Scripture… As We Live It #251
This is the 251st passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
But as it is, God arranged the members in organized the body, each one of them, as he chose based on who accepted formal membership. (1 Corinthians 12:18 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Replay: Assembling Together by Watchman Nee
Five years ago, I wrote a series of posts on Watchman Nee’s book Assembling Together. Overall, I found the book to be very informative, easy to read, and encouraging. I had already come to some of the same conclusions that Nee had come to, although we disagree in a few places as well. Below, I include the contents of the first post of the series “Assembling Together 1 – Joining the Church” along with links to the other posts. (By the way, the links will send you to my old blog at Blogger, but you will then be redirected back to the post on this site.) If you haven’t read this book yet, I would highly recommend it.
—————————-
Assembling Together 1 – Joining the Church
The first chapter of Watchman Nee’s book Assembling Together (chapter 14 of the Basic Lessons series) is called “Joining the Church”. This is a great chapter with which to begin to understand Nee’s ecclesiology.
The phrase “joining the church” is quite interesting. To Nee, this means something completely different to how I’ve seen this phrase used in contemporary churches in the United States. I think even Nee understands how this phrase is normally used. He says, “We do not like the phrase ‘joining the church,’ but use it temporarily to make the issue clear.” [1] So, what does Nee mean by “joining the church”? He first explains how believers immediately become part of God’s family upon salvation. He then specifies exactly what he means by “joining the church”:
A Christian therefore must join the church. Now this term, “joining the church,” is not a scriptural one. It is borrowed from the world. What we really mean is that no one can be a private Christian. He must be joined to all the children of God. For this reason, he needs to join the church. He cannot claim to be a believer all by himself. He is a Christian only by being subordinate to the others. [9]
Never once in the Bible do we find the phrase “join the church.” It cannot be found in Acts nor is it seen in the epistles. Why? Because no one can join the church… Rather, we are already in the church and therefore are joined to one another. [13]
When, by the mercy of God, a man is convicted of his sin and through the precious blood is redeemed and forgiven and receives new life, he is not only regenerated through resurrection life but is also put into the church by the power of God. It is God who has put him in; thus he already is in the church. [13]
Then why do we persuade you to join the church? We are only borrowing this term for the sake of convenience. You who have believed in the Lord are already in the church, but your brothers and sisters in the church may not know you. [14]
At this point, Nee remains close to Scripture. He is correct that “joining the church” is not a scriptural phrase, and is never commanded or exhorted in Scripture. Instead, we become part of the church when we are “born again” into the family of God. It is true that we may still need to seek out brothers and sisters with which to fellowship, but that is not the same as “joining the church”. Of course, the best place for a new believer to begin to find fellowship with other brothers and sisters is with the person or people who made the gospel available to him or her.
Next, Nee answers the question: which church should I join? Most believers today would probably disagree with his answer. First, Nee explains the rise of different churches and denominations based on time, area, human personalities, or a particular emphasis on one aspect of truth. He then says that all believers in a city form a city-church, and that is the church that a new believer should become part of. In fact, he argues that the only valid biblical definition for “church” (singular) is the city-wide church:
The Bible permits the church to be divided solely on the ground of locality… The smallest church takes a locality as its unity; so does the biggest church. Anything smaller than a locality may not be considered a church, nor can it be so recognized if it is bigger than a locality. [11]
This statement is problematic. Nee examines several passages to demonstrate that the singular “church” is used to represent all the believers in a given city. I do not have a problem with this analysis, except I think he left out a few key passages of Scripture. It is not true that the singular “church” is always used to represent all the believers in a city and that the singular “church” is only used to represent all the believers in a city. Here are a couple of passages that use the singular word for “church”, but may not represent all the believers in a city or the believers of only one city:
But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts 8:3 ESV)
Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. (Romans 16:3-5 ESV)
I should also mention that in Acts 9:31, some manuscripts have the singular “church” (while others have the plural “churches”) for the believers in the regions of “Judea, Galilee, and Samaria”. There are also other passages that mention the “church” in someone’s house which may or may not be the entire church of a city.
So, I do agree with Nee that Scripture describes all the believers in a certain city as a “church” (singular). However, it appears that there may be smaller groups within that city-church that are nevertheless called “church” (singular). Similarly, in Acts 8:3, it appears that Saul is persecuting believers over a larger area than a city, but Luke still considers Paul to be persecuting the “church” (singular). The usage of the word “church” is more complicated that Nee makes it out to be.
There is one other point (and a major point, I think) with which I disagree with Nee. He claims that individuals are not the dwelling place of God; only the church is God’s habitation:
In the past God dwelt in a magnificent house, the temple of Solomon. Now He dwells in the church, for today the church is God’s habitation. We, the many, are joined together to be God’s habitation. As individuals, though, we are not so. It takes many of God’s children to be the house of God in the Spirit. [5]
Unfortunately, I do not think that Nee considered enough scriptural evidence. It is true that most of the references to the Spirit dwelling within beleivers occurs in the plural. But, of course, most of Scripture was written to communities of believers to be read to the entire community. It is also true that the Spirit dwells with the community; however, just as Solomon’s temple could not contain God, the community alone does not contain God’s Spirit. There are plenty of references to individual believers being filled with the Spirit of God (i.e. Acts 6:3, 9-10).
Besides these two points of disagreement, this is an excellent chapter. Nee encourages all believers to find other believers with which to fellowship. He especially exhorts new believers that they should not try to live in isolation.
I usually find the last paragraph of one of Nee’s chapters to be very helpful. Sometimes, even when I do not agree with Nee’s arguments, I agree completely with his conclusion in the last paragraph. I agree with much of this first chapter, and I also agree with his last paragraph:
You who are already in Christ should learn to seek the fellowship of the children of God. With this fellowship of the body you may serve God well. If you as young believers can see this light, you will move a step forward in your spiritual path. Thank God for his mercy. [15]
The next chapter in this book is called “Laying On of Hands.”
Review of Watchman Nee’s Assembling Together Series:
1: Chapter 1 – Joining the Church
2: Chapter 2 – Laying on of Hands
3: Chapter 3 – Assembling Together
4: Chapter 4 – Various Meetings
5: Chapters 5 & 6 – The Lord’s Day and Hymn Singing
6: Chapters 7 & 8 – Praise and The Breaking of Bread
Titles, Jogging, and Seminary… but not all at the same time
There have been some really good blog posts published lately. And, these posts have covered the gamut of topics related to the church and ecclesiology – related to our relationships with one another in Jesus Christ (that’s what the church is, after all).
In this post, I want to point to three of those really good blog posts, on the topics of 1) titles and positions of authority, 2) jogging with others, and 3) seminary (of all things).
First, Gibby wrote a post called “titles, positions and authority.” In this post, he tells the story of talking with someone who has the position of “senior pastor” in a local church organization. Gibby asked him if he’d be willing to set aside his title if it meant people “would discover the kingdom of God, live a missional and incarnational life in order for them to discover that Jesus is the Head of the church”? The man’s answer was, “No.” You can read more of the story in Gibby’s post.
While it’s easy for some of us to cast stones as this man, this story should make us think about ourselves. No, we may not have the title of “senior pastor” (or perhaps we do), but what if we’re known as a great teacher or a prophet or an evangelist? What if we have a “position” of respect and leadership among the church (even if it’s not an organizational or hierarchical position). Would you be willing to give it all up if it meant that other people would benefit?
Also, for many believers, it’s difficult for them to separate the “title” and “position” from the function. You see, I know and you know that you don’t have to have a title (like “senior pastor”) in order to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, to teach and encourage other believers, or to shepherd those people who God brings into your life. But, for others, the title/position and functions go together.
Second, Jon at “Jon’s Journey” wrote a post called “Jogging with Others.” I hope you take the time to read this post, and I hope that you recognize that it’s not really about jogging. (Although, I – for one – actually do love jogging with others.)
Can I say something that may seem very radical to some? You may personally have an awesome and close relationship with God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. But, God did not create you for that personal experience. He created you to walk with him AND others at the same time. If all you have is your personal experience with God, then you’re missing something important that God has in store for you. That “something” will come through other children of God as you share your lives together.
Finally, Scot at “Jesus Creed” wrote a post called “Seminary Life Today 2.” Most of the post is taken up by a large infographic from another site. I’ll just share the first two sentences of Scot’s summary: “81% of all incoming seminary students do not expect to have a parish ministry position. Less than half of all incoming students plan to be ordained.”
This was my experience in seminary as well. Of the students who I knew in seminary, very very few of them are planning to take part in “ministry” the way it’s traditionally defined. (However, all of them are heavily involved in ministering to – serving – others in Jesus’ name.)
So, there ya go… titles, jogging, and seminary.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on one, two, or all three of these subjects.
The result of the success of the Lollard educational programme
I have thoroughly enjoyed studying some of the “heretical” groups of the middle ages, that is, groups of Christians who sprung up from place to place before Luther and the Reformation. Many of these groups bear striking resemblance to later Reformation-era groups, especially the Anabaptists and other “radical reformers.”
For example, in England, there was a group called “Lollards” who followed the “pre-reformer” John Wycliffe. (By the way, if you’re not familiar with Wycliffe, I’d encourage you to investigate him and the “Lollards.”) These groups of believers opposed the Catholic Church in several areas, specifically in regards to the clergy and transubstantiation. (In fact, their Catholic opponents often asked suspected Lollards if the bread was actually the body of Christ, to which the Lollards would reply that it was just a piece of bread, thus condemning them.)
In many ways, the religious leaders of the day did not know what to do about the Lollards, because they did not make sense to them. They didn’t know what to call the simple meetings that these believers held in homes and public places. They couldn’t understand why these “Lollards” kept quoting Scripture (in English, though, which was always suspect). Although there were a few “leaders” (from an outward perspective), the groups continued to thrive after the leaders were, um, removed.
Speaking to this last point, consider this passage in The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History by Anne Hudson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988):
If there were few ‘prophets’, in the mould of Swinderby, Thorpe, or Wyche, in the later period, there was a host of lesser figures, men and women, who in the course of their everyday activities proselytized, encouraged and upbraided the wavering, and fostered the faithful. It seems clear that the dominating figures were not to be found in Lollardy of the last sixty years before Lutheranism. In part this is doubtless the effect of the continued persecution, and most notably of Arundel’s Constitutions; conventional wisdom would add the effect of Oldcastle’s rebellion in removing lay support for the heretics amongst the aristocracy and gentry. But it is worth examining whether in part it is not also the result of the success of the Lollard educational programme. For it is clear that the communities themselves had effectively taken over from the individual preachers as teachers and maintainers of heresy. (449-50)
In a theology course, a seminary professor once told me that if the seminaries were doing their job correctly and the church was doing its job correctly, then the seminaries would not need to exist. So, considering the quote above, it seems that the fact that seminaries continue to exist is a demonstration of the failure of that educational program.
On the other hand, those who persecuted the Lollards for their “heresy” found that their “educational programme” was vastly successful. And, what was that educational program? “The communities themselves had effectively taken over from the individual preachers as teachers and maintainers of heresy” (with “heresy” referring to the beliefs and practices of the Lollards).
What would happen if communities of believers today took over from “the individual preachers as teachers and maintainers” of the way of Christ? Would we see a similar success to that “educational programme”?
We can’t let just anyone preach and teach
For the last few weeks, I’ve been studying church gatherings during various time periods from the post-apostolic times through the middle ages and Reformation and into the modern period. And, I’ve learned something interesting… it’s often seen as extremely dangerous to let just anyone preach and teach.
Early in the book of Acts, when persecution arose in Jerusalem, all of the believers scattered to the surrounding area. What did they do as they were scattered? “Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.” (Acts 8:4 ESV)
However, something happened over the next few hundred years. Eventually, “preaching” (in Acts, it referred to proclaiming the gospel) became the sole domain of those who were duly trained and appointed by “the Church.”
Of course, groups rose up here and there and recognized the growing problems in “the Church.” So, what did they do? They went about preaching the good news of Jesus Christ. And, they had to be stopped.
Here is one such edict responding to these “preachers” (Waldensians, in this case):
There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says), claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place, be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. (Fourth Lateran Council in 1215)
The same kinds of decrees were later issued in response to other “heretical” groups such as the followers of John Wycliffe in England (often referred to as Lollards).
But, before you start pointing fingers at the Catholics, the same thing happened during the Reformation, but this time it was the “Reformers” who began condemning the “laity” for preaching the gospel. While Luther recognized that Paul allowed all to speak and serve when the church gathered (1 Cor 14), he decided this was only intended for times of “emergency.” In normal times, Paul instructions only apply to that one (or those few) duly appointed by the church:
It is of the common rights of Christians that we have been speaking. For since we have proved all of these things to be the common property of all Christians, no one individual can arise by his own authority and arrogate to himself alone what belongs to all. Lay hold then of this right and exercise it, where there is no one else who has the same rights. But the community rights demand that one, or as many as the community chooses, shall be chosen or approved who, in the name of all with these rights, shall perform these functions publicly. Otherwise, there might be shameful confusion among the people of God, and a kind of Babylon in the church, where everything should be done in order, as the Apostle teaches [I Cor. 14:40]. For it is one thing to exercise a right publicly; another to use it in time of emergency. Publicly one may not exercise a right without consent of the whole body or of the church. In time of emergency each may use it as he deems best. (Martin Luther, “Concerning the Ministry”, 1523)
Most of us have in the past (or will in the future) run into people who proclaim something that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ or who teach in a manner that does not reflect the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the past, the answer to that problem has been simple: “the Church” must control who can and who cannot speak.
Is there another answer?
When we are all ministers
Have you ever heard the saying “every member a minister”? That’s actually the type of life that we see described in Scripture: every member of the body of Christ is a minister (servant).
Unfortunately, I’ve heard this phrase used by the some well-meaning people who only apply it to their own church organization and to those who hold some type of formal membership in that organization and who are also under the guidance (control) of a staff member. That’s not really “every member a minister” though… that’s something different.
Lately, I’ve ready several very good posts about this kind of thing… the kind of thing where every follower of Jesus Christ is empowered to serve others in the way that Jesus has called him/her and gifted him/her and given him/her opportunities. (In this case, the role of leaders among the church is to encourage, equip, and help, if needed.)
Here are few of those posts:
- “On the Chair Next to You” by Brant
- “From Gathered to Scattered” by Glenn
- “The Power of Many” by Katherine at “Church in a Circle“
- “Release Your Gifts” by Tim at “Synerchomai“
When we are all ministers, we are all given the opportunity and the encouragement to speak into one another’s lives whenever we gather together.
When we are all ministers, we recognize that we all serve differently – in different way, in different locations, through different opportunities.
When we are all ministers, we value that diversity – even when people don’t serve the way WE think they should – because we know that God works his grace through all of his children as he calls them, not as we call them.
When we are all ministers, we listen to one another and learn from one another because we know that we could be the recipient of God amazing love and grace through any of his children at any time.
When we are all ministers, we encourage others to serve, we point out opportunities of service, we serve with others as an example, but we never coerce or manipulate others into serving, trusting God to do his work in his time.
When we are all ministers, we do not compare ourselves and our areas of service to others; we rejoice that God has chosen to work through all of his children in different ways.
When we are all ministers…
What would you add?
Guest blogger: The prime directive of all scripture is obedience
I’ve invited people to write “guest blog posts” for this blog. There are several reasons for this: 1) To offer different perspectives. 2) To generate even more discussion and conversation between blogs. 3) To introduce other bloggers to my readers.
(If you are interested in writing a guest blog post, please contact me at alan[at]alanknox[dot]net.)
Today’s post was written by Greg. Greg originally wrote this as a comment on my post “For the obedience of faith (Part 2).” I asked Greg if I could post it here, and he gave me permission. I’ve modified the formatting slightly, but haven’t changed Greg’s original content.
——————————————-
Since I was saved 40 yrs ago, and probably because of the challenging circumstances that led to my conversion, I’ve been acutely aware of the fact that the NT scriptures were written to a very different kind of people than we all are today. I personally think our relativism and educations have dulled our consciences to the gentle dove of the voice of God. This has caused me to try to think objectively and dig into the historicity of the early church et al, so that I could avoid the perils of subjectively interpreting scripture that the modern church is captive to and has been eviscerated by.
The prime directive of all scripture is obedience, which produces, and without which there can be no faith. Jesus learned obedience by the things he suffered, and we must follow Him there. Scripture also declares that faith works by love. Selah.
But we have, by systematic disobedience to the first commandment of Jesus, to love one another as He loves us, corporately changed the meaning of faith from trust and obedience to belief and statements. We now largely listen to our own rhetoric, trying to make scripture fit our experiences and worldviews, which are many, and are at variance with each others.
When I was saved at 17, from a life of crime, addiction and vile sinfulness, I went to many churches, looking for some resonance with my own new found faith, which I was being transformed daily by thru the blood, sweat and tears of obedience to God. I was too addled in my mind at the time to read the bible, and asked the Holy Spirit to lead and guide me, trusting that since He had written the scriptures, He could very well repeat them to me. He did.
Being young and tender hearted as a new convert, I found very little resonance among a dozen or so churches of all stripes, for my desire to find new avenues of loving and trusting God. In retrospect, I probably scared them. In the grand scheme of things, I just couldnt go to church, I told the Lord so and I guess He understood and led me immediately to meet a small group of youth who were very similar to me, and that was the start of a long and wonderful journey. The fundamental foundation though of our fellowship was that trusting God resulted in radical obedience, and deep love for one another.
As the decades have passed, my family and I have witnessed many, many churches and families who might have hurdled their various obstacles, some self inflicted and many sent by satan, but because of their loosey goosey subjectivity to traditions, and their less than radical obedience to the known Word of God, they failed.
Faith, true faith, changes me and us into the likeness of Jesus, as He was in the flesh. Its not often today that observers of our walk with God remark, like they did with the disciples, that we have a remarkable likeness to Jesus. If we truly want to please Father, we will call one another back to radical obedience, which is to trust Him that when He commands us to love one another as He loves us, He will unite our hearts in love, and we will begin to change us corporately into His image.
Our abandonment of the corporate-ness of Christ has left us no other course than to pursue Him individually, and if we are lucky, with a few other faithful ones who wont stab us in the back. Our divisions will not only disappear but they will be seen as poison to the love and unity that we will achieve as a result of radical obedience to the known will and Word of God. This may sound like semantics to some. So be it.
The evidence that someone truly wants what God does, is when he or she gives up anything and if needed, everything to obtain it. This was the message of John the Baptist, before Jesus came the first time. He’s coming again, for His church this time, and at some point we all need to get up off our corporate duffs, trim our lamps and prepare to enter the bridal chamber. He that has an ear to hear, let him understand.
Until our gospel is rooted in our own conversion to true trust and obedience, evidenced by His love binding us all together in everyday ways, against all odds, we will need to explain and discuss these fundamental scriptures you have written about. But we should know this, that the early church, to whom they were written, were very familiar with trust and obedience of the faith, as the foundation of their relationship with God and one another.Paul commended several for clearly demonstrating the acts of trust and obedience.
I notice that very few comment on topics such as these, and I suspect its because intuitively, we all know our faith is not up to the measure of the stature of Christ. That’s what we should be challenging one another on, without fear, judgement or reminders of past sins.
Scripture… As We Live It #250
This is the 250th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality budgets of local church organizations and missions organizations. (Romans 12:13 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Replay: Church Models and Methods and Forms, oh my!
Six years ago, I wrote a post called “Models and Methods and Forms, oh my.” Even before I started studying ecclesiology in seminary, I knew about church models. I knew that many authors had written about different kinds of churches, and I knew that different church forms had popped up around the country, especially during the last couple of decades. At times, it seemed the church was being franchised… but, was this a good thing?
——————–
Models and Methods and Forms, oh my
It only takes a few moments of perusing the local Christian bookstore to notice that volumes have been written suggesting certain models, methods, and forms for the church. Similarly, there are conferences, workshops, seminars, and even degree programs that recommend and instruct in one model or another method or a new form. Many of these models, methods, and forms arose in response to various spiritual and practical concerns. Most of these concerns were valid. So, in response to failures or problems, believers developed models, methods, and forms to better present the church in their context, or to correct aberrant teaching or practices.
Most of the time, when people study the church in Scripture, they recognize that there is very little (if any) indication of a specific model, method, or form. The Bible clearly shows that believers should gather together, but there is no command as to how, when, or where that gathering should take place. Scripture indicates that believers should teach one another, but it does not indicate how that teaching is supposed to occur. Similarly, in the Bible, we see believers singing, praying, giving, etc. without any particular instructions about how they should do this together.
So, does this mean that all models and methods and forms are bad – wrong – evil? No. But, I think it means that the church cannot be defined by those models, methods, and forms. What, then, is the pupose of those models, methods, and forms?
First, I believe that the Holy Spirit will (super)-naturally gather believers together. Similarly, I believe that the Spirit will gift those believers as He deems necessary in order to carry out His purpose among this group and, beyond this group, to the world around them. The activities, concerns, and mission of this group will be determined by the Spirit himself, through His gifting and through the opportunities that He gives them to serve believers and unbelievers alike. The Spirit will use some primarily as teachers as he gifts them. He will use some primarily through their giving of money and other resources. He will use others primarily through their abilities to serve other people. As the believers obediently follow the gifting of the Spirit and his will in their lives, the church will build itself up and will function as salt and light in the world around it.
Now, this is not an easy process. It takes humility, complete reliance on the Spirit, and continually seeking His will. There will be bumps and bruises along the way. Some will misunderstand what the Spirit is doing. Others will assume that the Spirit wants everyone to function the same way. Still others will prefer to let more spiritual believers function while they “do” nothing. There will be failures. There will be sin. There will be hurt feelings. There will be discomfort. This happens because even believers do not always obey the Spirit. However, as the group of believers learn to recognize and respond to the work of the Spirit in their lives and in the lives of others in their group, the church will be edified and the community will be affected.
So, what happens when the Holy Spirit (super)-naturally brings together another group of believers? There are many options for this group (just as there were for the first group mentioned above), but let’s consider two of these options. First, this second group of believers could go through the same process as the first group. They could work through their sin and pride and independence to determine the way that God expects them to respond to His Spirit and the world around them. Like I said before, this is not necessarily an easy process.
There is another option for this second group of believers. They could look to the first group of believers, notice how the Spirit worked among them, and begin doing the same things. In this way, a model, method, or form is birthed. It will begin much more easily and perhaps “grow” more quickly, because the form defines how the believers should act toward one another and toward the community. However, what if the Spirit has not gifted this group in the same way that He gifted the first group? What if the community context of the second group is different than the context of the first group? What if the resources available for the second group are much less (or much more) than the resources available to the first group? When the second group of believers begin operating in ways that the Spirit has not directed, then they are disobeying God.
Thus, the Spirit can work through people using certain models, methods, or forms. But, that is for the Spirit to decide, not for the people to decide. When a group of believers begins gathering together within a certain model, method, or form, without considering the will of God and how He has gifted them and how He is using them in their communities, then they place the model, method, or form above the will of God.
Similarly, we should never assume that the church will be found and will operate within these models, methods, and forms. The church is the people of God – those separated by God from the world and for himself. The models, methods, and forms should never be confused with God’s people. And, where the models, methods, and forms begin to interfere with God’s work among His people, or where they do not allow the church to function as they are instructed to function in Scripture, then the models, methods, and forms should be modified, changed, or jettisoned.
But, what about disorder? If a church functions with no models, methods, or forms, won’t that church encourage disorder in its meetings? Wouldn’t that disorder be sin, since the church is not obeying Scripture? Wouldn’t following a model, method, or form that maintains order be better?
If there is disorder when the church comes together, that disorder is caused by disobedience to the Spirit, not by a lack of models, methods, or forms. Those causing disorder demonstrate that they are not following the Spirit, since the Spirit will never lead into sin. In fact, it may be that models, methods, and forms encourage order, but hide the sin of disobedience within that same order. People may follow the model, method, or form and thus seemingly remain “in order”, but they may actually be living in disobedience to God.
The Spirit may use (or may have used) certain models, methods, and forms in the life of a church. But, those models, methods, and forms should never be allowed to substitute for believers genuinely seeking the will of God then living according to His will, gifting, and mission in their community and world. This may be “messy” at times, but it also allows the power of God to work through His people when they are not bound by models, methods, and forms.
For the obedience of faith (Part 2)
In yesterday’s post, “For the obedience of faith,” I pointed to that interesting phrase that is only found in 2 place in Scripture. Both occurrences of the phrase are found in Paul’s letter to the Romans – once at the very beginning and once at the very end: Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26. (Think kind of “bracketing” or “iclusio” is very important in literary analysis, and could indicate a theme for the entire letter.)
But, what does the phrase “for the obedience of faith” mean?
Well, let’s start with the word “faith.” Often, this phrase is translated as “for the obedience of THE faith” while “the faith” stands in the place of a set of religious beliefs and practices. The word “faith” is often used in this way today. People talk about the Christian faith, or the Muslim faith, or the Jewish faith.
It seems that this use of the term “faith” would work well with the term obedience: i.e., “for the obedience of Christian beliefs and practices.”
The problem is, in the book of Romans, the many (almost 40) uses of the term “faith” all seem to point to a different meaning: “trust” (primarily, trust in God). Here are a few examples:
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. (Romans 1:8 ESV)
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Romans 3:21-22 ESV)
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness… (Romans 4:4-5 ESV)
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2 ESV)
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. (Romans 9:30-32 ESV)
But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23 ESV)
In the same way, if you were to study Paul’s use of “obedience/disobedience” and “obey/disobey” in the letter of Romans, you’ll find that word group is also extremely important in the letter. I’m not going to list many occurrences of “obedience,” but remember there is a very important section of the letter related specifically to obedience and disobedience:
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Romans 6:16 ESV)
So, it seems that with the phrase “for the obedience of faith,” Paul is talking about living a life of obedience to God that is based on trusting God. While he’s certainly talking about obeying God in many different ways, the first act of obedience is trust (faith). In fact, all other thoughts and actions of obeying God flow from our trust in (faith in) God.
Thus, referring back to Romans 1:5, Paul recognized that he had been given grace and had been sent “for the obedience of faith,” which refers to 1) his trusting (faith) in God which resulted in his obediently going from place to place to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ so that 2) others can respond obediently to God by trusting (faith in) him as well.