An encouraging dialog between a Catholic and a Baptist
A few weeks ago, Brian Britton contacted me on facebook. Brian and I attended elementary school together until the fourth grade when his family moved. When he saw my name on facebook, he remembered be because some of my teachers inadvertently called me “Alan Know”.
Brian is Catholic, so there are some fairly major differences in our theology. However, in spite of our differences, we’ve had some very encouraging dialogs. I asked him if I could post our last dialog, and he agreed (and even said he might follow the comments). So, this is a conversation that I had with Brian on facebook. I believe dialogs like this are very important, but I also think that many Christians have lost the ability to dialog, and choose to debate instead. I hope you find this as interesting and encouraging as I did.
——————————————————–
Brian: Have you read any of the second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum?
I was thinking about it when you were discussing macro-structure analysis when interpreting scripture.
And you teach Latin, too. Nice.
Pax Christi sit semper tecum.
Alan: I have read some of the documents from Vatican II. I’m not sure that I’ve read those particular documents.
What do you think about Catholic Churches who perform the mass in Latin?
Brian: Funny you should mention that. I actually attend a Tridentine Mass. I am part of the schola and we sing the Gregorian Chant propers (the chants proper to the Sunday being celebrated-usually verses of Psalms). Since Pope Benedict loosened the restrictions that were placed on that Mass, there have been some changes, specifically the readings of the Epistle and the Gospel are done in the vernacular. What do I think about it? I think it is a beautiful expression of worship to God. It is quiet, reverent and entirely focused on Christ. That’s not to say that the Mass in the vernacular is loud, irreverent and unfocused.
Alan: I asked because there are two Catholic Churches in our small town – one uses the vernacular, one only Latin.
Brian: I wonder if the church which uses only Latin is a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. That’s the schismatic group whose 4 bishops recently had their excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict which resulted in all the media circus. The church I attend is not a part of that group.
Alan: I don’t know. I’ll check their sign when I drive by this afternoon.
Brian: So what are your thoughts on the Latin Mass, if you have any?
Alan: Well, since Paul indicates that only things that are “understandable” are edifying (1 Cor 14), I’m not sure how edifying Latin is to those who can’t understand it. What do you think?
Brian: Perhaps. It is not as though Latin is an unintelligible tongue, though. It can be effectively translated for the community as a whole. I tend to see what St. Paul is doing in 1 Cor 14 is correcting the Church at Corinth for their overemphasis of the gift of speaking in tongues over other gifts such as prophesy. That does not mean that I am opposed to the Mass being done in the vernacular, because I am not, and common sense says that being able to understand the words the priest is saying can be edifying, even if the prayers are meant for God alone. I suppose I look at it this way: the part of Mass that is essential for the congregation to know would be the readings of scripture and the sermon, and in the Tridentine Mass I attend those parts are in the vernacular. The prayers the priest says in Latin are really between him and God (i.e. as “priest” he is the mediator between the congregation and the Lord, which in the drama which is the liturgy makes him function in the person of Christ) and are not meant for the “building up” of the congregation in the way that proclaiming the scriptures is. Those who really want to know what the priest is saying when he offers his prayers usually carry a Missal with them which has the translations.
Alan: Yes, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul specifically talks about tongues and prophecy. But, the difference in the two is that tongues is not directly edifying (because the tongues are not understandable), and prophecy is directly edifying (because the prophecy is understandable). I think we can apply these same principles to other types of activities when the church meets.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul talks about doing things for God alone. He says those things are not for the meeting of the church. By the way, I’m not picking on the Latin or the vernacular mass. Protestant churches traditionally do things for God alone in their meetings. I think Paul was saying these things are not for the church meeting either.
Brian: The Mass is about Christ alone, and we benefit from being there for that very reason. The proclamation of the scriptures (i.e. prophesy) is for our benefit so that we may in turn return thanks, praise and most importantly adoration to the Lord who is the source of the desire to do so in the first place. I completely agree with everything that you have said.
I know you are not picking on the Latin or vernacular Mass.
Alan: What do you think the term “edification” means in 1 Corinthians 14, and why is it so important to the church?
Brian: Building up. What I believe St. Paul is getting at here is merely a continuation of the theme of 1 Cor 13, the idea of love (charity) (or in Latin caritas, Greek ἀγάπη). I think it is telling that he says in verse 4 “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.” Speaking in a tongue builds oneself up, it seeks its own good, whereas prophesy builds up the church, i.e. it seeks the benefit of the other. To me this is reminiscent of 1 Cor 13:5, specifically love (in the beautiful language of the KJV) “seeketh not her own.” In this fashion, the one who prophesies acts in charity as Christ, always seeking the benefit of the beloved rather than himself.
Alan: Right, and 1 Cor 13-14 follow 1 Cor 12 speaking about spiritual gifts and the necessity of all the gifts in the church – even the most seemingly insignificant “gift” is actually necessary and important.
So, why do you think so few are allowed to exercise their gifts in order to edify the church when the church meets?
Brian: Do we really want to have the tower of Babel all over again? If everyone is exercising their gifts it would be chaotic.
Alan: Paul didn’t seem to think it would lead to the tower of Babel. Of course there should be order, and 2 or 3 exercising each gift when the church meets. Was Paul wrong to allow 2 or 3 tongues speakers and 2 or 3 prophets? Was he wrong to tell the prophet speaking to be silent if another stands to speak while the first is speaking? Could we be wrong in silencing most of the church?
Brian: I would tend to doubt that St. Paul was wrong. 🙂 However, if everyone is exercising their gifts en masse, how does that edify the Church? I don’t think most of the Church is silenced. I suppose it also depends on the type of meeting and how the gifts are able to build up the church, since St. Paul has instructed that all gifts must be used for the building up of the body.
Alan: 1 Cor. 14:26, Paul says, “Whenever you come together…” It sounds to me as if he expected the following instructions to apply to any time the church met together. He doesn’t give one set of instructions for some church meetings and other instructions for other meetings.
Brian: No, but he also expected order and not confusion.
That is what I was getting at.
Alan: Yes, exactly. And, Paul’s idea of order and not confusion included 2 or 3 people speaking in tongues (if there was interpretation) and 2 or 3 people prophesying plus other judging the prophecy. Paul doesn’t tell us specifically how many should bring a hymn, or an instruction, but he does list those in 1 Cor. 14:26. I would assume he would apply the same rule (2 or 3 people, with interpretation if not directly understandable and edifying). This is Paul’s definition of order.
Brian: Because interpretation lifts tongues to the level of intelligibility and thus enables them to have the same effect as prophesy.
Alan: Yes, exactly. So, do you agree that 2 or 3 utilizing each of the gifts one at a time as long as it is intelligible (or with interpretation) is Paul’s definition of order?
Brian: Sure. Are you implying that the Latin Mass does not fit the criterion?
Alan: I only know the Mass (Latin or vernacular) from a distance, so I’m not a good judge. However, I don’t think most “Protestant” church meetings fit Paul’s criterion.
Brian: That’s interesting. Could you elaborate more about how Protestant church meetings do not?
Alan: The instructions that Paul gave in 1 Cor 12-14 are to the church. So, anyone should have the opportunity to bring a hymn, instruction, prophecy, tongue (with interpretation). Of course, these should fall under his principles of orderliness (2 or 3, one at a time), love (more important than the gifts themselves), and edification (the purpose of the exercising the gifts).
In most Protestant church meetings, the leaders decide who will speak and who will not speak. Those who are not leaders are generally required to sit, listen, and sing along, and are not given the opportunity, much less the encouragement, to use the gifts that God has given them to edify the church in love in an orderly manner.
Brian: So, how do you think that could be be accomplished? I mean, the Mass is highly ritualized after centuries of its celebration. We have lay leaders who read from the scriptures, but this is according to the lectionary which divides the biblical readings over a 3 year period, so it is assigned to them by the church. And people who sing obviously contribute that gift to the assembly by being in the choir, and young boys (and in some cases) girls contribute by serving at the altar and assisting the priest. But I am not sure that those are the gifts that you have in mind.
I am going to dig around and see if I can find anything discussing this in the Church Fathers. Sometimes that can help to see how the early church interpreted things.
Alan: I think the real question is, “Is that the kind of gifts and service that Paul was talking about?”
Protestants have their “lay gifts” as well – ushering, taking up the offering, greeters, etc.
Brian: Perhaps that is where hierarchical structure may come into play. I understand that the very concept of hierarchy is repugnant to the sensibilities of many a Protestant (:-)), but the idea is that one must have their consciences formed in the faith if you are going to bear witness to it, otherwise you would have just anyone speaking as though their voices carried a weight of authority. How would you judge?
Alan: Yes, I understand that the church relies on hierarchical structure. The same is true for Protestant churches, whether the hierarchy ends at the local church (free church) or a denominational structure. But, the question that I’ve never been able to answer (and no one has been able to answer adequately for me) is this: “When the Corinthians were having so many problems, why did he not refer them to their hierarchical leaders?” The same question could be asked about the Galatians, or those in Thessalonika.
Brian: This would have been so early in the history of the Church (St. Paul’s letters were early!) that perhaps those kind of questions had not even been addressed by those folks and they had to be referred to St. Paul or perhaps one of the other apostles. St. Peter’s letters are instructional as well, as are the letters to the Hebrews, of St. James, and all of St. John’s.
Alan: Yes, they are all instructional. But, the church did have leaders. When Paul went on his second missionary journey, he helped appoint/recognize elders in all the churches. He left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete for a short time to appoint/recognize leaders. The author of Hebrews recognizes leaders among the churches that he writes to. James also speaks of elders in the churches. Yet, in spite of these church leaders, very little instruction was given specifically to the leaders, even when it comes to doctrinal matters. Instead, the instructions were give to the church at large. For example, in Corinth, the church was responsible for learning from Paul’s letter and correcting the problems of division, communion, their church meeting, etc. – this was not the responsibility of the leaders/elders, but the church.
Brian: I think that is where we must consider the question, did the canon of scripture contain the entirety of what was handed on to the early church? It is probable that St. Paul formed many of these leaders himself, much like he himself was formed in the faith by the twelve, and likewise, St. Timothy and St. Titus did as well. This would make sense when considering that St. Paul admonished the church at Thessalonika to “hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Or to the church at Philippi, “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.” And to the church at Corinth, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” All of these statements would imply a core faith which was given to the churches prior to these letters being written. If I am not mistaken, the instructional letters written to the early church were meant to be corrective rather than catechetical, although correction in matters of faith and doctrine would be catechetical as well.
Alan: I agree with what you said, except that Paul specifically said that he was not taught by the Twelve (in Galatians, I think). I agree that there was a core faith that was taught both by the apostles and by others. I think this core was eventually labeled the Regula Fidei. I think Ignatius simply called it “The Gospel”.
So, when churches started straying from this core – as in Corinth or Galatia – why did Paul not call for the leaders/elders/priests/whatever to straighten everyone out?
Brian: You are right. He immediately went to Arabia, but then went to Jerusalem to render a visit to St. Peter and St. James. Regardless, St. Paul did not learn the faith in a vacuum. It was revealed to him, probably by the Lord Jesus in large part when he was blinded on the road to Damascus.
Perhaps the leaders were part of the problem, and this required correction from a person higher in authority. These are difficult but excellent questions that I am not sure we will ever be able to get straight answers to.
But I see similar practices at work in the Catholic Church today. If a priest (which is simply an early English corruption of the term presbyter) has a question regarding practice or doctrine, he usually petitions his bishop for the answer, not the priest in charge of his deanery. And believe me, there are times when the bishop has to call the priest on the carpet to correct an error. This is happening now in Australia and also has happened recently in St. Louis where you have renegade priests who are teaching heretical viewpoints. Then you have papal encyclicals and apostolic letters which are meant to address the church on matters of faith and discipline. One example that comes to mind is Pope John Paul II (of blessed memory)’s Ordinatio sacerdotalis whereby he stated, “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” Now, when a pope uses that sort of terminology, he is saying this is an infallible doctrine revealed to the church by God which cannot be altered by man.
Alan: Again, I think the church (Catholic and Protestant and probably Orthodox, but I’m not as familiar with that one) has set up a hierarchy to take care of these kinds of problems and to control what happens when the church meets. However, once again, I do not see this in Scripture. I think these structures may harm the church as much as (if not more than) they help.
You’re right, Paul did not learn about Christ in a vacuum. He learned from the risen Christ himself. It seems that he encouraged other believers to learn from the risen Christ as well… with more mature believers there to help, but not to control. I believe that we can learn from the risen Christ today. Even an immature believer is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and can be used by God to teach, encourage, prophesy, etc. In fact, if Paul is correct in 1 Cor 12, then the gifts of that immature believer is just as important (if not more important) than the more noticeable gifts of mature believers.
Unfortunately, the church has silenced all believers, except for those in official positions.
Imagine for a moment that in the middle of your next Mass, someone walks toward the priest and says that the Spirit has given him something to say. What would happen? I can tell you that in most church meetings that I’ve been part of, that person would be considered out of order. But, in 1 Cor 14, Paul says that is perfectly in order.
Brian: Well, it would depend on what kind of Mass you were at, believe it or not. I don’t think it would be completely out of the ordinary for someone to walk up to the priest in a charismatic Mass and do just that. But, you are right. Typically the Mass is very ritualized and everything has its place and time, and while I don’t think a priest would stop someone from doing such a thing, he may tell him that it would be more appropriate after Mass, and furthermore, it may cause some disquieted feelings amongst the congregation. But, I appreciate and respect what you are saying, and as a matter of fact, I will bring it up with my pastor and with my bishop and see what their take on it is. I think it does have merit.
Spiritual Gifts and the Gathered Church
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Spiritual Gifts and the Gathered Church“. The post was triggered by my thoughts when reading Robert Banks’ book Paul’s Idea of Community. If you haven’t read this, I would highly recommend it! God has gifted all of his children, and the church needs all of those people to function (through their gifts) in order for the church to grow in maturity. I think its fairly obvious that this is not happening; and it is fairly obvious that the church is not maturing.
[UPDATE: Thanks to my friend, Joe, for pointing out that my last statement above is too broad. I agree with him. Instead, I should have said this: In many cases (perhaps most?) this is not happening in the context of the church gathering; and this affects the maturity of the church in those cases.]
—————————————————————
Spiritual Gifts and the Gathered Church
One of the most interesting books that I have read in the last few years is Paul’s Idea of Community (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994) by Robert Banks. In one part of this book, Banks discusses the purpose of Spiritual gifts for believers, especially when believers are gathered together:
We have seen how gifts were distributed to every member of the community by the Spirit and that through their mutual sharing these were exercised amongst them. Guidance on matters affecting the community’s life was principally granted to members when they met together to discern what God required of them. They received this guidance from the Spirit through their exercise of gifts of knowledge, revelation, wisdom, and so on. In all this Paul never tires of insisting that every member of the community has the responsibility to impart the particular insights they have been given…
Thus, the most characteristic setting in which the community received guidance was when Christians assembled to share and evaluate the gifts given to them. Here, in a variety of complementary ways, the guidance was conveyed through each to all and through all to each.
Both nurture and discipline within the congregation, then, should arise spontaneously from the concern of every member for the quality of its life and the involvement of every member in decisions affecting the whole. (137-138)
Banks describes exactly what Paul writes about in 1 Cor. 12:7: Spiritual gifts are given for the benefit of others, not for our own benefit. Perhaps, Acts 13 includes the best biblical example of the Spirit communicating to the community through the gifts of those within the community:
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:1-4 ESV)
Notice that it was in the context of exercising spiritual gifts (i.e. to the benefit of other people – 1 Cor. 12:7) that the men were serving the Lord. (Now, I know that the ESV says the men were “worshiping”, but the word is probably better translated “serving”.) While they were serving people and the Lord, the Spirit communicated both to the men being sent, and also to the church. The men listened, and the church listened. The Spirit spoke. The people responded. Interesting, this passage says that both the church “sent” the men and that also the Spirit “sent” the men.
Scripture only gives two requirements for someone to exercise their gift when the church is assembled: whatever they do must be motivated by love (1 Cor. 13) and must edify the church (1 Cor. 14:26). No gifts should be refused, and no gifts should be elevated above the others – as long as the gifts are used to edify other people. Similarly, the people should be given the opportunity to use their gifts when the church is assembled, and they should be reminded that God holds them responsible for this. In other words, if someone is in charge of the meeting time, that person should make sure that others are given opportunity to edify the church. And, the people gathered should be reminded that God wants them to participate and expects them to participate in building up the body.
Do you expect God to communicate to you through the Spiritual gifts of the entire body, or just through the gifts of a few leaders within the body? Do you expect God to communicate to the church through the Spiritual gifts that he gives you? Are you obedient to God in building up his church and allowing others (with different gifts perhaps) to have the same opportunity?
Harold Hoehner passed away today
I just read that Harold Hoehner passed away today.
I have enjoyed his commentary on Ephesians, and I had the opportunity to hear him speak at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The topic of his speech was “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” His speech prompted me to write a short series on the topic of gifting vs. office:
Part 1 (introduction)
Part 2 (Hoehner’s designation of “office”)
Part 3 (Hoehner’s designation of “gifting”)
Part 4 (My discussion of the topic with a summary of Hoehner’s view)
Those who knew him, worked with him, and studied under him described him like this: “Most of all Harold has shown us what it means to be a man of God, committed to Christ and His gospel, and reflecting the fruit of the Spirit over a lifetime of faithful service.”
A History of Miracles
Christianity Today is publishing a new blog called “The Christian History Blog“. There is one post in particular that my readers may be interested in: “Signs and Wonders: The Charismatic Power of Early Christianity“. This is how the author begins his post:
When we teach about the early church, we frequently omit the story of spiritual gifts.
Cessationism is the belief that the miracles of Jesus’ lifetime and the apostolic period happened solely to attest to the authority and inspiration of the apostolic writings, and that miracles and extraordinary spiritual gifts ceased after the writing of the apostolic documents was concluded.
As writers such as ex-Dallas Seminary professor Jack Deere have argued, this is a position with no biblical foundation. But it also has a problem with the historical record. That record shows clearly that the early church was quite active in the charismatic gifts at least through 200 AD. There was a decline in the 3rd century, and then again it became active.
The remainder of the article lists historical records of miraculous works through the fourth century. Many of the writers and writings are familiar to me: the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo, for example. But, when I studied church history, no one mentioned the extent of the miraculous in the early church.
I’ve written about this before in a post called “Irenaeus and Miraculous Gifts“. Its amazing what you can learn about this early period of the church when you read their writings instead of what others say about them.
Parable of the Subcontractors Explained
In the “Modern Day Parable of the Subcontractors“, the builder represents Jesus. The house represents the church. The subcontractors represent you and me. The mason represents church leaders.
Believe it or not, this parable is based in Scripture. It is built primarily on two passages with two interconnected teachings about how the church is built.
First, in Matthew 16:18, Jesus said that he would build his church. Almost everyone understands this, and very few – if anyone – would disagree that Jesus is the architect and owner of the church. He alone builds the church.
Second, in Ephesians 4:16, we learn that the church builds itself when each person does his or her task. Let’s focus on this verse, because what it teaches is contrary to how the church usually “works”.
…[F]rom whom [Christ] the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:16 ESV)
This is the final clause of the long sentence that begins in verse 4:11. The main subject and verb of this sentence is “He gave”, speaking of Jesus.
If you were to examine the subject, verb, and direct object of the final clause (found in Ephesians 4:16 above), and remove all other modifying terms and phrases, you would find this simple sentence: “The body makes growth.”
Did you catch that? Yes, Jesus is the builder, and without him nothing is built – we’ll examine this later. But, according to Paul, it is “the body” that makes itself grow. However, there are modifying terms and phrases that we have to consider.
First, consider the prepositional phrase “from whom [Christ]” at the beginning of vs. 16. The body can only make itself grow when the body finds its source in Christ. In vs. 15, Paul says that Christ is the head of the body, and that the body should grow toward Christ. Therefore, he is both our source (from Christ) and our goal (toward Christ).
Second, consider the following terms and phrases: “whole body”, “joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped”, and “when each part is working properly”. These descriptive phrases repeat the same thing: the body grows when every part of the body is working. The body doesn’t grow when only one or two parts do their work – even if those one or two are working from Christ and toward Christ. Paul says three times that each part of the body must do its task for the church to grow.
Finally, consider the last phrase: “makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love”. This is the purpose of the body’s growth. It is a difficult phrase grammatically. Literally, the phrase is “makes the growth of the body to the edification (building up) of itself in love”. Thus, as every part of the body does its share, the body makes itself grow toward being built up in love.
Earlier in verse 12, Paul gave a three-fold description of this goal: 1) “the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God”, 2) “mature manhood”, and 3) “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”. In verse 16, he adds a fourth description of the goal of the growth of the church: “building itself up in love”. I think all these happen when each part of the church works together with Christ as the source.
Thus, in the parable, the mason was disobedient because he was working beyond his task. In the language of Ephesians 4:16, he was working where he was not equipped. The other subcontractors were disobedient because they were not doing their part, or as Paul might say, they were not working properly.
Christ is the only builder of the church. He is the only one who makes the plans, and he is the one who communicates those plans to his people.
However, we also have a part to play in the building of the church. And, if we all do not play our part, then the church will not be built according to Christ’s specifications. The church will not grow in faith and in relationship with Christ as it should. The church will not mature as it should. The church will not approach the stature of Christ as it should. The church will not be built up in love as it should be.
I think, if we were to take an honest look at the church, we would have to admit that the church does not demonstrate that it is making itself grow. Perhaps some of us are among the disobedient subcontractors? Perhaps some of us are disobedient like the mason? Perhaps some of us are disobedient like the other subcontractors?
There’s only one answer to this disobedience: With Christ as your source and your goal – and no one else – work as he has equipped you to help the church grow toward faith, relationship, maturity, and love.
Modern Day Parable of the Subcontractors
A man decided to build a house. The builder drew up plans to his exact specifications, then he subcontracted various parts of the project to different craftsmen: a mason for the brickwork, a carpenter for the woodwork, a plumber, an electrician, a roofer, etc. He gave each of the subcontractors a set of plans and asked them to carry out their tasks according to his plans.
When the builder checked on the progress, he found that his house was behind schedule and was not being built to his specifications. In fact, part of the flooring, which should be wood, was made of brick. Some of the plumbing had been replaced with bricks. Even the electrical system and roof including brick, which was not part of his design.
The builder called the mason and asked the mason what happened. The mason explained that he was a master craftsman, much more skilled at his craft than the other subcontractors. When he saw that the carpenter was not as good at woodworking, the mason jumped in and did part of his job. When he saw that the plumber was not as good at plumbing, the mason jumped in and did part of his job. In fact, the mason said, he had to be involved in each part of the project of it would not have been done properly.
The builder promptly fired the mason, explaining: “I gave you the task of laying bricks. I did not ask you to do the carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, or roofing. Instead of following my plans, you decided to run things yourself. You are fired for breech of contract.”
Next, the builder called the other subcontractors and asked them what happened. Each subcontractor in turn explained that the mason was much better at laying bricks that they were at their tasks. When the mason decided to do their tasks as well, they stood back and allowed him to do all the work.
The builder promptly fired all the other subcontractors, explaining: “I gave each of you a specific task. I asked you to do the carpentry, or the plumbing, or the electrical work, or the roofing. Instead of following my plans, you decided to follow the mason’s plans. You are all fired for breech of contract.”
More ready to submit than to impose
I recently read Lesslie Newbigin’s book The Household of God (Friendship Press, 1954). Kärkkäinen describes Newbigin’s ecclesiology as a “missionary ecclesiology” – “The new conciliar understanding of mission is based on the idea that the essential nature of the church is missionary, rather than mission being a task given to the church. (Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Introduction to Ecclesiology, Downers Grove: IVP, 2002, pg. 151).
However, Newbigin does not begin his book with mission. Instead, he begins with the essence or nature of the church:
We are to be speaking about the Church, and it is necessary at the outset to say that this means a society of human beings, which—so far as those still living in the flesh are concerned—is a visible community among the other human communities. The question, ‘What are its boundaries?,’ is part of the question we have to discuss, but just for that reason it is important to make clear that we are speaking of a society which has discernible boundaries. We are not speaking of an abstract noun, or of an invisible platonic idea… We are called to recognize and join ourselves to God’s visible congregation here on earth. This congregation is truly known only to faith, because it is constituted in and by the Holy Spirit. (19-20)
According to Newbigin, the Spirit plays an essential role in the constitution, nature, and task of the church. The Spirit primarily functions through his abiding presence:
The Holy Spirit is now [in contrast with what was described in the OT] no more an occasional visitant to a favored individual, but the abiding and indwelling principle of life in a fellowship. The supreme gift of the Spirit is not the spectacular power by which an individual may gain preeminence, but the humble and self-effacing love by which the body is built up and knit together. (115)
Finally, the Spirit also functions during the meeting of the church, not only through the gifts that he gives to those he indwells, but also – and primarily – through the manner of life of the believers who are meeting together:
In the building up of the common life of the body there will be need for the due operation of the principles both of order and of freedom. Where these clash with one another there will be room for honest difference of opinion, and there will need for a common seeking of the Spirit’s guidance. But the mark of the man in Christ will be that he is more eager to claim freedom for his brother than for himself, and more ready to submit himself to good order than to impose it on his brother. In any case the fundamental principle will always be the love which seeks not its own good, but the common good of the body. (116)
I believe this is one of the most best explanations of the work of the Spirit among the body of Christ while the church meets! When the church meets, if each individual – or any one particular individual – is seeking to exercise his or her own spiritual gifts without first considering and giving preference to other present, then this is a clear indication that there is a lack of “a common seeking of the Spirit’s guidance.”
It seems that the mark of the church today is that some people have freedom to exercise their gifts – and are even required to by the church – while others do not have that freedom. It also seems that very little “submission” is done when it comes to spiritual gifts. Certain people exercise their gifts and impose those gifts on others every time the church meets. Thus, some claim and even demand freedom for themselves, while imposing “order” on others at the same time. This is backwards!
In fact, I believe that the common, traditional way the church meets – one or a few people exercising their gifts week after week while the others watch or listen – is detrimental to the spiritual health of the church. In order for us to seek the “common good of the body” we (especially leaders – who are supposed to be mature) must submit to others and allow the Spirit to work through them – even if their “offering” is less than “excellent”.
Read and ponder this sentence from Newbigin one more time: “But the mark of the man in Christ will be that he is more eager to claim freedom for his brother than for himself, and more ready to submit himself to good order than to impose it on his brother.” May God change us – especially us leaders – so that we are more ready to submit to others than to impose ourselves on others!
A quote from Reimagining Church
I’ve been slowly reading through Frank Viola’s latest book Reimagining Church. So far, in my opinion, this book has been much better than Pagan Christianity. In fact, I think this book should have been published first in the series.
But, before I write a full review, I thought I would share this quote because it expresses my own view on the church meeting as well:
Perhaps the most startling characteristic of the early church meeting was the absence of any human officiating. Jesus Christ led the gatherings by the medium of the Holy Spirit through the believing community. The result? The spirit of “one anothering” pervaded the entire meeting. It’s no wonder that the New Testament uses the phrase one another nearly sixty times. Each member came to the meeting knowing that he or she had the privilege and the responsibility to contribute something of Christ…
Some may object and say, “But in my church, I’m allowed to do some ministry.” My question is, are you allowed to carry out such ministry in the major gatherings of the church when all the members are present? Are you free to stand up at any time and give a word of testimony, a teaching, an exhortation, a song, or whatever else the Lord has laid on your heart? More importantly, are you encouraged to do this?
Let’s be honest. The idea of mutual ministry envisioned in the New Testament is a far cry from the pinched definition of “lay ministry” that’s promoted in the typical institutional church. Most organized churches offer a surplus of volunteer positions for “laypeople” to fill. Positions like cutting the lawn of the parsonage, ushering the aisles, shaking hands at the sanctuary door, passing out bulletins, teaching Sunday school, singing in the choir, participating on the worship team (if you make the cut), flipping transparencies, turning PowerPoint slides, etc.
But these restricted “ministry” positions are light-years away from the free and open exercise of spiritual gifts that was afforded to every believer in the early church gathering. An exercise that benefited the entire church when it gathered together. (pg 55-56)
Like I said, I agree with this statement. I think we have lost the desire and opportunity to truly serve one another through the gifts of the Spirit when the church meets, and we have tried to delegate our own responsibility to others – primarily our leaders.
The teacher in teaching
I often write about spiritual gifts, like I did yesterday in my post “Charismatics“. Because I often write about spiritual gifts, people often reach my blog from search engines when they are seeking information about gifts.
The primary thing that people search for is something like “define the various spiritual gifts”. Thus, they want to know what it means to be a “teacher” or “prophet” or “exhorter” etc. They are probably disappointed if they read any of my blog posts, like a recent series that I published about “Spiritual Gifts“. Why? Because I do not try to define the various spiritual gifts. Why? Because, for the most part, Scripture does not define the various spiritual gifts. As I explained in that series, the authors of Scripture were not interested in defining the various gifts. Instead, they were more interested in HOW those gifts were used – whatever the gift happened to be.
For example, Paul exhorts the Romans to use their gifts which the Spirit has given them. If their gift is teaching, then they should use that gift by… guess what?… teaching. In whatever way the Spirit has gifted the individual, then the individual should exercise that gift (not trying to exercise some other gift) to the benefit of the other people in the church.
Interestingly, Paul does not limit the exercise of spiritual gifts to the leaders of the church – either the pastors/elders or the deacons or even the apostles. His exhortation is for all followers of Jesus Christ (indwelled by the Spirit) to exercise their spiritual gifts as the Spirit gives them.
Yesterday, Dave Black also wrote a very important essay called “Are You a Teacher?” He writes about the distinction between spiritual gifts and the responsibilities of all believers. Thus, the Spirit gifts some as teachers, but all are responsible to teach. The Spirit gifts some as givers, but all are responsible to give. The Spirit gifts some as pastors, but all are responsible to care for one another.
Dave writes:
Of course, all of us are to be teachers in one sense; we are to “teach … one another” (Col. 3:16). And in Hebrews we read, “By this time you ought to be teachers” (Heb. 5:11). We all have something to teach others – or should. I can’t tell you how much I delight in hearing my wife or some other member of our Sunday School class utter encouraging words of instruction during our lesson time, or in reading the Bible studies that Nathan has written, or in visiting websites written by “laypeople” that are chock full of good, practical Bible teaching. In fact, sometimes informal conversations around the Word can be more effective, more persuasive, more powerful, more life-changing than formal instruction. But this does not mean that all should be teachers in another sense. As James writes, “Let not many of you become teachers” (James 3:1).
Thus, even though some are gifted by the Spirit to teach, all are responsible to teach. It follows, then, that all of us – even those gifted by the Spirit to teach – can learn from (be taught by) others – even those NOT gifted by the Spirit to teach.
Dave also exhorts us not to leave teaching or other service only to those who have been recognized as elders or specially trained. He says:
Are you a teacher? Do you have something to contribute to the Body by way of “upbuilding, encouragement, or consolation” (1 Cor. 14:3)? I’m quite positive that you are, and that you do. Fear not then to express your spontaneous zeal in teaching others what the Lord Jesus has taught you. It matters not what level of formal academic training you may have had or not had. If we are members of the Body of Christ, we have the privilege and, yes, the responsibility of teaching one another. I emphasize this great truth everywhere I go. You do not need special training in a theological college to be a God-trained and God-taught teacher in the church. Just look at Paul’s use of theodidaktoi in 1 Thess. 4:9: “You yourselves have been God-taught.” Or read John’s instruction in 1 John 2:20, 27 about the chrisma (anointing) you have from God. Or see the promise in Jer. 31:33-34 that God would write His law on the hearts of His people and teach them directly as part of Jesus’ New Covenant ministry.
On the other hand, some of you are specially gifted in the area of teaching. Here is my advice to you: Do not think you need to be an elder or a pastor to teach! As Paul puts it in Eph. 4:11, all pastors are teachers, but not all teachers are pastors. I believe a healthy church will have both shepherd-teachers and sheep-teachers, working together in harmony for the building up of the entire Body of Christ. In other words, a New Testament church will have a host of teachers, not only ready to impart knowledge, but to receive it.
I believe that one of the main reasons that the church is weak today is that service – especially the exercise of spiritual gifts – has been relegated to church officials only. The church as a whole does not exercise their gifts for the benefit of the church as a whole. Thus, the church is not receiving all of the “upbuilding, encouragement, and consolation” that it should. One person – of even a group – of highly trained individuals cannot take the place of the working of the Spirit through the entire church.
How has the Spirit gifted you? Then it is your responsibility to serve other believers in that capacity. If the Spirit has gifted you in teaching, then teach. Are you a pastor? Then teach. Are you not a pastor? Then teach. Do you not have a formal environment in which to teach? So what? Teach anyway in whatever opportunities the Lord gives you.
Is your spiritual gift not teaching? You are still responsible to teach, but you are also responsible to exercise whatever spiritual gifting you have been given.
If all believers started serving one another and the world as God has gifted us, I think we would see a huge difference in the church and the world today. As long as we relinquish our God-given responsibilities to others because of position or training or apathy, then I think the church will continue to be ineffective in the lives of believers and in the lives of others.
Charismatics
This post is not about charismatic or pentecostal denominations. Instead, its about all of those who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit – that is, all Christians. You see, when the Spirit indwells and fills, He also gives gifts – the charismata.
In my recent reading of modern ecclesiologies, I ran into a couple of interesting quotes about believers serving through their spiritual gifts, meaning “charismatics”. First, in The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology (trans. by Margaret Kohl, New York: Harper & Row, 1977), Jurgen Moltmann writes:
The New Testament knows no technical term for what we call ‘the church’s ministry’. Paul talks about charismata, meaning the energies of the new life (I Cor. 12.6, 11), which is to say the powers of the Spirit. These are designations of what is, not of what ought to be. They are the gifts of grace springing from the creative grace of God. When he talks about the use of these new living energies, on the other hand, he evidently avoids all the words expressing conditions of rule. He does not talk about ‘holy rule’ (hierarchy) but chooses the expression diakonia [service].
There are a couple of interesting and important points in Moltmann’s statements. In Paul’s descriptions of the working of spiritual gifts, the apostle does not talk about hierarchy, or a rule associated with those gifts. Perhaps a case can be made that some gifts are more important than others (although an equal case can be made that we usually place importance on the wrong gifts), importance of gifts does not equate with importance of the individual, nor does it equate with a certain leadership. Instead, the Spirit works his gifts according to his own will – that is, through whom he desires and for the purpose he desires.
Also, instead of focusing on rule or control, Paul focuses on service. Thus, exercising spiritual gifts is not a function of leadership but of service – to service to other brothers and sisters in Christ and service to the world. These gifts exist (in reality, not in potential) for the benefit of other people, not primarily for the benefit of the ones exercising the gifts – although there may be some personal benefit as well.
This leads me to the second quote by Hans Kung in his book The Church (trans. by Ray and Rosaleen Ockenden, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967). (I discusses another part of this book earlier in my post “Kung on the Church in Corinth“.) Again concerning the charismata, Kung says:
By linking his teaching about charismata with that about the body of Christ Paul at all events made clear that the Church is never – as some people in Corinth seem to have supposed – a gathering of charismatics enjoying their own private relationship with Christ independently of the community. According to Paul, all charismatics are part of the body of Christ, of the community. The fact that all charismatics are members of one body does not of course mean uniformity, but on the contrary a variety of gifts and callings. But fundamentally all individual members, having been baptized, are equal. But, by contrast with this fundamental equality all differences are ultimately without importance.
Here, Kung makes another couple of important distinctions about spiritual gifts which follow nicely from Moltmann’s observations. The body of Christ is not made of individuals who gather and exercise their gifts for the sake of the individuals and “their own private relationship with Christ”. Instead, because of the work of the Spirit, the individuals become part of the body of Christ together. Thus, the gifts are to be exercised for the good of the community, not primarily for the good of the individual.
But, this does not mean that there is uniformity within the community. On the contrary, as Paul points out, the Spirit works in many different way within the community. The variety works to strengthen the body in a way that uniformity could not. The teachers need the prophets who need the helpers who need the exhorters, etc. The difficulty comes when the individual must deny himself and the importance of his own gift and service in order to receive help from someone who is gifted in a different way.
When we gather together with other believers, we should be gathering with people who are different from us. We should expect and encourage people who are different from us to exercise their spiritual gifts. We should recognize that our gifts and giftedness (even teaching!) is neither less important nor more important than the gifts and giftedness of the other people around us. Why? Because the community benefits through the variety of gifts that the Spirit offers.
But, when some people or some gifts are considered more important, or when some people or gifts are not allowed to operate during the meeting of the church, or when we make the church about hierarchies instead of service, then the spiritual health of the community is weakened.