share a common connection with other believers: “There is one body and one Spirit…” (Ephesians 4:4 ESV) “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Corinthians 12:13 ESV)
As God produces κοινωνία in the believer, the believer will naturally demonstrate that κοινωνία through various activities – specifically through sharing their life with others. This type of sharing may include meals, conversations, contributions, etc.
Therefore, the church should not attempt to create κοινωνία. Instead, it must teach believers how to “devote themselves to … κοινωνία” as described in Acts 2:42.
In his first epistle, John reminds us that our κοινωνία with one another is based on our κοινωνία with God: “… so that you too may have fellowship (κοινωνία) with us; and indeed our fellowship (κοινωνία) is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3 ESV). So, those who have κοινωνία with the Father and the Son through the Spirit should also have κοινωνία with one another.
In The Church Unfinished (New York: Paulist Press, 2004, p.83), Bernard P. Prusak discusses the κοινωνία (which he calls communion) in the church in Jerusalem in Acts 2:42-47:
That communion was understood primarily to be a participatory unity in which all the disciples of the risen Jesus mutually shared a relationship with God, given gratis in and through Jesus. The mutual reception of God’s gift of self in turn generated a spirit of community and generous sharing among the recipients themselves. Christians had a communion among themselves that flowed from their mutual communion with God.
What does it mean, then, that the believers in the church in Jerusalem “devoted themselves… to κοινωνία“? (Acts 2:42 ESV) If κοινωνία is created by God in the believers who make up the church, why did they have to devote themselves to it?
As we answer this question, consider the remainder of Acts 2:42. Luke also states that the believers also devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the breaking of bread, and prayers. (Note: I understand that there is much discussion concerning this list. Specifically, are there two, three, or four items listed. I personally believe there are four separate items. However, the four are interrelated; they are not completely separate items.)
What does “devoted” mean in this verses? In Acts 2:42, “devoted” translates the Greek verb Ï€ÏοσκαÏτεÏÎω (proskartereÅ). According to BDAG, in this context this verb means “hold fast to, continue in, persevere in.” In other words, the believers “held fast to, continued in, or persevered in” the κοινωνία that God had already created in them.
The natural inclination of mankind is toward selfishness or self-centeredness. The supernatural inclination of a regenerated person is toward God and others (κοινωνία). The believers in the church in Jerusalem were persevering in this supernatural inclination while denying the natural inclination. They were not creating κοινωνία through various activities; instead they were deliberately living out the supernatural κοινωνία that God had created within and among them.
What are the implications of those for a person who does not live according to this God-given κοινωνία? As I see it, there are four possibilities: 1) The person is not regenerate; God has ever created κοινωνία within him or her. 2) The person is quenching the work of the Spirit in his or her life. 3) If a believer is isolated from other believers, κοινωνία may not be evident. However, even in this rare instance, the Spirit would be working through the believer to bring others to God and, thereby creating κοινωνία. 4) Someone may not demonstrate κοινωνία in his or her life because of a lack of discipleship. In other words, many people are taught that “fellowship” is when a church meets together in a certain building under the proper authority to share food. Other activities are simply social interaction, but they are not proper forms of “fellowship.”
However, κοινωνία expresses itself in many different activities, in many different locations – as long as believers are demonstrating their care for one another and common bond with one another prompted by the Spirit of God. This could be expressed in a common meal among a large number of believers, but it could also be expressed by two believers sharing common interest. In fact, it is possible that large, organized gatherings disrupt or hinder true expressions of κοινωνία. Believers should express their common bond with one another in intimate, spontaneous, Spirit-led encounters where the “one-anothers” of Scripture are practiced – not out of duty, but out of love and concern.
If this is correct, then neither the location nor the activity is most important. Instead, Spirit-induced conern for one another leads to these expressions of κοινωνία. Perhaps more importantly, while we can teach the importance of expressing our love and concern for one another, demonstrations of κοινωνία cannot be taught. Instead, they must be modelled.
As an example, a friend of mine is a great model of hospitality. She has demonstrated κοινωνία with brothers and sisters in Christ many times by opening her home spontaneously. I have learned much about hospitality from observing her actions. However, if I simply copy her actions out of duty, there is no expression of κοινωνία. If, instead, the Spirit prompts me to demonstrate κοινωνία through hospitality, her actions become examples for me and others. In other words, she has “stir[red] up love and good works” (Heb. 10:24) in myself and other believers by her encouraging expressions of κοινωνία.
If you have anything to add to this discussion of κοινωνία, please comment. I look forward to learning from others as we study this important concept together.
Love one another
Three years ago, our family moved out of on-campus seminary housing and into a house. Around that same time, five families who were part of our church moved. Our church became very adept at packing and unpacking, loading and unloading. During one move a little later, we helped some of our friends move. When we finished, we noticed one of the neighbors was packing a moving truck. The husband and wife were trying to pack up by themselves. We all went over – more than twenty of us – and packed their moving truck for them.
Anyway, back to the story… as I said, we moved three years. The church helped us, and it was an incredible demonstration of love for our family. I wrote a quick blog post about it then called “Love one another“. Today, I am even more convinced that the love we are commanded to share with one another and with our neighbors is a real, demonstrable, working, sweating kind of love.
—————————————–
There have been a couple of blog entries concerning the life of our church over the last week and love for another (for example, see Theron Stancil’s entry and Alice C.’s entry, and a related article by Isabel here). Last Saturday, we were the recipients of Christian love. We moved from seminary housing to a real house in a nearby city. Our brothers and sisters began arriving at our duplex by 9:00 a.m. to help us move. Many worked tirelessly moving boxes and furniture. Others provided meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) for our family and those helping (with enough leftovers to feed our family for a couple of days). Since we could only rent a small moving truck (apparently last weekend was the busiest moving weekend of the year), we had to make two trips. Our friends not only helped us load and unload the truck twice, but they also stayed to help us set up the new house. (Yes, we still have boxes to unpack, but we can live in the house as it is.) Some stayed until after 9:00 p.m. helping us. But that’s not all… we also had help cleaning our duplex on Monday!
So, why did I go into all of that? Well, let me start with a few passages of Scripture…
Jesus said to him, ” ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)
This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12, 17)
For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Galatians 5:13)
For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another… (1 John 3:11)
Sure… we’ve heard these commands to “love one another” since we were children. But how often have you (or I) been the recipients of true love… love that is patient, kind… love that demonstrates itself in unselfish ways… love that gives and gives and gives… love that lifts and carries and sweats and aches… love that sacrifices time and effort… Over the last few days, as I’ve contemplated this demonstration of love, several other Scripture passages have come to mind:
By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:16-18)
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:15-17)
Certainly, we were not naked nor destitute of daily food, but we were in real, physical need, and the love of Christ was demonstrated to us in real, physical ways. Isn’t it amazing that James uses this (a physical demonstration of love) as one of the visible manifestations of true faith? So, our family has been the recipients of real, biblical, Christ-honoring love.
So what? Do we thank God for His goodness and go on with our lives? Well, that brings me to the last passage of Scripture:
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25)
You see, as our church gathered on Saturday (yes, I did mean Saturday) in order to move us, we were encouraged (exhorted). We were stirred up and provoked to provide the same type of love to others. It is our prayer that God provides opportunities for us to love our neighbors in similar ways. Through our loving deeds and words (not just loving deeds and not just words!), perhaps some of them will come to recognize that it is not the Knox family alone that loves them, but it is God who loves them through us.
Church and Meals
I recently read through a section of Roger W. Gehring’s House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. This book does NOT suggest that the early church only met in houses. Nor does Gehring suggest that the church today should only meet in houses. Instead, Gehring examines the importance of the house and household structures for the early church.
This time, I read through a section of the book concerning Acts 2:42-47. Here is the passage under consideration:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47 ESV)
In one paragraph, he discusses the meaning of the phrase “breaking of bread” in 2:42 and its significance to the early church:
The community life of the Jerusalem church was experienced most intensively and was continually renewed in the join celebration of the bread breaking in individual houses. Scholars have reflected on and written a great deal about the character of these communion celebrations. In general, it is assumed that these celebrations certainly entailed a common meal (see Acts 2:46). We can be sure that the community of goods described by Luke in Acts included common meals together. (Acts 6:1-3 clearly demonstrates this.) The expression “breaking bread” also implies a meal: it is the designation for the act of tearing the bread, which, in addition to the word of blessing, forms the opening rite at the beginning of Jewish meals (Acts 27:35). Moreover, Luke also places “bread breaking” in the context of the worship service elsewhere in Acts (Acts 20:7, 11). (page 83)
So, according to Gehring, the phrase “breaking of bread” indicates, at least, a common meal. (And I agree.) Thus, he indicates that “the community life of the Jerusalem church was experienced most intensively and was continually renewed” through a common meal. Furthermore, he says that the phrase that the Jerusalem church “had all things in common” includes sharing meals. These meals, according to Gehring, were shared in various homes.
Gehring later says that Acts 20:7, 11 (the story of Paul in Troas) and 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-25 indicate the importance of these common meals to the early churches. Thus, the early church determined that sharing food together was important for building and maintaining community and for caring for those who needed help.
Gehring goes on to say that this common meal was actually part of the church meeting – the “worship service” of the early church. As most of my regular readers would know, I don’t like the term “worship service”. However, Gehring uses the term “worship service” to specify the church meeting and separate it from other types of activities that occur in a home. He has a long section that convincingly argues that “worship services” occurred in homes, not just in the Temple area. Sharing food together was part of the church meeting, and teaching may have taken place during the meal, not separately.
However, a few hundred years after this, the church decided that these meals were unimportant and even dangerous. The Councils of Laodicea (363-364 AD) and Trullian (692 AD) outlawed the church’s common meal, which was also called the Agape Feast (Jude 12). (See my post “Why just the bread and the cup” for more details and sources.)
If Gehring is correct, then when the church stopped sharing meals together, it lost one very significant aspect of community. When the meal was turned into a rite with only bread and cup (or only bread for hundreds of years), the horizontal community aspect of eating a meal together was lost. (Eating a piece of bread or wafer at the same time is not the same as “eating a meal together.”)
As many of you know, our church shares a meal together each week. (We also share meals together from day to day in our homes.) The meal on Sunday is a casual affair. People bring food for themselves, or food to share. Some people decide to stay for the meal, others can’t stay for various reasons. However, we consider the meal a very important part of our church meeting.
A few days ago, my friend Jon said this about our meal together (see the post “What are our church meetings like?“):
The meal was also very special. It gave everyone a chance to further connect and spend time together. I loved the fact that there was no sense of hurry or “look what time it is!” We were just content to share our time.
Like the early church, we’ve found that sharing a common meal heightens our community and fellowship. I’m glad that Jon recognized this when he met with us and shared a meal with us.
I often get emails from people asking about community. They are part of a church – big or small – that has good teaching, but they sense a lack of true community. They often ask, “What should we do?”
I never suggest that someone “leave their church.” Instead, I suggest that people began to build relationships with people who are already in their lives. One of the best ways to do this is by sharing meals together. If your church leadership will not let you share meals during or after your church meeting (“worship service”), then invite people to your house or to a restaurant. Share a meal with people during the week.
I think you’ll find as we have found – and as Gehring pointed out – that eating common meals together is a great way – an important and “most intensive” way – to experience and renew community.
Do you regularly share meals with the church? Do you share them in your homes or other places? Do you think that meals help your build and maintain community?
Brother killing brother
Two years ago, after a family vacation to Pennsylvania which included a trip to Gettysburg, I wrote a post called “Brother killing brother“. While this certainly doesn’t apply to everyone – does anything apply to everyone? – I’ve noticed far too many believers who seem to pride themselves over ripping someone apart with their words. I think we need to understand the damage this type of attack does to both our spiritual state, our brother’s spiritual state, and our witness.
——————————————-
Wednesday, my family had the opportunity to tour Gettysburg, PA and many of the sites connected to the Civil War battle that happened there almost 150 year ago. If you have never been to Gettysburg, then you should know that there are thousands of monuments scattered around this city. Each monument – set up by various states – commemorates the soldiers that fought during this three day long battle. During those three days – the bloodiest days in U.S. history (?) – 50,000 Americans lost their life, with friends fighting friends, brothers killing brothers.
I grew up in the southern part of the United States – in fact, I have always lived in the South. But, regardless, I recognize that the Southern States (the Confederate States) were wrong in their reaction against the United States government. That said, I also believe the Federal government was wrong in its reaction against the secession of the Confederate States.
Interestingly, there were godly men on both sides of this conflict. Both Southerners and Northerners prayed to God, asking Him to aid them in this dispute. Both groups stated that God was on their side. In reality, I do not think God was on either side. Why? Because I do not think God called brother to kill brother because of political differences.
Not much has changed… especially when it comes to the church. Oh, certainly, we do not fight with rifles, bayonets, and canons. But, how many brothers attack brothers with words? How many sisters destroy sisters through innuendo and gossip? And why? Because we disagree on certain things – not the most important things – not gospel things – but, we definitely disagree about “church” things.
And, because we sing different songs, or meet on different days, or disagree over leadership, or interpret some parts of Scripture differently we kill each other’s reputations – we destroy each other’s witness – we blast each other’s good deeds – we knife each other in the back. Perhaps, it would be better if we would be armed with rifles and bayonets, instead of arming ourselves with sickles as if we can choose who are wheat and who are weeds. Perhaps, it would be better if we would aim canons at one another, instead of aiming words of hate and distrust. At least, if we used rifles or canons, we would be honest about our hate and distrust of one another. At least, then, we would have to admit that we are not united.
I think the American Civil Was was a travesty. I do not think either side was right in going to war against other states. I do not think either side won.
However, the way that Christians attack each other is an even greater travesty and tragedy. The next time you level an attack on another brother or sister in Christ, remember: God is not on your side, regardless of how right you think you are.
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.
You don’t know me but I’m your brother
We were made for community. It is difficult to read any part of Scripture without recognizing this important fact. We were made to fellowship with God and with one another.
Unfortunately, we often don’t take the time to build relationships with one another. And, when we do start building relationships, we often stop when it becomes a struggle. In fact, that struggle – or “relational friction” as I’ve called it before – is an indication that we finally beginning to form a relationship. We’re finally starting to get down below the surface into the depths of community.
It is there in the depths – below the surface level – that we begin to understand that “love one another” includes loving those who are not like us and don’t believe like us and sometimes aren’t even pleasant to be around. It is there in the presence of relational friction that we truly begin to understand what it means to forgive one another, bear with one another, accept one another, live in peace with one another. Unfortunately, too often, before we can even begin to live in the reality of these “one anothers”, we give up on the relationship all together and look around for someone who is more like us so we can be “like minded”.
There is a reason that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Philippi exhorting them to have the “same mind”. What reason? Because it’s not easy – it’s not natural – at least, not in our fallen state. There is a reason that Paul wrote a very personal letter (Philemon) about a very personal problem (a runaway slave named Onesimus) and addressed that letter to several people and the entire church that met with Philemon. What reason? Because we naturally want to protect ourselves and our own interest. We need help to look beyond ourselves to see the benefit to the kingdom of God.
We use our doctrines, our creeds, our confessions, our interpretation, our denominations, our leadership, our structures… many man-made things in fact… as excuses to separate from other believers. Or, if we don’t outright separate, then we use these things as excuses to choose who we will form relationships with and who we won’t form relationships with. We would prefer to sit in an auditorium on the other side of the city filled mostly with strangers than to deal with the relational friction caused by differences with those who live next door to us.
Why? Because we don’t allow God to form our primary identity. Oh, we say that we’re brothers and sisters in Christ, but we live as if we’re second cousins at best. We says that we all have God as our Father, but we would prefer it were not so.
Guess what? We don’t choose our brothers and sisters… God does. And we are specifically told (in the context of doctrinal differences) to accept others just as God accepted them in Christ Jesus (Romans 15:7).
The person across the street who is a brother in Christ… is our brother in Christ, and it is our responsibility – as much as depends on us – to foster a relationship with him. The person who works in the office who is a sister in Christ… is our sister in Christ, and it is our responsibility – as much as depends on us – to foster a relationship with her. This is true for every believer that God brings into our life. Yes, everyone of them. Will we have the same depth of relationship with all of them? No. But, that’s not the point. Our relationships with our brothers and sisters should be growing and deepening – even with those who disagree with us. If we’re looking for excuses to stay away from a brother or to not relate a sister, then there is a problem with us… not with them.
Unity among brothers and sisters in Christ is not just a good idea. It is one of our primary arguments and our primary evidences that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and was sent into the world to redeem the world (John 17:20-24). We should grieve over the fact that we have lost this argument and evidence. Then, we should seek the unity of the Spirit – he is providing if we will simply live in it.
Fellowship, smellowship
Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has written two excellent posts concerning the topic of fellowship.
In the first post, called “Now that sounds like Biblical fellowship“, he describes a church meeting that he heard about from a believers from Hong Kong:
Believers gathered in their home starting at around 8:00 AM and then spent the rest of the day in fellowship, having meals, meeting one on one, listening to preaching, Bible studies, spending time with one another. He said the last person would leave at around 8:30 PM.
Arthur responds with this:
Why do we think we are so sophisticated in America that we have moved beyond this sort of fellowship? It is fine for those people over there but we can get the same thing in our expensive buildings and scheduled programs, we don’t want anything unscripted. Have we moved beyond Biblical fellowship and found something better?
Good question, Arthur. I think we’ve definitely moved beyond biblical fellowship, but I wouldn’t call it “something better”.
And, I think Arthur would agree. Why? Because in his next post, called “Membership or fellowship: Which is the greater need today?“, he suggests that “membership” has replaced fellowship in importance in the church today. Of course, he also notes that other things – such as corporate prayer – have also been replaced. I think Arthur says it best in his conclusion:
Can we assume that church gatherings have fellowship and prayer? Does meeting in the same room and listening to someone else pray on your behalf count as Biblical fellowship and prayer? A once a month sparsely attended potluck dinner is a poor substitute to devoting ourselves to fellowship and the breaking of bread. More to the point, can we have a “healthy” church where fellowship and prayer is given only passing thought? My point is not a criticism of 9 Marks but just to point out how easy it is to make assumptions that are unwarranted by reality and focus on areas that are at best peripheral issues and at worst are merely human traditions.
We have got to get this right in the church. All the Reformation in the world will not change the church if we fail to get past the traditions and labels we have erected. May I suggest we focus on fixing the fundamentals before we start tinkering with traditions?
Good suggestion, Arthur. One note of warning… if you focus on the fundamentals, you will be labeled a “minimalist”. But, don’t worry about that label; just keep focusing on the fundamentals.
Interdependence
Last weekend, the American Cancer Society sponsored the local “Relay for Life”. We participated in the Relay last year, but not this year. When I read about the “Relay for Life”, it reminded me of a post I published last year called “Interdependence“. During last year’s “Relay for Life”, God used several events to remind me to live a life dependent on Him and interdependent on other believers.
————————————————–
As followers of Jesus Christ, we are both dependent upon God, and interdependent upon one another. Unfortunately, society teaches us to be independent – neither dependent nor interdependent. We’re taught to learn for ourselves, fend for ourselves, care for ourselves, earn for ourselves, and do for ourselves. We’re taught not to admit that we need help from anyone nor to accept help from anyone. This is the nature of American society, but it is not the nature of the follower of Jesus Christ – he or she has a new nature.
This point was driven home for me last Friday. Our family arrived at the event location for the North Raleigh / Wake Forest Relay for Life around 5:15 p.m. We were supposed to drop off our canopy, chairs, tables, etc. – which we did. The committee was supposed to pick up our stuff and take it to our site – which they did. I was supposed to park my vehicle – which I did – while my family walked to our site – which they did. Everything was going according to plan.
Except… as soon as I parked our van, it started to rain. It wasn’t a slow sprinkle, it was a gully-washer – at least, that’s what we called it in Alabama. The entire time that I was walking – running – to our event site, I could picture my family standing in the middle of a muddy field getting drenched by the rain. Imagine my surprise when I reached our site to find that two teenagers from a nearby site had come to their rescue! The two young men were helping my wife set up the canopy, and they had pulled all of our equipment under the canopy. Those two teenagers were my heroes that night! After I arrived, I helped them finish setting up the canopy, and we stayed as dry as we could while the rain continued.
Not long after our canopy was set up, another team arrived at the site next to ours. The team – at this time – consisted of a mother, her teenage daughter, and two or three more teenage girls. My family helped them spread their canopy over their stuff. We offered to help them raise their canopy, but they said they didn’t want to raise it yet. Instead, they stood under some umbrellas and waited for the husband to arrive.
When the husband arrived, I again went over and offered assistance. I told him that some boys from a neighboring site had helped us, and that we would love to help them set up their canopies – they actually had two. He said no. He didn’t need the help, but thank you anyway.
We watched and listened as he struggled to raise the canopy in the wind and rain. He was obviously getting frustrated because his family was not doing things the way he thought they should be done. They often spoke loudly – shouted – at one another as they tried to raise the two canopies and keep their stuff dry at the same time.
When the shouting had subsided for a moment, and when tempers seems to settle a little, I again walked over and asked if I could help. He said… and I quote… “No, we like to fight while we do this.” I told him that I would be glad to help, if he decided he needed anything. Then, I walked back to my canopy.
As I think back over this encounter, I recognize the church acting in this stubborn, independent manner many times. It seems that even believers have the attitude that they can do everything by themselves and they don’t need any one’s help. It often appears that many feel that asking for help or accepting help from others is a sign of weakness or spiritual immaturity.
This is such a travesty and a misunderstanding of what it means to be brothers and sisters in Christ. God provides us with relationships with one another so that we can love one another, accept one another, help one another, give to one another, and serve one another. We cannot make it through this life alone – at least, we cannot live the way God wants us to live alone. We need God, and we also need one another. Independence may be an American virtue, but it is a Christian vice.
The next day, Saturday, my family was helping one our young, single, female friends move. (I mentioned this briefly in my post called “Weekend of Service“.) A few weeks before, this young lady began telling people that she needed help finding a place to live. Another family asked if she would like to live with them. They shuffled their boys’ bedrooms so that our friend could have a room to herself, and Saturday afternoon, a bunch of us got together, packed up her belongings, and moved her into their house.
After unloading all of the boxes, another friend brought dinner for everyone. While I was sitting there enjoying a homemade meatball sub, I remembered the encounter with the man who refused to acknowledge that he needed help, and refused to accept help when it was offered. What a stark contrast to my friends, one of whom acknowledged that she needed help and accepted the help that was offered, and a family who was willing to put their own comforts aside and offer help.
This is a beautiful picture of God’s family. Brothers and sisters recognizing their complete dependence upon God and willing to live interdependent upon one another. That evening, I couldn’t help but thank them and praise God for the example of community that he had shown me that day.