Where are the organic/simple church people hiding?
Last year, two of my most read posts were “People want real examples of organic church life” and “Why is it so difficult to find organic church life?”
In those posts, I talked about how people are tired of theory and simply talking about organic/simple church. But, when they look for real, living examples of these groups of Christians, they often can’t find them. There are many reasons for that, beginning with the fact that most groups are not incorporated, they don’t advertise/market, they don’t have a big, flashing sign with a cute saying, etc.
So, if someone wants to meet others who are interested in this different kind of “church life,” what should they do?
Now, Nathan at “Joined to Him” has written a very good post called “7 Tips on How To Find Organic Church Life.”
After a brief introduction, he offers these seven tips:
1. Pray, pray, and pray some more.
2. Join Facebook Groups dedicated to Organic Church Networking.
3. Follow up on potential leads.
4. Start a blog and talk about your journey and desire for organic church community.
5. Start small and trust the Lord.
6. Move to a new location.
7. Lower your expectations.
(Please take the time to read Nathan’s post. He explains and gives examples for each of his seven tips.)
What do you think about Nathan’s tips? What would you add, remove, or modify?
Real relationships centered on Jesus Christ
Last week, I published a post called “What do you want to talk about?” In that post, I asked my readers what topics (related to the church) they would like to discuss.
In some ways, I was surprised at the responses in the comments. Usually, when I ask a question like that, I hear responses like “elders/pastors/leaders,” “the Lord’s Supper,” “church discipline,” “preaching/sermons,” etc.
But, the responses that I got this time were quite different:
“I’m just wondering if other believers are as discouraged and concerned about the decay of real community and fellowship even in the churches small group settings?” -from Glenn
“Maybe some concrete examples, suggestions, and tips on how to build relationships and friendships with people in our community, …especially when you live in a new area and don’t know anyone.” -from Jeremy
“I would be interested in hearing stories of how others are going about making disciples in their neighborhoods.” -from Mark
“Open fellowship is great, and the Lord does work sovereignly in that context, but there seems to be a difference when the headship of Christ is collectively sought. I’d love to hear your thoughts on how that can be more intentionally pursued and lived in by a body of believers.” -from David
Did you catch the common theme? Relationships. But, I think each of these commenters would agree that they are not interested in just any relationships. They are interested in relationships which are centered on Jesus Christ.
So, how do we pursue relationships with one another while continuing to pursue Jesus Christ together? What if we do not know anyone in our area (perhaps we are new to the area)? How do foster those relationships into mutually discipling relationships (or is that automatic if our relationships are centered in Jesus Christ)?
I think these are good questions – much better than the questions that I usually see people asking about the church. I think these are foundational questions. And, I also think that if we do not seek these kinds of relationships (centered in Jesus Christ), then it doesn’t really matter how we answer the earlier questions about elders/pastors, the Lord’s Supper, etc.
Relationships are easy to discuss on a theoretical level. But, in reality, they’re much harder to live. They’re messy. How we share our lives with one another (or don’t share our lives with one another) is a very good indicator of our relationship with God, however.
So, I’m glad that my readers are interested in discussing real relationships with one another which are centered on Jesus Christ. It’s a scary topic however…
Let’s all stand and worship the Lord together…
If you follow me on Twitter (@alan_knox) or if you “like” my Facebook page, then you know that I link to several older posts each day along with linking to my new post of the day. I started linking to this older posts a couple of years ago in order to continue the conversations on those posts, and it has worked tremendously!
For example, yesterday I linked to a post I wrote two years ago called “Why keep the worship service?” Believe it or not, my thoughts about the church began to change drastically when I began to study the “worship service” from the perspective of Scripture. In short, I couldn’t find it. Instead, I found believers gathering in completely different ways from the “worship service.”
In response to that link yesterday, Doug from “With your Latte” (a great blog name, by the way) left a comment on my older post and wrote a post of his own called “Why a Worship Service?”
In part of that post, Doug writes:
I have questioned the worship service many times myself and have asked others about it. The question of doing away with the worship service is normally met with a look of puzzlement. The idea of not having “church,” in the tradition sense, is just too far of a reach – its a foreign concept to be embraced only by the poor and/or persecuted. Besides, where would the clergy find employment? – (that was some of the cynicism i mentioned)
Before you brush off this question, ask yourself where in Scripture we find a description even remotely similar to the modern “worship service.” For something so important that it defines most church groups today, you would think it would be found somewhere in the New Testament at least… in one of the passages that discusses believers gathering together. But, no.
A few years ago, I made an interesting discovery. During the “Reformation,” Martin Luther took the Roman Catholic Mass and modified it slightly and called it “Divine Service” (i.e., “worship service”). This is the pattern that most Protestant (non-Catholic, non-Orthodox) church groups follow today – both “traditional” and “contemporary.” Oh, sure, there may be differences here and there, but for the most part, it’s the same.
But, guess what? Luther designed this “worship service” for unbelievers, not for the church. Luther did not believe that “true believers” should meet in this way. He had a different kind of gathering in mind for Christians, but he could not find anyone interested in this other kind of meeting. In other words, Luther was suggesting something very similar to how “house”, “organic”, “simple” churches gather today. (For more information about Luther’s different kinds of “divine service” see my posts “Luther and the non-Christian ‘worship service’” and “Luther and the Church.”)
So, I’ll ask the same question that I asked in that earlier post: Why keep the “worship service” for the church?
Why do we often respond differently to Jesus?
One day, a friend of ours asked about dealing with a brother or sister in Christ who seemed completely apathetic to following Jesus. That led to a good discussion and some good advice from others, but it also led to a good discussion between my wife Margaret and myself.
As Margaret and I were talking about this subject, I remembered something that I had noticed earlier. When Jesus talked about dealing with a brother or sister who “sins against you,” those listening to him responded differently to the way that people today often respond to that same teaching.
What am I talking about? Well, start with this familiar passage:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)
Upon hearing or studying this passage, I’ve heard people respond with many questions, such as:
* Is this only for when a person sins directly again you, or is it also for someone who sins in general?
* Who should the one or two others be?
* What does it mean to “tell it to the church”? Who tells and when?
* What does it mean to treat the person “as a Gentile and a tax collector”?
* What does it mean to bind and loose?
* When Jesus says “where two or three are gathered,” is he only talking about “church discipline” or is he defining the church?
But, if we keep reading, we find that Jesus’ first audience responded quite differently:
Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times. (Matthew 18:21-22 ESV)
Peter recognized something that we often miss: Jesus’ statements were about relationships. When faced with the potential of breaking a relationship, most people will ask for forgiveness (even if they don’t really mean it). Peter recognized this, and wondered how many times he would have to forgive this brother who continued to sin against him.
How did Jesus respond? Keep on going to them, and keep on forgiving them.
I think there are other examples, too. But, to me, this is an obvious example of Jesus’ listeners responding to him differently than we often respond to him. Perhaps their focus (and Jesus’ focus) was different than our focus as well.
Scripture… As We Live It #266
This is the 266th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you, and if you keep all the rules and live in the right way. (Romans 8:9a re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Replay: Scripture and Inspiration
Five years ago, I wrote a post called “Scripture and Inspiration.” Why? Well, to be honest, I’m not content with most of the pat answers that I’ve heard related to Scripture and inspiration. In fact, I don’t think most of the things I’ve been taught related to Scripture and inspiration can be backed up by Scripture itself. So, I wrote this post mainly to ask questions. When I first wrote the post, it resulted in a very good and edifying discussion, even among people who disagreed. Hopefully, we’ll find the same kind of discussion this time.
————————-
Scripture and Inspiration
Last Sunday evening, I took part in another discussion group meeting. As I mentioned in a previous post, some friends of mine have started a discussion groups that meets about every other week to discuss a particular topic. For this meeting, the topic was “Scripture” – which is a very broad topic. We discussed several aspects of Scripture, but much of the time was spent discussing Scripture and inspiration. The following passage found itself woven through much of our discussion:
All Scripture is breathed out by God (inspired) and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)
I thought I would list some of the questions that we discussed. If you’d like to take part in this discussion (after the fact), feel free to offer your answers, or other related questions, in the comments.
1) If we accept that “all Scripture is inspired”, does this also mean that “all that is inspired is Scripture”?
2) In Colossians 4:16, Paul says:
And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. (Colossians 4:16 ESV)
Paul seems to treat the non-existent “letter to the Laodiceans” as being in the same category as the “letter to the Colossians”. Would the “letter to the Laodiceans” be inspired? Should it be considered Scripture?
3) We know (from Scripture) that God communicated many times with people in the past, but that communication was not included in Scripture. Was God’s communication which was not included in Scripture also inspired?
4) Many would say that God continues to communicate with people today, although many would also say that that communication is not the same as Scripture. Would God’s communication with people today be considered inspired?
Primarily, the discussion last Sunday evening helped me think about the terms “inspired” and “Scripture” separately. I think this discussion is going to continue helping me understand the role of Scripture in my life and in the lives of other people.
What do you want to talk about?
My family jokes that I can talk to anyone. That’s probably not literally true, but I can usually talk to most people. There’s a very good reason that people usually talk to me: I ask them about themselves and their likes and dislikes, and I listen to their response.
I’ve found that people typically like to talk about themselves, especially to people who are genuinely interested in hearing about them.
Of course, that doesn’t meant that people immediately go into the intimate details of their lives, but as they learn that you will listen (and not tell everyone else), they soon learn to trust you with more and more personal information.
You know what? I’ve found the same thing happens on my blog. People like to think about, talk about, and write about different topics related to the church. Some people are passionate about one thing, while others care deeply about something else.
What about you? What topics (related to the church) would you like to see us discuss here?
Watch out! There are troublemakers everywhere!
It’s true. There are troublemakers everywhere on the internet. So, watch out!
Here are a few you definitely want to watch out for:
Miguel at “God Directed Deviations” is asking about tiers and levels of authority among the church in his post “Of Hierarchy, Tiers, and Levels of Authority Within the Church.” That topic always causes trouble.
Dan at “Cerulean Sanctum” retells a scriptural story from a modern perspective in his post “When Right-Hearted Christians Defend Wrong-Headed Theology.” Modernizing stories like this always bring them close to home… which causes trouble.
On his blog, Brant adds a post to his feature “If Jesus Had a Blog.” The post is called “If Jesus Had a Blog: I Told that God Loves the World.” God’s love toward anyone but us causes trouble.
Kathleen at “Church in a Circle” caused trouble for some of her friends. She recounts the story in a post called “Help! I can’t go back to ‘normal’ church.” Now, that’s trouble. (I wonder how they spell “trouble” Down Under.)
See what I mean. Trouble everywhere.
Watch out for these kinds of people, or you may find the way you think about the church changing… and that can be real trouble.
Come now, let us reason together…
No, this post is not about Isaiah (from Isaiah 1:18). Instead, it is about the early church as described by Luke in the book of Acts.
But, you may be wondering, what does “reasoning together” have to do with the early church? Not only is this related to the early church, but the phrase “reasoning together” is used by Luke to describe what happened when the church gathered together.
Here’s the passage that I’m talking about:
And he [Paul] entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. (Acts 19:8-10 ESV)
If you would allow me, I’d like to retell this story in my own words. It begins with Paul coming back to Ephesus. He had visited the city briefly, and had returned. As was his custom, his began by going to the synagogue where he often found people who were interested in hearing about God’s kingdom and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Luke says he continued gathering with the synagogue for three months. Now, he may have only met with them weekly on the Sabbath, but many texts from that time period indicate that Hellenistic Jews gathered as the synagogue more often than weekly. Regardless, while Paul was gathered with them, he had opportunities to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some believed and began to walk in “the Way” (one of the earliest names given for following Jesus Christ, i.e., Christianity). However, others became more stubborn and contentious and even began to “speak evil” of the new manner of life in Jesus Christ that Paul was proclaiming.
So, Paul and the disciples stopped gathering with the synagogue and began gathering in “the hall of Tyrannus.” For two years, followers of Jesus Christ in the city of Ephesus gathered daily at that hall (perhaps a school?). (I’m not assuming that the same group of believers gathered every day. I’m assuming that at least some of the believers were there at some point every day.)
What did the disciples of Jesus Christ do when they gathered at the hall of Tyrannus? They were “reasoning.” What does this mean? While the word “reasoning” is a translation of the Greek verb διαλέγομαι (dialegomai). This is the verb that eventually becomes the English verb “dialog.” But, we can’t assume that’s what διαλέγομαι (dialegomai) means – that would be a logical fallacy.
Instead, let’s look at a few other places where διαλέγομαι (dialegomai) is used in Scripture:
But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) with one another about who was the greatest. (Mark 9:34 ESV)
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” (Jude 1:9 ESV)
We can see that this verb is used to indicate some type of discussion (at least in the instances above). It definitely did not indicate one person speaking.
We also find this verb used to describe what Paul did when he gathered with other Jews among the synagogue:
And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) with them from the Scriptures… (Acts 17:2 ESV)
So he reasoned (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. (Acts 17:17 ESV)
This makes sense also, since we know that many of the Jews often disagreed with him. We can assume that Paul would not have been allowed to make a prolonged speech concerning the gospel without some response from those who disagreed.
In fact, Luke used the same verb to describe what Paul did in the synagogue in Ephesus, both the first time he visited the city and also in the passage quote above just before he and the disciples left the synagogue:
And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) with the Jews. (Acts 18:19 ESV)
And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) them about the kingdom of God. (Acts 19:8 ESV)
We also find this same other verb later in Acts when Paul spent some time with the church in Troas:
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked (διαλέγομαι – dialegomai) still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. (Acts 20:7-9 ESV)
So, for Luke especially, one of the favorite verbs to describe what happened when the church gathered is a verb that points to some type of discussion… so much so that it can even be used to describe a dispute or argument.
Who chooses bishops/elders/pastors among the church?
Before you jump on me for my title, I’m using the traditional nomenclature. I’d prefer to simply use the term “elders,” which is the normal term in Scripture. However, for many among the church today, “elders” are different than “bishops” and both of those are different than “pastors.” So, if you feel they are different, then you can assume that I’m talking about all three in this post.
In Scripture, there are only two passages related to “choosing/appointing” bishops/elders/pastors:
When they [Paul and Barnabas] had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:21-23 ESV)
This is why I [Paul] left you [Titus] in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you… (Titus 1:5 ESV)
On the surface, it looks like Paul and Barnabas personally chose “elders” among the churches of Galatia (in Acts 14:23) and that Paul instructed Titus to personally choose “elders” among the churches (in each town) in Crete. And, that would definitely be a valid interpretation.
When we turn to later Christian writings, the interpretations become muddled:
Therefore, choose for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord… (Didache 15:1)
Those [elders] therefore who were appointed by them [apostles], or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole church… (1 Clement 44:3)
In the Didache, the author(s) definitely expected the church to choose “bishops” for themselves. There is no mention of bishops, elders, or deacons being appointed by others for the church.
Clement, meanwhile, seems to say that apostles and then later others appointed “elders.” However, he adds that little phrase “with the consent of the whole church,” which again muddles the answer. Was the just the apostles who chose “elders”? Was it later just “other men of repute” who chose elders? What does it mean that the whole church consented?
(Interestingly, while Ignatius has alot to say about “the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons,” he does not mention who appointed or chose them. Likewise, Polycarp mentions “elders,” but he does not say who chose them.)
Of the four texts above (Acts, Titus, Didache, and 1 Clement) written by four different authors, is there any way that all four authors related the same way of choosing “bishops” and “elders” (or “pastors” if you prefer, although that term wasn’t used until much later).
If Acts 14:26 and Titus 1:5 indicate that ONLY Paul and Barnabas and ONLY Titus picked people to be “elders,” then we have to conclude that the Didache strays from that position.
Is it possible, though, that Luke did not intend to indicate that ONLY Paul and Barnabas were involved in appointing elders for the churches of Galatia? Is it possible that Paul did not intend to indicate that ONLY Titus was to appoint elders for the churches of Crete?
(By the way, within about 100 years of the texts listed here, the standard practice was for ONLY bishops to appoint bishops and elders, a practice which became known as successionism. But, as you can see, it was not that clear in the earliest Christian texts.)