Unity and the Church in a City
This post is the eighth post in a chain blog on the topic of the “City Church”. I started this chain blog a few weeks ago in a post called “City Church – A Chain Blog“. See the end of this post for more “links” in this chain, and for more information about chain blogging.
So far in this chain blog, there have been some good posts and good discussion in the comments concerning the idea of one church in a city. As most of the bloggers have pointed out, the idea of a “city church” stems from Scripture, and the observance that scriptural authors recognized one church in a city, even though that church may meet as smaller groups of people, which are also called “churches”. We’ve discussed meetings of the city church, hindrances to the city church concept, and leadership in the city church. In this post, I’d like to toss around some ideas that may help others begin to recognize themselves as part of a larger “church” – that is, that every believers is co-member with every other believer in their area, especially those believers that God has brought into their lives, whether or not they share a formal “membership”.
Recognizing our connection with other believers in our area does not automatically make for a “city church”. However, followers of Jesus are so disjointed and disconnected now, that there seems to be a need for small steps before jumping into attempting to recognize (whether structured or unstructured) a church in a city. Here are a few suggestions of “small steps” (or large ones, depending on how you looking at it) they may help people recognize their mutual relationship with other believers in their area and the possibility of one church in a city.
Membership vs. Members of One Another
The idea that all believers are members with one another is a concept that is reiterated throughout Scripture. We become members of the body of Christ – and, therefore, co-members with one another – by the work of the Holy Spirit. The “one anothers” of Scripture demonstrate that the Spirit works within each of us toward any other believer that God brings into our lives. However, this idea of being mutual members with one another can be thwarted by the idea of “membership” in a particular organization. “Membership” itself is not a problem as long as it is not seen as being exclusive. However, occasionally “membership” is taken to be exclusive and the “one anothers” are only seen as applicable toward others with whom we share “membership”. This type of “membership” hinders unity among believers.
Leadership and Exclusive Domains
Sometimes, church leaders will get the idea that some of the people are their “domain”. Because of this, they become possessive and protective of their “church” – not in the sense of protecting from heresy, but in the sense of keeping them to themselves. Thus, it is seen as a bad thing if someone who is part of “their” church spends time with another leader. However, when leaders recognize that the church belongs to Jesus Christ, and when leaders desire to see people mature in Christ regardless of who helps those people, these leaders will welcome encouragement, edification, and teaching regardless of the source. These leaders will want people to mature if that means that these people are no longer part of “their” church. Leadership with an “exclusive domain” on people will hinder the unity of the church.
You went WHERE?
The concept of one church in a city and even unity within the church requires that believers form and maintain relationships among a diverse group of believers within their area – not just the leaders, but all believers. As believers form relationships with people who are part of other churches, they should feel the freedom and the encouragement to meet with those other churches. This is related to the previous two “small steps” and is perhaps one outward manifestation when a person begins to recognize unity among the body of Christ.
Again, these are a few “small steps”… but in many ways these are steps that directly contradict the prevailing attitude about “church” today. Can you think of other “small steps” that might help believers recognize the unity that Jesus desired and prayed for?
—————————————————
Chain blog rules: (Note: I’ve modified Rule #3 slightly as requested by James.)
1) If you would like to write the next blog post (link) in this chain, leave a comment stating that you would like to do so. If someone else has already requested to write the next link, then please wait for that blog post and leave a comment there requesting to write the following link.
2) Feel free to leave comments here and discuss items in this blog post without taking part in the actual “chain”. Your comments and discussion are very important in this chain blog.
3) When you write a link in this chain, please reply in the comments of all previous links to let everyone know that your link is ready. Also, please try to keep an updated list of links in the chain at the bottom of your post, and please include these rules at the bottom of your post.
—————————————————
“City Church” Chain
Link 1: “City Church – A Chain Blog” by Alan Knox
Link 2: “City Church: Meeting” by Charlie Wallace
Link 3: “Roadblocks on the Path to City Church” by David Rogers
Link 4: “The Major Roadblock to a City Church” by Steve Sensenig
Link 5: “The Resurrection of the City Church: Who Will Move the Stone?” by Paul Grabill
Link 6: “A City Church Thought Experiment” by Jon Amos
Link 7: “The Restoration of the City or Locality Church and Apostolic Leadership” by James Goetz
Link 8: “Unity and the Church in a City” by Alan Knox
Link 9: ?
Scripture… As We Live It #3
Here is a third installment of “Scripture… As We Live It“:
On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable not as important, so, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor ignore, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty apathy, which our more presentable parts do not require require even more elevation. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it those who have a good speaking ability and education, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another listen to and follow those with the greater gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:22-25 remix)
The Lord’s Supper, Idolatry, and Unity
Tomorrow, God willing, I’ll be teaching from this passage:
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:19-24 ESV)
We’ll also eat the Lord’s Supper together, so I’ve been thinking about this passage:
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. (1 Corinthians 10:14-24 ESV)
Can you see the connection between the Lord’s Supper, idolatry, and unity in these passages?
Thinking about 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, where some of the Corinthians were eating, but it was not the Lord’s Supper because of the way they were treating one another… I wonder how many tomorrow will eat and drink, but it won’t be the Lord’s Supper because of idolatry (having another master) or disunity. I wonder if I will be one of those…
Two for ONE
I read two great posts about unity today:
In the first post, David Rogers (who usually blogs at “Love Each Stone“) wrote an article for “SBC Impact” called “The One True Church“. David asks serious questions concerning the nature of the church and the divisions that we find among God’s people today. He discusses different expressions of the church, such as city church, house church, and congregational church, and compares these various expressions with the church as found in Scripture:
Biblically, as best as I can tell, the “house churches†were the context, wherever they happened to actually meet, in which the various “one another†injunctions of the New Testament were carried out on a day-to-day basis. They were small enough for the various “members†to know each other intimately, and hold each other accountable for their Christian growth and obedience to the Lord. They regularly “broke bread†together, commemorating the Lord’s death, partaking symbolically of His blood and body. They exercised their spiritual gifts in interactive meetings in which everyone had an opportunity to participate actively.
As I see it, the typical “congregation†in today’s Christian landscape is somewhat of a hybrid between the “city church†and the “house church.†It is not big enough to embrace all of the believers in a particular locality, but, at the same time, is too big for everyone to really know each other and hold each other accountable in a meaningful way.
These may not be popular conclusions, but I agree with many of the things that David finds in Scripture. As I’ve asked before, are we going to stick with what we’re doing, even if there are no parallels in Scripture, or are we willing to change the way we do things in order to model our lives after Scripture?
I read another very interesting post from my friend Eric at “Hammer and Nail” which he called “Unity without Relativism: Is it possible?“. After referring to John 17:20-21 and the importance of unity, and Galatians 1:8-9 and the importance of the gospel, Eric makes some very important observations:
In light of the above verses, it seems that Christians should not divide over issues that are secondary to the gospel. These might include the authority of scripture, the truth of scripture, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, women’s role in ministry (especially the pastorate), God’s sovereignty vs. man’s free will, spiritual gifts (especially speaking in tongues), etc.
However, if we say that the above issues are not worth standing up for, then it also seems that we are, in essence, saying that they really don’t matter and that whatever someone believes about these is fine. How do we avoid how relativistic this seems?
In this post, Eric asks for our answer to this question: “So, is it possible to be united as a church without falling into relativism on everything but the gospel itself?” Why not hop over to Eric’s blog and answer his question. He’s promised to write more about his thoughts in this area, and I’m going to hold him to that… 🙂
A different kind of building
When someone builds a building, when it is complete, at that moment it is the most resplendent that it will ever be, barring future improvement. From the moment that the building ceases, the edifice begins to deteriorate. Thus, when the building stops, the unbuilding begins. This is the nature of our fallen world.
When construction was completed on Solomon’s Temple and when the temple was dedicated, the temple was as beautiful and as perfect as it would ever be. The wood was now rotting. The stone began to crack and chip. The gold would flake off. In other words, the building would begin to unbuild itself. As you read the biblical account, you will see that there were many instances where people repaired the temple because it was falling apart.
There is a different kind of building – a building that does not unbuild – a building that does not fall apart as soon as construction is complete. In fact, this building continues to become more and more complete. It does not deteriorate. Instead, its beauty is continuously growing. What building? You and me and the entire building of God – the church.
This is what Paul wrote in Ephesians:
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV)
Unlike other buildings, the household of God – the building of God – the temple of God is not build on dead stone or earth. It is built on a living, breathing Lord. The whole edifice being built, is joined together, and is growing because of Jesus Christ and him alone. Notice the emphatic phrase “Christ Jesus himself”, and then the two relative clauses”in whom” and “in him”. Since the Cornerstore is alive, the building is alive. Since the building is connected to Christ, the building continues to be built, continues to be joined together, and continues to grow. This building does not deteriorate; it grows more and more resplendent.
Unlike other buildings, this building is not made of dead material. Instead, this building – this dwelling place of God – is being built of living stones (as Peter puts it) – stones which have been given life by their Lord, who is also their architect, their builder, and their cornerstone. Paul combines the metaphors of building and gardening specifically because this is a different kind of building – a growing building – a living building. He combines these metaphors again in chapter 4:
[W]e are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom 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 4:15-16 ESV)
He also combines these metaphors of construction and gardening in 1 Corinthians:
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:6-11 ESV)
We are both God’s building and God’s field (or garden) because together we make up a living building – a building which is alive with the life of Christ and grows through the power and working of the Spirit. This is truly a different kind of building.
Commenting on this building, Peter O’Brien said the following in The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999):
There is a mixture of building and organic images in the statement that the whole structure is ‘being joined together’ and is ‘growing’ into a holy temple in the Lord. The cornerstone unites the building ‘because it is organically as well as structurally bound to it’. So to speak of the building being joined together refers not simply to the union of one stone with another, but also to the union of the whole structure with (and in) the cornerstone. Both verbs, which occur again in 4:15, 16, focus on the idea of continuous progress. There, in a similar mixing of metaphors, the body is ‘joined together’ and ‘built up’ from Christ the head. (pg. 219 – emphasis in original)
The building exists because of Christ, who is both the head and the cornerstone. The building is joined together because of Christ. And the building grows because of Christ. Just as he has given life to dead people (Ephesians 2:1-10), he has also given life to a dead building.
O’Brien said that the two verbs “joined together” and “built up” focus on continuous progress. Thus, this building – which is built, joined together, and growing – is continuously progressing and continuously growing and continuously becoming more beautiful toward some final outcome. What is the goal of this progress?
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ… (Ephesians 4:13 ESV)
The final outcome of this building progression will be complete unity – both with one another and with God – and complete maturity – measured against Christ himself. We are progressing, but we are not there yet. How beautiful this building will be when we reach unity and maturity! Of course, there is still much disunity and immaturity today. But, how amazing it is to be part of this dwelling place of God – a growing, changing, moving, working temple – which is an altogether different kind of building.
Stumbling Blocks
Recently, I had the opportunity to speak to some students regarding Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Particularly, we focused on the last few chapters of the Epistle. Part of that conversation concerned “stumbling blocks”:
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. (Romans 14:13-16 ESV)
In these last few chapters, Paul continually tells the Romans to humble themselves, love, serve, accept, and greet brothers and sisters with whom they disagree. Specifically, he lists two “stumbling blocks” to the type of fellowship that the Spirit creates within the lives of God’s children: 1) holding one day as more important than another (Rom. 14:5-6) and 2) eating meat sacrificed to idols (Rom. 14:20-21).
Some may suggest that Paul wanted believers to fellowship in spite of their different beliefs in these two areas because these two items are not as important as our differences today. Today, we hold many different positions: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, infant baptism vs. believers’ baptism, cessationism vs. continuationism, and a plethora of eschatological beliefs. Certainly, these differences are much greater than days and food, right? It is right for us to dis-fellowship ourselves from those who hold to different views than us, right?
In fact, I think the two different views in Romans (days and food) should help illustrate how important continued fellowship is in spite of differences. For example, consider the first difference: holding one day as more important than another. In Rome, during the 1st century, which group of people would have held that one day was more important than other days? The Jews. Why would they hold that belief? Because Scripture is clear that God created the Sabbath to be honored. In other words, those who hold that one day is more important can back up their assertion with Scripture. Certainly, if someone disagreed with their claims, they were disagreeing with the clear teachings of Scripture.
Which group of people would have held that all days have equal importance? The Gentiles. They could also back up their beliefs with Scripture. Again, anyone attempting to hold one day as more important than the others would be disagreeing with the clear doctrine of Scripture. Even Jesus worked and healed on the Sabbath! Plus, Jesus rose on Sunday, given more importance to that day, if any day. However, Paul said that these two groups should accept one another and should not be “stumbling blocks” to the other. Yes, they should hold to their beliefs, but they should not let their beliefs keep them from serving, loving, accepting, and greeting those with other beliefs. Why? Because they were all part of the same family in God through Christ by the Holy Spirit.
Consider the second illustration that Paul uses: eating meat sacrificed to idols. Who would consider it problematic to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Those who associated eating this meat with worshiping a false god. Eating and drinking was part of the rituals associated with showing allegiance to and deference to and respect to and worship to that particular god. Scripture clearly teaching that we should worship no god besides the One True God. Why would anyone argue with this assertion, which is so clearly displayed in Scripture?
But, of course, the other side would argue that there are no other gods. In fact, only one God exists. So, eating and drinking – even food and drink that had been used in some pagan ritual – has nothing to do with deity. God himself declared that all food and drink are clean and that eating and drinking do not make a person unclean. This is very clear in Scripture. Yet, in spite of the fact that both groups could easily defend their positions in Scripture, Paul expected them to serve, love, accept, and greet one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, they should hold to their beliefs that their conscience requires, but they should not allow these beliefs to separate them from other believers and they should not allow these different beliefs to become “stumbling blocks” to other believers.
I hope you see that these two points were no less significant then than our differences are today. Both sides have biblical arguments for their positions, and they could easily use those arguments to beat sense into the other sides – those heretics who refuse to see the clear meaning of Scripture. But, Paul encouraged them not to do so. I think he would say the same to those who hold differing views of soteriology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, eschatology, or any other -ology.
To Paul, what was important was being a child of God, through Jesus Christ, by the work of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, he expected our relationship with God to demonstrate itself through our relationships with one another and with the world around us. According to Paul and other authors of Scripture, we do not questions a person’s relationship with God primarily by what they say they belief, but by how they live their life. (Yes, I know there are some beliefs that are given as reason for separation, like believing that Jesus is not the son of God or believing that Jesus did not come in the flesh. But, there are very few of these given in Scripture.)
Today, if Paul were to examine how we treat other believers who differ from us in the areas of soteriology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, eschatology, etc., I wonder if he would be concerned with our relationship with God. He would not be concerned because of what we say we believe. Instead, he would be concerned about how we are treating our brothers and sisters in Christ. He would be concerned that no one was willing to defer to a “weaker brother”. He would be concerned that we are not humbling ourselves before, serving, loving, accepting, and greeting one another because of these differences. He would be concerned that we are living as “stumbling blocks”.
The first eleven chapters of Paul’s Letter to the Romans contain important lessons on sin, grace, righteousness, sovereignty, faith, etc. Through these chapters we see the awesome majesty of God and his work in the world and his people. But, we should not think that we can separate these great truths about God from living the life that God is creating with us – especially when it comes to our relationships with other believers. If we are not demonstrating love and grace in our relationship with our brothers and sisters – if we are living as “stumbling blocks” – then we are not thinking right about God, whatever we profess to believe.
House Church Workshop – Session 4
This weekend, my son Jeremy and I are attending a House Church Workshop put on by New Testament Restoration Fellowship. The notes below are from the third session called “The Lord’s Supper” which was led by Tim Melvin. These thoughts are primarily Tim’s, and not my own. I’ll be glad to interact with any of the information below in the comments.
———————————————————
Session 4 – The Lord’s Supper
(Tim Melvin)
Also called the Lord’s Table, the Agape. This is one of the irreducible minimums in our understanding of the NT church. It was practiced as a full meal through the fourth century AD. In every denomination: symbolic, regular, fundamental belief.
The NT practice as three aspects: past, present, future. Yet the modern church emphasizes only one of the three aspects of the Supper: past.
The Lord’s Supper
1) Looks back to the sacrifice and covenant
2) Celebrates the present reality
3) Looks forward to the ultimate fulfillment in the marriage supper of the Lamb
OT background – Covenants: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, New Covenant – included sacrifices and meals
Passover – Exodus 12:1-14 – covenant, sacrifice, meal
Mt. Sinai – Exodus 24:1-11 – covenant, sacrifice, meal
Looking back to the sacrifice
Luke 22:19-20; Matt 26:26, 28; 1 Cor 11:26
“This cup poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.â€
“… you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.â€
Celebrating the present reality
Purposes and results of the Supper
– Breaking bread together – Acts 2:42, 46
– Reason for meeting – Acts 20:7 (“in order to eatâ€), 1 Cor 11:33 (“in order to eatâ€)
– A Cause of Unity – 1 Cor 10:14-17 (“one cupâ€, “one loafâ€)
Portion of the meeting
– Passover was a full meal
– Celebration of the feast in 1 Cor 5:6-8
– From the Greek for “supperâ€/“dinner†(deipnon)
– Abuses in Corinth prove the Lord’s Supper was a full meal – hungry and drunk
– The Lord’s Table
– The Agape
Looking to the Future Hope
1 Cor 11:26b – “until he comesâ€
– The objective of this proclamation of His death through eating and drinking the meal is to bring about his return.
– “Do this in remembrance of me†– can be a past remembrance, memorial, or reminder. This is a reminder similar to how the rainbow is a reminder to God about his covenant with Noah. The reminder can belong to Jesus, or it can be about Jesus. The pronoun is not “mou†but “emos†which means the reminder is Jesus’ reminder, not a reminder about Jesus.
– Joachim Jeremias said that Jesus used anamnesis (“remembrance, reminderâ€) in the sense of a reminder for God: “The Lord’s Supper would thus be an enacted prayer.†(from NIDNTT, Vol III, p. 244)
– Luke 22:30 – the disciples are promised a place at his table
– Rev 19:9 – the ultimate reality is the marriage supper of the lamb
Practical aspects
– Wine or juice?
– Leavened or unleavened bread?
– Unbelievers/children?
– Incorporating loaf and cup?
– Planned or unplanned menus?
– Other mechanics: bring plenty, view it as a ministry, plastic and paper, single table is impractical for large group
House Church Workshop
Session 1 – Apostolic Traditions
Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings
Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus
Session 4 – The Lord’s Supper
Summary Remarks
House Church Workshop – Session 3
This weekend, my son Jeremy and I are attending a House Church Workshop put on by New Testament Restoration Fellowship. The notes below are from the third session called “Elder-Led Congregational Consensus” which was led by Steve Atkerson. These thoughts are primarily Steve’s, and not my own. I’ll be glad to interact with any of the information below in the comments.
———————————————————
Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus
(Steve Atkerson)
Everybody agrees that Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Opinions disagree from that point down. Primarily, the church copies the governance of their culture. Some are more like monarchies. Some have a plurality of dictators – more of a representative form of government. Some hold to congregationalism, which models the democracy of the United States and other countries. The Bible does not demand a certain form of church government, but there are patterns in Scripture. We argue for “Elder-Led Congregational Consensusâ€, which is a form of congregationalism.
Luke 22:23ff
The words of Jesus should be the starting point of everything that we understand about church government. The argument is over who is the greatest. Jesus says that we should not be like the “Gentilesâ€. What does it mean to “lord it over†someone? It means to force someone to do what you tell them to do. They use force or manipulation to force people to do what they tell the people to do. What does it mean to “exercise authority†over someone? It means about the same thing: bossing someone around – ordering them to do something. Notice that the leaders call themselves “benefactors†– they are saying that they are just here to help you. Church leaders are not supposed to be like these government leaders. Instead, church leaders are supposed to be like children and like servants. Children and servants do not have authority. Church leaders are not supposed to exercise authority either. The church needs leaders – this is not anarchy. But, these leaders are not like governmental leaders.
The apostles wrote their letters to the whole church, not just to the leaders. Elders are important, but primarily they are not singled out nor are they given special attention. In the NT, the church did not revolve around pastors and elders. In fact, there are very few passages in Scripture that speak about elders or other types of leaders. Leaders in the NT led by example, and their authority comes from their ability to persuade people of God’s truth by their teaching and their lifestyle.
Matt 16 & 18
Church leaders are not to make decisions for the church; they make decisions with the church. Leaders can teach and guide and suggest, but they should not make decisions for the church.
Leaders do not build consensus in a church meeting. Instead, it happens all the time when the leader is spending time with other believers. You have to love each other enough to work through disagreements and problems.
In Scripture, the relationship of the apostles to the church is different from the relationship of elders to the church. But, even when the apostles exercised more authority, they did it by explaining, reasoning, and discussing, not by handing down their judgments alone. The church chose a replacement for Judas, not just the apostles (Acts 1). The church chose servants in Acts 6, not just the apostles. In Acts 15, the apostles, elders, and church discussed and decided about the issue of Gentiles being added to the church.
1 Corinthians 5:4-5; 6:1-3
The church was to decide to put the unrepentant sinner out of the church. This was not a decision for the elders to make alone. Similarly, the church was to judge matters among believers, not just the elders.
If authority lies with the church and not with the leaders, why does the church need leaders? Leaders provide protection, guidance, feeding… they help the church achieve consensus.
Consensus is based on unity
Psalm 133:1; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:3-6; Phil 2:2; Col 3:15; John 17:11, 20-23; 1 Cor 10:17
Developing consensus maintains the unity that we have together in Christ. Do we really trust the Holy Spirit to work this unity and consensus in our body? Some people think this is too utopian and will never work. It might not work with a large group, but it can work with a small group of believers who know and love one another.
1 Cor 10:17
One of the Spirit-inspired ways to maintain unity among a group of believers is to share one loaf of bread during the Lord’s Supper.
Hebrews 13:7
Leaders are to impact and persuade the flock through their manner of living – their way of life. (cf. 1 Thess 5:12-13, 1 Peter 5:3)
Hebrews 13:17
The author is not telling the people to “obey leadersâ€, but to be persuaded by them. This is not a picture of a master barking orders to a servant, but of a leader persuading people to following him. Similarly, the people are not told to “submit†to leaders, but to yield or surrender to them. It does not refer to a structure (like the government) to which one submits, but to a process or battle after which one yields (surrenders). Submission still occurs, but the picture is one of serious discussion and dialog prior to one party giving way.
1 Peter 5:5
This verse uses a different verb – one that does mean “submitâ€. Notice that it is specifically directed to “younger menâ€.
James 3:17
God’s wisdom is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason… This is the kind of wisdom that leaders should use.
Congregational consensus is the NT norm for church government. Churches are to be elder-led rather than elder-ruled.
House Church Workshop
Session 1 – Apostolic Traditions
Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings
Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus
Session 4 – The Lord’s Supper
Summary Remarks
Separating the sheep from the sheep
There are several interesting passages spoken by Jesus about his coming in the end times to separate from sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:33) or to separate from the wheat from the tares (Matt. 13:30). Most agree that these are eschatological (end times) images of those who are children of God being separated from those who are not children of God – or, believers being separated from non-believers.
Today, though, it seems that followers of Jesus Christ are often more interested in separating the sheep from other sheep. Of course, this desire to separate the “true” sheep from other sheep, didn’t start recently. If we look back at the early Christian writings, we will see that Christians were separating themselves from other Christians.
But, then again, we can look all the way back to the New Testament, and we see over and over again that believers were practicing sheep separation:
For before certain men came from James, he [Peter] was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:12-13 ESV)
I [Paul] appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:10-12 ESV)
I [John] have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. (3 John 1:9-10 ESV)
Each of these negative examples were corrected by Scripture. And, these negative examples are balanced by many positive encouragements to walk in unity, to fellowship with one another, to build one another up instead of attempting to destroy one another.
However, in spite of the many warnings and exhortations from Scripture, we continue to think that it is our duty to separate ourselves from other “sheep” who are not like us in some ways – and, of course, we get to choose which things are important and which things are not important. We pick which “doctrines” are necessary, which “doctrines” are important, and which “doctrines” are not as important, thereby separating ourselves from brothers and sisters in Christ.
Of course, if we were to allow ourselves to hang around with other Christians who are different than us, then it would mean that we would have to deal with them in love, peace, patience, humility, gentleness, kindness, perseverance… these sound familiar. I suppose that living in the unity that Scripture describes would require that we actually walk in the Spirit and not simply walk with those who are like us.
But, I wonder though… what would happen if we actually stopped trying to separate sheep from sheep? What would happen if we actually tried to live with other sheep – even those sheep who are different from us? I wonder what would happen…
I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:20-23 ESV)
The Lord’s table and humility
As I’ve mentioned previously in the posts “A Spiritual Remembrance” and “The Lord’s Supper as Communion“, I’m reading through Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, edited by John H. Armstrong. The “Reformed View” of the Lord’s Supper is presented by I. John Hesselink.
While there is much that I would agree with in Hesselink’s presentation, I would disagree with some of his conclusions as well. (Interesting, since I could say the same thing about Moore’s presentation of the “Baptist View” of the Lord’s Supper.) However, I was very encouraged by one part of Hesselink’s presentation. In these paragraphs, he quotes John Calvin as Calvin considers the “secret”, “mystery”, and “wonder” that we call the Lord’s Supper:
I urge my readers not to confine their mental interests within these too narrow limits, but to strive to rise much higher than I can lead them. For, whenever this matter is discussed, when I have tried to say all, I feel that I have as yet said little in proportion to its worth. And although my mind can think beyond what my tongue can utter, yet even my mind is conquered and overwhelmed by the greatness of the thing. Therefore, nothing remains but to break forth in wonder at this mystery, which plainly neither the mind is able to conceive nor the tongue to express (Inst. IV.17.7).
Hesselink then comments on the quote above by John Calvin:
Since this heavenly mystery is beyond comprehension but is at the same time such a precious gift of God’s generosity and kindness, our proper response should not be frustration because of our inability to understand the mysteries of the sacrament, but rather gratitude and a reverent openness to what God would give us through it. We should emulate the spirit of Calvin, who was not “ashamed to confess” that the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper is “a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare.” In short, he concludes, “I rather experience than understand it” (Inst. IV.17.32).
After years and years of battles with words and swords concerning “the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper”, it is encouraging to read these words of Calvin and Hesselink. Calvin held very strongly to his convictions concerning the Lord’s Supper, and yet he was able to voice (at least) his inability to understand the mystery and wonder of the Supper. Perhaps this is a good starting place for those who disagree about “the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper”.
I’ve found that most disagreements concerning the Lord’s Supper do not begin with Scripture. Instead, they begin with someone’s interpretation of Scripture – whether a patristic writer, or a reformation writer, or a modern day writer. Those who hold to certain views of the Lord’s Supper defend their favorite authors. In the meantime, they often ridicule (at best) or condemn (at worst) those who disagree with their favorite author. Thus, the common table of the Lord becomes a shouting match or even an ultimate fighting arena for those who hold different interpretations of the Supper itself. These fights – with words or with swords – end up dividing what Christ brings together.
However, if we can approach the table with humility – holding to our convictions and yet admitting that our convictions may be wrong – we will find that the table ceases to be a weapon and becomes the communion for which it was intended. We may find that we can stop dividing over Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et. al. and instead find common grace, mercy, and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. Of course, that means that we will have to admit that we (and our favorite interpretation and author) may be wrong. We also have to admit that we can learn from other followers of Jesus Christ who come to the table from different perspectives and hermeneutical traditions.
As long as we try to find unity in the writings and interpretations of men, we will only find factions and divisions. We will only find unity in the person of Jesus Christ. That unity may display itself more when we stop trying to prove ourselves right, and instead use the freedom that we have in Christ to serve others – even those who disagree with us about the table of the Lord.
At the table, the Lord lowered himself to the position of a slave and washed the feet of his followers. Those disciples did not understand him completely. Peter would soon deny him. Yet, Jesus served them. May we follow his humble example.