INTRODUCTION
\nTOWARD A NEW KIND OF CHURCH<\/p>\n
We are living in an age hopelessly below the New Testament pattern\u2014content with a neat little religion.
\n\u2014Martyn Lloyd-Jones<\/p>\n
Most professing Christians do not realize that the central concepts and practices associated with what we call \u201cchurch\u201d are not rooted in the New Testament, but in patterns established in the post-apostolic age.
\n\u2014Jon Zens<\/p>\n
A revolution in both the theology and practice of the church is upon us. Countless Christians, including theologians, ministers, and scholars, are seeking new ways to renew and reform the church. Others have given up on the traditional concept of church altogether. They have come to the conviction that the institutional church as we know it today is not only ineffective, but it\u2019s also without biblical merit. For this reason, they feel it would be a mistake to reform or renew the present church structure. Because the structure is the root problem.
\nI came to this unnerving conclusion twenty years ago, when few people I knew dared to question the practices of the institutional church. For that reason, I felt quite alone. And on some days, I honestly wondered if I had lost my mind.
\nThings have changed. Today, the number of those who are questioning the institutional church is growing. Their tribe is increasing every year. A large number of them have stepped out of the institutional church. And they are in quest for a church experience that better fits the deepest longings of their hearts.
\nIndeed, a revolution is brewing today. And that revolution goes beyond church reform and renewal. Instead, it goes straight to the root of the practice and theology of the church itself. Perhaps a historical example will help explain this phenomenon.
\nFor centuries, astronomers in the West sought to understand the rotation of the stars and planets. Yet no matter how many times they sought to tweak the data they possessed, they couldn\u2019t make their calculations work. The reason was simple. Their point of reference was flawed. They were working with a geocentric model of the universe. They believed that the stars and planets rotated around a stationary earth. And upon that premise, they built their entire understanding of the universe.
\nAn iconoclast named Copernicus came along and questioned that premise. He postulated the revolutionary idea that the planets and stars rotate around the sun. Copernicus\u2019s heliocentric view of the universe was vehemently challenged at first. But no one could dispute the fact that this new model made the data work far better than the geocentric view. For that reason, the heliocentric point of reference was eventually accepted.
\nIn the same spirit, this book is a hearty attempt to present a new paradigm for the church. One that\u2019s built on the New Testament concept that the church of Jesus Christ is a spiritual organism, not an institutional organization.
\nI have met few Christians who would question that last sentence. In fact, I\u2019ve met countless believers who have said, \u201cThe church is an organism, not an organization.\u201d Yet as they formed those very words, they continued to be devout members of churches that were organized along the lines of General Motors and Microsoft.
\nIn this book, I will be raising some pointed questions on that score. Namely, what does the phrase \u201cthe church is an organism\u201d really mean? And how does an \u201corganic church\u201d operate and function in the twenty-first century?
\nThroughout the book, I will be using the terms \u201cNew Testament church,\u201d \u201cearly church,\u201d and \u201cfirst-century church\u201d as synonyms. All of these terms refer to the early church of Century One as it is portrayed in the New Testament.
\nI will also be referring to those churches with which most people are familiar as \u201cinstitutional churches.\u201d I could have just as easily called them \u201cestablishment churches,\u201d \u201cbasilica churches,\u201d \u201ctraditional churches,\u201d \u201corganized churches,\u201d \u201cclergy-dominated churches,\u201d \u201ccontemporary churches,\u201d \u201caudience churches,\u201d \u201cspectator churches,\u201d \u201cauditorium churches,\u201d \u201cinherited churches,\u201d \u201clegacy churches,\u201d or \u201cprogram-based churches.\u201d All are inadequate linguistic tools. Yet to my mind, \u201cinstitutional church\u201d best captures the essence of most churches today.
\nPlease keep in mind that when I use the term \u201cinstitutional church\u201d I am not speaking about God\u2019s people. I\u2019m speaking about a system. The \u201cinstitutional church\u201d is a system\u2014a way of doing \u201cchurch.\u201d It\u2019s not the people who populate it. This distinction is important, and it\u2019s one that must be kept in mind as you read this book.
\nA sociologist may object to my use of the word \u201cinstitutional.\u201d Sociologically speaking, an institution is any patterned human activity. Therefore, a handshake and a greeting hug are institutions. I readily admit that all churches (even organic churches) assume some institutions.
\nBut I\u2019m using the phrase \u201cinstitutional church\u201d in a much narrower sense. Namely, I am referring to those churches that operate primarily as institutions that exist above, beyond, and independent of the members that populate them. These churches are constructed on programs and rituals more than relationships. They are highly structured, typically building-centered organizations regulated by set-apart professionals (\u201cministers\u201d and \u201cclergy\u201d) who are aided by volunteers (laity). They require staff, building, salaries, and administration. In the institutional church, congregants watch a religious performance once or twice a week led principally by one person (the pastor or minister), and then retreat home to live their individual Christian lives.
\nBy contrast, I\u2019m using \u201corganic church\u201d to refer to those churches that operate according to the same spiritual principles as the church that we read about in our New Testament. The New Testament church was first and foremost organic, as are all churches that stand in its lineage. T. Austin-Sparks is the man who deserves credit for the term \u201corganic church.\u201d He writes,<\/p>\n
God\u2019s way and law of fullness is that of organic life. In the Divine order, life produces its own organism, whether it be a vegetable, animal, human or spiritual. This means that everything comes from the inside. Function, order and fruit issue from this law of life within. It was solely on this principle that what we have in the New Testament came into being. Organized Christianity has entirely reversed this order.<\/p>\n
Taking this idea further, my friend Hal Miller brilliantly compares the institutional church with the organic church using a simple metaphor. He writes,<\/p>\n
Institutional churches are a lot like trains. They are going in a certain direction, and they will continue in that direction for a good long time even if all hands try to make them stop. As with trains, the options for turning the direction of institutional churches are limited at best. If a switch or siding is available, the train could turn. Otherwise, it just follows its tracks. So everyone aboard had best hope that he is on the right train headed in the right direction.
\nOrganic churches, like those in the New Testament, are different. They are not trains, but groups of people out for a walk. These groups move much more slowly than trains\u2014only several miles per hour at the fastest. But they can turn at a moment\u2019s notice. More importantly, they can be genuinely attentive to their world, to their Lord, and to each other.
\nLike trains, institutional churches are easy to find. The smoke and noise are unmistakable. Organic churches are a bit more subtle. Because they do not announce their presence with flashing lights at every intersection, some believe that churches like those in the New Testament died out long ago. But nothing could be further from the truth. Organic churches are everywhere. I personally have been part of one for more than twenty years. Still, groups like ours are quietly walking together, not bothering to call undue attention to ourselves. We are simply pilgrims together.
\nOnce you learn how to spot an organic church, you will soon discover groups of people everywhere meeting just like the New Testament church\u2014as bodies, families, and brides, rather than as institutions.
\nOrganic churches are groups of people walking with God. The trains pass them by all the time. Sometimes the people on board wave. Sometimes they cannot because the train is moving so fast that people going a few miles per hour just look like a blur. If you are in one of the groups of people now walking around as an organic church, Reimagining Church will give you a new appreciation of your roots in the New Testament. If you are on one of the trains whizzing by, it may be a bit surprising to find out that some of those blurred patches of color outside your window are groups of people walking with God. That thing you just passed was an organic church.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s important for you to know that reimagining the church as a living organism isn\u2019t a pipe dream. The church actually can express herself organically just as she did in the first century. That said, the following letters were written by various people who have experienced organic church life in recent years. These are their impressions:<\/p>\n
LETTER 1<\/p>\n
I never planned on leaving the old way of doing church. I wasn\u2019t looking for a new church and couldn\u2019t even conceive of what an organic church would look like when I was first invited to visit one. But I visited and what I found was unlike anything I had ever seen. This church wasn\u2019t a Bible study, a prayer group, a healing\/soaking prayer session, or a worship service.
\nInstead, this church focused on Jesus Christ. And everyone sang about Him, shared about Him, and worshipped Him. These Christians had been captivated by the beauty of the Lord Jesus Christ and, quite honestly, they didn\u2019t desire to spend time doing anything else when they met, but sing to\/with\/about Him, share Him, and love one another through Him.
\nIt was their intimacy I noticed first. I had never met people with such an intimate life with the Lord. These people needed Him and were sustained by His life. In my previous church experience, I had seen dedicated people, passionate people, and loving people. But I had never met Christians before who seemed to know the very heart of God.
\nLong ago I learned that the Lord is in His people, but this church was the first one I had ever seen where Christians really put this into practice. They all shared Christ in their meetings one by one so that He was brought right before my eyes. I learned through them that He is our food and our drink. I came to see who He really is in our gatherings and in our life together, and I fell in love with Him as a result.
\nThe intimacy I saw had drawn me in, but it was the freedom that these Christians lived in that kept my attention and made me decide to keep coming back to their meetings and become part of their community life. When I saw something in the Lord that might be an encouragement, I could speak it out and they would say \u201cAmen\u201d or \u201cPraise the Lord.\u201d Their verbal encouragement made me realize that I had freedom to share, but more so, that Christ had freedom to be known in His people\u2014including me.
\nIt was the first time I had seen such freedom among Christians. I began to see what it looked like when Christ has the first place in the lives and meetings of His people, which brought incredible unity. For almost two years, I saw Christ fill every meeting with the truth about Himself. He never ran dry. I cannot imagine fully mining the depths of Jesus Christ. But in this church, with the combined love of my brothers and sisters, I began to discover just how glorious He really is.<\/p>\n
(A female schoolteacher)<\/p>\n
LETTER 2<\/p>\n
The whole experience of organic church life has changed my life in so many ways. The church was planted through a conference. The messages that were shared at that conference were amazing. The Lord was showing me His plan and purpose for the church, His bride. My vision was being lifted to one that was heavenly and truly Christ-centered in nature. But that was just the beginning.
\nAfter the church was planted, I was experiencing Christ with my brothers and sisters as I never had before. I knew this was \u201cit\u201d for me. I had finally come home. God knew what my husband and I needed. The revelation I received began to grow and unfold before my very eyes. I saw a beautiful and radiant bride filled with passion for her Lord. I saw a community of believers being built together as a dwelling place. I saw brothers and sisters from different backgrounds who had never met before begin to love one another.
\nAs we loved Christ together our hearts were knit with each other. True change was being made in our lives as we were learning of the Lord\u2019s eternal purpose. I saw that the church really is Christ\u2019s body, and He is the Head. Only as we allow Him to have His rightful place will we experience His life as we were meant to. Church life in this way is the Christian\u2019s natural habitat where we grow and flourish, being nourished by all the riches of Christ. I could go on and on because there is so much more!
\nAll that I have seen and experienced has forever changed my life and my husband\u2019s as well. We prayed long ago for the Lord to reveal His heart and His dreams to us, and I believe He has answered that prayer. It is so exciting to know we will get to spend the rest of our lives seeing Christ revealed in His church!<\/p>\n
(An ex-minister\u2019s wife)<\/p>\n
LETTER 3<\/p>\n
I was raised in a Christian home and attended church every time the doors were open. I knew how to live and behave like a Christian should. You might say I was the poster child.
\nLate in high school and early college, I met some Christians who sparked a passion in me that I never knew was possible. I saw their passion to know Christ in deep ways, and more than that, they actually seemed to know Christ much more deeply than I. In meeting them, I discovered that my own faith and knowledge of Christ was very shallow. You see, I realized that although I enjoyed going to church to be with my family and friends, I really viewed church as an obligation to endure in order to \u201chang out\u201d with them before and after Sunday school, services, or youth group meetings.
\nI quietly sat through sermon after sermon hoping it would hurry up so we could go to the restaurant afterwards. Minutes after the sermons I couldn\u2019t actually remember what was said. I already heard that I needed to go to church more, I needed to tithe more, I needed to read my Bible more, and I needed to witness more. It wasn\u2019t until I met these other Christians that I realized that all of the previous churches that I was a member of didn\u2019t fulfill my thirst for Jesus. They gave me rules and regulations instead of something that gave life. Instead of growing in Christ, I was \u201cdying on the vine,\u201d filled with fear, shame, and inadequacy. I didn\u2019t actually enjoy talking about the Lord. Nor was I near as bold to share Jesus with nonbelievers.
\nI would ask myself, If I was such a good Christian like I thought I was, why do I feel so far behind the curve? The more I was with these believers, the more I wanted to know Christ like they did. I was drawn to Christ like a moth to a streetlight. I gradually began to spend more time with them and started going to their meetings. Their meetings were free and open. There was no liturgy. There were no clergy. They didn\u2019t actually need them. There were plenty of believers who had encountered the Lord and had encouraging things to share with the others.
\nThey didn\u2019t need someone to give them permission to speak. They didn\u2019t need someone to bury them in rules and lifeless duties. They wrote many of their own songs. They prayed together, taking turns talking to Jesus unrehearsed and from the heart. They met together as if Jesus was actually in the room. They treated each other like a family that loved each other.
\nAfter just a short while, I realized that this organic experience of Christ was exactly what was missing from my own experience. I began to crave gathering with these believers. I would go to their meetings and see a much bigger Lord than just someone who died for my sins. I would see Him in much deeper ways.
\nI was no longer satisfied with watching a performance. In this organic meeting, I began to want to share with my brothers and sisters what I had seen of the Lord. Instead of being passive, I now thought it was easy to function and contribute. Every one of our meetings was free to be different. Sometimes we sang for hours. Sometimes the believers were bursting at the seams to share what Jesus had done in their lives that week. Sometimes we revered the Lord\u2019s awesomeness in silence. No one had to tell us to do these things. The Spirit was moving in these ways and they just spontaneously happened. We often ate together as one family. Sometimes we shared scriptures with each other. Other times we enacted scenes and stories from the Bible that shed light on Christ.
\nWe met all throughout the week. In the mornings, the brothers would find another brother or two, and the sisters would get together with sisters. And we would pursue the Lord in prayer and contemplate Scripture together. We would start our day with Christ. In the evenings, some of the members would open up their homes and share Christ over dinner. We had brothers and sisters meetings where we would collectively decide on matters relating to the church. And we would share responsibilities for caring for one another.
\nIf there were no pressing needs, we would just sing to the Lord and pursue His presence together. If there was a member in need, we would think of ways to help them. Sometimes we would just plan ways to bless each other for the fun of it. Sometimes the single people would babysit for the parents and give them a night out on the town. Sometimes when one of the brothers or sisters went away on a long trip, the whole church would show up at the airport to greet them. And we would have a church meeting right in the airport.
\nThere was always something happening where you could share Christ and love the Lord together. We would also have spontaneous times of outreach to the lost. Everything we did, the Spirit was free to move and change the direction of the event. When we did get together, I saw a Christ glorified and magnified. We were constantly making new discoveries in Him. Every time I saw Him in a new way, I wanted to see more. The feeling of guilt, shame, and unworthiness was gone. I had a passion to know Christ in deeper ways.
\nI am through with dying on the vine. I have now seen the freedom that Christians can really have in meeting together organically, just like the early church did.<\/p>\n
(A male international marketing and business consultant)<\/p>\n
In short, this book reimagines a vision of church that\u2019s organic in its construction; relational in its functioning; scriptural in its form; Christ-centered in its operation; Trinitarian in its shape; communitarian in its lifestyle; nonelitist in its attitude; and nonsectarian in its expression.
\nStated simply, the purpose of this book is to discover afresh what it means to be church from God\u2019s standpoint. So with the New Testament as our starting point, let\u2019s reimagine church together.<\/p>\n
I HAVE A DREAM<\/p>\n
I have a dream that one day the church of Jesus Christ will rise up to her God-given calling and begin to live out the true meaning of her identity\u2014which is, the very heartthrob of God Almighty\u2014the fianc\u00e9e of the King of all Kings.<\/p>\n
I have a dream that Jesus Christ will one day be Head of His church again. Not in pious rhetoric, but in reality.<\/p>\n
I have a dream that groups of Christians everywhere will begin to flesh out the New Testament reality that the church is a living organism and not an institutional organization.<\/p>\n
I have a dream that the clergy\/laity divide will someday be an antique of church history, and the Lord Jesus Himself will replace the moss-laden system of human hierarchy that has usurped His authority among His people.<\/p>\n
I have a dream that multitudes of God\u2019s people will no longer tolerate those man-made systems that have put them in religious bondage and under a pile of guilt, duty, condemnation, making them slaves to authoritarian systems and leaders.<\/p>\n
I have a dream that the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ will be the focus, the mainstay, and the pursuit of every Christian and every church. And that God\u2019s dear people will no longer be obsessed with spiritual and religious things to the point of division. But that their obsession and pursuit would be a person\u2014the Lord Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
I have a dream that countless churches will be transformed from high-powered business organizations into spiritual families\u2014authentic Christ-centered communities\u2014where the members know one another intimately, love one another unconditionally, bleed for one another deeply, and rejoice with one another unfailingly.<\/p>\n
I have a dream today.\u2026<\/p>\n
PART ONE
\nCOMMUNITY AND GATHERINGS<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1
\nREIMAGINING THE CHURCH AS AN ORGANISM<\/p>\n
A truth\u2019s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn\u2019t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn\u2019t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
\n\u2014Dresden James<\/p>\n
The ministry of the Holy Spirit has ever been to reveal Jesus Christ, and revealing Him, to conform everything to Him. No human genius can do this. We cannot obtain anything in our New Testament as the result of human study, research, or reason. It is all the Holy Spirit\u2019s revelation of Jesus Christ. Ours is to seek continually to see Him by the Spirit, and we shall know that He\u2014not a paper-pattern\u2014is the Pattern, the Order, the Form. It is all a Person who is the sum of all purpose and ways. Everything [in the early church] then was the free and spontaneous movement of the Holy Spirit, and He did it in full view of the Pattern\u2014God\u2019s Son.
\n\u2014T. Austin-Sparks<\/p>\n
The New Testament uses many images to depict the church. Significantly, all of these images are living entities: a body, a bride, a family, one new man, a living temple made up of living stones, a vineyard, a field, an army, a city, etc.
\nEach image teaches us that the church is a living organism rather than an institutional organization. Few Christians today would disagree with that statement. But what does it mean in practice? And do we really believe it?
\nThe church we read about in the New Testament was \u201corganic.\u201d By that I mean it was born from and sustained by spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions, controlled by human hierarchy, shaped by lifeless rituals, and held together by religious programs.
\nTo use an illustration, if I try to create an orange in a laboratory, the lab-created orange would not be organic. But if I planted an orange seed into the ground and it produced an orange tree, the tree would be organic.
\nIn the same way, whenever we sin-scarred mortals try to create a church the same way we would start a business corporation, we are defying the organic principle of church life. An organic church is one that is naturally produced when a group of people have encountered Jesus Christ in reality (external ecclesiastical props being unnecessary), and the DNA of the church is free to work without hindrance.
\nTo put it in a sentence, organic church life is not a theater with a script; it\u2019s a gathered community that lives by divine life. By contrast, the modern institutional church operates on the same organizational principles that run corporate America.<\/p>\n
The DNA of the Church<\/p>\n
All life forms have a DNA\u2014a genetic code. DNA gives each life form a specific expression. For example, the instructions to build your physical body are encoded in your DNA. Your DNA largely determines your physical and psychological traits.
\nIf the church is truly organic, that means that it, too, has a DNA\u2014a spiritual DNA. Where do we discover the DNA of the church? I submit that we can learn a great deal about it by looking into God Himself.
\nWe Christians uniquely proclaim a triune God. In the words of the Athanasian Creed, \u201cThe Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three gods, but one God.\u201d Classic Christianity teaches that God is a fellowship of three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. The Godhead is a Community of three, or a \u201cTrinity\u201d as theologians call it. Theologian Stanley Grenz writes,<\/p>\n
God\u2019s triune nature means that God is social or relational\u2014God is the \u201csocial Trinity.\u201d And for this reason, we can say that God is \u201ccommunity.\u201d God is the community of the Father, Son, and Spirit, who enjoy perfect and eternal fellowship.<\/p>\n
For many years, I heard precise teachings on the doctrine of the Trinity. But they never had any practical application in my life. I found them highly abstract and impractical.
\nLater, I discovered that understanding the activity within the triune God was the key to grasping everything in the Christian life\u2014including the church. As Eugene Peterson has said, \u201cTrinity is the most comprehensive and integrative framework that we have for understanding and participating in the Christian life.\u201d
\nOther theologians agree. Catherine LaCunga says, \u201cThe doctrine of the Trinity is ultimately a practical doctrine with radical consequences for the Christian life.\u201d
\nIn the same vein, Miroslav Volf writes, \u201cThe triune God stands at the beginning and at the end of the Christian pilgrimage and, therefore, at the center of Christian faith.\u201d
\nThe biblical teaching of the Trinity is not an exposition about the abstract design of God. Instead, it teaches us about God\u2019s nature and how it operates in Christian community. As such, it shouldn\u2019t be relegated to an endnote to the gospel. Rather, it should shape the Christian life and inform the practice of the church.
\nThroughout the gospel of John, Jesus makes many statements that give us insight into His relationship with His Father. He says, \u201cFather \u2026 you loved me before the creation of the world\u201d (John 17:24). He also said, \u201cThe world must learn that I love the Father\u201d (John 14:31). From these two texts alone, we learn that there was a mutual love flowing within the Godhead before the foundation of the world.
\nIn the opening chapters of Genesis, we discover that there is also fellowship within the Godhead: \u201cLet us make man in our image, in our likeness\u201d (Gen. 1:26). Here we see the triune God taking counsel and planning.
\nThe gospel of John teaches us further about the nature of the Godhead. Namely, that the Son lives by the life of the Father (5:26; 6:57). The Son shares and expresses the glory of the Father (13:31\u201332; 17:4\u20135). The Son lives within the Father and the Father lives within the Son (1:18; 14:10). The Son lives in complete dependence upon the Father (5:19). The Son reflects the Father in His words and deeds (12:49; 14:9). The Father glorifies the Son (1:14; 8:50, 54; 12:23; 16:14; 17:1, 5, 22, 24), and the Son exalts the Father (7:18; 14:13; 17:1, 4; 20:17)
\nWithin the triune God we discover mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual submission, mutual dwelling, and authentic community. In the Godhead there exists an eternal, complementary, and reciprocal interchange of divine life, divine love, and divine fellowship.
\nAmazingly, this same relationship has been transposed from the divine key into the human key. The passage has moved from the Father to the Son, from the Son to the church (John 6:57; 15:9; 20:21). It has moved from the eternal God in the heavenlies to the church on earth, the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
\nThe church is an organic extension of the triune God. It was conceived in Christ before time (Eph. 1:4\u20135) and born on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1ff.).
\nProperly conceived, the church is the gathered community that shares God\u2019s life and expresses it in the earth. Put another way, the church is the earthly image of the triune God (Eph. 1:22\u201323).
\nBecause the church is organic, it has a natural expression. Accordingly, when a group of Christians follows their spiritual DNA, they will gather in a way that matches the DNA of the triune God\u2014for they possess the same life that God Himself possesses. (While we Christians are by no means divine, we have been privileged to be \u201cpartakers of the divine nature\u201d\u20142 Peter 1:4 NASB.)
\nConsequently, the DNA of the church is marked by the very traits that we find in the triune God. Particularly, mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual submission, mutual dwelling, and authentic community. Put another way, the headwaters of the church are found in the Godhead. It is for this reason that Stanley Grenz could say, \u201cThe ultimate basis for our understanding of the church lies in its relationship to the nature of the triune God Himself.\u201d
\nTheologian Kevin Giles echoes this thought when he says that the Trinity is the \u201cmodel on which ecclesiology should be formulated. On this premise, the inner life of the divine Trinity provides a pattern, a model, an echo, or an icon of the Christian communal existence in the world.\u201d
\nSimply put, the Trinity is the paradigm for the church\u2019s native expression. Beloved theologian Shirley Guthrie unfolds this concept by describing the relational nature of the Godhead:<\/p>\n
The oneness of God is not the oneness of a distinct, self-contained individual; it is the unity of a community of persons who love each other and live together in harmony.\u2026 They are what they are only in relationship with one another.\u2026 There is no solitary person separated from the others; no above and below; no first, second, third in importance; no ruling and controlling and being ruled and controlled; no position of privilege to be maintained over against others; no question of conflict concerning who is in charge; no need to assert independence and authority of one at the expense of the others. Now there is only fellowship and communion of equals who share all that they are and have in their communion with each other, each living with and for the others in mutual openness, self-giving love, and support; each free not from but for the others. That is how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are related in the inner circle of the Godhead.<\/p>\n
Look again at the triune God. And notice what\u2019s absent. There\u2019s an absence of command-style leadership. There\u2019s an absence of hierarchical structures. There\u2019s an absence of passive spectatorship. There\u2019s an absence of one-upmanship. And there\u2019s an absence of religious rituals and programs.
\n(Some have suggested that there is a graded hierarchy within the Trinity. But this view is scripturally and historically untenable. See pages 295\u201396 for details.)
\nCommand-style relationships, hierarchy, passive spectatorship, one-upmanship, religious programs, etc. were created by fallen humans. And they run contrary to the DNA of the triune God as well as the DNA of the church. Sadly, however, after the death of the apostles, these practices were adopted, baptized, and brought into the Christian family. Today, they have become the central features of the institutional church.<\/p>\n
Four Paradigms for Church Restoration<\/p>\n
There are four chief paradigms for reimagining the church today. They are as follows:<\/p>\n
Biblical Blueprintism. Those who advocate this paradigm champion the idea that the New Testament contains a meticulous blueprint for church practice. To their minds, we simply need to tease out of the Bible the proper blueprint and mimic it. But as I shall argue in this book, the New Testament contains no such blueprint for church practice. Neither does it contain a list of rules and regulations for Christians to follow. As New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce puts it, \u201cIn applying the New Testament text to our own situation, we need not treat it as the scribes of our Lord\u2019s day treated the Old Testament. We should not turn what were meant to be guiding lines for worshippers in one situation into laws binding for all time.\u201d.<\/p>\n
Cultural Adaptability. Those who advocate this paradigm are quick to point out that human culture changes over time. The church of the first century adapted to its culture. Today, the culture is very different. So the church must adapt to its present culture. Champions of this view say that in every age the church reinvents itself to adapt to the current culture.
\nThis paradigm is based on the idea of \u201ccontextualization.\u201d Contextualization is the theological method that tries to translate the biblical message into different cultural settings.
\nContextualization is certainly needed when we apply Scripture. It\u2019s because of contextualization that we don\u2019t wear sandals, togas, speak Greek, and use horses for transportation.
\nHowever, some people wave the contextualization flag to the point of overcontextualizing the Scriptures until they have no present relevance at all. Overcontextualization eats up the biblical text to where it disappears entirely. And we are left to create the church after our own image.
\nF. F. Bruce warns against the dangers of extreme contextualization, saying,<\/p>\n
The restatement of the gospel in a new idiom is necessary in every generation\u2014as necessary as its translation into new languages. [But] in too much that passes for restatement of the gospel, the gospel itself disappears, and the resultant product is what Paul would have called \u2018another gospel which in fact is no gospel at all\u2019 (Gal. 1:6f.). When the Christian message is so thoroughly accommodated to the prevalent climate of opinion that it becomes one more expression of that climate of opinion, it is no longer the Christian message.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve met many advocates of the cultural adaptability paradigm. And I\u2019ve been fascinated to discover that every one of them believes that there are normative church practices that transcend time and culture. For instance, most Christians who hold to the cultural adaptability paradigm would find the suggestion that we should abandon water baptism and change the Lord\u2019s Supper from bread and wine to french fries and mugs of root beer to be offensive. (Those under ten years old may be the exception!)
\nThe critical question then becomes which practices of the New Testament church are solely descriptive and which are normative? Or to put it another way, which are tied to the culture of the first century and which are reflections of the unchanging nature and identity of the church?
\nThe dangers of overcontextualization are real, and not a few Christian leaders have been unwittingly guilty of it. We must be careful not to hold to biblical principles unconsciously when they suit our purposes, but abandon them in the name of \u201ccontextualization\u201d when they do not.
\nThe fact of the matter is, virtually all Christians derive their ideas of the Christian life and church life from the Bible. (Ironically, those who claim that they do not nearly always end up turning to the teachings of Jesus or Paul to support or condemn a particular idea or practice.) The early church was not perfect. If you doubt that, just read 1 Corinthians. So romanticizing the early Christians as if they were flawless is a mistake.
\nOn the other hand, the first-century church was the church that Jesus and the apostles founded. And insofar as the first-century communities were fleshing out the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, they can teach us a great deal. To ignore them as irrelevant for our time is a gross mistake. In the words of J. B. Phillips,<\/p>\n
The great difference between present-day Christianity and that of which we read in these [the New Testament] letters is that to us it is primarily a performance; to them it was a real experience. We are apt to reduce the Christian religion to a code, or at best a rule of heart and life. To these men it is quite plainly the invasion of their lives by a new quality of life altogether.<\/p>\n
Postchurch Christianity. This paradigm is rooted in the attempt to practice Christianity without belonging to an identifiable community that regularly meets for worship, prayer, fellowship, and mutual edification. Advocates claim that spontaneous social interaction (like having coffee at Starbucks whenever they wish) and personal friendships embody the New Testament meaning of \u201cchurch.\u201d Those who hold to this paradigm believe in an amorphous, nebulous, phantom church.
\nSuch a concept is disconnected with what we find in the New Testament. The first-century churches were locatable, identifiable, visitable communities that met regularly in a particular locale. For this reason, Paul could write a letter to these identifiable communities (local churches) with some definite idea of who would be present to hear it (Rom. 16). He would also have a good idea of when they gathered (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 14) and the struggles they experienced in their life together (Rom. 12\u201314; 1 Cor. 1\u20138). While unbiblical in its viewpoint, the postchurch paradigm appears to be an expression of the contemporary desire for intimacy without commitment.<\/p>\n
Organic Expression. Throughout this book, I will argue for this particular paradigm. I believe that the New Testament is a record of the church\u2019s DNA at work. When we read the book of Acts and the Epistles, we are watching the genetics of the church of Jesus Christ expressing itself in various cultures during the first century. Because the church is truly a spiritual organism, its DNA never changes. It\u2019s the same biological entity yesterday, today, and tomorrow. As such, the DNA of the church will always reflect these four elements:<\/p>\n
1. It will always express the headship of Jesus Christ in His church as opposed to the headship of a human being. (I\u2019m using the term \u201cheadship\u201d to refer to the idea that Christ is both the authority and the source of the church.)
\n2. It will always allow for and encourage the every-member functioning of the body.
\n3. It will always map to the theology that\u2019s contained in the New Testament, giving it visible expression on the earth.
\n4. It will always be grounded in the fellowship of the triune God.<\/p>\n
The Trinity is the paradigm informing us on how the church should function. It shows us that the church is a loving, egalitarian, reciprocal, cooperative, nonhierarchical community.
\nF. F. Bruce once said, \u201cDevelopment is the unfolding of what is there already, even if only implicitly; departure involves the abandonment of one principle or basis in favor of another.\u201d
\nAll that enables the church to reflect the triune God is development; all that hinders it from doing so is departure.
\nAs George Barna and I have argued in our book, Pagan Christianity, very little of what is practiced in the modern institutional church has its roots in the New Testament. Instead, human-invented practices that were spawned centuries ago have both shaped and redefined the church. Such practices undermine the headship of Christ, hamper the every-member functioning of Christ\u2019s body, violate New Testament theology, and disaffirm the fellowship of the triune God. As Emil Brunner puts it, \u201cThe delicate structure of the fellowship founded by Jesus, and anchored by the Holy Spirit, could not be replaced by an institutional organization without the whole character of the ecclesia being fundamentally changed.\u201d
\nYet despite this fact, many of these practices are justified by Christians even though they lack biblical merit. Why? Because of the incredible power of religious tradition. Consider the following texts:<\/p>\n
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever. (Isa. 40:8)<\/p>\n
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Heb. 4:12)<\/p>\n
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. (Isa. 55:10\u201311)<\/p>\n
These texts inform us about the enormous power of God\u2019s Word. The Word of God stands forever. The Word of God will accomplish whatever God desires. The Word of God will achieve the purpose to which God has sent it. The Word of God will not return void.
\nYet despite the incredible power of God\u2019s Word, there is one thing that can stop it dead in its tracks. That one thing is religious tradition. Note the words of Jesus, the incarnate Word:<\/p>\n
Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Matt. 15:6)<\/p>\n
And again:<\/p>\n
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.\u2026 You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. (Mark 7:8\u20139 NASB)<\/p>\n
In so many ways, religious tradition has shaped our minds. It\u2019s captured our hearts. It\u2019s framed our vocabulary. So much so that whenever we open our Bibles, we automatically read our current church practices back into the text.
\nWhenever we see the word pastor in the Bible, we typically think of a man who preaches sermons on Sunday mornings. Whenever we see the word church, we typically think of a building or a Sunday-morning service. Whenever we see the word elder, we typically think of someone on a church board or committee.
\nThis raises an important question: How can we read our present church practices back into the New Testament so easily? One of the reasons is because we have inherited a \u201ccut-and-paste\u201d approach to Bible study. In this approach, out-of-context \u201cproof-texts\u201d are pieced together to support man-made doctrines and practices. This process is largely unconscious. And two things make it very easy. First, the New Testament letters aren\u2019t arranged in chronological order. Second, the New Testament letters are divided into chapters and verses.
\nPhilosopher John Locke articulated the problem well when he wrote, \u201cThe Scriptures are chopped and minced, and, as they are now printed, stand so broken and divided, that not only the common people take the verses usually for distinct aphorisms [rules]; but even men of more advanced knowledge, in reading them, lose very much of the strength and force of the coherence, and the light that depends on it.\u201d
\nBy contrast, when the New Testament is read in chronological order, without chapters and verses, a beautiful narrative emerges. A story materializes. When we read the New Testament as it\u2019s presently arranged, however, we encounter that story in fragments. And we miss the fluid narrative.
\nIn Greek mythology, a man named Procrustes was reputed to possess a magical bed that had the unique property of matching the size of the persons who lay upon it. But behind the \u201cmagic\u201d was a crude method for creating a \u201cone-size-fits-all\u201d bed. If the person lying on it was too small, Procrustes would stretch the person\u2019s limbs out to fit the bed. If the person was too large, Procrustes would chop off his limbs to make him fit!
\nThe modern concept of church is a Procrustean bed. Scriptures that do not fit the shape of the institutional church are either chopped off (dismissed) or they are stretched to fit its mold. The cut-and-paste method of Bible study makes this rather easy to pull off (no pun intended). We lift various verses out of their chronological and historical setting and then paste them together to create a doctrine or support a practice. By contrast, the chronological narrative provides a control on our interpretation of Scripture. It prevents us from cutting and pasting verses together to make the Bible fit our preconceived ideas.
\nThe fact is, many of our present-day church practices are without scriptural merit. They are human-invented practices that are at odds with the organic nature of the church. They do not reflect the desire of Jesus Christ, nor do they express His headship nor His glorious personality (the very things that the church is called to bear). Instead, they reflect the enthronement of man\u2019s ideas and traditions. And as a result, they smother the church\u2019s native expression. Yet we justify them by our cut-and-paste hermeneutic.<\/p>\n
Violating the Church\u2019s DNA<\/p>\n
Some Christians have tried to justify a slew of unbiblical church practices by suggesting that the church is different in every culture, and it adapts to the world in which it lives. It is thought, therefore, that God now approves of the clergy system, hierarchical leadership, the performance-spectator order of worship, the single leader model, the concept of \u201cgoing to church,\u201d and a host of other practices that were created around the fourth century as a result of Christians borrowing from the Greco-Roman customs of their day.
\nBut is the church really different in every culture? And if it is, does that mean that we are free to adopt any practice we like into our corporate worship? Or is it possible that the church has overadapted to modern Western culture in both its theology and its practice?
\nSpeaking of the problem of overcontextualization, Richard Halverson writes, \u201cWhen the Greeks got the gospel, they turned it into a philosophy; when the Romans got it, they turned it into a government; when the Europeans got it, they turned it into a culture; and when the Americans got it, they turned it into a business.\u201d
\nI will borrow from Paul when he said, \u201cDoes not nature teach you?\u201d
\nThe New Testament is clear that the church is a biological entity (Eph. 2:15; Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 10:32; Col. 3:11; 2 Cor. 5:17). This biological entity is produced when the living seed of the gospel is planted into the hearts of women and men and they are permitted to gather together naturally.
\nThe DNA of the church produces certain identifiable features. Some of them are the experience of authentic community, a familial love and devotion of its members to one another, the centrality of Jesus Christ, the native instinct to gather together without static ritual, the innate desire to form deep-seated relationships that are centered on Christ, the internal drive for open-participatory gatherings, and the loving impulse to display Jesus to a fallen world.
\nWhile the seed of the gospel will naturally produce these particular features, how they are expressed may look slightly different from culture to culture. For instance, I once planted an organic church in the country of Chile. The songs they wrote, the way they interacted with each other, the way they sat, what they did with their children, all looked different from organic churches born in Europe and the United States.
\nHowever, the same basic features that reside in the DNA of the church were all present. Never did any of these churches produce a clergy system, a sole pastor, a hierarchical leadership structure, or an order of worship that rendered the majority passive.
\nIn nature, there\u2019s a flowering shrub called the bigleaf hydrangea. If you take the seed of that shrub and plant it in the soil of Indiana, it will yield pink flowers when it blooms. But if you take that same seed and plant it in the soil of Brazil or Poland, it will produce blue flowers. Even more interesting, if you take the same seed and plant it in another type of soil, it will yield purple flowers.
\nThe bigleaf hydrangea, however, will never produce thorns or thistles. It will never bear oranges or apples. And it will never grow tall like a pine tree. Why? Because these features are not within the DNA of the seed.
\nIn the same way, the church of Jesus Christ\u2014when planted properly and left on its own without human control and institutional interference\u2014will produce certain features by virtue of its DNA. Like the bigleaf hydrangea, the church may look different from culture to culture, but it will have the same basic expression wherever it\u2019s allowed to flourish.
\nOn the other hand, when we humans introduce our fallen systems into this living organism, the church loses her organic features and produces a foreign expression that runs contrary to her DNA. To put it bluntly, it\u2019s possible to distort the organic growth of the church and violate its DNA.
\nLet me tell a tragic story that illustrates this principle. On November 4, 1970, a very unusual thirteen-year-old girl was discovered. From early childhood, she had lived in a state of intense sensory and social deprivation. Genie, as she came to be called, wasn\u2019t taught to speak. And she was denied normal human interaction.
\nGenie was tied to a potty-chair and left to sit alone day after day. In the evenings, she was tied into a sleeping bag, which restrained movement of her arms. She was also beaten for making noises\u2014including forming words.
\nThe result: Her natural traits were permanently distorted. Genie had a strange bunny-like walk. She constantly held her hands up in front of her body like paws. She couldn\u2019t chew solid food, and she could hardly swallow. She also spat constantly, sniffled often, and couldn\u2019t focus her eyes beyond twelve feet. Genie\u2019s speech was limited to short, high-pitched squeaks that were barely understandable.
\nAfter years of being removed from her abysmal home life, Genie\u2019s vocabulary grew significantly. Yet she wasn\u2019t capable of stringing words together into meaningful sentences. What happened? Some scientists concluded that her normal DNA was altered because she was deprived of proper nutrition and stimulation.
\nLet\u2019s apply this story to the spiritual realm. Like the bigleaf hydrangea, the culture in which an organic church is born may influence its expression. At the same time, like Genie\u2019s tragic experience, the culture can also distort the church\u2019s expression by interrupting its organic growth. In my opinion, that\u2019s exactly what has happened with the church historically. Hence, what passes for \u201cchurch\u201d today is not what God had in mind from the beginning.
\nThe church is organic. If her natural growth is not tampered with, she will grow up to be a beautiful girl\u2014a living witness to the glories of her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. She will not grow up to be an organization like General Motors or Microsoft. She will be something wholly different\u2014completely unique to this planet. Just as unique as Jesus Christ was when He walked this earth. For after all, the church is His very body, and its nature is identical to God\u2019s.
\nThat said, this book is an effort to reimagine church in the image of the triune God. It seeks to anchor the practice of the church in the eternal Godhead rather than in the shifting sands of cultural fads, the muddied bottom of biblical blueprintism, or the polluted waters of religious tradition.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do you think the New Testament offers any guidance for our church life and practices today, or should we discard it as being completely irrelevant? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Consider the churches you have been a part of in the past. In what ways did they or did they not reflect the relationship of the triune God?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What does it mean to be faithful to the Word of God with respect to our church life and practices? How about our individual life and practices? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 On what basis do we determine what is normative and timeless in the New Testament from what is merely descriptive and tied to first-century culture? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2
\nREIMAGINING THE CHURCH MEETING<\/p>\n
Some institutions are allowed to grow so old and venerable that the idea of scrapping them is unthinkably sacrilegious.
\n\u2014F. F. Bruce<\/p>\n
The whole concern of Reformation theology was to justify restructuring the organized church without shaking its foundations.
\n\u2014John Howard Yoder<\/p>\n
It\u2019s commonplace for Christians to speak about \u201cgoing to church.\u201d By this, they mean attending a religious (church) service.
\nInterestingly, neither \u201cgoing to church\u201d nor \u201cchurch services\u201d appear in the New Testament. Both of these terms emerged long after the death of the apostles. The reason is simple: The early Christians had no such concept. They didn\u2019t view church as a place to go. Neither did they see their gatherings as \u201cservices.\u201d
\nAs we read the New Testament with an eye for understanding how the early Christians gathered, it becomes clear that they had four main types of meetings. They were<\/p>\n
\u2022 Apostolic Meetings. These were special meetings where apostolic workers preached to an interactive audience. Their goal was either to plant a church from scratch or to encourage an existing one. The twelve apostles held such meetings in the temple courts in Jerusalem during the birth of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 5:40\u201342). Paul held the same kind of meetings in the hall of Tyrannus when he planted the church in Ephesus (Acts 19:9\u201310; 20:27, 31). There are two chief characteristics of the apostolic meeting. One is that an apostolic worker does most of the ministry. The other is that such meetings are never permanent. They are temporary and have a long-range goal. Namely, to equip a local body of believers to function under the headship of Jesus Christ without the presence of a human head (Eph. 4:11\u201316; 1 Cor. 14:26). For this reason, an apostle always ends up leaving the church on its own.
\n\u2022 Evangelistic Meetings. In the first century, evangelism commonly occurred outside the regular meetings of the church. The apostles preached the gospel in those places where unbelievers frequented. The synagogue (for the Jews) and the marketplace (for the Gentiles) were among their favorite places to evangelize (Acts 14:1; 17:1\u201333; 18:4, 19). Evangelistic meetings were designed to plant a new church or to numerically build an existing church. These meetings were done \u201cin season.\u201d They weren\u2019t a permanent fixture of the church. Philip\u2019s trip to Samaria is an example of this kind of meeting (Acts 8:5ff.).
\n\u2022 Decision-Making Meetings. Sometimes a church needed to assemble together to make an important decision. The meeting in Jerusalem described in Acts 15 was such a meeting. The chief feature of this meeting is that everyone participated in the decision-making process, and the apostles and elders played a helpful role. (See chapter 10 for details.)
\n\u2022 Church Meetings. These were the regular gatherings of the church. They would be the first-century equivalent of our Sunday-morning \u201cchurch service.\u201d Yet they were radically different.<\/p>\n
The first-century church meeting was primarily a believers meeting. The context of 1 Corinthians 11\u201314 makes this plain. While unbelievers were sometimes present, they were not the focus of the meeting. (In 1 Corinthians 14:23\u201325, Paul fleetingly mentions the presence of unbelievers in the gathering.)
\nUnlike today\u2019s practice, this was not a meeting where a pastor preached a sermon and everyone else passively listened. The notion of a sermon-focused, pulpit-to-pew, audience-styled \u201cchurch service\u201d was alien to the early Christians.<\/p>\n
Mutual Edification<\/p>\n
Today, the weekly \u201cchurch service\u201d is designed for worship, the hearing of a sermon, and in some cases, evangelism. But in the first-century church, the governing purpose of the church meeting was quite different. The purpose was mutual edification. Consider the following texts:<\/p>\n
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. (1 Cor. 14:26 NASB)<\/p>\n
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. (Heb. 10:24\u201325 NKJV)<\/p>\n
The regular meetings of the church envisioned in Scripture allowed for every member to participate in the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:16). There was no \u201cup-front\u201d leadership. No one took center stage.
\nUnlike today\u2019s practice, the teaching in the church meeting was not delivered by the same person week after week. Instead, every member had the right, the privilege, and the responsibility to minister in the gathering. Mutual encouragement was the hallmark of this meeting. \u201cEvery one of you\u201d was its outstanding characteristic.
\nIn addition, while the early Christians worshipped God through song, they didn\u2019t confine their singing to the leadership of a group of professional musicians. Instead, the meeting allowed for \u201ceach one\u201d to lead a song. Or in the words of Paul, \u201ceach of you has a psalm\u201d in the gathering (1 Cor. 14:26 NKJV). Even the songs themselves were marked by an element of mutuality. Consider Paul\u2019s exhortation:<\/p>\n
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col. 3:16 NASB)<\/p>\n
Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord. (Eph. 5:19)<\/p>\n
Again, \u201cone-anothering\u201d was the dominant ingredient of the early church gathering. In such an open format, the early Christians regularly composed their own songs and sang them in the meetings.
\nIn like manner, each Christian who was given something to say by the Holy Spirit had the liberty to supply it through his or her unique gift. \u201cFor you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged,\u201d says Paul (1 Cor. 14:31).
\nAs Paul pulls back the curtain of the first-century church gathering in 1 Corinthians 11\u201314, we see a meeting where every member is actively involved. Freedom, openness, and spontaneity are the chief marks of this meeting. \u201cOne another\u201d is its dominant feature\u2014mutual edification its primary goal.<\/p>\n
Christ, the Director of the New Testament Gathering<\/p>\n
The New Testament church meeting depended entirely upon the headship of Jesus Christ. Christ was fully preeminent. He was its center and its circumference. He set the agenda and directed what took place. Although His leading was invisible to the naked eye, He was clearly the guiding agent.
\nIn this gathering, the Lord Jesus was free to speak through whomever He chose and in whatever capacity He saw fit. There was no fixed liturgy to tie His hands or box Him in.
\nThe church meeting was based upon the \u201cround-table\u201d principle. That is, every member was encouraged to function and participate. By contrast, the institutional church service is built on the \u201cpulpit-pew\u201d principle. It divides the members into the active few and the passive many. For this reason, some people call it the \u201caudience church.\u201d
\nIn the first-century gathering, neither the sermon nor \u201cthe preacher\u201d was the center of attention. Instead, congregational participation was the divine rule. The meeting was nonliturgical, nonritualistic, and nonsacral. Nothing was perfunctory. Everything came out of the living presence of Christ.
\nThe meeting reflected a flexible spontaneity where the Spirit of God was in utter control. He was free to move through any member of the body as He willed (1 Cor. 14:26, 31). And if He was allowed to lead the entire meeting, everything would be done in an orderly fashion (1 Cor. 14:40).
\nThe Holy Spirit so governed the gathering that if a person received an insight while another was sharing, the second speaker was free to interject his or her thought (1 Cor. 14:29\u201330). Accordingly, interruptions were a common part of the gathering (1 Cor. 14:27\u201340). Such a meeting is unthinkable in today\u2019s institutional church. (Just imagine what would happen if you interrupted the pastor with a word of insight while he was delivering his sermon.)
\nNowhere in the New Testament do we find grounds for a church meeting that is dominated or directed by a human being. Neither do we find any biblical merit for a gathering that\u2019s centered on a pulpit and focused upon one man.
\nConsider the words of John Howard Yoder:<\/p>\n
There are few more reliable constants running through all human society than the special place every human community makes for the professional religionist.\u2026 But if we were to ask whether any of the N. T. literature makes the assumptions listed\u2014Is there one particular office in which there should be only one or a few individuals for whom it provides a livelihood, unique in character due to ordination, central to the definition of the church and the key to her functioning? Then the answer from the biblical material is a resounding negation.\u2026 Let us then ask first not whether there is a clear, solid concept of preaching, but whether there was in the N. T. one particular preaching office, identifiable as distinctly as the other ministries. Neither in the most varied picture (Corinthians) nor in the least varied (Pastoral Epistles) is there one particular ministry thus defined.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most startling characteristic of the early church meeting was the absence of any human officiation. Jesus Christ led the gatherings by the medium of the Holy Spirit through the believing community. The result? The spirit of \u201cone-anothering\u201d pervaded the entire meeting. It\u2019s no wonder that the New Testament uses the phrase one another nearly sixty times. Each member came to the meeting knowing that he or she had the privilege and the responsibility to contribute something of Christ. (Incidentally, women had both the right and the privilege to participate in the meetings of the church. See endnote for details.)
\nSome may object and say, \u201cBut in my church, I\u2019m allowed to do some ministry.\u201d My question is, are you allowed to carry out such ministry in the major gatherings of the church when all the members are present? Are you free to stand up at any time and give a word of testimony, a teaching, an exhortation, a song, or whatever else the Lord has laid on your heart? More importantly, are you encouraged to do this?
\nLet\u2019s be honest. The idea of mutual ministry envisioned in the New Testament is a far cry from the pinched definition of \u201clay ministry\u201d that\u2019s promoted in the typical institutional church. Most organized churches offer a surplus of volunteer positions for \u201claypeople\u201d to fill. Positions like cutting the lawn of the parsonage, ushering the aisles, shaking hands at the sanctuary door, passing out bulletins, teaching Sunday school, singing in the choir, participating on the worship team (if you make the cut), flipping transparencies, turning PowerPoint slides, etc.
\nBut these restricted \u201cministry\u201d positions are light-years away from the free and open exercise of spiritual gifts that was afforded to every believer in the early church gathering. An exercise that benefited the entire church when it gathered together.<\/p>\n
The Necessity of a Functioning Priesthood<\/p>\n
So why did the early church meet in this way? Was it just a passing cultural tradition? Did it, as some say, represent the early church\u2019s infancy, ignorance, and immaturity? I\u2019m unconvinced. The first-century church meeting is deeply rooted in biblical theology. It made real and practical the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers\u2014a doctrine that all evangelicals affirm with their lips.
\nAnd what is that doctrine? In the words of Peter, it is the doctrine that all believers in Christ are spiritual priests called to offer up \u201cspiritual sacrifices\u201d unto their Lord. In Paul\u2019s language, it\u2019s the idea that all Christians are functioning members of Christ\u2019s body.
\nIn addition, the open-participatory meeting envisioned in the New Testament is native to our spiritual nature. Every Christian has an innate spiritual instinct to gather together with other Christians and share their Lord in an open atmosphere that\u2019s free of ritual and human control. To pour out of their hearts what God has poured into them.
\nConsider the revivals of the past. If you\u2019ve ever studied the history of past revivals, you\u2019ll discover that they shifted the entire terrain of the traditional church service for a time. Preachers would stop giving sermons for months. Instead, God\u2019s people would gather and sing, testify, and share about the Lord for hours. Such meetings were spontaneous, open, and full of participation. There was no human control.
\nWhy did this happen? Because God\u2019s people were yielding to their spiritual instincts, and no one could stop the flood tides of the Holy Spirit who was moving within them. Unfortunately, after the revival waters receded, the five-hundred-year-old Protestant order of worship was quickly reerected and open meetings vanished in most places.
\nAt bottom, the first-century church gathering was a reflection of the self-emptying exchange of life, love, and fellowship that has been going on in the triune God from before time. By means of the Holy Spirit, the Father eternally pours Himself into His Son, and the Son eternally pours Himself into the Father. The mutual fellowship and sharing of life that marked the early church meeting was an earthly expression of this divine interchange.
\nAdd to that, the early church meeting was the God-created environment that produced spiritual growth\u2014both corporately and individually (Eph. 4:11\u201316). We grow into God\u2019s fullness when the different parts of His body minister Christ to us (Eph. 3:16\u201319). But we also grow when we function (Mark 4:24\u201325).
\nBy contrast, in the typical institutional church, the spiritual nourishment of the believer is limited to and dependent on the spiritual and academic preparation of one or two people: the pastor and the Sunday school teacher. Could this be one of the reasons why there is so little transformation happening in the modern institutional church?
\nSpeaking of the normative nature of the every-member ministry of the body of Christ, John Howard Yoder remarks, \u201cThe conclusion is inescapable that the multiplicity of ministries is not a mere adiaphoron, a happenstance of only superficial significance, but a specific work of grace and a standard for the church.\u201d Granted, Christians can and should function outside of church meetings. But the gatherings of the church are especially designed for every believer to express Christ through his or her gift (1 Cor. 11\u201314; Heb. 10:24\u201325). Unfortunately, the institutional church commonly pushes \u201cone-anothering\u201d exclusively outside the church service. And this retards the spiritual growth of the believing community.
\nThe Reformation recovered the truth of the priesthood of all believers. But it failed to restore the organic practices that embody this teaching. The Reformation view of the priesthood of all believers was individualistic, not corporate. It was restricted to soteriology (salvation) and didn\u2019t involve ecclesiology (the church). The Reformers claimed the ground of a believing priesthood, but they failed to occupy that ground. In the typical Protestant church, the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is no more than a sterile truth. It would better be described as the \u201cpriesthood of some believers.\u201d
\nTruthfully, there are few things more conducive to the culture of spiritual life than the open-participatory church meeting that\u2019s depicted in the New Testament. God established open-participatory meetings to incarnate the glorious reality of expressing Christ through a fully employed priesthood.
\nThe writer of Hebrews amply demonstrates that mutual participation in the body is vital for the spiritual formation of every member. He teaches that mutual exhortation is the divine antidote for preventing apostasy, the divine requirement for ensuring perseverance, and the divine means for cultivating individual spiritual life:<\/p>\n
Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:12\u201313 KJV)<\/p>\n
Here we are told that mutual exhortation is the remedy for a hardened, unbelieving heart and a deceived mind. In like manner, the New Testament presents mutual exhortation to be the divine safeguard against willful sin:<\/p>\n
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we sin willfully \u2026 (Heb. 10:24\u201326 NKJV)<\/p>\n
While multitudes of clergy have made common use of this text to stress the importance of \u201cattending church,\u201d they have blissfully ignored the rest of the passage. The passage says that mutual exhortation (not hearing a pulpit sermon) is the primary purpose of the church gathering. And mutual exhortation is the God-ordained deterrent for willful sin.
\nIn my personal judgment, we ignore the full teaching of this passage to our own peril. The reason is simple: Our spiritual prosperity hinges upon corporate meetings that are marked by mutual, every-member functioning.<\/p>\n
Manifesting Jesus Christ in His Fullness<\/p>\n
The Greek word for church is ekklesia, and it literally means \u201cassembly.\u201d This meshes nicely with the dominant thought in Paul\u2019s letters that the church is Christ in corporate expression (1 Cor. 12:1\u201327; Eph. 1:22\u201323; 4:1\u201316).
\nFrom the human perspective, the purpose of the church meeting is mutual edification. But from God\u2019s perspective, the purpose of the gathering is to express His glorious Son and make Him visible. (The church is the body, and Christ is the Head. The purpose of one\u2019s body is to express the life that\u2019s within it.)
\nPut another way, we gather together so that the Lord Jesus can manifest Himself in His fullness. And when that happens, the body is edified.
\nNote that the only way that Christ can be properly expressed is if every member of a church freely supplies that aspect of the Lord that he or she has received. Make no mistake about it: The Lord Jesus cannot be fully disclosed through only one member. He is far too rich for that (Eph. 3:8).
\nSo if the hand doesn\u2019t function in the gathering, Christ will not be manifested in fullness. Likewise, if the eyes fail to function, the Lord will be limited in His self-revelation. On the other hand, when every member of a local assembly functions in the meeting, Christ is seen. He is made visible. And why? Because He is assembled in our midst.
\nConsider the analogy of a puzzle. When each puzzle piece is properly positioned in relation to the other pieces, the puzzle is assembled. The net effect? We see the entire picture. It\u2019s the same way with Christ and His church.
\nThe highest purpose of the church meeting, then, is to make the invisible Christ visible through His body. Put another way, we gather together to reassemble the Lord Jesus Christ on the earth. When this happens, not only is Christ glorified in His saints, and not only is each member edified, but something is also registered in unseen realms: Principalities and powers in heavenly places are shamed!
\nPaul tells us that the manifold wisdom of God is made known through the church to the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places. Through open-participatory meetings, the church demonstrates to other realms that Jesus Christ\u2014the embodiment of God\u2019s wisdom\u2014is alive enough to lead a fallen race who once belonged to God\u2019s enemy. This brings great glory to God. And it\u2019s a central aspect of His eternal purpose. Here\u2019s how Paul put it:<\/p>\n
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:24)<\/p>\n
His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished [fashioned] in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Eph. 3:10\u201311)<\/p>\n
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph. 6:12)<\/p>\n
Open-participatory meetings do not preclude the idea of planning. Nor do they have to be disorderly. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul formulates a number of broad guidelines designed to keep the meeting running in an orderly fashion.
\nIn Paul\u2019s thought, there\u2019s no tension between an open-participatory meeting and an orderly one that edifies the church. The order of the meeting is organic. It\u2019s the by-product of each member seeking to edify the whole.
\nAs far as content goes, the meetings were centered on Christ. Every word shared shed light on Him. Every song sung brought glory to Him. Every prayer offered brought Him into view. All the arrows of the meetings pointed to Him. As they experienced the indwelling life of Christ during the week, the early Christians came together to share that life with one another.
\nIn this respect, the early church meeting served as an outlet. It was the venue in which the excess and overflow of spiritual life was shared and released.
\nHave you ever received an insight about the Lord or had an encounter with Him that filled you spiritually to the point where you felt you were going to burst if you didn\u2019t share it with others? If so, just imagine an entire church experiencing this. Therein lies a central feature of the church gathering: to allow that spiritual life to break loose whereby all could be blessed. Just as the members of the triune God selflessly pour Their life into one another, so the members of the church do the same in their gatherings.
\nIn this regard, participating in a New Testament church meeting meant giving more than receiving. Unlike today\u2019s popular practice, the early Christians didn\u2019t attend \u201cservices\u201d to receive from a class of religious specialists called the \u201cclergy.\u201d They met to serve their sisters and brothers by ministering something of the Lord\u2019s life to them. In so doing, they sought to build up the church (Rom. 12:1\u20138; 1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24\u201325).<\/p>\n
The Question of Sustaining Force<\/p>\n
In the typical institutional church, the religious machinery of the church program is the force that fuels and propels the church service. Consequently, if the Spirit of God were ever to leave a typical institutional church, His absence would go unnoticed.
\nThe \u201cbusiness-as-usual\u201d program would forge ahead. The worship program would be unaffected. The liturgy would march on uninterrupted. The sermon would be preached, and the doxology would be sung. Like Samson of old, the congregation would go right along with the religious program, not knowing \u201cthat the LORD had departed\u201d (Judg. 16:20 NASB).
\nBy contrast, the only sustaining force of the early church gathering was the life of the Holy Spirit. The early Christians were clergyless, liturgyless, programless, and ritualless. They relied entirely on the spiritual life of the individual members to maintain the church\u2019s existence and the quality of their gatherings.
\nThus if the spiritual life of the church was at a low ebb, everyone would notice it in the gathering. They couldn\u2019t overlook the cold chill of silence. What is more, if the Spirit of God left the meetings for good, the church would collapse altogether.
\nStated simply, the first-century church knew no sustaining influence other than the life of the Holy Spirit. It didn\u2019t rely on a clergy-led, man-programmed, humanly planned, institutionally fueled system to preserve its momentum.
\nThe tabernacle of Moses perfectly mirrors those churches that are held together by an institution rather than the life of God. When God\u2019s presence left the holy tent, the tent became nothing more than a hollow shell accompanied by an impressive exterior. Even though the Lord\u2019s glory had departed, worshippers continued to offer their sacrifices at the empty tabernacle, never noticing that God wasn\u2019t there (1 Chron. 16:39\u201340; 2 Chron. 1:3\u20135; Jer. 7:12\u201314).
\nIn this way, the vice of the institutional church lies in its reliance upon a humanly devised, program-driven religious system that serves to scaffold the \u201cchurch\u201d structure when the Spirit of God is absent. This moss-laden system betrays the fact that when the spontaneous life of Jesus Christ has ebbed away in a Christian assembly, that assembly ceases to be operating as a church in any biblical sense\u2014even though it may preserve the outward form.<\/p>\n
The Clerical Objection<\/p>\n
While the New Testament envisions the early church meetings as open, participatory, and spontaneous, many modern clergy refuse to approve of such meetings today. Clerical thinking on the subject frequently goes something like this: \u201cIf I allowed my congregation to exercise its gifts in an open meeting, there would be sheer chaos. I have no choice but to control the services\u2014lest the people spin out of control.\u201d
\nOthers have confessed, \u201cI tried to have open meetings with my people once. And it just doesn\u2019t work.\u201d
\nThese objections betray a gross misunderstanding of God\u2019s ecclesiology. First, the notion that a clergyman has the authority to \u201callow\u201d or \u201cforbid\u201d his fellow brethren to function in a gathering of God\u2019s people is built on a skewed understanding of authority. (We will explore this aspect further in part 2.) No human has the right to permit or prohibit the believing priesthood in the exercise of its Spirit-endowed gifts. In addition, no one has the right to refer to God\u2019s people as \u201cmy people.\u201d
\nSecond, the assumption that chaos would ensue if clerical control were removed betrays a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit. It also reveals a lack of trust in God\u2019s people, something that violates the New Testament outlook (Rom. 15:14; 2 Cor. 2:3; 7:6; 8:22; Gal. 5:10; 2 Thess. 3:4; Philem. 21; Heb. 6:9).
\nThird, the idea that the church meeting would turn into a tumultuous free-for-all is simply not true. But it hinges upon a very important ingredient: God\u2019s people must be properly equipped to function under Christ\u2019s headship.
\nHaving said that, I\u2019ll make a candid observation: If a pastor decides to implement open meetings in his church, I can well understand why it wouldn\u2019t work. The reason is simple\u2014he probably hasn\u2019t equipped God\u2019s people to function under the headship of Jesus Christ.
\nChristians do not become equipped by listening to sermons week after week while sitting muted in a pew. Instead, God\u2019s people are equipped by Christian workers who are able to teach them how to fellowship with the Lord and how to function in a group setting. Such workers equip the saints (Eph. 4:11\u201316). And then they do something that few contemporary pastors would ever dare\u2014they leave the church on its own (Acts 13\u201320).
\nGranted, open-participatory meetings may not always be as prim and proper as the traditional church service that runs flawlessly according to what is published in the weekly church bulletin. Nevertheless, they reveal much more of the fullness of Christ than any human arrangement could manufacture.
\nIn a first-century-styled meeting, there will be times when some may bring unprofitable ministry. This is particularly true in the infancy stages of a church\u2019s life. But the antidote for this is not to put a lid on open participation. Those who over-function and give unedifying ministry should be given instruction. In the foundational stage, this largely falls on the shoulders of those who are planting the church. It will later shift to those who are older and more seasoned in the assembly. (See chapter 9.)
\nRecall what happened when Paul faced the frenzied morass in Corinth. The apostle didn\u2019t shut down the meetings and hand out a liturgy. Nor did he introduce human officiation. Instead, he supplied his fellow brethren with a number of broad guidelines to facilitate order and edification in the gatherings (1 Cor. 14:1ff.).
\nWhat is more, Paul was confident that the church would adhere to those guidelines. This sets forth an important principle. Every church in the first century had at its disposal an itinerant apostolic worker who helped navigate it through common problems. Sometimes the worker\u2019s help came in the form of letters. At other times, it came during personal visits from the worker himself.
\nPresent-day workers give similar guidelines to churches that are having difficulties in their meetings. And those guidelines are designed to put the meetings back into the hands of the Holy Spirit rather than under the domain of strong personalities.
\nWhen such guidelines are given and heeded, there\u2019s no need for human officiation, fixed liturgies, or scripted services. Again, the tendency to reject the first-century-styled church meeting unearths a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit.
\nForgive the personal illustration, but in all the years that I\u2019ve worked with organic churches, I never once felt compelled to resort to liturgy, ritual, or human officiation. A large part of my ministry has been to equip God\u2019s people to function. That would include helping those who overparticipate to step back a bit and emboldening those who underparticipate to function more often.
\nIn Numbers 11, we have the first appearance of clericalism in the Bible. Two servants of the Lord, Eldad and Medad, received God\u2019s Spirit and began to prophesy (vv. 26\u201327). In hasty response, a young zealot urged Moses to \u201crestrain them\u201d (v. 28 NASB). Moses reproved the young suppressor, saying that all God\u2019s people should receive the Spirit and prophesy.
\nMoses\u2019 desire was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:17\u201318). And it continued to find fulfillment throughout the first century (Acts 2:38\u201339; 1 Cor. 14:1, 31). Unfortunately, the kingdom of God does not lack those who wish to again restrain Eldad and Medad from ministering in the Lord\u2019s house.<\/p>\n
Headship vs. Lordship<\/p>\n
The Bible draws a careful distinction between Christ\u2019s headship and His Lordship. Throughout the New Testament, the headship of Christ virtually always has in view the Lord\u2019s relationship with His body (Eph. 1:22\u201323; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19). The lordship of Christ virtually always has in view His relationship with His individual disciples (Matt. 7:21\u201322; 10:24\u201325; Luke 6:46).
\nWhat lordship is to the individual, headship is to the church. Headship and lordship are two dimensions of the same thing. Headship is lordship worked out in the corporate lives of God\u2019s people.
\nThis distinction is important to grasp because it throws light on the problem of church practice today. It\u2019s all too common for Christians to know Christ\u2019s lordship and yet know nothing of His headship. A believer may submit to the lordship of Jesus in his or her own personal life. He may obey what he understands in the Bible. He may pray fervently. He may live self-sacrificially. Yet at the same time, he may know nothing about shared ministry, mutual submission, authentic community, or corporate testimony.
\nIn the final analysis, to be subject to the headship of Jesus means to respond to His will concerning the life and practice of the church. It means submitting ourselves to the way that God designed the church to be, and giving ourselves to that design.
\nSubmission to the headship of Christ incarnates the New Testament reality that Jesus is not only Lord of the individual believer, He is also the functioning Head of His church.
\nMy friend and mentor Stephen Kaung put it best when he said,<\/p>\n
People believe that the Word of God shows them how to live individually before God, but they think that insofar as their corporate life is concerned, God says, \u201cIt\u2019s up to you; do whatever you like.\u201d And that\u2019s what we find today in Christianity; there is no guiding principle as to our corporate life\u2014everyone does what is right in his own eyes. But, dear brothers and sisters, we are saved individually, but we are called corporately. There is as much teaching and example in the Word of God that governs our corporate life as there is our personal life.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, I believe that modern evangelicalism has held the doctrine of the believing priesthood only intellectually. But it has failed to apply it practically due to the subtle entrapment of deeply entrenched traditions.<\/p>\n
What Does It Look Like Today?<\/p>\n
Over the past twenty years, I\u2019ve been privileged to attend hundreds of open-participatory church meetings. Some of them were drop-dead glorious. Those meetings have been burned into the circuitry of my brain. Others were decent. Others were horrible. Still others were unmentionable!
\nWhile institutional \u201cchurch services\u201d are essentially flawless, organic church meetings will vary depending on the spiritual condition and preparation of each member.
\nHerein lies one of the tasks of an apostolic worker. It\u2019s to equip God\u2019s people to function together in a free-yet-orderly meeting that expresses Christ in His fullness.
\nIn all the years that I\u2019ve been gathering in and planting organic churches, I\u2019ve discovered that there\u2019s no way to explain accurately what a meeting under the headship of Christ looks like to those who have never seen one. Nevertheless, I\u2019ll do my best to paint a picture of one meeting that will give you the flavor of what a glorious meeting can look like.
\nAbout a decade ago, a church made up of about twenty-five Christians gathered together in a home one evening. I had just spent a year and a half ministering Jesus Christ to this group in biweekly \u201capostolic meetings.\u201d The goal of that ministry was to equip this new church where it could function on its own\u2014without any human headship.
\nThe day arrived. The church was to have its first meeting on its own. I wasn\u2019t to be present. However, I snuck into the room without anyone noticing and hid behind a couch. (I felt that if I were visible in that meeting, it would have affected the way the believers functioned. This is usually the case when the person who plants the church is present during its gatherings\u2014especially in the early years of a church\u2019s life.)
\nThe believers gathered together and began the meeting with singing. The singing was a capella. A Christian sister began the meeting by starting a song. And everyone sang with her. Then prayers were offered spontaneously one by one. Then a brother in Christ started another song. By this time, everyone was standing together. More prayers were offered. More songs were sung. During the singing, different ones would share short exhortations based upon the lyrics of the songs. The word moving doesn\u2019t quite say it. There was no song leader present. All were participating in offering praises to God freely and spontaneously.
\nAfter they sang for a time, everyone sat down. And immediately a sister stood up and began sharing. She spoke about how she had found Christ as her living water during the week. She read a few verses out of John 4. As she began to share from the text, two other sisters interrupted her and shared insights out of their own experience from the same passage and the same theme. Yet what they shared of Christ was different.
\nWhen the first sister was finished, a brother stood up and began to speak. He also talked about the Lord as living water, but he spoke from a passage in Revelation 22. He spoke for several minutes, and then a sister stood up and began adding to what he had shared. This went on for over an hour. One by one, without pauses, brothers and sisters in Christ stood up and shared out of their spiritual experience of the Lord Jesus Christ. They all revealed Him as living water.
\nSome shared poems, others shared songs, others shared stories, others shared from Scripture, others offered prayers.
\nAs I heard all of this from behind the couch, I couldn\u2019t resist the tears. I was so touched I began to weep. That meeting was electric. It was as if a flowing river had poured into that room and it couldn\u2019t be stopped. I could sense the Lord\u2019s presence and grace. The sharing was rich, full, living, and vibrant. I wished I had a pen and pad to write down the glorious things that were being said. Many of them bristled with seminal insight. But I just listened in amazement.
\nThe incredible thing was that no one was leading this gathering. No one was facilitating, either. (No human being, that is.) And it was incredibly Christ-centered.
\nThe meeting finally wound down and someone stood up and began a song. The rest of the church stood up and joined in. As they sang, I slipped out of the room. Only a few people noticed me. When I met with the church the following week, I divulged to them that I had been present. The church had prepared for this gathering. They had broken up into pairs and pursued the Lord together during the week in preparation for the meeting. The result was a corporate explosion of spiritual life that displayed the Lord Jesus Christ through His every-membered body.
\nPlease understand that this group of Christians couldn\u2019t have had a meeting like this when I first began working with them. At that time, most of them were habituated to be passive and quiet. Some, who had stronger personalities, would dominate the sharing. But after a year and a half of receiving practical and spiritual ministry, they were equipped to know the Lord together, function in a coordinated way, open their mouths, and share the living Christ in an orderly fashion. And God was magnified as a result.
\nI could multiply examples of this kind of meeting and the wide variety expressed within them. I trust, however, that you now have an impression of how a meeting of the church can be under the Lord\u2019s living headship in our day.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do our modern church services, largely built around the sermon of one man and the worship program of an established \u201cworship team,\u201d reflect the core principles of the New Testament church\u2014or are they at odds with them? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Why would open-participatory meetings be good for the early Christians but somehow be unworkable for us today? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Does your church provide any meetings where you have an outlet to share what God has shown you with your Christian brothers and sisters in a free and open environment uncontrolled and unfacilitated by a human being? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Is your present practice of church an expression of the complete headship of Jesus Christ or the headship of a human being? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3
\nREIMAGINING THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER<\/p>\n
The most visible and profound way in which the community gives physical expression to its fellowship is the common meal. The word \u201cdeipnon\u201d (1 Cor. 11:20), meaning \u201cdinner,\u201d tells us that it was not a token meal (as it has become since) or part of a meal (as it is sometimes envisaged), but an entire, ordinary meal.
\n\u2014Robert Banks<\/p>\n
The Lord\u2019s Supper in the New Testament is a meal. The appropriate setting for the sacrament is a table, and the appropriate posture in our western culture is sitting.
\n\u2014I. Howard Marshall<\/p>\n
Consider how your church takes the Lord\u2019s Supper. (You may call it the Eucharist, Holy Communion, or the breaking of bread.) Depending on your religious background, you either take the Lord\u2019s Supper weekly, monthly, or periodically. If you are a Protestant Christian, it\u2019s typically comprised of a tiny glass of grape juice (or wine) and a bite-sized wafer or cracker.
\nIn this chapter, we\u2019ll examine how the early Christians took the Lord\u2019s Supper and what it meant to them. It is beyond dispute that the Supper held a very special place in the life of the early church. This is reflected by the fact that they took it on a regular basis. The church in Troas took it weekly (Acts 20:7). The church in Jerusalem and the church in Corinth took it regularly (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:20\u201321, 33). And Jesus Himself made a strong point about not neglecting the Supper (Luke 22:19\u201320).
\nThe reason why the Lord\u2019s Supper held such a significant place in the early church is because it embodies the major features of the Christian life. Let\u2019s explore some of them now.<\/p>\n
The Broken Bread<\/p>\n
The Lord\u2019s Supper includes the breaking of bread (Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 10:16). The broken bread points us to the humanity of Jesus. The Son of Glory took upon Himself the form of a servant. The Almighty lowered Himself by becoming a man.
\nThe bread\u2014being the most basic and lowly of all foods\u2014points to the humility and availability of our Lord. By taking on our humanity, Jesus Christ became accessible to us all\u2014just as bread is available to everyone, both rich and poor.
\nThe breaking of bread also reminds us of the cross upon which our Lord\u2019s body was broken. Bread is made from the crushed wheat. Wine is made from the pressed grape. Both elements represent death.
\nYet the breaking of bread not only depicts the death of Christ. It also shows forth His resurrection. The grain of wheat has gone into the ground. But it now lives to produce many grains like unto itself (John 12:24). As we eat Christ\u2019s flesh and drink His blood through the Supper, we obtain His life (John 6:53). This is the principle of resurrection\u2014life out of death.
\nThe revelation of the resurrected Christ is also bound up with the broken bread. When the risen Lord ate with His disciples, it was bread that He broke with them (John 21:13). In like manner, the resurrected Christ appeared to two people on the Emmaus road. But their eyes were not opened to recognize Him until He broke the bread (Luke 24:30\u201332).
\nThe testimony of the oneness of Christ\u2019s body is also embodied in the breaking of bread. Recall that there was only one loaf that the early Christians broke. Paul writes, \u201cBecause there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf\u201d (1 Cor. 10:17).<\/p>\n
The Lord\u2019s Banquet<\/p>\n
Contrary to today\u2019s practice, the early church took the Lord\u2019s Supper in the context of a normal meal. When Jesus instituted the Supper, it was taken as part of the Passover Feast (Luke 22:15\u201320). In fact, the Passover was the forerunner of the Lord\u2019s Supper.
\nFirst Corinthians 11 makes clear that the early Christians gathered to eat the Supper as a meal. Some in the church at Corinth weren\u2019t waiting for their brethren to show up to the meeting. The result: Those who ate were full and those who showed up late went hungry. In addition, the Corinthian Christians were getting drunk at the Supper (1 Cor. 11:21\u201322, 33\u201334). Now think: Is it possible to get drunk on a thimble of grape juice and satisfy one\u2019s hunger with a bite-sized cracker?
\nThe New Testament word for \u201csupper\u201d literally means a dinner, a meal, or a banquet. And the Greek word for \u201ctable\u201d refers to a table in which a full meal is spread (Luke 22:14; 1 Cor. 10:21). To the first-century Christians, the Lord\u2019s Supper was just that\u2014a supper. It was a banquet\u2014a potluck dinner that included bread and wine. It was the table communion of the saints. A family festival. A fellowship meal.
\nBy it, the Christians who were better off monetarily showed their love and concern for their less fortunate brethren. This ran against the grain of Greco-Roman norms, where class distinctions were sharply recognized during banquets. But not so with the Christians. In the Supper, the early believers showed their unity and oneness, ignoring social distinctions of class and race. Perhaps this is why the early church referred to the Supper as the Agape\u2014or \u201clove feast\u201d (2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12).
\nRegrettably, centuries of ecclesiastical tradition have made today\u2019s truncated version of the Supper an event that is far removed from what it was in the first century. As eminent scholar Eduard Schweizer notes, \u201cA practice which separates the sacrament from the brotherhood meal turns the former into a strange, almost heathen rite which totally lacks its \u2018bodily\u2019 expression in the context of the whole life of its participants.\u201d
\nConsequently, the communal meaning of the breaking of bread has been largely lost to us. It\u2019s no longer the \u201cLord\u2019s Supper.\u201d Today\u2019s version would better be called the \u201cSavior\u2019s Sampler,\u201d the \u201cNazarene Niblet,\u201d or the \u201cLord\u2019s Appetizer.\u201d Forgive the humor, but can we really call a cracker crumb and a shot glass of grape juice a supper?<\/p>\n
A Covenant Meal<\/p>\n
Shared memories are part of what make up a people. By sharing a set of memories, people groups gain a sense of identity and belonging. One of the avenues by which a group revisits its shared memories is through a shared meal. The American holiday Thanksgiving is an example. Family reunions, anniversaries, and birthdays are others. All are accompanied by a shared meal.
\nIn the Old Testament, the Passover meal was instituted as a way for God\u2019s people to revisit their shared memory of God\u2019s faithful deliverance. The Passover meal gave them a sense of identity and belonging. But it did something beyond that: It cemented their lives together.
\nYou see, among the ancient Jews, a meal was seen as a sacred act that united those who shared it. Eating established sacred ties between the people who ate.
\nThe Passover was also a covenant meal. A covenant is a binding agreement between two parties. All throughout the Old Testament, when two people cut a covenant, the covenant was sealed by the sharing of a meal.
\nFor example, after God gave Moses the words of the Law, offerings were made and Moses sprinkled blood on the people, saying, \u201cThis is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you\u201d (Ex. 24:8). Then Moses and the seventy elders went up into a mountain and saw God. And they ate and drank in His presence (Ex. 24:9\u201311).
\nWhen Jesus celebrated the Passover, which was the first Lord\u2019s Supper, He offered the wine cup to His disciples with the words, \u201cThis cup is the new covenant in my blood\u201d (Luke 22:20). By this action, the Lord was pointing out this one fact: The Supper was a covenant meal wherein His disciples revisited the common memories they shared and celebrated their new identity in the Messiah.
\nToday, when we celebrate the Lord\u2019s Supper as a meal, we are remembering the covenant we have with God in Christ. We are participating in the shared memory of what Jesus has done for us. And we are proclaiming our new identity in Him.
\nWater baptism is the scriptural mode of our initiation into the Christian faith. But the Lord\u2019s Supper is a reaffirmation of our initial commitment to Christ. Through it, we reaffirm our faith in Jesus and our identity in Him as part of the new creation.<\/p>\n
The Wedding Feast to Come<\/p>\n
The Supper also points to Christ\u2019s future coming in glory. At the end of the age, the heavenly Bridegroom will preside at a sumptuous wedding feast and sup with His beloved bride in His Father\u2019s kingdom (Matt. 26:29). The Lord\u2019s Supper, therefore, possesses eschatological overtones. It\u2019s a last-days feast. A figure of the messianic banquet that will occur at Christ\u2019s future coming (Matt. 22:1\u201314; 26:29; Luke 12:35\u201338; 15:22\u201332; Rev. 19:9).
\nIn this connection, the Lord\u2019s Supper was never meant to be a morbid reminder of Christ\u2019s sufferings. Nor was it a somber occasion where Christians mourned over their sins. Instead, the Supper was a cheerful reminder of who Jesus Christ is and what He has done. It was a reminder and a proclamation of His glorious victory at Calvary, which will be consummated at His future coming.
\nThe Lord\u2019s Supper, therefore, is a celebration. It\u2019s a banquet of joy marked by sharing and thanksgiving (Luke 22:17; Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 10:16). It\u2019s a foretaste of the wedding feast to come. More specifically, the Lord\u2019s Supper is the bride\u2019s visible petition for her Bridegroom to return for her.<\/p>\n
The Supper Transcends Time<\/p>\n
The Lord\u2019s Supper possesses past, present, and future implications. It\u2019s a reproclamation of the Lord\u2019s sacrificial death for us in the past. It\u2019s a redeclaration of His ever-abiding nearness with us in the present. And it\u2019s a repronouncement of our hope of glory\u2014His coming in the future.
\nPut differently, the Lord\u2019s Supper is a living testimony to the three chief virtues: faith, hope, and love. Through the Supper, we reground ourselves in that glorious salvation that is ours by faith. We reexpress our love for the brethren as we reflect on the one body. And we rejoice in the hope of our Lord\u2019s soon return. By observing the Supper, we \u201cproclaim [present] the Lord\u2019s death [past] until he comes [future]\u201d (1 Cor. 11:26).
\nCatholics have made the Lord\u2019s Supper literal and sacrificial. Every time they take the Eucharist, they believe that Jesus\u2019 sacrifice is being represented for our sins. Protestants have reacted to this view by making the Supper merely symbolic and commemorative.
\nBut the Lord\u2019s Supper is neither a literal sacrifice nor an empty ritual.
\nThe Lord\u2019s Supper is a spiritual reality. Through the Supper, the Holy Spirit reveals the living Christ to our hearts anew and afresh. By it, we reaffirm our faith in Jesus and our membership to His body. Through the Supper, we sup with Christ and His people.<\/p>\n
A Shadow of the Triune God<\/p>\n
As with all aspects of organic church life, the Supper was foreshadowed and previously experienced by the Trinitarian Community. A careful reading of Scripture will show that God the Father is food to God the Son (Matt 4:4; John 4:31ff.; 6:27, 57, etc.). In turn, God the Son is food to us (John 1:29; 6:27, 32\u201335, 53\u201357). He is also drink (John 4:10; 6:53; 1 Cor. 10:4; 12:13; Rev. 22:17).
\nThroughout eternity, the Father and the Son have coparticipated in the divine life they share. The Father is the portion of the Son, and the Son is the portion of the Father. In the Godhead, each member coparticipates in the divine life that flows between them.
\nNot surprisingly, the image that the Bible draws for this coparticipation is that of eating and drinking. Through the Lord\u2019s Supper, we enact the divine participation in the triune God and make it visible on the earth. As theologian Stanley Grenz puts it, we are \u201ccoparticipants in the fellowship of the triune God.\u201d The Supper, therefore, is rooted in an eternal activity within God Himself. And it is one way that we participate in and reflect that activity.
\nThese are but a few precious truths bound up with the Lord\u2019s Supper. And they help explain why the early Christians made it an important part of their gatherings. Suffice it to say that the Lord Jesus Himself instituted the Supper (Matt. 26:26). And His apostles handed it down to us (1 Cor. 11:2).<\/p>\n
A Present-Day Example<\/p>\n
Since 1988, I have been in scores of meetings where the Lord\u2019s Supper was taken \u201cfirst-century style.\u201d Some of them were rather simple. They were essentially potluck dinners where everyone brought something\u2014including unleavened bread and grape juice or wine. Those who couldn\u2019t afford to bring food helped cook the meal. The meal usually opened with someone saying a few words about the body of the Lord Jesus. The unleavened loaf was broken and passed around. And the eating would begin.
\nWe would all partake of the food as we communed with Christ and spoke of His riches. Near the end of the meal, someone would lift up a glass of wine (or grape juice) and say a few words about the blood of our Lord. If it was wine, the glass would be passed around the table and everyone would take a sip. If it was grape juice, the juice would be poured into individual glasses. Sometimes we would toast and drink at the same time.
\nI\u2019ve been in other Lord\u2019s Supper meetings that were far more elaborate. Several months of planning went into them. In these meetings, everyone dressed up in formal attire. The church provided a beautiful spread, often in a rented banquet hall. The table was draped with a white linen cloth. The food was prepared ahead of time, and it was spread out on the table before the majority of the church arrived. I remember one such meeting quite vividly.
\nThis particular meeting began with everyone standing near their chairs, singing praises to God. Then, two people who were previously selected shared a few thoughts on the meaning of the bread as the rest of the church took their seats. Afterward, the bread was broken. It was passed around, and the meal began.
\nAs everyone began eating, one by one, men and women stood and shared something about the Lord Jesus Christ. A young woman stood and shared about how the blood of Christ cleansed her conscience. All of her guilt was gone. A man stood and shared a poem on the broken bread. Another gentleman who brought a guitar sang a song on the broken body and the precious blood. Following him, a sister in Christ stood and spoke on remembering the Lord\u2019s death.
\nSomeone then started a song on the eternal eating and drinking that has been going on in the triune God from before time began. And everyone began singing. Not a few times people would tear up. Others would rejoice. Sometimes we would clap while praising the Lord together. All the while the church was enjoying a lavish, bountiful meal. After several hours of eating, drinking, and sharing in this way, two people stood and spoke on the cup. The meal was concluded with everyone drinking from the cup and worshipping the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Should New Testament teaching and example shape how we observe the Lord\u2019s Supper today? If not, what should shape our observation of the Supper?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Were you stirred in any way by the description of the core elements of fellowship in the Supper? Have you ever experienced any of these elements when taking the Lord\u2019s Supper? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do we not do violence to the coparticipation of the triune God that the Supper was meant to depict when we strip it from a meal and turn it into a somber ritual? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do we really have a spiritual and biblical right to change the way the Lord\u2019s Supper is taken from the way that Jesus and the apostles originally delivered it to us? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 4
\nREIMAGINING THE GATHERING PLACE<\/p>\n
The choice of \u201cekklesia\u201d as the designation of the Christian community suggests that the New Testament believers viewed the church as neither an edifice nor an organization. They were a people\u2014a people brought together by the Holy Spirit\u2014a people bound to each other through Christ.
\n\u2014Stanley Grenz<\/p>\n
God wants the intimacy of the \u201cupper room\u201d to mark the gatherings of His children, not the stiff formality of an imposing public edifice. That is why in the Word of God we find His children meeting in the family atmosphere of a private home.
\n\u2014Watchman Nee<\/p>\n
So where do you go to church? This question is commonplace today. Yet it speaks volumes.
\nSuppose that a new employee was recently hired at your work-place. You learn that he is a Christian. Upon your asking what church he attends, he responds by saying: \u201cI attend a church that meets in a home.\u201d Now be honest. What are the thoughts that run through your mind? Do you think, \u201cWell, that\u2019s strange. He must be a religious misfit of some sort.\u201d Or, \u201cHe\u2019s probably part of some cult or flaky fringe group.\u201d Or, \u201cThere must be something wrong with him. If there wasn\u2019t, he would be going to a regular church.\u201d Or, \u201cHe has to be a rebel of some sort\u2014a loose cannon on the deck\u2014unable to submit to authority. Else he would be attending a normal church\u2014you know, the kind that meets in a building.\u201d
\nUnfortunately, these are the reactions of many Christians whenever the idea of a \u201chouse church\u201d is brought to their attention. But here\u2019s the punch line: That new employee\u2019s place of meeting is identical to that of every Christian mentioned in the New Testament. In fact, the church of Jesus Christ met in the homes of its members for the first three hundred years of its existence.<\/p>\n
The Witness of the Early Christians<\/p>\n
The common meeting place for the early Christians was none other than the home. Anything else would have been the exception. And the first-century church would have looked upon it as being out of the ordinary. Note the following passages:<\/p>\n
And breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart. (Acts 2:46 NKJV)<\/p>\n
I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house. (Acts 20:20 NASB)<\/p>\n
Greet Priscilla and Aquila.\u2026 Greet also the church that meets at their house. (Rom. 16:3, 5)<\/p>\n
Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. (1 Cor. 16:19)<\/p>\n
Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. (Col. 4:15)<\/p>\n
To Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home. (Philem. 2)<\/p>\n
The above scriptures show that the early Christians held their meetings in the hospitable homes of their fellow brethren. (See also Acts 2:2; 9:11; 10:32; 12:12; 16:15, 34, 40; 17:5; 18:7; 21:8.) Interestingly, the early church knew nothing of what would correspond to the \u201cchurch\u201d edifice of our day. Neither did it know anything about houses converted into basilicas. That is, none of the churches had hardwood pews bolted to the floor and a pulpit accompanying the living room furniture! While such oddities exist in our time, they were foreign to the early Christians.
\nThe first-century believers assembled in ordinary, livable houses. They knew nothing of \u201cchurch-houses.\u201d They only knew the \u201cchurch in the house.\u201d
\nWhat did the church do when it grew too large to assemble in a single home? It certainly didn\u2019t erect a building. It simply multiplied and met in several other homes, following the \u201chouse to house\u201d principle (Acts 2:46; 20:20).
\nNew Testament scholarship is agreed that the early church was essentially a network of home-based meetings. So if there is such a thing as a normal church, it\u2019s the church that meets in the house. Or as Howard Snyder once put it, \u201cIf there is a New Testament form of the church, it is the house church.\u201d
\nAdvocates of \u201cchurch\u201d buildings have tried to argue that the primitive Christians would have erected religious edifices if they weren\u2019t under persecution. They say that the early believers met in homes to hide from their persecutors. While this idea is popular, it\u2019s rooted in pure conjecture. And that conjecture doesn\u2019t map to actual history.
\nConsider these facts: The early church enjoyed peace and favor from the people (Acts 2:46\u201347; 9:31), and they made no secret about where they met; unbelievers could find them quite easily (Acts 8:3; 1 Cor. 14:23). The truth is that prior to AD 250, the persecution of Christians was sporadic and highly localized. It was typically the result of mob hostility in a local area. It wasn\u2019t an exercise of the Roman Empire. (That happened much later.)
\nThat said, if we read the New Testament with an eye for understanding how the first-century Christians related to one another, we\u2019ll quickly discover why they gathered in homes.<\/p>\n
(1) The Home Testifies That the People Comprise God\u2019s House<\/p>\n
The present-day notion of \u201cchurch\u201d is frequently associated with a building. (The building is commonly called the \u201csanctuary\u201d or the \u201chouse of God.\u201d) According to the Bible, however, it is the community of God\u2019s people that is called the church. The believing community is said to be the \u201chouse of God\u201d\u2014never the brick and mortar.
\nOne of the most striking marks of the early church was the absence of special religious buildings. In Judaism, the temple is the sanctified meeting place. In Christianity, the believing community is the temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21\u201322). Both Judaism and paganism teach that there must be a sanctified place for divine worship. Consequently, the ancient Jews erected special buildings to carry out their spiritual functions (synagogues). So did the pagans (shrines). Not so with Christianity. The early believers understood that God sanctifies people, not objects. In this way, the spatial location of the early Christian gathering cut sharply against the religious customs of the first century.
\nIn fact, the early church was the only religious group in the first century that met exclusively in the homes of its members. It would have been quite natural for the Christians in Judea to pursue their Jewish heritage and erect buildings to suit their needs. But they intentionally kept from doing so. The same is true for the Gentile Christians. None of them erected \u201cChristian\u201d shrines or temples. Not in the first century, anyway.
\nPerhaps the early Christians knew the confusion that sanctified buildings would produce. So they kept from building them to preserve the testimony that the Lord\u2019s people comprise the living stones of God\u2019s habitation.
\nJust think of the massive confusion that the common practice of calling a building a \u201cchurch\u201d has created today. Christians view buildings as \u201cthe house of the Lord\u201d and as possessing some sort of sacred element. But nothing could be further from the truth. The church of God has never been a building.<\/p>\n
(2) The Home Is the Natural Setting for One-Anothering<\/p>\n
The apostolic instructions concerning the church meeting are best suited for a small-group setting like a home. The organic activities of the church, such as mutual participation (Heb. 10:24\u201325); the exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:26); the building together of God\u2019s people into an intentional, face-to-face community (Eph. 2:21\u201322); the communal meal (1 Cor. 11); the mutual love of members one toward another (Rom. 15:14; Gal. 6:1\u20132; James 5:16, 19\u201320); the freedom for interactive sharing (1 Cor. 14:29\u201340); and the koinonia (shared life) of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17; 13:14) all operate best in a small-group setting like a house.
\nAdd to that, the fifty-eight \u201cone-another\u201d exhortations in the New Testament can only be fleshed out in a houselike environment. For this reason, the home church meeting is highly conducive to the realization of God\u2019s ultimate purpose. A purpose that is centered upon \u201cbeing built together\u201d as living stones to create a house for the Lord (Eph. 2:19\u201322).<\/p>\n
(3) The Home Represents the Humility of Christ<\/p>\n
The home represents humility, naturalness, and pure simplicity\u2014the outstanding marks of the early church (Acts 2:46; 2 Cor. 11:3). Let\u2019s face it. The home is a far more humble place than the stately religious edifices of our day with their lofty steeples and elegant decor. In this way, most modern \u201cchurch\u201d buildings reflect the boastings of this world rather than the meek and lowly Savior whose name we bear. Rodney Stark confirms the point, saying,<\/p>\n
For far too long, historians have accepted the claim that the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (ca. 285\u2013337) caused the triumph of Christianity. To the contrary, he destroyed its most attractive and dynamic aspects, turning a high-intensity, grassroots movement into an arrogant institution controlled by an elite who often managed to be both brutal and lax.\u2026 Constantine\u2019s \u201cfavor\u201d was his decision to divert to the Christians the massive state funding on which the pagan temples had always depended. Overnight, Christianity became \u201cthe most-favoured recipient of the near limitless resources of imperial favors.\u201d A faith that had been meeting in humble structures was suddenly housed in magnificent public buildings\u2014the new church of Saint Peter in Rome was modeled on the basilican form used for imperial throne halls.<\/p>\n
In addition, the overhead costs of a religious building cost God\u2019s people enormous financial loss. As George Barna and I point out in our book, Pagan Christianity, institutional churches in the United States alone own over $230 billion worth of real estate. And much of that money is borrowed (debt). Christians give between $9 and $11 billion a year on church buildings. How much freer would their hands be to support the poor and needy as well as to spread the gospel if they didn\u2019t have to bear such a heavy burden?<\/p>\n
(4) The Home Reflects the Family Nature of the Church<\/p>\n
There is a natural affinity between the home meeting and the family motif of the church that saturates Paul\u2019s writings. Because the home is the native environment of the family, it naturally furnishes the ekklesia with a familial atmosphere\u2014the very atmosphere that pervaded the life of the early Christians.
\nIn stark contrast, the artificial environment of the \u201cchurch\u201d building promotes an impersonal climate that inhibits intimacy and participation. The rigid formalism of the building runs contrary to the refreshing, unofficial air that the home meeting breathes.
\nIn addition, it\u2019s quite easy to \u201cget lost\u201d in a large building. Because of the spacious and remote nature of the basilica \u201cchurch,\u201d folks can easily go unnoticed. Or worse, hide in their sins. But not so in a home. All our warts show there. And rightly so. Everyone in the gathering is known, accepted, and encouraged.
\nIn this regard, the formal manner in which things are done in the basilica \u201cchurch\u201d tends to discourage the mutual intercourse and spontaneity that characterized the early Christian gatherings. Winston Churchill wisely said, \u201cFirst we shape our buildings. Thereafter, they shape us.\u201d Exegete the architecture of a typical church building and you\u2019ll quickly discover that it effectively teaches the church to be passive.
\nThe interior structure of the building is not designed for interpersonal communication, mutual ministry, or spiritual fellowship. Instead, it\u2019s designed for a rigid one-way communication\u2014pulpit to pew, leader to congregation.
\nIn this way, the typical \u201cchurch\u201d edifice is unquestionably similar to a lecture hall or cinema. The congregation is carefully arranged in pews (or chairs) to see and hear the pastor (or priest) speak from the pulpit.
\nThe people are focused on a single point\u2014the clergy leader and his pulpit. (In liturgical churches, the table\/altar takes the place of the pulpit as the central point of reference. But in both cases, the building promotes a clergy centrality and dependence.)
\nBut that\u2019s not all. The place where the pastor and staff are seated is normally elevated above the seating of the congregation. Such an arrangement reinforces the unbiblical clergy\/laity chasm. (See part 2 of this book for details.) It also feeds the spectator mentality that afflicts most of the body of Christ today.
\nBy contrast, the early Christians conducted their meetings in the home to express the unique character of church life. They met in houses to encourage the family dimension of their worship, their fellowship, and their ministry. Home meetings naturally made the people of God feel that the church\u2019s interests were their interests. It fostered a sense of closeness between themselves and the church, rather than distancing them from it. The situation today is very different. Most contemporary Christians attend \u201cchurch\u201d as remote spectators, not as active participants.
\nIn addition, home meetings provided a venue for God\u2019s people to demonstrate hospitality\u2014a basic virtue of authentic church life (Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9). The house church meeting provided both the connectedness and deep-seated relationships that characterize the ekklesia. It furnished the Christians with a family-like atmosphere where true fellowship occurred shoulder-to-shoulder, face-to-face, and eyeball-to-eyeball. It provided a climate that fostered open communication, spiritual cohesiveness, and unreserved communion\u2014the necessary features for the full flourishing of the koinonia (shared fellowship) of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
(5) The Home Models Spiritual Authenticity<\/p>\n
The church in the home also serves as a fruitful testimony of spiritual reality and authenticity. For many, it\u2019s a refreshing witness against those religious institutions that equate glamorous buildings and multimillion-dollar budgets with success.
\nEqually so, many non-Christians will not attend a modern religious service held in a basilica \u201cchurch\u201d where they are expected to dress up for the show. Yet they feel unthreatened and uninhibited gathering in the natural comfort of someone\u2019s home where they can be themselves.
\nThe unprofessional atmosphere of the home, as opposed to a clinical building, is much more inviting. Compared to a home, buildings are impersonal and nonrelational. Perhaps this is another reason why the early Christians chose to gather in homes rather than erecting shrines, sanctuaries, and synagogues, as did the other religions of their day.
\nIn addition, the home church meeting defies the unbiblical disconnect of sacred versus secular. There is no such disconnect in Scripture. Meeting for \u201creligious\u201d purposes in a \u201creligious\u201d building merely reinforces this unscriptural mind-set. But meeting in a home demonstrates that the sacred and the secular are blended together.
\nConsider the fellowship that exists within the triune God. There is no secular versus spiritual disconnect there. The Father is the natural abode of the Son, and the Son is the natural abode of the Father (John 10:30, 38; 14:10\u201311; 17:21\u201323). The Father, the Son, and the Spirit mutually and inseparably indwell one another. This mutual indwelling is intimate, natural, and constant. And it gives us a glimpse into the normative \u201chome life\u201d of God Himself. In the words of Kevin Giles, \u201cthe communion of the divine persons with each other is so complete that each could be said to be dwelling entirely in the other in a complete exchange of divine life.\u201d
\nMeeting in the naturalness of a home for the purpose of expressing the living God better reinforces this spiritual reality. Meeting in a \u201csacred\u201d building used for \u201csacred\u201d events distorts it.
\nIronically, many Christians believe that if a church doesn\u2019t own a building, its testimony to the world is inhibited and its growth stifled. But nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, the Christian faith grew dramatically for the first three hundred years of its life\u2014all without the use of \u201cchurch\u201d buildings.
\nIn all these ways, the house church meeting is fundamentally biblical. It\u2019s also spiritually practical. And it\u2019s strikingly at odds with the modern pulpit-pew-styled service where believers are forced to fellowship with the back of someone\u2019s head for an hour or two.<\/p>\n
The Social Location of the Church<\/p>\n
What\u2019s been said so far can be reduced to this simple but profound observation: The social location of the church meeting both expresses and influences the character of the church itself.
\nPut another way, the spatial setting of the church possesses theological significance. In the typical sanctuary or chapel, the pulpit, the pews (or rowed chairs), and the massive space breathe a formal air that inhibits interaction and relatedness.
\nThe peculiar features of a home produce the opposite effects. The low-volume seating. The casual atmosphere. The convivial setting for shared meals. The family pictures on the walls. The personalized space of soft sofas and comfy couches. All of these characteristics contain a relational subtext that befits mutual ministry.
\nStated simply, the early church met in the homes of its members for spiritually viable reasons. The modern institutional church undermines those reasons. Howard Snyder puts it beautifully:<\/p>\n
The New Testament teaches us that the church is a community in which all are gifted and all have ministry. The church as taught in Scripture is a new social reality that models and incarnates the respect and concern for people that we see in Jesus Himself. This is our high calling. And yet the church, in fact, often betrays this calling. House churches are a big part of the way out of this betrayal and this paradox. Face-to-face community breeds mutual respect, mutual responsibility, mutual submission, and mutual ministry. The sociology of the house church fosters a sense of equality and mutual worth, though it doesn\u2019t guarantee it as the Corinthian church shows.
\nThe New Testament principles of the priesthood of believers, the gifts of the Spirit, and mutual ministry are found most naturally in this informal context.
\nHouse churches are revolutionary because they incarnate this radical teaching that all are gifted and all are ministers. They offer some hope for healing the body of Christ from some of its worst heresies: that some believers are more valuable than others, that only some Christians are ministers, and that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer to function in our age. These heresies cannot be healed in theory or in theology only. They must be healed in practice and relationship in the social form of the church.<\/p>\n
Two Kinds of Meetings<\/p>\n
That the normative meeting place for the church was the home is, I believe, beyond dispute. But does this suggest that it\u2019s never appropriate for a church to gather in any other location? No, it does not.
\nOn special occasions when it was necessary for the \u201cwhole church\u201d to gather together, the church in Jerusalem met in large settings such as the open courts of the temple and Solomon\u2019s porch (Acts 2:46a; 5:12).
\nBut such large-group gatherings didn\u2019t rival the normative location for the regular church meeting, which was the house (Acts 2:46b). Nor did it set a biblical precedent for Christians to erect their own buildings.
\nThe temple courts and Solomon\u2019s portico were public, outdoor arenas that were already in existence before the first Christians appeared. These large-group settings simply accommodated the \u201cwhole church\u201d when it was necessary to bring it together for a particular purpose.
\nIn the beginning days of the church\u2019s existence, the apostles used such locations to hold apostolic meetings for the vast number of believers and unbelievers in Jerusalem (Acts 3:11\u201326; 5:20\u201321, 25, 42).
\nInstances where we find the apostles going to the synagogues should not be confused with church meetings. These were evangelistic meetings designed to preach the gospel to unsaved Jews. Again, the church meeting was primarily for the edification of believers. The evangelistic meeting was primarily for the salvation of unbelievers. (See chapter 2.)
\nAlong the same lines, Paul rented a building called the hall of Tyrannus to hold apostolic meetings for two years. But again, those meetings were temporary. They were designed to evangelize, plant a church, and train Christian workers (Acts 19:9\u201310). They didn\u2019t continue permanently. Such meetings would be akin to the special seminars, workshops, and conferences of our day.
\nPerhaps the Holy Spirit has led and will lead some to assemble in a building for special purposes. (Beyond spiritual ministry purposes, buildings can be used for kingdom work like feeding the poor, housing the homeless, clothing the needy, etc.) Perhaps He has and will lead some to even purchase a building for special purposes. But the Spirit will do so only if it truly suits the Lord\u2019s purposes.
\nLet it be clear that if God leads a church in this direction, it will not be driven by human zeal, tradition, or pressure to conform\u2014nor will it cloak it over with religious rhetoric justifying the decision.
\nThat said, should we not guard against the fleshly tendency to practice something simply because it represents the latest spiritual fad of the day? The Lord spare us from falling into the peril of ancient Israel wherein they aimlessly \u201cwent after the nations\u201d (1 Sam. 8:5, 20; 2 Kings 17:15 NASB). And may He deliver us from mindlessly adopting the present \u201cedifice complex\u201d because it\u2019s the conventional thing to do.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 When you see or hear the phrase house church or church in the home, what comes to your mind? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Should not house church meetings be more the rule than the exception due to the spiritual benefits that are bound up with them? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 After reading this chapter, isn\u2019t the question no longer, \u201cWhy do some churches meet in homes?\u201d but rather, \u201cWhy is it that so many churches do not meet in homes?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2022 Does it bother you at all that Christians spend $9 to $11 billion a year on church buildings, and that many of these buildings aren\u2019t owned in the clear, but instead, represent great debt? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 5
\nREIMAGINING THE FAMILY OF GOD<\/p>\n
Community is deeply grounded in the nature of God. It flows from who God is. Because he is community, he creates community. It is his gift of himself to humans. Therefore, the making of community may not be regarded as optional for Christians. It is a compelling and irrevocable necessity, a binding divine mandate for all believers at all times. It is possible for humans to reject or alter God\u2019s commission for them to build community and to be in community. But this may happen only at the cost of forsaking the Creator of community and of betraying his image in us; this cost is enormous, since his image in us is the essential attribute that defines our humanity.
\n\u2014Gilbert Bilezikian<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the metaphor that dominates most of American Christianity doesn\u2019t help us much; we usually envision the church as a corporation. The pastor is the CEO, there are committees and boards. Evangelism is the manufacturing process by which we make our product, and sales can be charted, compared, and forecast. Of course, this manufacturing process goes on in a growth economy so that any corporation-church whose annual sales figures aren\u2019t up from last year\u2019s is in trouble. Americans are quite single-minded in their captivity to the corporation metaphor. And it isn\u2019t even biblical.
\n\u2014Hal Miller<\/p>\n
Surprisingly, the Bible never defines the church. Instead, it presents it through a number of different metaphors.
\nOne of the reasons why the New Testament gives us numerous metaphors to depict the church is because the church is too comprehensive and rich to be captured by a single definition or metaphor. Unfortunately, our tendency is to latch on to one particular metaphor and understand the ekklesia through it alone.
\nBut by latching on to just one metaphor\u2014whether it be the body, the army, the temple, the bride, the vineyard, or the city\u2014we lose the message that the other metaphors convey. The result: Our view of the church will become limited at best or lopsided at worst.<\/p>\n
The Chief Metaphor<\/p>\n
Do you know what metaphor for the church dominates the New Testament?
\nIt\u2019s the family.
\nThe writings of Paul, Peter, and John in particular are punctuated with the language and imagery of family. Consider the following examples:<\/p>\n
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Gal. 6:10)<\/p>\n
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom. 8:29)<\/p>\n
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God\u2019s people and members of God\u2019s household. (Eph. 2:19)<\/p>\n
Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters. (1 Tim. 5:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God\u2019s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)<\/p>\n
Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation. (1 Peter 2:2)<\/p>\n
I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father. (1 John 2:12\u201313)<\/p>\n
While the New Testament authors depict the church with a variety of different images, their favorite image is the family. Familial terms like \u201cnew birth,\u201d \u201cchildren of God,\u201d \u201csons of God,\u201d \u201cbrethren,\u201d \u201cfathers,\u201d \u201cbrothers,\u201d \u201csisters,\u201d and \u201chousehold\u201d saturate the New Testament writings.
\nIn all of Paul\u2019s letters to the churches, he speaks to the \u201cbrethren\u201d\u2014a term that includes both brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul uses this familial term more than 130 times in his epistles. So without question, the New Testament is filled with the language and imagery of family.
\nIn stark contrast, the dominating metaphor that\u2019s typically constructed for the church today is the business corporation. The pastor is the CEO. The clergy and\/or staff is upper management. Evangelism is sales and marketing. The congregation is the clientele. And there is competition with other corporations (\u201cchurches\u201d) in the same town.
\nBut the corporation metaphor has a major problem. Not only is it glaringly absent from the New Testament, it does violence to the spirit of Christianity. Because from God\u2019s standpoint, the church is primarily a family. His family, in fact.
\nRegrettably, present-day society is plagued by what sociologists call the \u201cdysfunctional family.\u201d This is a family that has been profoundly broken in some way. It may be intact outwardly, but it\u2019s damaged inwardly. If the truth be told, many of our modern churches are in every sense of the word \u201cdysfunctional families.\u201d
\nMost Christians have no trouble giving glib assent to the idea that the church is a family. Yet giving mental assent to the family nature of the church is vastly different from fleshing out its sober implications. It would do us well to look closely at the family metaphor and discuss the practical implications that are connected with it. Let\u2019s explore six aspects of what it means for the church to be family. As you read through each aspect, I want to challenge you to compare your church to each one. Ask yourself this question: Is my church living in the reality of being the family of God?<\/p>\n
(1) The Members Take Care of One Another<\/p>\n
Because the church is family, its members take care of one another. Think about the natural family (assuming that it\u2019s healthy). Families take care of their own. Isn\u2019t it true that you take care of your natural blood? And they take care of you? If your mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter has a problem, do you say, \u201cSorry, don\u2019t bother me,\u201d or do you take care of them?
\nA true family takes care of its own, does it not? A dysfunctional family doesn\u2019t. A dysfunctional family is selfish, individualistic, and profoundly independent. It\u2019s characterized by detachment and unconnectedness. The members don\u2019t take the time to know one another. Nor do they seem to care much for each other.<\/p>\n
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, \u201cGo, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,\u201d but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:14\u201317)<\/p>\n
This passage puts a finger on the meaning of real faith. Real faith expresses itself in acts of love toward our brothers and sisters in Christ. To paraphrase James, \u201cIf you say you have faith, but you neglect your brother or sister who is in physical need \u2026 then your faith is dead.\u201d
\nThe \u201caction\u201d James is talking about is not prayer or Bible study, but acts of love toward our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Consider the words of Paul:<\/p>\n
Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. (Eph. 4:28 NKJV)<\/p>\n
Notice the last sentence: \u201cLet him labor, working with his hands.\u201d Why? \u201cThat he may have something to give to him who has need.\u201d
\nYou have no doubt heard of the \u201cProtestant work ethic.\u201d Ephesians 4:28 is the \u201cChristian work ethic.\u201d We work not just to meet our own needs; we work to meet the needs of others. That\u2019s a very different way of looking at work, isn\u2019t it? The New Testament envisions the church as a family that takes care of its members. Not only spiritually, but physically and financially\u2014in every way that a nuclear or extended family takes care of its own.
\nIn fact, if you read the first six chapters of the book of Acts, you\u2019ll quickly discover that the church in Jerusalem bore the burdens of its less fortunate brothers and sisters (Acts 4:34). Why? Because they saw themselves as an extended family\u2014a shared-life community.
\nThe early Christians regarded each member as \u201ctheir own.\u201d They saw themselves as \u201cmembers one of another\u201d (Rom. 12:5; Eph. 4:25 KJV). As a result, they took care of one another (Rom. 12:13; 1 Cor. 12:25\u201326; 2 Cor. 8:12\u201315). And why? Because the church is family.
\nRecall what Paul told the Galatian Christians: \u201cCarry each other\u2019s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ\u201d (Gal. 6:2). The law of Christ is the inward law of love that\u2019s written on the heart of every believer. This love is rooted in Calvary\u2019s love (John 15:12\u201313). And it innately moves toward our brothers and sisters in Christ. \u201cWe know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers\u201d (1 John 3:14).
\nAll told, if you belong to a church that\u2019s not taking care of the needs of its members, then your church is not fleshing out the New Testament vision of family. Again, the church is not a business; it\u2019s a family.<\/p>\n
(2) The Members Spend Time Together<\/p>\n
Because the church is family, the members take time to know one another. That is, they spend time together outside of scheduled meetings.
\nIn a dysfunctional family, the children barely know the parents. And the parents hardly know the children. The same is true for the siblings. They may live under the same roof, but they live separate lives. The only time they come together is when they have a scheduled meeting\u2014\u201cWe all have to go to Aunt Felicia\u2019s wedding this Saturday; so the family will all be together then.\u201d But after the event, the members rarely see one another.
\nQuestion: Do the members of your church see one another only during scheduled services? Are you in contact with them during the week? Do you share meals together? Consider the organic instincts of the Jerusalem church at work:<\/p>\n
They devoted themselves to the apostles\u2019 teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.\u2026 Every day they continued to meet together.\u2026 They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts. (Acts 2:42, 46)<\/p>\n
The early Christians had lives that interacted with one another. This was the church\u2019s DNA at work. If we follow our spiritual instincts, we will have an innate desire to gather together often. Why? Because the Holy Spirit serves as a kind of magnet that organically draws Christians together. The Holy Spirit puts within the hearts of all genuine believers a desire for authentic community.
\nAs Gilbert Bilezikian says, \u201cThe passion for community is contagious. Our innate need for community is so intense that once a spark of interest is ignited and a glimpse of God\u2019s dream for community is captured, a burning passion for community can spread like wildfire.\u201d
\nThe Bible says that the Jerusalem church met daily. Interestingly, the assembly in Jerusalem wasn\u2019t the only church that gathered together on a daily basis. Some thirty years later, the writer of Hebrews exhorts the Christians to \u201cencourage one another daily\u201d (Heb. 3:13). And yet today, in most contemporary churches, the only fellowship time that one gets is two minutes when the pastor says, \u201cTurn around and greet the people behind you.\u201d
\nGranted, you may grab a little more time in the parking lot as you make a beeline to your car. But can we really call that fellowship? Let\u2019s be honest: For many Christians, the church is simply an event one attends once or twice a week, and that\u2019s all.
\nTruthfully, some of us twenty-first-century Western Christians are afraid of intimacy. That\u2019s why many people would never be interested in a church that gathers in a home. It\u2019s far safer to hang out in a pew, inspect the back of someone\u2019s neck for two hours, and then go home.
\nBut the church of Jesus Christ is a family. It\u2019s not a theater. And in a family\u2014a healthy family\u2014everyone knows what\u2019s going on in one another\u2019s lives. Dad is having trouble with his boss at work, so we\u2019re praying for him. Sis is having problems in her calculus class. Our brother got a raise at his new job. Mom is learning how to make gourmet food. We know what\u2019s going on in one another\u2019s lives because we spend time together outside of scheduled events. The church is an extended household, and it\u2019s profoundly relational.
\nBy contrast, how can we truly flesh out the \u201cone another\u201d exhortations in the New Testament if the church to which we belong is not acting like a family? How can we walk them out in shoe leather if we don\u2019t even know the people with whom we do church?<\/p>\n
(3) The Members Show One Another Affection<\/p>\n
Because the church is family, its members greet one another with affection. Think about it: When you see your mother, your father, your children, or your out-of-town relatives, do you just salute them at a distance? Or do you exchange hugs and perhaps kisses?
\nIf your family is healthy, your answer is yes to the latter. It\u2019s the same way with the church. And why? Because the members of the church are related. For this reason, the apostles encouraged the early Christians to \u201cgreet one another with a holy kiss\u201d (1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; Rom. 16:16; 1 Peter 5:14). It seemed quite important to them that the members of each church express their love for one another visibly.
\nI\u2019ve met some Christians who have reacted to the above by saying, \u201cI don\u2019t feel comfortable hugging anyone from my church\u2014I barely know them.\u201d That reaction merely strengthens the point I\u2019ve been trying to underscore in this chapter. Namely, the institutional church and the organic church are two very different creatures.
\nLiving as the family of God means knowing our fellow brethren to the point where it\u2019s instinctive to show them affection. (The specific form of affection\u2014whether hugs, kisses on the cheek, etc.\u2014will differ depending on one\u2019s culture.)
\nBy contrast, a dysfunctional family shows no affection toward its members. The parents never touch the children. And the children grow up feeling unloved and unaccepted. They experience little to no verbal or nonverbal expressions of love.<\/p>\n
(4) The Family Grows<\/p>\n
Because the church is family, it will grow. A church grows in two ways. One way is through division and multiplication. That is, if a church grows too large, it may divide and multiply into two fellowships. Our bodies grow the same way. Cells divide and then multiply.
\nAnother way is by addition. That is, by giving birth to spiritual children. This is the principle of reproduction.
\nIf the Lord is at work in a church, it will grow. It may not be immediate. It may take time. But if the church is alive and healthy, it will grow\u2014both internally (spiritually) and externally (numerically).
\nChurches that live as families grow. Churches that operate as business corporations typically don\u2019t keep their converts. They may make converts, but those converts rarely become disciples and functioning members of the body. The reason? Christian community is indispensable for proper spiritual formation and development. The church that\u2019s living as family will produce transformation in its members. The church that isn\u2019t, won\u2019t.
\nIn this connection, the ghost of Protestant individualism haunts the average postwar evangelical church. And until it exorcises that spirit, it will continue to see little spiritual formation in its congregants.
\nLet\u2019s face it. People in our postmodern world are looking for family. They\u2019re looking for authentic community. They\u2019re looking for a group of Christians who genuinely love and care for each other. In other words, they\u2019re looking for organic Christianity.
\nNumerous people in our day have been trained by bad examples. Consequently, when they see a group of people who are truly laying their lives down for one another, who are accepting one another unconditionally, and who are loving one another freely despite their flaws\u2014they will be drawn like a thirsty deer is to water. In this way, the church as family answers the deepest cries that lie in the human heart.<\/p>\n
(5) The Members Share Responsibility<\/p>\n
If you look at a human family, you will see that each member has a different role. You don\u2019t ask the toddlers to go out and earn a living, do you? You don\u2019t expect the parents to consult the infants for wisdom. Each member has a distinct role\u2014the grandparents, the father, the mother, the children, the toddlers, and the infants. Everyone works together for the common good of the family.
\nThe family of God is the same way. In 1 John 2:13\u201314, John talks to the fathers, the young men, and the children. And he charges each with different responsibilities. Looking at the church through the body metaphor, each member\u2014the eyes, ears, hands, and feet\u2014has a different function.
\nIn a dysfunctional family, the members don\u2019t carry out their responsibilities very well. The parents either neglect the children or they abuse them. (In some cases, the parents worship them.) They don\u2019t train the children. Nor do they give them comfort or guidance.
\nIn the household of God, there are spiritual fathers and mothers. These are the older men and women who have known the Lord for a long time. Their role and responsibility before God is to give guidance and provide mentoring to the younger brothers and sisters. They also contribute their wisdom to the church.
\nIn God\u2019s family, these responsibilities are not held by position or office. Neither are they hierarchical. They are organic, and they operate by spiritual life.
\nBut here\u2019s the tragedy: Because so many of us have been conditioned in the institutional church, we have been forced to sit in a pew and passively listen to sermons week after week. And that\u2019s why scores of Christians associate \u201cchurch\u201d with an audience that hears a weekly oration.
\nThe result? Scores of spiritual fathers are not doing what they should be doing. Many of them have confessed to me that they see no place for their contribution in the traditional church. They feel that their long spiritual history with the Lord and the lessons they learned from it will die with them. Many feel that their spiritual experiences are being wasted.
\nBut in a church that functions according to the organic nature of the ekklesia, every member functions in the church meetings. They also function outside of the meetings in community life. The spiritual fathers and mothers are very active in this form of church. The fathers mentor the young men and provide wisdom during crises. The mothers teach the younger women how to be wise and how to function as wives and mothers (Titus 2:3\u20134).
\nThe young men bring excitement and strength to the church. But they need the stability of the older ones to temper them. The spiritual children inject newfound zeal into the believing community. But they need nurturing. They need the others to check up on them, feed them, change their diapers, and teach them how to walk with the Lord.<\/p>\n
(6) The Members Reflect the Triune God in Their Relationships<\/p>\n
As we have already established, the church envisioned in the New Testament is an ecclesial community that\u2019s modeled after the triune God. Father, Son, and Spirit are all related. Their familial fellowship is both the source and the goal of the church (1 John 1:1\u20133).
\nThe Godhead lives in everlasting reciprocity with each of its members. For that reason, the church is called to be a reciprocal community above everything else. Or in other words, a family.
\nBecause we are made in the likeness and image of God, we are only truly human when we are living in community. A church that is hierarchically structured or that relegates its fellowship to a weekly religious service violates this spiritual reality.
\nThe Trinity, therefore, shapes our understanding of the church. Significantly, the ancient Christians described the fellowship of the Godhead as an eternal dance. The three persons of the Trinity eternally give Themselves to one another. Each divine person lives out an eternal round of self-sacrificial love. The church is called to reflect this dance of fellowship and self-giving. But more than that, it has been introduced into the dance as a new partner!
\nAnd why? Because the church is family\u2014God\u2019s family.
\nInterestingly, the early Christians used the term perichoresis to describe the divine dance of fellowship that goes on between the Father, Son, and Spirit. (The prefix peri means \u201caround,\u201d and the word choresis literally means \u201cdancing.\u201d)
\nThe final end of humanity is to be fully taken up into the Trinitarian dance, brought fully into the circle of that superabundant love that flows within the Godhead (1 Cor. 15:24\u201328; Eph. 1:10). The good news is that we can live in the foretaste of that future reality now. As Miroslav Volf says, \u201cParticipation in the communion of the triune God, however, is not only an object of hope for the church, but also its present experience.\u201d
\nTragically, because we have arranged the church according to institutional lines for so long, we\u2019ve been conditioned to take some wrong steps in the dance. But seeing the church as family grounds our identity firmly in the triune God and draws us back into the circle.<\/p>\n
Community or Corporation?<\/p>\n
Again, the New Testament writers never use the imagery of a business corporation to depict the church. Unlike many modern \u201cchurches,\u201d the early Christians knew nothing of spending colossal figures on building programs and projects at the expense of bearing the burdens of their fellow brethren.
\nIn this way, many contemporary churches have essentially become nothing more than high-powered enterprises that bear more resemblance to General Motors than they do to the apostolic community. A great many churches have succumbed to the intoxicating seductions of an individualistic, materialistic, business-oriented, consumer-driven, self-serving society. And when everything is boiled down, the success of the enterprise rests upon the shoulders of the CEO\u2014the pastor.
\nAs the famed novelist Frederick Buechner says,<\/p>\n
The church often bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the dysfunctional family. There is the authoritarian presence of the minister\u2014the professional who knows all of the answers and calls most of the shots\u2014whom few ever challenge either because they don\u2019t dare to or because they feel it would do no good if they did. There is the outward camaraderie and inward loneliness of the congregation. There are the unspoken rules and hidden agendas, the doubts and disagreements that for propriety\u2019s sake are kept more or less under cover. There are people with all sorts of enthusiasms and creativities which are not often enough made use of or even recognized because the tendency is not to rock the boat but to keep on doing things the way they have always been done.<\/p>\n
In short, the church that\u2019s introduced to us in Scripture is a loving household, not a business. It\u2019s a living organism, not a static organization. It\u2019s the corporate expression of Jesus Christ, not a religious corporation. It\u2019s the community of the King, not a well-oiled hierarchical machine.
\nAs such, when the church is functioning according to its nature, it offers<\/p>\n
\u2022 interdependence instead of independence
\n\u2022 wholeness instead of fragmentation
\n\u2022 participation instead of spectatorship
\n\u2022 connectedness instead of isolation
\n\u2022 solidarity instead of individualism
\n\u2022 spontaneity instead of institutionalization
\n\u2022 relationship instead of programs
\n\u2022 servitude instead of dominance
\n\u2022 enrichment instead of insecurity
\n\u2022 freedom instead of bondage
\n\u2022 community instead of corporation
\n\u2022 bonding instead of detachment.<\/p>\n
In the language of the apostles, the church is composed of infants, little children, young men, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers\u2014the language and imagery of family (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Tim. 5:1\u20132; James 2:15; 1 John 2:13\u201314).<\/p>\n
The Church as Family in the Twenty-First Century<\/p>\n
I used to belong to one of the largest Pentecostal churches in the state of Florida. It was incredibly wealthy. I was good friends with a family who attended there. They were very poor.
\nThe following scene is seared in my mind forever. I was sitting in my friend\u2019s living room in the dark with his wife and four children. We talked over a flashlight and some candles. Why were we sitting in the dark? Because they couldn\u2019t pay their electric bill that month, and the power had been turned off.
\nThe wealthy church to which we all belonged didn\u2019t give this man or his family a red cent. At the time, I thought that was outrageous. Funny thing is, I still do. That incident was the last nail in the coffin for me. A short time afterward I left institutional Christianity, never to return again. And I began my journey into organic church life.
\nAs I think back on the organic churches that I\u2019ve met with over the past two decades, many scenes fill my mind. I\u2019m reminded of how faithfully the members of those churches embodied the family of God. I can think of times when one such church financially supported a couple and their children for several months because the husband was injured, had no insurance, and couldn\u2019t work for a season.
\nAnother scene comes to mind when a sister fell ill and couldn\u2019t drive. The single brothers took turns driving her to doctor\u2019s appointments and other places to fulfill her necessary errands. The sisters made meals for her. This went on for weeks.
\nI can think of another occasion when one church wept and mourned with a brother who experienced a family tragedy. All the believers stood by his side for many weeks, caring for his needs.
\nI\u2019m reminded of another where a sister fell into depression, and the other sisters descended on her home and cleaned it from top to bottom, entertained the children, did the laundry, cooked meals, etc. until she got back on her feet. I can think of another when the church refused to give up on an erring brother and loved him back to the Lord. I have vivid memories of how the members of these churches saw one another many times a week\u2014eating together, recreating together, laughing together, playing together, working together, hammering out personal issues together, and sharing their lives with one another.
\nStill other scenes fill my mind. Single brothers voluntarily babysitting the children of young couples in the church so that they can retreat and relax at a quiet dinner. The children in the church playing with one another at the beach, at picnics, and in the backyards of the believers. Shared meals where children eavesdropped on their parents as they talked to one another enthusiastically about the Lord\u2014then returning home to ask their moms and dads about what they heard.
\nAs we near the end of this chapter, however, I thought I would rehearse one particular story that reflects how an organic church can show its love for the members in some pretty creative ways. The following is a report that was given by a group of women in the first organic church I planted. They tell the story about one special Valentine\u2019s Day when the brothers in the church sought to remind them of Christ\u2019s love for them.<\/p>\n
This Valentine\u2019s Day, the brothers put on a grand hoopla for us sisters. They told us to dress up formally and wait for them at one of the sisters\u2019 homes. This would turn out to be an elegant occasion. Three of the brothers showed up. They were dressed formally with suits and ties. They brought a vase full of white tulips. They gave each of us a white tulip to hold. They told us how we represent the tulips. The white was for the purity of Christ; the green stem was for the life of Christ in us.
\nThen they took a picture of all of us so we would remember this evening. They escorted us to another house. We waited outside. What would happen next was a surprise. We had no idea. They told us that there was an artist in town. And he had opened up his art gallery to us. Finally, the doors opened and we walked in. There was a tour guide who escorted us into the house. The first stop was an exhibit: a tree in a potted plant. It had on it a poem that talked about what each of us sisters represented to the Lord. The poem equated us to different parts of the tree. We found pictures of each of us sisters on the leaves. It was very moving.
\nAt each exhibit, several of the brothers were role playing, telling each other what the exhibits were about. They stayed in character the whole time. They were in an art museum.
\nThe next exhibit was a collage of brothers holding pieces of a sign. Each sign contained a word. The words together spelled out a romantic poem that expressed Christ\u2019s love for His church.
\nThe next exhibit was a heart put in a frame. A big red heart. Cut out in the middle of the heart was a man and a woman holding hands. Inside the man were all the brothers\u2019 faces in the church cut out to make a collage that made up the image of the man. Inside the image of the woman were all the sisters\u2019 faces cut out to make a collage. To top it off, there were rays of color radiating out of the heart\u2014pink, green, and blue. Pink was for the Lord\u2019s love; green was for His joy; and blue was for His life. The man and the woman represented Christ and His bride.
\nThe last exhibit was a huge mirror. It was hanging and suspending from the ceiling. Above the mirror said \u201cthe bride.\u201d The tour guide had us all stand in front of the mirror, and he angled it so that all the sisters saw themselves in the mirror. The guide pointed out that on the mirror itself was a stain of red. It represented the stain of the blood of Christ. And the verse, \u201cnow we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face\u201d was placed above it. This was so very touching for us all.
\nOnce the tour was over, we were escorted outside the home. Two brothers came out and serenaded us. One had a guitar, and they both sang a song that they had written. They redid the song, \u201cEven though we ain\u2019t got money, I\u2019m so in love with you, honey.\u201d They rewrote the lyrics to say how much they loved us in Christ.
\nThey videotaped the whole event. And they sang more songs to us.
\nThen they invited us to come inside the house again. The room was suddenly transformed into a restaurant. They had long tables with a white cloth and elegant place settings. They used fine china with gold edging. The silverware matched. They used crystal glasses. They told us to sit every other person to leave room for them so they could sit by us later. They imported this unique organic gourmet butter that was tremendous.
\nThe brothers had prepared a lavish meal for us, and they waited on us sisters. Then they sat down to eat with us. The brothers did all the cooking. All four courses. It was genuine gourmet food. Two different brothers serenaded us again while we ate.
\nThat night our brothers honored us sisters. And they outdid themselves. They made us feel so special and so loved. They treated us like queens just as Christ treats His bride. We will never forget this day.<\/p>\n
When a church is operating according to its organic nature, it demonstrates that it really is the family of God. And thus the words of our Savior find fulfillment: \u201cBy this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another\u201d (John 13:35).<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Did it surprise you to discover that the New Testament authors\u2019 favorite metaphor for the church is the family? What does this teach us?<\/p>\n
\u2022 It\u2019s been suggested that the main reason why so many young people are turned off by the typical church is because it isn\u2019t functioning as a genuine family. Do you agree or disagree? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Is it really honest to call a particular church \u201ca family\u201d when its members hardly know one another? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do you have a desire to become part of an authentic community of believers that\u2019s learning what it means to be the family of God? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 6
\nREIMAGINING CHURCH UNITY<\/p>\n
The New Testament contains full instructions, not only about what we are to believe but what we are to do and how we are to go about doing it. Any deviation from those instructions is a denial of the Lordship of Christ. I say the answer is simple, but it is not easy for it requires that we obey God rather than man, and that brings down the wrath of the religious majority. It is not a question of knowing what to do; we can easily learn that from the Scriptures. It is a question of whether or not we have the courage to do it.
\n\u2014A. W. Tozer<\/p>\n
The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.\u2026 Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.
\n\u2014Paul of Tarsus in Romans 14:3; 15:7 NASB<\/p>\n
The church is the body of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12:12, 27 NASB). More specifically, the church is the body of Christ in a given location. Rightly understood, a local church contains all the members of Christ\u2019s body in a particular place.
\nFollowing this line of thought, Paul writes to the church in Rome exhorting the Christians to \u201caccept one another, just as Christ has accepted us\u201d (Rom. 15:7 NASB). According to Paul, the church is made up of all whom God has accepted. And whomever God accepts, we cannot refuse. Our acceptance of others doesn\u2019t make them members of the church. We accept them because they are already members. Therefore, if God has accepted you, then you belong to the church, and I must accept you.
\nThe upshot is that all Christians living in your city should consider you a fellow member of the household of God. And they should welcome fellowship with you. Why? Because you share the same life as that of every other believer.
\nMost Christians would agree with the principle of what I\u2019ve just written. However, the practice is another matter entirely. The trouble today is that scores of Christians have not made God\u2019s acceptance the basis for their fellowship. They have either added or removed something from this basic standard. Not a few contemporary \u201cchurches\u201d have either exceeded or narrowed the biblical basis for Christian unity\u2014which is the body of Christ. Allow me to unfold that.
\nSuppose a group of Christians regularly meets in your city. They call themselves \u201cFirst Presbycharisbaptist Community Church.\u201d You inquire about becoming a member. And you are quickly handed their statement of faith, which lists all the church\u2019s theological beliefs. Many of the doctrines that appear on this list go far beyond the essential foundations of the faith that mark all genuine Christians (such as faith in Jesus Christ, His saving work, His bodily resurrection, etc.).
\nAs you continue to attend \u201cFirst Presbycharisbaptist,\u201d you quickly discover that in order to be fully accepted by its members, you must hold to their view of spiritual gifts. You must also hold to their view of election and the second coming of Christ. If you happen to disagree with them on any of these points, you will be made to feel that you would be happier attending elsewhere.
\nDo you see the problem with this? While \u201cFirst Presbycharisbaptist\u201d claims to be a church, they do not meet the biblical benchmark for a church. Wittingly or unwittingly, they have undercut the biblical basis for fellowship, which is the body of Christ alone. The New Testament uses a term that describes such a group. It\u2019s the word sect.
\nPeople are accepted by God because they have repented and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, if a person belongs to the Lord, he or she is part of the body of Christ. And on that basis alone are we to accept them into fellowship.
\nIf a group of Christians demands anything beyond a person\u2019s acceptance of Christ before admitting that person into fellowship, then that group isn\u2019t a church in the biblical sense of the word. It\u2019s a sect. (The exception is if a Christian is willfully sinning and refuses to repent.) Repeat: All whom God has received are part of the body of Christ.<\/p>\n
The Problem of Sectarianism<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s consider the meaning of the word sect as it appears in Scripture. The Greek word translated sect is hairesis. It\u2019s used nine times in the New Testament, and it\u2019s translated \u201csect,\u201d \u201cparty,\u201d \u201cfaction,\u201d and \u201cheresy.\u201d
\nA sect is a division or a schism. It refers to a body of people who have chosen to separate themselves from the larger whole to follow their own tenets. The classic example of the sin of sectarianism is found in Paul\u2019s first letter to the Corinthians:<\/p>\n
My brothers, some from Chloe\u2019s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, \u201cI follow Paul\u201d; another, \u201cI follow Apollos\u201d; another, \u201cI follow Cephas\u201d; still another, \u201cI follow Christ.\u201d Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:11\u201313)<\/p>\n
In God\u2019s thought, the Corinthian church included all the Christians who lived in the city of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2). Yet some were drawing a circle around themselves that was smaller than the body of Christ in Corinth.
\nInstead of making the body of Christ their basis for Christian unity, some in Corinth were making their favorite apostolic worker the basis for their fellowship. With loving severity, Paul rebuked the church for its sectarian spirit, condemning it as a work of the flesh (1 Cor. 3:3\u20134; Gal. 5:19\u201320; Jude 19).
\nIf Paul\u2019s rebuke hadn\u2019t been heeded, four different sects would have arisen in Corinth\u2014all of them claiming to be churches: \u201cthe church of Peter,\u201d \u201cthe church of Apollos,\u201d \u201cthe church of Paul,\u201d and \u201cthe church of Christ.\u201d (This latter group was probably claiming, \u201cWe are the only ones who follow Christ. We don\u2019t need an apostolic worker like Paul, Peter, or Apollos to help us. We just need Jesus. We are of Christ.\u201d)
\nPlease understand. Anytime a group of Christians undercuts the biblical basis for fellowship by excluding those whom God has accepted\u2014whether explicitly or implicitly\u2014they are a sect. They may have a sign painted on their building that says \u201cchurch.\u201d They may even be incorporated with \u201cchurch status.\u201d But they fall short of the biblical definition of a church. The reason? Because the members are taking a sectarian stance.
\nThis doesn\u2019t mean that the members of a sect do not belong to the body of Christ. In most cases, they do. But it does mean that the institution that they have constructed to pose as a church falls short of the reality.
\nThat said, Christians should never join sects, because they are inherently divisive. And God does not own them. To put it plainly, the only church we as believers can claim is the one that Jesus Christ began\u2014His body in local expression. And that body receives and accepts all who have trusted in Jesus. While not a few Christians have narrowed the scope of the body of Christ, others have exceeded it. In their attempt to be all-inclusive, these groups have sought oneness with unbelievers. But this kind of oneness is foreign to the Bible. For only those whom Christ has accepted belong to His body. And only they make up His church.
\nTo receive unbelievers as family members is to turn the church into something earthly and human (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:6; 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4, 12). This of course doesn\u2019t mean that Christians should forbid unbelievers from attending their gatherings. We shouldn\u2019t forbid them (1 Cor. 14:23\u201324). But it does mean that we are not to accept them as our brethren. The oneness of the church, then, is limited to the body of Christ. And it can\u2019t be made smaller or larger than the body.<\/p>\n
How We Got Off Track<\/p>\n
Interestingly, the first-century Christians couldn\u2019t conceive of having more than one church in a city. For that reason, whenever the New Testament authors refer to a particular church, they identify it by the name of the city (Acts 8:1; 13:1; 18:22; Rom. 16:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).
\nIf you lived in the city of Jerusalem in AD 40, you would consider yourself to be part of the church in Jerusalem\u2014even though you may have met in a home with twenty believers (Acts 2:46). You also had a spiritual connection with the rest of the church in the city. And you gathered with them periodically (Acts 15:4ff.).
\nToday, the situation is very different. There are hundreds of \u201cchurches\u201d in the same city. Each one takes a separate name to distinguish itself from the others.
\nAn important question that\u2019s rarely asked is, how did this division occur? How did Christians move from seeing themselves as being part of the one church in the city to a countless number of sects in the same town?
\nI believe the division of the Christian church is rooted in the evolution of the clergy\/laity class distinction. This distinction began to crystallize around the third century. The emergence of this hierarchical system, which violently ruptured the priesthood of all believers into a clergy class and a laity class, was the first major division known to the body of Christ.
\nOnce the clergy\/laity fault line was created, various clergymen began to divide amongst themselves on theological matters. This spawned a self-perpetuating movement that has reproduced a raft of new sects in every generation. The notable feature of these sects is that the people within them gather around their favorite leader (or doctrine) instead of around Jesus Christ alone.
\nPerhaps a modern analogy will help to illustrate this sad chain of events. Suppose that Bob, a so-called layman, feels called to teach Scripture. In most institutional churches, Bob will have to \u201cgo into the ministry\u201d and establish a church himself to fulfill his calling. Perish the thought of the pastor sharing his pulpit with a layman on a continuous basis\u2014even if that layman has the gift of teaching. (See 1 Corinthians 14:26 for the folly of this mentality.)
\nAfter going through the proper institutional channels, Bob becomes a pastor. And he begins a new church in his vicinity. In reality, Bob\u2019s \u201cchurch\u201d is nothing more than an extension of his own ministry (and very likely, his own personality, too). It\u2019s also an unneeded addition to the endless sects that already exist in his town\u2014all of which are competing with each other to recruit members.
\nHerein lies the root of the problem. The institutional church Bob attended would not permit him to freely exercise his teaching gift in the church gatherings. Therefore, he saw no other alternative but to begin a congregation of his own. (By the way, I believe that many, if not most, modern churches exist to give the pastor a platform by which to exercise his teaching gift.)
\nIn this way, the clergy\/laity distinction has become the seedbed for the endless production of countless schisms in the body of Christ. For when gifted people are prevented from fulfilling their God-given callings, they feel forced to begin their own churches\u2014even though God may have never called them to do such a thing.
\nThis situation has not only engendered numerous sects, but it has forced thousands of gifted Christians to fulfill a job description that the New Testament nowhere envisions: the modern pastoral office. (See chapter 9.)
\nLet\u2019s contrast the above scenario with the way things were done in the first century. If Bob were a member of a first-century church, there would have been no need for him to venture out on his own to begin an institution that God never sanctioned. As a member of an organic church, Bob would have the freedom to function freely in his teaching gift. (See chapter 2.) The church would make decisions by consensus, so Bob would have a voice in all of the church\u2019s decisions. (See chapter 10.)
\nBob would only have left the church under one of five conditions: (1) if he refused to stop committing a known sin after being corrected by the church, (2) if he moved to another city, (3) if he was ambitious to begin his own ministry independently, (4) if the church he belonged to ceased from being an authentic ekklesia and became a business organization or a sect, or (5) if God called him to genuine apostolic work\u2014in which case the church would send him out. Keep in mind that first-century apostles were not sent out to build their own spiritual franchises. They established organic churches where there were none present.
\nIn sum, modern sectarianism finds it roots in the clergy\/laity class distinction. In this regard, Diotrephes\u2014whom John described as loving to have \u201cthe preeminence\u201d\u2014is not alone in the history of men who hunger for center stage in the church (3 John 9\u201310 NKJV). Lamentably, Diotrephes is still forbidding members of Christ\u2019s body from ministering in the Lord\u2019s house.<\/p>\n
Unity Through Organization<\/p>\n
Most Christians agree that the church is severely divided in our day. The limbs of our Lord\u2019s body have been butchered, fragmented, sliced, and diced into denominations, movements, and parachurch organizations.
\nUpon seeing the problem of sectarianism, some have proposed organizational unity as the solution. This brand of unity envisions all of the various strands of Christendom working together and relating to one another under the banner of a unified association. This kind of ecumenism, however, typically expresses itself at the higher levels only. The pastors of various churches may meet together regularly, forming an \u201cassociation of ministers\u201d of sorts.
\nWhile such an expression of unity is good, it\u2019s inadequate. It only touches a segment of the body of Christ (the clergy) and fails to touch the root problem of sectarianism. For these reasons, it\u2019s a bit like holding hands over the fence.
\nWhile it\u2019s a noble step to accept those who are part of differing Christian traditions, doing so doesn\u2019t go far enough. Denominations are man-made divisions. They are religious organizations that meet around a common denominator other than the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, denominations undermine biblical principle and fragment the body of Christ. For this reason, the early church knew nothing about denominations. It would seem to me, then, that God\u2019s ideal would be for the \u201cfence\u201d to come down altogether.
\nThe only basis for Christian fellowship is the body of Christ plus nothing. The body of Christ minus nothing. The body of Christ alone. For this reason, professor of systematic theology John Frame says, the Bible \u201crequires the abolition of denominationalism.\u201d Frame even considered calling one of his books The Curse of Denominationalism.
\nUnfortunately, a large number of believers today, especially a growing number of clergy, are not willing to touch that sore spot. It\u2019s far easier on our flesh to remain in close fellowship with those whose beliefs tally with our own. It\u2019s far more difficult to live with those who differ in doctrine, personality, worship style, spiritual practice, and the like.
\nWhile many Christians are willing to leave their comfort zones up to a point, a half-baked expression of unity is as far as most of us will go. The result is that the good often becomes the enemy of the best.
\nThis reminds me of the kings of Israel who cleansed the temple but left the high places untouched. True oneness requires the power of the cross to work deeply in our lives. For this reason, Paul lovingly charged the church in Ephesus to be \u201clongsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, [for] there is one body\u201d (Eph. 4:2\u20134 KJV).
\nSuch an exhortation makes little sense if those to whom Paul wrote divided themselves into sects and only fellowshipped with each other when it was convenient. On the contrary, the church that\u2019s envisioned in the New Testament knew nothing of separating Christians according to denominational camps, Christian franchises, religious partisans, and spiritual tribal units. Neither did it know anything about forming an association of clergy.
\nRather, every member of the body of Christ in a given locale belonged to the same church. Not just in spirit, but in practical expression. Each believer saw his or her fellow Christians as organs in the same body. Bricks in the same building. Siblings in the same family. Soldiers in the same army.
\nAs John W. Kennedy says,<\/p>\n
A scattered pile of bricks is not a house, although they may be united in appearance; one brick looks very much like another. Similarly, a scattered company of regenerated people all claiming that they are one in Christ is not a church. They must be \u201cfitly framed together,\u201d each one contributing his particular place in the spiritual building, and conscious of the bond of life and mutual responsibility which binds all of them together.<\/p>\n
This being the case, a Christian may leave a sect or a religious organization that calls itself a \u201cchurch.\u201d This is not the same as leaving a church that meets on the ground of Christ alone.<\/p>\n
Unity Through Doctrine<\/p>\n
Doctrinal unity is another idea that some have offered as a solution to mend the divisions in the church. Christians who endorse this type of unity talk much about the need for \u201cdoctrinal purity.\u201d But making doctrinal purity the basis for fellowship typically ends up splintering the body of Christ even further.
\nI\u2019ll put the problem in the form of a question: Whose doctrines are you willing to divide the body of Christ over? If you say, \u201cthe doctrines of the Bible,\u201d the question then becomes, which doctrines and whose interpretation of them?
\nRemember: Repentance and faith in Jesus Christ is what brings God\u2019s acceptance.
\nIn my observation, those who stress doctrinal unity often go through life extremely suspicious of their brothers and sisters in Christ from other traditions. I believe that spiritual discernment is one of the most pressing needs among Christians today. But it\u2019s fundamentally unbiblical and profoundly unchristian to go about scrutinizing our fellow brethren with a critical eye.
\nThe Bible warns against those who are ruled by a prideful, faultfinding spirit. This is the very spirit that marks the accuser of the brethren\u2014the master divider of Christ\u2019s body (Jude 16; Rev. 12:10). If we make the Lord our sole pursuit, He will show us when falsehood is present. But if we\u2019re always seeking to smell the whiff of error in others, we\u2019ll be sure to miss the Lord when He is speaking through one of His little ones.
\nSo rather than actively looking to floodlight the misconceptions of other Christians, I suggest we seek to find something of Christ whenever a brother or sister opens his or her mouth. Again, incorrect interpretations of the Bible are no grounds for dividing Christ\u2019s body. If Jesus Christ has accepted you, I must also\u2014despite how lacking in light you may be or how incorrect your views of the Bible are. And you must accept me on the same basis.
\nIf the perfect interpretation of the Bible were the standard for Christian fellowship, then I would have had to disfellowship myself fifteen years ago! I\u2019m still learning, thank God, and my interpretations of Scripture are maturing. None of us has a corner on the truth. And if a person thinks he does, he\u2019s deluded. In the words of Paul, \u201cWe know in part\u201d (1 Cor. 13:9).
\nIn that connection, I have to wonder what will happen when Jesus returns. I can imagine all the Christians who specialized in perfect doctrine passing out after they discover who made it into the kingdom. Angels will be running around all over the place with smelling salts to wake them up!<\/p>\n
Unity Through Organism<\/p>\n
If we begin with the Trinitarian Community, then we can conclude that the anatomy of Christian unity is neither organizational nor doctrinal. It\u2019s organic. The crucial issue regarding fellowship and oneness is that of the life of Christ.
\nTherefore, the core questions that ought to govern our fellowship are simply these: Has God accepted this person? Does the life of Christ reside in him or her? Has the individual called on the name of the Lord that saves (Rom. 10:12\u201313)? Is he or she part of the body of Christ?
\nThe indwelling life of Jesus Christ is the only requirement for the unity of the Spirit. And amazingly, we Christians can detect that shared Spirit whenever we meet one another. There\u2019s an instant sense of kinship that testifies that we have the same Father.
\nCertainly, those who have been born of the Spirit will live in a way that is consistent with this fact. Yet they may not be clear on many spiritual things. Their personality may conflict with ours. Their worship style may be distasteful to us. They may be immature and have struggles in areas that we\u2019ve surpassed. They may be painfully eccentric. Their understanding of the Bible may be poverty stricken. They may make mistakes that they regret. And they just might hold to some false ideas. Yet the fact that Christ dwells in them obligates us to accept them as family members. Not only \u201cin word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth\u201d (1 John 3:18 NKJV).<\/p>\n
Restoring Our Common Oneness<\/p>\n
Today the practical expression of the church\u2019s oneness is severely marred. God\u2019s people have splintered themselves into masses of disjointed, unconnected congregations all operating independently of one another. While the Lord works through His people regardless of their divisions, I don\u2019t believe that He approves of them.
\nDuring the New Testament era, each church was completely unified. All the believers in a specific locale lived as members of one family. For example, if you and I lived in the city of Jerusalem, we belonged to the same church, even though we may have met in different homes throughout the city. (Interestingly, the early church always took the name of the city. They had no other name\u2014Acts 8:1; 13:1; 18:22; Rom. 16:1; etc.)
\nIf I entertained thoughts of making my favorite apostle the basis of unity and ventured to meet with others of like mind to form the \u201cchurch of Paul,\u201d I would be corrected for my sectarian tendency (1 Cor. 3:3\u20134).
\nIronically, we make the same partisan distinctions without wincing when we say, \u201cI\u2019m a Baptist,\u201d \u201cI\u2019m a Pentecostal,\u201d \u201cI\u2019m a Charismatic,\u201d \u201cI\u2019m a Calvinist,\u201d \u201cI\u2019m a Presbyterian,\u201d etc. We conveniently forget that Paul leveled a stern rebuke to the Corinthians when they began to denominate themselves in the same way (1 Cor. 1:11\u201313).
\nTo be quite candid, the modern denominational system runs contrary to the organic nature of the church of Jesus Christ. That nature moves toward the complete oneness of His people\u2014just as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in the Godhead.
\nIn the words of Leonardo Boff, \u201cIn this life, the church lives on the communion of the Trinity; its unity derives from the perichoresis [interpenetration] that exists between the three divine Persons.\u201d Note again our Lord\u2019s prayer in the gospel of John:<\/p>\n
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20\u201323)<\/p>\n
There is a unified diversity in the triune God\u2014a plurality in oneness. God is one Being in three persons\u2014all of whom are diverse, but not separate.
\nThe Greek word koinonia\u2014which means fellowship\u2014takes us to the heart of New Testament ecclesiology. Koinonia reflects the unified diversity inherent in the Trinity. And it is what characterized the first-century church. As Kevin Giles puts it, \u201cThis fellowship does not aim to overcome all diversity, but rather to embrace it in a dynamic, relational, and growing bond of love and understanding.\u201d Because there\u2019s a unified diversity in the Godhead, there\u2019s a unified diversity in the church. Denominationalism ruptures this spiritual reality. And it makes division in the body of Christ acceptable.<\/p>\n
A Modern-Day Example<\/p>\n
Perhaps you are wondering if I believe that the denominational system will one day disappear, and Christians everywhere will begin to practically express their oneness in Christ. Unfortunately, I don\u2019t see a day like that coming in my lifetime. But I do hope that those of you who read this book will apply its message to your own life and act accordingly.
\nPersonally, I never knew the degree to which Christian unity was possible until I stepped outside the institutional church. Since then, I have been privileged to be part of a number of organic churches that were united around Jesus Christ alone.
\nImagine a church where the members are incredibly close, yet they aren\u2019t overly concerned about one another\u2019s political affiliations. Imagine a church where the members don\u2019t know one another\u2019s views on the rapture. Imagine a church where the members don\u2019t know one another\u2019s theories on the millennium\u2014and really don\u2019t care to know them. Imagine a church that has only one pursuit, one obsession, one goal, and one grand purpose: to know and love the Lord Jesus Christ.
\nThis doesn\u2019t mean that various topics are off-limits for discussion. But it does mean that they will not become the focus of the church, nor will they constitute a basis for dividing God\u2019s people.
\nLet me rehearse a true story on this score. In 1992, I watched two very different groups of Christians come together and express the oneness of the body of Christ. One group had a charismatic background. The other, a Church of Christ background. (I was part of the group that had the charismatic background.)
\nAfter a few joint meetings, both groups decided to do what was humanly impossible. We resolved to meet together as one church. Not long after that decision was made, the sparks began to fly.
\nI remember those days graphically. We met in homes. Our meetings were open and participatory. Yet every meeting we had was like walking through a minefield. The environment was emotionally laden and highly flammable. The tenseness of coming to a gathering where half the group was used to functioning one way (in spiritual gifts), and the other half another way, was almost intolerable.
\nI could rant on about the war-story details, but I\u2019ll spare you. Let me just say that a few months after we merged together, we witnessed a church split. And our strained efforts at preemptive peacemaking and spiritual finessing couldn\u2019t prevent it.
\nBefore the split, we had some rather intense discussions over our differences. But none of them brought a resolution. Most of those discussions degraded into noise. The only thing they increased was the blood pressure.
\nConsequently, some left the group. But with our garments still smoking, those of us who remained together received illumination from the Lord. A proposal was presented and all agreed upon it. To my mind, our decision proved to be worth its weight in gold.
\nWhat was the decision? It was this: that all of us lay down our view of spiritual gifts at the foot of the cross. So we did. Each one of us agreed to drop whatever we thought or experienced about the working of the Holy Spirit. We died to it completely. We gave it up. And we asked the Lord to teach us all over again as little children (Matt. 18:3).
\nFrom that point on, our entire focus shifted from what we thought we knew about the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. We resolved to strip down to Christ alone, and we set our eyes exclusively on Him.
\nAfter about a year, something miraculous occurred. There rose up\u2014out of death, out of the grave in the newness of life\u2014the gifts of the Spirit. But they didn\u2019t look like anything we had seen in the Pentecostal\/charismatic movement. And they certainly didn\u2019t look like anything in the Church of Christ tradition. (All things look different in resurrection.)
\nThose of us who remained and committed to toughing out the storm were genuinely built together. And I experienced something I had only read about in the Bible\u2014I saw two very diverse groups of Christians love one another through their differences. The result was what Paul declared to the Corinthians: \u201cI appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought\u201d (1 Cor. 1:10). This experience, while bloody at first, proved to me in living color that the unity of the faith is more than a pious ideal.
\nHealthy organic church life is nonsectarian, nonelitist, and nonexclusive. Such churches meet on the ground of Christ alone. Therefore, if Christians in organic churches are willing to go to the cross and refuse to divide from one another over doctrinal differences, God can knit their hearts and minds together.
\nIt may involve much long-suffering, forbearance, and dying a thousand deaths. But that\u2019s exactly what Paul said the price would be for preserving the unity of the Spirit: \u201cWith all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace\u201d (Eph. 4:2\u20133 NKJV).<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Are we really taking seriously the Lord\u2019s prayer for the unity of His people when we divide over theological beliefs, eschatology, politics, race, Bible versions, children\u2019s education, and other such things? Can you add some other dividing lines to this list?<\/p>\n
\u2022 In light of 1 Corinthians 1:12\u201313, do you agree or disagree with the statement that denominationalism has made division in the body of Christ acceptable? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Can you reimagine a church where every member is centered on Christ alone rather than the scores of peripheral issues that create schism among believers? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 7
\nCHURCH PRACTICE AND GOD\u2019S ETERNAL PURPOSE<\/p>\n
Viewed within the context of the triune God himself, the church is community. Ultimately, the community which is to characterize the church results from our communion with the Spirit. To understand this, we must review the grand sweep of God\u2019s eternal purpose as it relates to his own triune nature. The Father sent the Son in order to realize God\u2019s eternal design to draw humankind and creation to participate in his own life. Only in our Spirit-produced corporateness do we truly reflect to all creation the grand dynamic that lies at the heart of the triune God. Our fellowship is nothing more than our common participation in the divine communion between the Father and the Son mediated by the Holy Spirit.
\n\u2014Stanley Grenz<\/p>\n
Americans see the isolated individual as the source of all moral virtue and society as nothing more than a collection of these individuals. Evangelicalism implicitly agreed. It spoke eloquently of saving individuals; but it did not take seriously what these individuals were saved into. They preached the gospel of the individuals rightly enough; but as true Americans, they did not see that God might intend to go further and make a people out of these persons. Evangelicalism sought to transform people and so transform the world. They did not see that something might be missing from this vision, something their assumption of American individualism would hide from them. The true Christian vision is to transform people, transforming them into a people, and so transform the world. The evangelicals missed that middle term. They could not see the church as a foretaste of the new society; it was a club for the new individuals. The evangelicals simply dressed American individualism in Christian clothing. They ended up with the new isolated individuals, but in the old society.
\n\u2014Hal Miller<\/p>\n
Over the years, a number of people have asked me, \u201cFrank, the church really doesn\u2019t matter, does it? The Christian life is the primary thing; the church is secondary, right?\u201d
\nMy response to that question has been \u201cThe church matters very much, because it matters so much to God. And it should never be separated from the Christian life.\u201d
\nConsequently, behind the practice of the church stands an enormous and incredible purpose. Paul calls it the \u201ceternal purpose\u201d (Eph. 3:11).<\/p>\n
The Mission of God<\/p>\n
Throughout the book of Ephesians, Paul spills a great deal of ink trying to unveil the eternal purpose of God to the Christians in Asia Minor. The entire letter is a breathtaking unfolding of the divine purpose. In it, Paul puts the most sublime truths into human words. In Ephesians, the ultimate purpose and passion that God has had in His heart from ages past is richly set forth.
\nEphesians teaches us that the purpose of God stands far outside the reaches of redemption. In eternity past, God the Father has been after a bride and a body for His Son and a house and a family for Himself. These four images\u2014the bride, the body, the house, and the family\u2014comprise the grand narrative of the entire Bible. And they lie at the center of God\u2019s beating heart. They are His ultimate passion, His eternal purpose, and His governing intention. To put it another way, God\u2019s eternal purpose is intimately wrapped up with the church.
\nAs I write this book, there\u2019s a great deal of talk about the Missio Dei (God\u2019s Mission) in Christian circles. I think this can be a healthy emphasis. But exactly what is God\u2019s mission? I suggest that it\u2019s nothing other than God\u2019s eternal purpose.
\nAs long as I\u2019ve been a Christian, I have made this simple observation: Our modern gospel is entirely centered on human needs. The plotline of that gospel is one of a benevolent God whose main purpose is blessing and healing a fallen world. Thus our gospel is centered on saving man\u2019s spirit\/soul (evangelism) and\/or saving his body (healing the sick, delivering the captives, helping the poor, standing with the oppressed, caring for the earth, etc.). In short, the gospel that\u2019s commonly preached today is \u201chuman centered.\u201d It\u2019s focused on the needs of humanity, be they spiritual or physical.
\nBut there is a purpose in God that is for God. That purpose was formed in Christ before the fall ever occurred. The meeting of human needs is a by-product, a spontaneous outflow, of that purpose. It\u2019s not the prime product.
\nTellingly, God didn\u2019t create humans in need of salvation. Go back to the creation project in Genesis 1 and 2, and you will discover that God\u2019s purpose preceded the fall. That should lead us to ask a very incisive question: What was God going to do with human beings if they had never fallen?
\nThroughout my years as a Christian, I\u2019ve been involved in movements that majored in evangelism, others that majored in social activism, and others that majored in spiritual gifts. All of these things were made \u201cends in themselves.\u201d None of them were integrated into God\u2019s ultimate purpose. In fact, \u201cthe eternal purpose\u201d was never mentioned. The result was that those activities, though good and noble, failed to satisfy the beating heart of God.
\nLet me explain the last paragraph by giving an illustration. Imagine that a general contractor purchases twenty acres of land by which to build a housing complex. After the houses are built, he wishes to have a landscape garden at the entrance of the complex. This is his goal. So he hires someone to plant beautiful trees. He hires another to lay large rocks. He hires another to plant beautiful flowers. And he hires another to plant shrubs and bushes.
\nThe person who plants the trees plants them randomly throughout the complex. The person who lays the rocks does the same. So does the person who plants the flowers. The person who plants the shrubs and bushes does the same.
\nWhen the contractor observes what they have all done, he\u2019s very disappointed. His goal was a landscape garden. Instead, he sees that the flowers, rocks, trees, shrubs, and bushes are all disconnected and scattered about the complex haphazardly.
\nIs it good to plant trees? Yes. Is the planting of flowers a positive thing? Certainly. But these things \u201cin themselves\u201d were not the contractor\u2019s goal. He wanted a landscape garden.
\nThat describes the kingdom of God today. Many good deeds, but an overwhelming disconnection from God\u2019s ultimate goal\u2014which happens to be from Him, through Him, and to Him (Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16\u201318; Eph. 1:5).<\/p>\n
Overshooting the Main Point<\/p>\n
Why is it that so many of us Christians have shot past the main point? Why have we not seen the greater purpose of God amid all of our books, magazines, Web sites, blogs, CDs, DVDs, conferences, and seminars?
\nIf I knew the answer to that, I would be twofold a Solomon. I\u2019ll make an educated guess, however. I think part of the reason is that evangelical Christians have built their theology mostly on Romans and Galatians. And many nonevangelical Christians have built it on the Gospels (particularly the Synoptics\u2014Matthew, Mark, and Luke). And for both groups, Ephesians and Colossians have been but footnotes.
\nBut what if we began, not with the needs of humans, but with the intent and purpose of God? What if we took as our point of departure, not the earth after the fall, but the eternal activity in God Himself before the constraints of physical time?
\nIn other words, what if we built our theology on Ephesians and Colossians and allowed the other New Testament books to follow suit? Why Ephesians and Colossians? Because Ephesians and Colossians give us the clearest look at Paul\u2019s gospel with which Christ commissioned him. These two letters begin, not with the needs of postfall humans, but with God\u2019s timeless purpose before creation. They also introduce us to Christ in His preincarnate state.
\nI assert that if we did this, the Gospels, and the rest of the New Testament (let alone the entire Old Testament), would fall into a very different place for us. And the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ and His counterpart, the church, would dominate our understanding of everything spiritual and physical.
\nContrary to popular opinion, the Gospels are not the beginning point of the Christian faith. Neither is the Old Testament. Both give us the middle of the story. Ephesians, Colossians, and the gospel of John are the introduction and the opening chapters of that story. Those writings give us a glimpse into Christ before time and what His mission is all about. His earthly life that\u2019s portrayed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke must be understood against that backdrop.
\nIn this regard, we can liken the gospel that most of us heard to watching Star Wars Episodes IV, V, and VI first (which is the way they came out in the theaters). But for us to really understand what\u2019s going on in that drama, we must begin at the right place with Episodes I, II, and III.
\nAgain, human beings didn\u2019t come into this world in need of salvation. Saving souls, feeding the poor, and alleviating the suffering of humanity was not part of God\u2019s first motion in eternity past because the fall had not yet occurred.
\nPlease don\u2019t misunderstand. I\u2019m not against any of these things. On the contrary, I\u2019m strongly for them. But God has a purpose\u2014an eternal purpose\u2014that humans were to fulfill before sin entered the scene. And He has never let go of it. Everything else is and should be related to it. As DeVern Fromke says,<\/p>\n
This which we see in Ephesians is what the Father intended to realize in His Son, and it has never been affected by sin, the fall, or time. It was this purpose which had previously been a mystery, that the Apostle Paul was now unveiling. For the Father from eternity had a wonderful purpose for Himself which of course included man. Redemption is not the end, but only a recovery program. It is but a parenthesis incorporated into the main theme.<\/p>\n
Truthfully, it would require another book to unfold the eternal purpose of God adequately. (I\u2019m in the process of writing such a book. It\u2019s called From Eternity to Here: Rediscovering the Ageless Purpose of God.) In this chapter, I will briefly introduce some of its major elements.<\/p>\n
Tracing an Unbroken Thread<\/p>\n
One of the easiest places in which to discover God\u2019s eternal purpose is in the first two chapters of the Bible (Genesis 1 and 2) and the last two chapters of the Bible (Revelation 21 and 22). The reason is because these four chapters are the only chapters in Holy Writ that are untouched by sin. Let me explain.
\nGenesis 1 and 2 have to do with events before the fall. Revelation 21 and 22 have to do with events after the fall has been erased. The fall begins immediately when Genesis 2 closes, and it ends right before Revelation 21. Genesis 3 opens with the Devil deceiving Eve. Revelation 20 ends with the Devil being thrown into the lake of fire.
\nBecause of their uniqueness, Genesis 1 and 2 and Revelation 21 and 22 teach us a great deal about God\u2019s eternal purpose. All four chapters are filled with many glorious themes that can be traced throughout the entire Old Testament and the entire New Testament. They move like an unbroken thread from Genesis 1, all the way through the rest of the Bible, to their grand climax in Revelation 22.
\nThis fact alone tells us that God has never given up on His eternal purpose. Even in the midst of the fall, He has still been working it out.
\nAn exercise that will be well worth your time is to identify all of the common items that appear in Genesis 1 and 2 and Revelation 21 and 22. You will be surprised at how many there are. Once you\u2019ve discovered them, trace each one throughout the entire Bible. To do this thoroughly could take years. But it will give you enormous insight into God\u2019s ultimate purpose.
\nFor the sake of time and space, I will briefly list ten of the most important items that appear in these four chapters. If you tie them all together, you will get a fairly clear glimpse of the divine purpose. They are:<\/p>\n
1. A Corporate God. In Genesis 1:26, the Lord says, \u201cLet us make man in our image.\u201d This is the Godhead speaking. And not only speaking, but planning. The triune God is taking counsel with Himself, and He is conceiving an eternal plan. \u201cLet us,\u201d He says. This is divine corporateness and divine community\u2014an exchange of divine fellowship. The Godhead is giving birth to His eternal purpose.<\/p>\n
2. Man. There\u2019s a man in Genesis 1 and 2, and there\u2019s a man in Revelation 21 and 22. The Bible is a story of two men. An old man and a new man. And these two men have been in an enormous battle from the dawn of the fall until now.
\nAdam was the new man, but he quickly turned into the old man. All who are born of Adam are part of the lineage of the old man. Jesus Christ is the Head of the new man. And that new man has a body.
\nThe old man is the founder of organized religion. Organized religion is built on human ritual and hierarchy. By contrast, Christianity began as organic. But as time went on, it adopted the hierarchical structure of the Roman Empire. All of our denominations have adopted that same organizational structure. This structure can be traced to the old man. It originally came from the Babylonians and was passed on to other cultures, including the Romans.
\nThe new man is a spiritual organism, not an institutional organization. He\u2019s an organic body. Thus God\u2019s eternal purpose is wrapped up with the creation of a new man.<\/p>\n
3. A Corporate Humanity. Genesis 1:26 says, \u201cLet us make man \u2026 and let them \u2026\u201d God said, \u201cLet us [plural] make man \u2026 and let them [plural] \u2026\u201d Within the Godhead stands an enormous purpose that is corporate. And at the center of that purpose is a humanity that was created to live and act corporately unto God and not unto themselves. So there is corporateness in God, and there is corporateness in man. God\u2019s eternal purpose is intensely corporate.<\/p>\n
4. Image-Bearing. Genesis 1:26 says, \u201cLet us make man in our image.\u201d God wanted man to be His image-bearer on the earth. The Almighty Creator, who is invisible, created a visible image of Himself for angels, animals, and Himself to see. The image of God can be traced all throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
\nNote that the task of bearing God\u2019s image was not given to any individual. It was given to a them. God wanted a corporate expression of Himself in the earth. He was determined to bring His image into this physical realm. Put another way, God desired to have a corresponding community on earth that reflects the community in the Godhead. And since God is corporate, only a corporate people could do that. In the words of Stanley Grenz, \u201cOnly in our Spirit-produced corporateness do we truly reflect to all creation the grand dynamic that lies at the heart of the Triune God.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. Rulership. Genesis 1:26 goes on to say, \u201cLet us make man in our image \u2026 and let them rule.\u201d This corporate man\u2014the \u201cthem\u201d of Genesis 1\u2014was to have dominion over creation, including the creeping things (Gen. 3:1ff.; Luke 10:9; Rev. 12:9). God wanted to rule the earth through a corporate humanity. And that rulership extended to God\u2019s own Enemy. (The serpent creeps on the ground.)<\/p>\n
6. A Garden. In Genesis 2:8, there is a garden. The garden was an interface of two realms. It was a meeting place. Visible man and the invisible God walked in the garden together. In the garden, we have two realms touching. It was the place where God\u2019s space and man\u2019s space intersected.
\nHerein lies an important spiritual principle: From the beginning, God determined to have a marriage of two realms. He was determined to have something on this earth that would bear His image and exercise His dominion. And He will eventually have it. There will be a wedding of the spirituals with the physicals \u2026 the visibles with the invisibles \u2026 the seen with the unseen \u2026 divinity with humanity \u2026 God with man. He had this wedding in Jesus Christ, and He will have it in His church.
\nThe garden is also a lumberyard. It contains the materials that God builds with. There\u2019s a special tree in the garden called the Tree of Life. And human beings were called to eat from that Tree and live by the life within it. There\u2019s also a flowing river in the garden. And that river produces building materials: gold, pearl (bdellium), and precious stone.
\nYou can trace the garden, the tree, the river, the gold, the pearl, and the precious stone all throughout the Bible\u2014from the Old Testament to the New. All of these items have a great deal to do with God\u2019s eternal purpose.
\nWhen we come to the end of the Bible, we discover that the house of God is built with gold, pearl, and precious stones. The garden has been transformed into a glorious city. And the Tree and the river reappear in magnificent splendor.<\/p>\n
7. A Woman. There is also a woman in Genesis 1. But she is hidden. She doesn\u2019t make her appearance until Genesis 2. Where is the woman hidden? She is hidden inside the man. In Genesis 2, God puts Adam into a deep sleep and takes a woman out of him.
\nConsider the fact that man was made in the image of God. Therefore, just as there was a woman hidden inside of Adam, there has also been a woman hidden inside of God.
\nThe bride of Christ was chosen in Christ before time (Eph. 1:4\u20135). And when the fullness of time came, the Son of God entered the earth. After His ministry on earth was complete, God the Father put His Son into a deep sleep on a hill called Calvary. Then in His resurrection, He released that woman onto the earth\u2014and her name is ekklesia (Rom. 5:14; Eph. 5:23\u201333). She is the church of the living God\u2014the bride of Christ. And the wonderful news is that you and I are part of that woman!
\nYou can trace this woman from Genesis 1 and 2 all the way through the Bible. In fact, the gospel of Jesus Christ begins with this woman. In John 3, a prophet named John the Baptist declares, \u201cI am the friend of the Bridegroom\u201d (John 3:29). God\u2019s eternal purpose, therefore, has something to do with a mystery hidden in God from ages past\u2014and that mystery is a woman (Eph. 3:1\u20139; 5:32; Col. 1:26\u201327). This woman reappears in Revelation 21 and 22 in her glorious state.<\/p>\n
8. An Earth. In Genesis 1, we have the first mention of the earth and the land. Throughout biblical history, a battle has raged over the earth and the land. That battle has been between God and His Enemy. The central issue of that battle is this: Who will have the dominion?
\nThis battle relates to the kingdom of God, which is a major theme of Scripture. The eternal purpose, therefore, has a great deal to do with God\u2019s ruling the earth through a corporate humanity.
\nUnfortunately, many evangelicals have been taught that when Adam and Eve fell, God decided to scrap the earth and redeem a small group of people out of it that He will take to heaven. But God loves the earth, and He wishes to redeem it (Ps. 78:69; Eccl. 1:4; Rom. 8:20ff.). He has promised to fill the earth with His glory as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11:9; Hab. 2:14). Ultimately, God will bring heaven to the earth (Rev. 22), just as it was in the garden of Eden.
\nIn this regard, one of the postfall purposes of the church is to continue the ministry of Jesus outlined in Luke 4:18, which is to preach the good news of the kingdom to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to set the captives free, to relieve the oppressed, and to give sight to the blind.
\nThe body of Christ is not only called to be local communities that serve as pilot projects of the new heaven and the new earth; but it\u2019s also called to be God\u2019s agent of redemptive healing to this fallen world. The church is called to fulfill the Abrahamic promise, which was to be a \u201cblessing to all nations\u201d (Gen. 18:18; 22:18; Gal. 3\u20134). In all these ways, the Lord\u2019s prayer that God\u2019s will be done \u201con earth as it is in heaven\u201d is given visible expression through the church.<\/p>\n
9. Sonship. There are three ways a person can become a son. One is by creation. Another is by adoption. Still another is by birth. Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38). But Adam was a son of God by creation. He had no father but God.
\nGod, however, wanted Adam to partake of His divine life through the Tree of Life\u2014thus making him a son by birth. Adam failed to do this. But Jesus Christ entered the earth as the second Adam, and all who partake of Him today become authentic sons of God (John 1:12; 6:57). You can trace the theme of sonship all throughout the Old Testament and the New. God\u2019s purpose is to make His only begotten Son the firstborn among many brethren, and to bring many sons unto glory (Rom. 8:28\u201329; Heb. 2:10). In other words, God wants a family.<\/p>\n
10. Oneness. Finally, there is oneness in Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 2 ends with the man and the woman becoming one. You can trace the theme of oneness all throughout the Scriptures. This theme reaches its climax in Revelation 21 and 22, when the bride of Christ becomes the wife of God, and the two become one.<\/p>\n
Drawing It All Together<\/p>\n
All of the above elements teach us a great deal about God\u2019s eternal purpose. From the beginning, God wanted a bride to marry, a house to dwell in, a family to enjoy, and a visible body through which to express Himself. All of these images\u2014the bride, the house, the family, and the body\u2014point to the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is from Him, through Him, and, ultimately, to Him (Rom. 11:36).<\/p>\n
Not to us, O LORD, not to us but to your name be the glory. (Ps. 115:1)<\/p>\n
As Miroslav Volf says, \u201cThe church lives from something and toward something that is greater than the church itself.\u201d That something is God and His eternal purpose.
\nThe church, then, is not only called to proclaim the gospel, but to embody it by its communitarian life. Unfortunately, the church in the West is dominated by individualistic, anticommunal forces. Its obsession with consumerism, individualism, and materialism has kept it from fulfilling God\u2019s ultimate intention.
\nOn this score, Gilbert Bilezikian says, \u201cChrist did not die just to save us from sins, but to bring us together into community. After coming to Christ, our next step is to be involved in community. A church that does not experience community is a parody, a sham.\u201d
\nSimply put, the purpose of the church is to stand for God\u2019s eternal purpose. It\u2019s called to live in the foretaste of Revelation 21 and 22. Thus from the viewpoint of God\u2019s eternal purpose, the church exists to be<\/p>\n
\u2022 the incarnation and manifestation of the ultimate passion of God
\n\u2022 the organic expression and physical extension of the Trinitarian Community
\n\u2022 the corporate image-bearer of the Lord Jesus Christ on the earth
\n\u2022 the family of God
\n\u2022 the divine building whereby every living stone is being transformed, reshaped, and fitted together to form the Lord\u2019s temple
\n\u2022 the colonial outpost of the coming kingdom
\n\u2022 the masterpiece of God
\n\u2022 the spiritual \u201cBethany\u201d where Jesus of Nazareth is received, obeyed, and adored in the midst of a rejecting world
\n\u2022 the vessel in which the power of Christ\u2019s resurrection life is visibly displayed
\n\u2022 the object of God\u2019s supreme affection and delight
\n\u2022 the willing vehicle for Christ\u2019s manifested presence
\n\u2022 the torchbearer of the testimony of Jesus
\n\u2022 the \u201cone new man\u201d\u2014the new species\u2014the \u201cthird race\u201d
\n\u2022 the fianc\u00e9e of Jesus Christ\u2014His very body, His very bride
\n\u2022 the new humanity marked out in the Son of God before time and brought into existence by His cross
\n\u2022 the Christian\u2019s native habitat
\n\u2022 the spiritual environment where face-to-face encounters between the bride and Bridegroom take place
\n\u2022 the living witness to the fullness and headship of God\u2019s Son
\n\u2022 the colony from heaven that bears the image of its Ruler<\/p>\n
In short, whenever the church gathers together, its guiding and functioning principle is simply to incarnate Christ (1 Cor. 12:12).<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 What stood out to you the most in this chapter? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 If you had been asked about God\u2019s eternal purpose and ultimate passion (before reading this chapter), what would you have said? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 What could be some of the results if Christians turned their faces from meeting their own needs to fulfilling God\u2019s ultimate intention?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Are you willing to discard the man-centered gospel that\u2019s commonly preached today and center your life on God\u2019s governing purpose? If so, how?<\/p>\n
PART TWO
\nLEADERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 8
\nREIMAGINING LEADERSHIP<\/p>\n
The New Testament doctrine of ministry rests therefore not on the clergy-laity distinction but on the twin and complementary pillars of the priesthood of all believers and the gifts of the Spirit. Today, four centuries after the Reformation, the full implications of this Protestant affirmation have yet to be worked out. The clergy-laity dichotomy is a direct carry-over from pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism and a throwback to the Old Testament priesthood. It is one of the principal obstacles to the church effectively being God\u2019s agent of the Kingdom today because it creates a false idea that only \u201choly men,\u201d namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry. In the New Testament there are functional distinctions between various kinds of ministries but no hierarchical division between clergy and laity.
\n\u2014Howard Snyder<\/p>\n
When we go back to the Word of God and read it afresh, we see that the clergy profession is the result of our human culture and history and not of God\u2019s will for the church. It is simply impossible to construct a defensible biblical justification for the institution of clergy as we know it.
\n\u2014Christian Smith<\/p>\n
Today, the leadership structure that characterizes the contemporary church is hierarchical and positional. In the following pages, we\u2019ll examine this structure and reimagine a form of leadership that\u2019s completely different. One that is envisioned in Scripture and rooted in the triune God.
\nThe present-day leadership structure is derived from a positional mindset. This mind-set casts authority in terms of slots to fill, job descriptions to carry out, titles to sport, and ranks to pull. It resonates with concern over explicit leadership structures. According to the positional mind-set, terms like pastor, elder, prophet, bishop, and apostle are titles representing ecclesiastical offices. (An office is a sociological slot that a group defines. It has a reality apart from the character and actions of the person who fills it.)
\nBy contrast, the New Testament notion of leadership is rooted in a functional mind-set. It portrays authority in terms of how things work organically. That is, it focuses on the expression of spiritual life.
\nLeadership in the New Testament places a high premium on the unique gifting, spiritual maturity, and sacrificial service of each member. It lays stress on functions, not offices. It emphasizes tasks rather than titles. Its main concern lies in activities like pastor-ing, elder-ing, prophesy-ing, oversee-ing, apostle-ing, etc.
\nTo frame it another way, positional thinking is hung up on nouns, while functional thinking stresses verbs.
\nIn the positional leadership framework, the church is patterned after the military and managerial structures of contemporary culture. In the functional leadership framework, the church operates by life\u2014divine life. Mutual ministry comes forth naturally when God\u2019s people are equipped and hierarchical structures are absent.
\nNative to hierarchical\/positional-oriented churches is a political machine that works behind the scenes. This machine promotes certain people to positions of ecclesiastical power and authority. Native to functionally oriented churches is the mutual responsibility and collegial interplay of its members. They listen to the Lord together. They affirm each other in their Spirit-endowed gifts. They encourage one another toward Christ.
\nIn sum, the New Testament orientation of leadership is organic and functional. The hierarchical\/positional orientation is fundamentally worldly.<\/p>\n
Jesus and the Gentile\/Hierarchical Idea of Leadership<\/p>\n
Our Lord contrasted the hierarchical leadership style of the Gentile world with leadership in the kingdom of God. After James and John implored Jesus to grant them the glorified powerseats beside His throne, the Lord replied, saying,<\/p>\n
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. (Matt. 20:25\u201328 NASB)<\/p>\n
And again,<\/p>\n
The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called \u201cBenefactors.\u201d But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. (Luke 22:25\u201326 NASB)<\/p>\n
Significantly, the Greek word for \u201cexercise authority\u201d in Matthew is katexousiazo. Katexousiazo is a combination of two Greek words: kata, which means over; and exousiazo, which means to exercise authority. Jesus also used the Greek word katakurieuo in this passage, which means to \u201clord it over\u201d others.
\nWhat Jesus is condemning in these texts is not oppressive leaders as such. He\u2019s condemning the hierarchical form of leadership that dominates the Gentile world.
\nThat bears repeating.
\nJesus was not just condemning tyrannical leaders. He was condemning the hierarchical form of leadership itself.
\nWhat is the hierarchical form of leadership? It\u2019s the leadership style that\u2019s built on a chain-of-command social structure. It\u2019s rooted in the idea that power and authority flow from the top down. Hierarchical leadership is rooted in a worldly concept of power. This explains why it\u2019s endemic to all traditional bureaucracies. It\u2019s present in the vicious forms of liege\/lord feudalism and master\/slave relationships. But it\u2019s also present in the highly stylized spheres of military and corporate America.
\nWhile often bloodless, the hierarchical leadership style is undesirable for God\u2019s people. Why? Because it reduces human interaction into command-style relationships. Such relationships are foreign to New Testament thinking and practice. Yet hierarchical leadership is employed everywhere in secular culture. And the institutional church operates by it.
\nSumming up our Lord\u2019s teaching on this style of leadership, the following contrasts come into sharp focus:<\/p>\n
\u2022 In the Gentile world, leaders operate on the basis of a political, chain-of-command social structure\u2014a graded hierarchy. In the kingdom of God, leadership flows from childlike meekness and sacrificial service.
\n\u2022 In the Gentile world, authority is based on position and rank. In the kingdom of God, authority is based on godly character. Note Christ\u2019s description of a leader: \u201cLet him be a servant,\u201d and \u201clet him be as the younger.\u201d In our Lord\u2019s eyes, being precedes doing. And doing flows from being. Put differently, function follows character. Those who serve do so because they are servants.
\n\u2022 In the Gentile world, greatness is measured by prominence, external power, and political influence. In the kingdom of God, greatness is measured by humility and servitude.
\n\u2022 In the Gentile world, leaders exploit their positions to rule over others. In the kingdom of God, leaders deplore special reverence. They rather regard themselves \u201cas the younger.\u201d<\/p>\n
In brief, the hierarchical leadership structure characterizes the spirit of the Gentiles. The implanting of these structures into the church, therefore, is at odds with New Testament Christianity. Our Lord didn\u2019t mince words in declaring His implicit disdain for the Gentile notion of leadership: \u201cIt shall not be so among you!\u201d (Matt. 20:26 KJV) is His explicit feeling on it.
\nAll in all, there is no room in the teaching of Jesus for the hierarchical leadership model that characterizes the institutional church.<\/p>\n
Jesus and the Jewish\/Positional Model of Leadership<\/p>\n
Our Lord also contrasted leadership in the kingdom with the leadership model that marks the religious world. In the following text, Jesus vividly expresses God\u2019s perspective on authority in contrast to the Jewish perspective. Note His words:<\/p>\n
But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. (Matt. 23:8\u201312 NASB)<\/p>\n
Gathering up the content of this text, we may glean the following:<\/p>\n
\u2022 In the religious climate of the Jews, a class system exists made up of religious, guru-like specialists and nonspecialists. In the kingdom, all are brethren in the same family.
\n\u2022 In the Jewish world, religious leaders are accorded with honorific titles. (examples: teacher, father, reverend, pastor, bishop, minister, etc). In the kingdom, there are no distinctions of protocol. Such titles obscure the unique honor of Jesus Christ and blur the New Testament revelation that envisions all Christians as ministers and priests.
\n\u2022 In the Jewish world, leaders are exalted into positions of prominence and outward display. In the kingdom, leaders find their identity in the lowly towel of servitude and in the unassuming basin of humility.
\n\u2022 In the Jewish world, leadership is rooted in status, title, and position. In the kingdom, leadership is rooted in inward life and character.<\/p>\n
(In this vein, the current fad of bestowing honorary \u201cdoctorates\u201d before the names of countless clergy is one example of how the contemporary church mirrors those values that run contrary to God\u2019s kingdom.)<\/p>\n
In sum, leadership according to Jesus is a far cry from what it is in the institutional church. Our Lord dealt a deathblow to both Gentile\/hierarchical and Jewish\/positional leadership models.
\nThese ego-massaging models are incompatible with the primitive simplicity of the organic church and the upside-down kingdom of Jesus Christ. They impede the progress of God\u2019s people. They suppress the free functioning of the believing priesthood. They rupture the image of the church as family. They do violence to the leadership that exists in the triune God. And they place severe limitations on the headship of Christ. For these reasons \u201cit shall not be so among\u201d those who bear the name of the Savior.<\/p>\n
The Modern Clergy System<\/p>\n
Scripture makes clear that Jesus condemned the hierarchical\/positional leadership structure. But what about Paul and the other apostles?
\nContrary to popular thinking, the New Testament letters never cast church leaders in terms of \u201coffices\u201d and other conventions of human social organization. (We\u2019ll deal with the various passages that are commonly used to support church \u201coffices\u201d in chapter 9.)
\nWhenever the New Testament describes people who are chiefly responsible for spiritual oversight, it does so by mentioning the work they do. Functional language dominates. Verbs are prominent.
\nIn this connection, the modern clergy system is a religious artifact that has no biblical basis. This system has allowed the body of Christ to lapse into an audience due to its heavy reliance on a single leader. It has turned church into the place where Christians watch professionals perform. It has transformed the holy assembly into a center for professional pulpiteerism supported by lay-spectators.
\nPerhaps the most daunting feature of the clergy system is that it keeps the people it claims to serve in spiritual infancy. Because the clergy system usurps the Christian\u2019s right to minister in a spiritual way during corporate gatherings, it ends up debilitating God\u2019s people. It keeps them weak and insecure.
\nWithout question, many\u2014if not most\u2014of the people who are part of the clergy profession love God\u2019s people and desire to serve them. Many of them sincerely want to see their fellow brethren take spiritual responsibility. (Numerous clergy have expressed their frustration with not seeing their congregations take more responsibility. But few of them have traced the problem to their own profession.)
\nYet the clergy profession ends up disempowering and pacifying the believing priesthood. This is the case regardless of how uncontrolling the person who fills the clergy position may be.
\nHere\u2019s how it works. Since clergy carries the spiritual workload, the majority of the church becomes passive, lazy, self-seeking (\u201cfeed me\u201d), and arrested in their spiritual development.
\nJust as serious, the clergy system warps many who occupy clerical positions. The reason? God never called anyone to bear the heavy burden of ministering to the needs of the church by himself. Yet regardless of the spiritual tragedies the clergy profession engenders, the masses continue to rely on, defend, and insist upon it. For this reason the so-called laity is just as responsible for the problem of clericalism as is the clergy.
\nIf the truth be told, many Christians prefer the convenience of paying someone to shoulder the responsibility for ministry and shepherding. In their minds, it\u2019s better to hire a religious specialist to tend to the needs of God\u2019s people than to bother themselves with the self-emptying demands of servanthood and pastoral care.
\nThe words of the ancient prophet capture the Lord\u2019s disposition toward this mind-set: \u201cThey have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.\u201d (Hos. 8:4a KJV). In short, the modern clergy system is far removed from the thought of God. It puts the living, breathing organism of the church into an Old Testament straightjacket.
\nIn light of these sobering facts, one may intelligently ask how it is that the clergy profession remains to be the commonly accepted form of church leadership today. The answer lies deeply entrenched in the history of the Reformation. And it continues to be reinforced by current cultural imperatives.
\nIn short, the clergy profession is little more than a one-size-fits-all blending of administration, psychology, and oratory that\u2019s packaged into one position for religious consumption. As such, the sociological role of clergy, as practiced in the West, has few points of contact with anything or anyone in the New Testament.
\nAgain, clergy need not be despots in order to hinder mutual ministry. Most of them are well-intentioned and gifted Christians who sincerely believe that God has called them to their profession. Many are benevolent dictators. Some are spiritual tyrants with a Machiavellian quest for power who imprison and freeze the life of their congregations.
\nThe point is that clergy need not use vicious forms of authority to be harmful to body life. The mere presence of the one-up\/one-down hierarchical mode of leadership suppresses mutual ministry. This is true regardless of how nonauthoritarian in temperament the clergyman may be.
\nThe mere presence of clergy has the deadening effect of conditioning the congregation to be passive and perpetually dependent. Christians are taught from childhood that pastors (and priests) are the religious specialists. They are the qualified ones who handle the \u201cspiritual\u201d things of God, while everyone else is called to secular work. Because clergy are viewed as the religious specialists, the rest of the church sees themselves as passive recipients.
\nAs Christian Smith says, \u201cThe problem is that, regardless of what our theologies tell us about the purpose of clergy, the actual effect of the clergy profession is to make the body of Christ lame. This happens not because clergy intend it (they usually intend the opposite) but because the objective nature of the profession inevitably turns the laity into passive receivers.\u201d
\nThe average believer is probably unaware that his or her notion of leadership has been shaped by centuries of ecclesiastical history (about seventeen hundred years\u2019 worth). For this reason, the clergy concept is so embedded in our thinking that any attempt to deviate from it will often meet fierce opposition.
\nMany modern Christians are just as resistant to the idea of dismantling the clergy as are the clergy themselves. The words of Jeremiah have pertinent application: \u201cThe prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so\u201d (Jer. 5:31 KJV). In short, clergy and nonclergy alike are responsible for the ailments of the present-day church.
\nThe truth is that many of us\u2014like Israel of old\u2014still clamor for a king to rule over us. We want a visible mediator to tell us what \u201cGod hath said\u201d (Ex. 20:19; 1 Sam. 8:19). The presence of a human mediator in a church is a cherished tradition to which many Christians are fiercely committed. But it doesn\u2019t square with Scripture. And in my judgment, it suppresses the free functioning and full maturing of Christ\u2019s body.
\nTo repeat the point: The trouble lies not with clergy as people. It lies with the system to which they belong. Christian Smith puts it beautifully:<\/p>\n
The clergy profession is fundamentally self-defeating. Its stated purpose is to nurture spiritual maturity in the church\u2014a valuable goal. In actuality, however, it accomplishes the opposite by nurturing a permanent dependence of the laity on the clergy. Clergy become to their congregations like parents whose children never grow up, like therapists whose clients never become healed, like teachers whose students never graduate.
\nThe existence of a full-time, professional minister makes it too easy for church members not to take responsibility for the on-going life of the church. And why should they? That\u2019s the job of the pastor (so the thinking goes). But the result is that the laity remain in a state of passive dependence. Imagine, however, a church whose pastor resigned and that could not find a replacement.
\nIdeally, eventually, the members of that church would have to get off of their pews, come together, and figure out who would teach, who would counsel, who would settle disputes, who would visit the sick, who would lead worship, and so on. With a bit of insight, they would realize that the Bible calls the body as a whole to do these things together, prompting each to consider what gift they have to contribute, what role they could play to build up the body.<\/p>\n
Some modern pastors would deny that their office is part of a clerical hierarchy. However, Kevin Giles cuts through the fog of this denial. In describing pastor-led churches, he makes this pointed critique:<\/p>\n
The stranger paradox is that in such churches there is usually also a strong emphasis on lay ministry, sometimes expressed in terms of the exercise of charismatic gifts, but what we find is that the ministry of the whole body is always seen as in some way very different to that of the pastor who represents God. In these churches, teaching on authority structures in the church and the home is constantly given. It is emphasized that the pastor or pastors have been set over the flock, leadership is a male preserve, and the flock is to obey. This is seldom described as a hierarchical order, but this is what it is in reality.<\/p>\n
In light of the above, it\u2019s no wonder that eminent scholar James D. G. Dunn said that the clergy-laity tradition has done more to undermine New Testament authority than most heresies. Dunn also observes:<\/p>\n
Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism\u2014when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts \u2026 such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change.<\/p>\n
On that sober note, let\u2019s reimagine a new kind of leadership in the church. One that\u2019s based on the organic nature of the body of Christ and grounded in God Himself.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do you think the church would be better off if we followed the teachings of Jesus on leadership rather than accepting the hierarchical\/positional form of leadership? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 If the clergy profession is foreign to the church that Jesus and the apostles established, should we continue to support and affirm it? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 In Colossians 2:8, Paul exhorts the believers in Colosse not to allow any man to spoil them through the philosophies and rudiments of this world. Do you believe this includes the rudiments and philosophies of the business world? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 9
\nREIMAGINING OVERSIGHT<\/p>\n
The clerical system of church management is exceedingly popular, but the whole thought is foreign to Scripture. In a church all the members are active. He [God] appointed some to take oversight of the work so that it might be carried on efficiently. It was never His thought that the majority of the believers should devote themselves exclusively to secular affairs and leave church matters to a group of spiritual specialists.
\n\u2014Watchman Nee<\/p>\n
There is thoroughly entrenched in our church life an unbiblical two-caste system. In this two-caste system there is a clergy-caste which is trained, called, paid, and expected to do the ministering. And there is the laity-caste which normally functions as the audience which appreciatively pays for the performance of the clergy\u2014or bitterly criticizes the gaping holes in that performance (and there are always gaping holes). No one expects much of the lower or laity caste (except attendance, tithe, and testimony). And everyone expects too much of the upper or clergy caste (including the clergy themselves!). The greatest problem in the whole business is the fact that the Bible\u2019s view of ministry totally contradicts this system.
\n\u2014Robert C. Girard<\/p>\n
Every church has leadership. Whether it\u2019s explicit or implicit, leadership is always present. In the words of Hal Miller, \u201cLeadership is. It may be good or bad. It may be recognized and assented to or not. But it always is.\u201d Depending on who is doing the leading, leadership can be the church\u2019s worst nightmare or its greatest asset.
\nBecause of leadership\u2019s \u201cJekyll and Hyde\u201d potential, there\u2019s a tremendous need for Christians to take a fresh look at the subject. The New Testament identifies two kinds of leadership: that of oversight, and that of decision-making. In this chapter, we\u2019ll deal with oversight. In the next, we\u2019ll discuss decision-making. Consider the following passages:<\/p>\n
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.\u2026 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. (Acts 20:17, 28\u201329 NKJV)<\/p>\n
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (1 Peter 5:1\u20134 NKJV)<\/p>\n
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God\u2019s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain. (Titus 1:5\u20137 NASB)<\/p>\n
Elders, Shepherds, and Overseers<\/p>\n
In the Greek language, elder (presbuteros) merely means an old man. A first-century elder, therefore, was a seasoned Christian. A senior. One who had experience and wisdom. Elders were also called \u201coverseers.\u201d This is a term that described their function of supervising the affairs of the church. The task of the elders is also depicted by the metaphor of a \u201cshepherd.\u201d This is because they were caretakers. Just as literal shepherds care for literal sheep, elders care for their fellow Christians.
\nWhile all elders were \u201capt to teach\u201d and all had the gift of shepherding, not all who shepherded and taught were elders (Titus 2:3\u20134; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24; Heb. 5:12). Teaching could come from any Christian who had a word of instruction for the church (1 Cor. 14:24\u201326).
\nConsequently, those who provided oversight in the church were called elders, overseers, and shepherds. This is simply because they elder-ed\u2014they acted as seasoned models to the less mature (1 Peter 5:3). They oversaw\u2014they watched out for the spiritual well-being of the church (v. 2). And they shepherd-ed\u2014they cared for the needs of God\u2019s people (v. 2).
\nThat said, equating elders with a sociological slot (an office) can only be done at substantial risk. In order to do so, we have to evacuate \u201cshepherd\u201d of its intended meaning (one who cares for God\u2019s people). We also have to evacuate \u201celder\u201d from its intended meaning (an old man). Not to mention having to evacuate \u201coverseer\u201d from its native meaning (one who watches out for others).
\nElders, then, were overseers and shepherds. The term elder refers to their character. The term overseer refers to their function. And the term shepherd refers to their gifting. Their chief responsibility was to instruct and oversee the church during times of personal crisis.
\nOur Western obsession with offices and titles has led us to superimpose our own ideas of church order onto the New Testament. Yet the very ethos of the New Testament militates against the idea of a single pastor. It also militates against the idea of offici-elders. (\u201cOffici\u201d is shorthand for official.)
\nScripture is equally at odds with the \u201csenior pastor\u201d concept. This is the common practice of elevating one of the elders to a prominent authoritative position. Nowhere does the New Testament sanction the notion of primos inter pares\u2014\u201cfirst among equals.\u201d At least not in any official or formal way.
\nThe disconnect between the \u201cpastor\u201d and the other elders was an accident of church history. But because it meshes perfectly with our acculturated religious mind-set, contemporary believers have little trouble reading this false dichotomy into Scripture.
\nWhile elders provided oversight, they didn\u2019t monopolize the ministry of the church gatherings. Nor did they make decisions on behalf of the church. Instead, they superintended the church as it experienced the rigors of community life.
\nPlease note that superintending is largely a passive role. The supervision of the elders didn\u2019t stifle the life of the church. Nor did it interfere with the ministry of the other believers. While gifted elders had a large share in teaching, they did so on the same footing as all the other members. They didn\u2019t monopolize the meetings of the church.
\nTo be more specific, New Testament elders didn\u2019t operate like spiritual CEOs who presided over their spiritual enterprises. Instead, the elders were fully aware that the church didn\u2019t belong to them. It rather belonged to their beloved Master\u2014the Lord Jesus. He alone had the right to \u201cwalk in the midst of the \u2026 lampstands\u201d (Rev. 2:1 NKJV). A first-century elder, therefore, would no doubt cringe if you used phrases like \u201chis church\u201d or \u201chis people.\u201d
\nFirst-century elders were simply spiritually mature men\u2014exemplary Christians who superintended (not controlled or directed) the affairs of the church.
\nElders were not organizational figureheads. They weren\u2019t hired pulpiteers, professional clergy, or ecclesiastical chairmen. They were simply older brothers (elders-in-fact) carrying out real functions (elder-ing, shepherd-ing, oversee-ing, etc.).
\nTheir chief task was threefold: to model servanthood in the church; to motivate the believing community toward works of service; and to mold the spiritual development of the younger believers (1 Peter 5:1\u20133). The elders also dealt with sticky situations in the church (Acts 15:6ff.). But they never made decisions for the church. The New Testament method for decision-making was neither dictatorial nor democratic. It was consensual. And it involved all the brothers and sisters. (See chapter 10.)
\nAs overseers, the elders supervised the work of others (instead of substituting for it). They were the ones who prayed with their eyes open. They had their spiritual antennae continually raised to check for wolves. As older men, their wisdom was sought after in times of crisis. And when they spoke, their voices possessed the weight of experience.
\nPerhaps a modern-day example will help to explain how elders functioned in this way. One particular church I was a part of had about thirty people in it. Over the course of four years, three of the more seasoned brothers rose to the surface. Whenever people in the church got into personal trouble, they would naturally go to one of these three men.
\nThe church instinctively trusted these men for their compassion and wisdom. Tellingly, most of their ministry was done outside of church meetings. It happened in private homes, in restaurants over coffee, or on the phone.
\nThese men helped navigate the Lord\u2019s people through personal crises. In this particular church, they were never called \u201celders.\u201d And in the church meetings, they were indistinguishable from the other believers. Visitors could never tell who the elders were. The reason? Because the meetings of the church belonged to the whole church, never to the elders. Everyone was free to share, minister, and function on equal footing.
\nIn this way, the role of the elders can be likened to the human liver. The liver works invisibly, filtering out poisons and other toxic substances. It resists infections by producing immune factors and removing bacteria from the bloodstream. The liver organically detoxifies the human body, causing it to function properly. But it does so in a quiet and hidden way. In a similar fashion, the elders detoxify the church behind the scenes so that the body can function without hindrance.
\nSimply put, elders were spiritual facilitators who supplied guidance, provided nurture, and encouraged faithfulness in the church. Eldership, therefore, is something that one does. It\u2019s not a slot that one fills.
\nThe New Testament bears this out rather clearly. If Paul and the other apostles wanted to paint elders as officers, there were numerous Greek words they could have used to do so. Surprisingly, however, the following Greek terms are missing from the apostles\u2019 ecclesiastical vocabulary:<\/p>\n
\u2022 arche (a rank-and-file leader, head, or ruler)
\n\u2022 time (an officer or dignitary)
\n\u2022 telos (the inherent power of a ruler)
\n\u2022 archisunagogos (a synagogue official)
\n\u2022 hazzan (a public worship leader)
\n\u2022 taxis (a post, position, or rank)
\n\u2022 hierateia (a priest\u2019s office)
\n\u2022 archon (a ruler or chief)<\/p>\n
The New Testament never uses any of these words to describe leadership in the church. Like that of Christ, the apostles\u2019 favorite word to portray church leaders is diakonos\u2014which means a servant or a waiter.
\nTherefore, the penchant to depict servant-leaders in the church as officers and professional clerics guts the true meaning of the biblical language and cuts the nerve of the believing priesthood.<\/p>\n
The Principle of Shared Oversight<\/p>\n
The New Testament presents a vision of shared oversight. The apostles always established plural oversight within the churches they planted. There were elders (plural) in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). There were elders in the four churches in South Galatia (Acts 14:23). There were elders (plural) in Ephesus (Acts 20:17). There were elders (plural) in Philippi (Phil. 1:1). There were elders in the churches in Judea (James 5:14). And elders (plural) were to be acknowledged in each city in Crete (Titus 1:5).
\nIn short, the Bible unshakably demonstrates that a plurality of elders oversaw the activity of the early churches. No church in the first century had a single leader.
\nConsequently, the commonly accepted notion of sola pastora (single pastor) is at odds with the New Testament. The Bible knows nothing of a person who stands at the helm of a local church, directs its affairs, preaches to it every Sunday, conducts its baptisms, represents it in the world, officiates its Communion (or Lord\u2019s Supper), blesses civic events, marries the living, and buries the dead. No such person exists in the entire New Testament. (If you doubt that, see if you can find this person in your Bible. I have money hidden in my shoes that says you cannot.)
\nWhile the New Testament calls Paul an \u201capostle,\u201d Philip an \u201cevangelist,\u201d Manaen a \u201cteacher,\u201d and Agabus a \u201cprophet,\u201d it never identifies anyone as a pastor. In fact, the noun \u201cpastor\u201d is used only once in the entire New Testament. (See Eph. 4:11.) And it\u2019s used as a descriptive metaphor, never as an ecclesiastical office. It is also plural, not singular.
\nThis flies in the face of common practice. Today the \u201cpastor\u201d is regarded as the figurehead of the church. His name is exclusively splashed on church marquees all across the Western landscape. (One wonders why other ministries don\u2019t appear on these marquees when they are given far more attention in the New Testament.)
\nIn our book, Pagan Christianity, George Barna and I demonstrate historically that the modern pastoral office is a postbiblical novelty that evokes a tradition of humane (but not so helpful) sacerdotalism. (Sacerdotalism is the belief that priests act as mediators between God and humans.) It\u2019s essentially a carryover from the priest of Roman Catholicism. As such, it better reflects the weak and beggarly elements of the Levitical priesthood than anything found in the New Testament.
\n(Incidentally, those who point to the single leaders of the Old Testament to justify the single pastor system make two mistakes. First, they overlook the fact that all the single leaders of the Old Testament\u2014Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, etc.\u2014were types of the Lord Jesus Christ, not a human officer. Second, they typically ignore the pattern for oversight that is clearly spelled out throughout the New Testament.)
\nFirst-century elders all stood on equal footing. Perhaps some were more spiritually mature than the others. And they undoubtedly had different giftings. But there was no hierarchical structure among them.
\nA careful reading of the book of Acts will show that while God often used different overseers as temporary spokesmen for specific occasions (sometimes James, sometimes Peter, etc.), no overseer occupied a permanent position of supremacy above the others.
\nConsequently, the modern offices of \u201csenior pastor,\u201d \u201cchief elder,\u201d and \u201chead pastor\u201d simply did not exist in the early church. The first-century Christians didn\u2019t mark off one man among the college of elders and elevate him to a superior position of authority. The elders were not part of a chain of command that put them under Christ and over the church. They weren\u2019t part of a hierarchical pyramid. They were simply members of the body of Christ, not an elite oligarchy.
\nAgain, the single pastor system of our day was utterly foreign to the New Testament church. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find one of the elders transformed into the status of a super apostle and accorded with supreme administrative authority.
\nSuch authority was reserved for only one person\u2014the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone was the exclusive Head of the church. As such, only He had the right to command His own sheep. Plural oversight in the church protected the sole headship of Christ. It also served as a check against despotism and corruption among the overseers.<\/p>\n
The Public Acknowledgment of the Elders<\/p>\n
The oversight of the church was not only shared, but it was indigenous. This means that the elders were local brothers who were spiritually reared within the church. Therefore, the accepted practice of importing a leader (typically a pastor) from another locality to lead a church has no basis in the New Testament. Instead, the elders were resident men whom God raised up from within the existing assembly.
\nJust as important, the elders always emerged long after a church was born. It took at least fourteen years after the birth of the Jerusalem church for elders to emerge within it (Acts 11:30). A good while after they planted the four churches in South Galatia, Paul and Barnabas acknowledged elders in each of them (Acts 14:23). Five years after Paul planted the church in Ephesus, he sent for the elders of the church to meet him in Miletus (Acts 20:17). When Paul wrote to the church in Philippi, which was twelve years old, he greeted the overseers who were present (Phil. 1:1).
\nPoint: There\u2019s no case anywhere in the New Testament where elders appear in a church immediately after it was planted. As with all spiritual gifts, the church is a spiritual organism that produces elders naturally. They are in her DNA. But it takes time for them to emerge. Consequently, house churches that rush to appoint elders have no scriptural justification for doing so.
\nIn addition, elders never appointed themselves. Scripture consistently shows that traveling apostolic workers acknowledged them after they emerged from within the congregation. The elders didn\u2019t install themselves.
\n(Before the elders emerged, the oversight of the church was in the hands of the apostolic worker who planted it\u20141 Thess. 2:7\u201312. Afterward, the oversight shifted to the hands of the elders.)
\nThe elders\u2019 authority to oversee was tied to their spiritual maturity. It was not tied to a sacerdotal office that was conferred upon them externally through an ordination service.
\nAfter the Holy Spirit chose the elders, apostolic workers later confirmed their calling publicly (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Titus 1:5). But the function preceded the form.
\nIt\u2019s a tragic mistake, therefore, to equate the public endorsement of elders with the establishment of a separate class system like the clergy profession of our day. Acknowledgment of elders by apostolic workers was no more than the public recognition of those who were already \u201celder-ing\u201d in the church. (See Num. 11:16 for this principle.) It was not \u201cministerial ordination\u201d as we know it today. The church simply trusted those who it recognized to be \u201celder-ing.\u201d
\nUnfortunately, the Western penchant for \u201coffices\u201d and \u201cpositions\u201d has caused many Christians to bring these ideas to the biblical text and view elders as official. But such thinking confuses the oversight of the early church with modern social conventions. It also strips the leadership terminology found in the Bible of its native meaning.
\nAgain, \u201celder\u201d means mature man. \u201cShepherd\u201d means one who nurtures and protects a flock. And \u201coverseer\u201d means one who supervises. Put plainly, the New Testament notion of oversight is functional, not official. True spiritual authority is rooted in spiritual life and function, not title or position.
\nIn other words, New Testament leadership can best be understood in terms of verbs rather than nouns. Recall that our Lord Jesus rejected the authoritative pecking orders of His day (Matt. 20:25\u201328; Luke 22:25\u201327). In His eyes, spiritual authority was found in a towel and a basin, not in an external post (Matt. 23:8\u201312).<\/p>\n
Character vs. Gifting<\/p>\n
The elders mentioned in the New Testament were men of trusted character, not extraordinary gifting (1 Tim. 3:1\u20137; Titus 1:5\u20139). They were leading-servants, not slave drivers (Matt. 20:25\u201326). They were faithful brothers, not high-powered administrators.
\nThe elders were examples to the flock, not lords over it (1 Peter 5:3). They didn\u2019t do the work of others; they supervised others as they worked. They functioned as bond-slaves, not as spiritual Caesars (Luke 22:24\u201327). They were facilitators, not tyrants. Fathers, not despots (1 Tim. 3:4; 5:1).
\nThe elders were persuaders of the truth, not ecclesiastical autocrats whose egos thrived on power (Titus 1:9). They were nurturers, not brow beaters. Spiritual superintendents, not professional pulpiteers (Acts 20:28\u201335).
\nThe elders were kingdom seekers, not empire builders. They were ordinary Christians, not multitalented, ultraversatile, superhuman, iconized, celebrity-like performers. They were servants, not dictators. They didn\u2019t control, manipulate, or terrorize the people of God. (Regrettably, I\u2019ve met many Christians who were hurt by elders who acted in ways that are reflected in the above sentences. On the other hand, I\u2019ve met many who fit my description of first-century elders.)
\nThe elders\u2019 training was not academic, formal, or theological. Instead, it was cultivated within the context of organic church life. Their qualification came not from professional schools or licenses, but from the Spirit of God (Acts 20:28). They didn\u2019t deem themselves qualified to oversee by acquiring a blend of accounting, public speaking, and amateur psychology skills. Their oversight was an organic, natural outgrowth of their life in the church.
\nThe elders were not regarded as religious specialists, but as faithful and trusted brethren. They were not career clergy, but self-supporting family men with secular jobs (Acts 20:17, 32\u201335; 1 Tim. 3:5, 7; Titus 1:6; 1 Peter 5:2\u20133).
\nBecause of their tireless labor, some elders received double honor from the church. But double honor is just that\u2014extra respect.
\nOn that note, some have tried to argue for a professional clergy from one isolated text in 1 Timothy, which says,<\/p>\n
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, \u201cDo not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,\u201d and \u201cThe worker deserves his wages.\u201d (1 Tim. 5:17\u201318)<\/p>\n
However, the context of this passage reveals otherwise. First, the specific Greek words that the New Testament uses for \u201cpay\u201d or \u201cwages\u201d (misthos and opsonion) are not used to refer to what the elders are due. The Greek word for \u201chonor\u201d in this passage is time, and it means to \u201crespect\u201d or \u201cvalue\u201d someone or something.
\nThe same word is used four times in 1 Timothy. In every case, it means respect. God is to receive honor from man (1:17; 6:16), elders are to receive honor from the church (5:17), and masters are to receive honor from slaves (6:1). Another form of the word is used when Paul says that widows are to be honored by the church (5:3). (Note that time is never used in first-century literature to refer to \u201chonorarium.\u201d)
\nSecond, all believers are called to honor (time) one another (Rom. 12:10). It would be absurd to take this to mean that all believers are to receive payment from one another. Again, those elders who serve well are to receive more honor\u2014or greater respect.
\nThird, the fact that respect is what Paul had in mind is borne out by verse 19. Paul goes on to say that the elders are not to be accused (dishonored) unless there are two or three witnesses to confirm the accusation (1 Tim. 5:19).
\nGranted, double honor may have included freewill offerings as a token of blessing from time to time (Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17\u201318). But this was not the dominating thought. It is honor (respect) that elders deserve, not a salary. Consequently, 1 Timothy 5 is perfectly consistent with Paul\u2019s words to the Ephesian elders recorded in Acts 20:<\/p>\n
I have not coveted anyone\u2019s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: \u201cIt is more blessed to give than to receive.\u201d (Acts 20:33\u201335)<\/p>\n
Paul told the elders in Ephesus to follow his example. That example was not to take money from God\u2019s people, but instead, to work for a living and give to their needs. Note that 1 Timothy 5:17\u201318 and Acts 20:33\u201335 were addressed to the same group of people\u2014the elders in Ephesus. Thus there is no contradiction. Paul\u2019s argument in 1 Timothy 5:17\u201318 is simply this: Just as the working ox deserves food and the working employee deserves payment, the elders who serve well should receive double respect.
\nThat said, the elders of the early church were not dependent on the church. Instead, they made sure that they were in a position to give to it. They certainly didn\u2019t receive a fixed salary like that of today\u2019s professional pastors. Nor were they biblically sanctioned to receive full financial support like itinerant apostles who traveled to plant churches (1 Cor. 9:1\u201318).
\nBecause Paul was an itinerant apostolic worker, he had a legitimate right to receive full financial support from the Lord\u2019s people. But he intentionally waived that right whenever he worked with a new church (1 Cor. 9:14\u201318; 2 Cor. 11:7\u20139; 12:13\u201318; 1 Thess. 2:6\u20139; 2 Thess. 3:8\u20139).
\nPaul waived this right because he didn\u2019t want to burden any church financially while he served it. Thus the Pauline principle regarding financial support can be summed up in the phrase \u201cWhen I was present with you \u2026 I was chargeable to no man\u201d (2 Cor. 11:9 KJV).
\nAgain, the New Testament church knew nothing of a resident, hired clergy. Because they were simply brothers, the elders didn\u2019t stand over the flock. Nor did they stand apart from it. Instead, they served the church as those who were among the flock (1 Peter 5:1\u20133).<\/p>\n
The Dramatic Lack of Attention Given to Leadership in the New Testament<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s letters make a lot of noise about exemplary action. And they show no interest in titular or official position. Consider this: Every time Paul wrote to a church in crisis, he always addressed the church itself rather than the elders. This is consistent from Paul\u2019s first letter to his last.
\nLet me repeat that. Every time Paul wrote a letter to a church, he addressed the whole church. He never addressed the elders. Here\u2019s the record:<\/p>\n
Paul, an apostle \u2026 To the churches in Galatia. (Gal. 1:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians. (1 Thess. 1:1)<\/p>\n
Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thess. 1:1)<\/p>\n
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ\u2014their Lord and ours. (1 Cor. 1:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia. (2 Cor. 1:1)<\/p>\n
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God.\u2026 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints. (Rom. 1:1, 7)<\/p>\n
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse. (Col. 1:1)<\/p>\n
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 1:1)<\/p>\n
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons. (Phil. 1:1)<\/p>\n
More striking, every church that Paul wrote to in the New Testament was in a crisis. (The exception was the recipients of the Ephesian letter.) Yet Paul never appeals to or singles out the elders in any of them.
\nTake for instance Corinth, the most troubled church mentioned in the New Testament. Throughout the entire Corinthian correspondence, Paul never appeals to the elders. He never chastises them. He never commends obedience to them. In fact, he doesn\u2019t even mention them.
\nInstead, Paul appeals to the whole church. He shows that it\u2019s the church\u2019s responsibility to deal with its own self-inflicted wounds. Paul charges and implores the \u201cbrethren\u201d more than thirty times in 1 Corinthians. And he writes as if no officers exist. This is also true for all his other letters to churches in crisis.
\nIf church officers did exist in Corinth, surely Paul would have addressed them to solve its woes. But he never does. At the end of the letter, Paul tells the Corinthians to subject themselves to the self-giving Stephanas and his household. But he widens this group to others, saying, \u201cAnd to everyone who does likewise.\u201d
\nNotice that Paul\u2019s stress is on function, not position. His instruction is placed upon the shoulders of the whole church. The entire book of Corinthians is a plea to the whole assembly to handle its own problems.
\nProbably the most acute example of the absence of offici-elders in Corinth is found in 1 Corinthians 5. There Paul summons the whole church to discipline a fallen member by handing him over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:1ff.). Paul\u2019s exhortation clearly runs against the grain of current understanding. In today\u2019s thinking, only those possessing \u201cecclesiastical clout\u201d are regarded as qualified for such weighty tasks.
\nThe difference in the way Paul thinks of elders and the way most modern churches think of them could hardly be more striking. Paul doesn\u2019t utter a whisper about elders in any of his nine letters to the churches. This includes his ultracorrective treatise to the Galatians. Instead, Paul persistently entreats the \u201cbrethren\u201d to action.
\nIn his last letter to a church, Paul finally mentions the overseers in his opening greeting. But he does so in a fleeting way. In addition, he greets the overseers only after he greets the whole church. His letter opens with: \u201cPaul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons\u201d (Phil. 1:1). This is a rather strange order if Paul held to the idea of church officers.
\nFollowing this greeting, Paul talks to the church about its present problems. And he never again mentions the overseers.
\nThis trend is highlighted in the book of Hebrews. Throughout the entire epistle, the writer addresses the entire church. Only at the very end of the letter does he offhandedly ask the believers to greet their overseers (Heb. 13:24).
\nIn sum, the deafening lack of attention that Paul gives to elders demonstrates that he rejected the idea that certain people in the church possessed formal rights over others. It also underscores the fact that Paul didn\u2019t believe in church officers.
\nPeter\u2019s letters make similar noise. Like Paul, Peter writes his letters to the churches\u2014never to their leaders. He also gives minimal airtime to elders. When he does, he warns them against adopting the spirit of the Gentiles. In fact, he makes the specific point that the elders are among the flock, not lords over it (1 Peter 5:1\u20132).
\nThe elders, says Peter, are not to \u201clord it over [katakurieuo] the people\u201d (1 Peter 5:3 NLT). Interestingly, Peter uses the same word that Jesus used in His discussion on authority in Matthew. The Lord\u2019s exact words were \u201cYou know that the rulers in this world lord it over [katakurieuo] their people.\u2026 But among you it will be different\u201d (Matt. 20:25\u201326 NLT).
\nThis same emphasis is found in the book of Acts. There Luke tells the story of how Paul exhorted the Ephesian elders to \u201cbe on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers\u201d (Acts 20:28 NASB). Notice that the elders are \u201camong,\u201d not \u201cover,\u201d the flock.
\nJames, John, and Jude write in the same strain. They address their letters to churches and not to overseers. In fact, they all have very little to say about oversight. And they have nothing to say about official eldership.
\nIt\u2019s quite clear, then. The New Testament consistently rejects the notion of ecclesiastical officers in the church. It also greatly downplays the role of elders.<\/p>\n
Eldership vs. Brotherhood<\/p>\n
It would serve us well to ask why the New Testament gives so little airplay to elders. The oft-ignored reason may be surprising to institutional ears: The bulk of responsibility for pastoral care, teaching, and ministry in the ekklesia rests squarely upon the shoulders of all the brothers and sisters.
\nIn fact, the richness of Paul\u2019s vision of the body of Christ stems from his continual emphasis that every member is gifted, has ministry, and is responsible in the body (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:1ff.; Eph. 4:7; 1 Peter 4:10). As a consequence, ministerial responsibility is never to be closeted among a few.
\nThis explains why the word adelphoi, translated \u201cbrethren,\u201d appears 346 times in the New Testament. It appears 134 times in Paul\u2019s epistles alone. In most places, this word is Paul\u2019s shorthand way of referring to all the believers in the church\u2014both women and men. By contrast, the word \u201celders\u201d appears only five times in Paul\u2019s letters. \u201cOverseers\u201d appears only four times. And \u201cpastors\u201d appears only once.
\nThe stress of the New Testament, then, is upon corporate responsibility. It\u2019s the believing community that is called to carry out pastoral functions. To be more specific, all the Christians in a local assembly are called to<\/p>\n
\u2022 be devoted to one another (Rom. 12:10)
\n\u2022 honor one another (Rom. 12:10)
\n\u2022 live in harmony with one another (Rom. 12:16; 1 Peter 3:8)
\n\u2022 love one another (Rom. 13:8; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:11)
\n\u2022 edify one another (Rom. 14:19; 1 Thess. 5:11b)
\n\u2022 accept one another (Rom. 15:7)
\n\u2022 instruct one another (Rom. 15:14)
\n\u2022 greet one another (Rom. 16:16)
\n\u2022 agree with one another (1 Cor. 1:10)
\n\u2022 discipline fallen members (1 Cor. 5:3\u20135; 6:1\u20136)
\n\u2022 organize the church\u2019s affairs (1 Cor. 11:33\u201334; 14:39\u201340; 16:2\u20133)
\n\u2022 care for one another (1 Cor. 12:25)
\n\u2022 prophesy one by one (1 Cor. 14:31)
\n\u2022 abound in the work of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58)
\n\u2022 serve one another (Gal. 5:13)
\n\u2022 bear one another\u2019s burdens (Gal. 6:2)
\n\u2022 bear with one another (Eph. 4:2)
\n\u2022 be kind and compassionate to one another (Eph. 4:32)
\n\u2022 speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19)
\n\u2022 submit to one another (Eph. 5:21)
\n\u2022 forgive one another (Col. 3:13)
\n\u2022 teach one another (Col. 3:16)
\n\u2022 admonish one another (Col. 3:16)
\n\u2022 encourage one another (1 Thess. 5:11)
\n\u2022 warn the unruly (1 Thess. 5:14)
\n\u2022 comfort the feeble (1 Thess. 5:14)
\n\u2022 support the weak (1 Thess. 5:14)
\n\u2022 exhort one another (Heb. 3:13; 10:25)
\n\u2022 incite one another to love and good works (Heb. 10:24)
\n\u2022 pray for one another (James 5:16)
\n\u2022 confess sins to one another (James 5:16)
\n\u2022 offer hospitality to one another (1 Peter 4:9)
\n\u2022 be humble toward one another (1 Peter 5:5)
\n\u2022 fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7)<\/p>\n
With dramatic clarity, all of these \u201cone-another\u201d exhortations incarnate the fact that every member of the church is to share the responsibility for pastoral care. Leadership is a corporate affair, not a solo one. It\u2019s to be shouldered by the entire body.
\nConsequently, the idea that elders direct the affairs of the church, make decisions in all corporate matters, handle all of its problems, and supply all of its teaching is alien to New Testament thinking. Such an idea is pure fantasy and bereft of biblical support. It\u2019s no wonder that in elder-led churches spiritual maturity atrophies and members grow passive and indolent.
\nStated simply, the New Testament knows nothing of an elder-ruled, elder-governed, or elder-directed church. And it knows even less about a pastor-led church. The first-century church was in the hands of the brotherhood and the sisterhood. Plain and simple.
\nElders are organic to the church. They exist within her DNA. Like fingernails and eyebrows on an infant, they develop organically as the child grows up. Any church that\u2019s properly planted and is living by the life of Christ will naturally produce elders. By the same token, elders should emerge out of brotherhood. For when they do, they will become overseers rather than overlords.
\nIn the final analysis, the leadership of the church really boils down to one basic issue\u2014the headship of Christ. It rests upon the thorny question of who will be Head: Jesus Christ or human beings?<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Why do you believe we\u2019ve made something normative that has no scriptural support (the modern pastor and official elders) and neglected that which Scripture teaches in abundance (plural elders who are part of a functioning Christian community)?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What model of leadership do you believe best reflects leadership in the triune God: the single pastor, official elders, or the community of believers under the Spirit\u2019s guidance? What is your church\u2019s model?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Can you discern the wisdom of God in designing the church to organically produce a group of elders to oversee it rather than a single pastor (or an imported minister) to run it? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 10
\nREIMAGINING DECISION-MAKING<\/p>\n
The Trinity understood in human terms as a communion of Persons lays the foundations for a society of brothers and sisters, of equals, in which dialogue and consensus are the basic constituents of living together in both the world and the church.
\n\u2014Leonardo Boff<\/p>\n
Guidance on matters affecting the community\u2019s life was principally granted to members when they met together to discern what God required of them. They received this guidance from the Spirit through their exercise of gifts of knowledge, revelation, wisdom, and so on. In all this Paul never tires of insisting that every member of the community has the responsibility to impart the particular insights they have been given. Thus, the most characteristic setting in which the community received guidance was when Christians assembled to share and evaluate the gifts given to them. Here, in a variety of complementary ways, guidance was conveyed through each to all and through all to each.
\n\u2014Robert Banks<\/p>\n
In our last chapter, we discovered that the New Testament promotes no other form of leadership than a shared form. The Lord has chosen to lead His church through a many-membered community. Elders emerge over time. They model pastoral care for the rest of the church, and they provide oversight. In addition, elders are always plural in a church.
\nYet the mere presence of a plurality of elders doesn\u2019t ensure that a church will be healthy. If the elders don\u2019t oversee according to the life and grace of Christ, they can do more damage than a single leader. (Unfortunately, I\u2019ve witnessed my share of heavy-handed elders who muscled God\u2019s people into a decision. While these men never perceived themselves to be spiritual oppressors, the rest of the church did.)
\nIt is for this reason that the question of decision-making in the church becomes crucial. Unlike the modern clergy system, first-century elders were never regarded as the prominent figures in the church.
\nAs we\u2019ve previously noted, there\u2019s a deafening lack of attention given to elders throughout the New Testament. This omission is significant. It vigorously challenges the Protestant notion of the preeminence of the pastor and equally challenges the popular \u201chouse church\u201d notion of the preeminence of elders. Both ideas are at odds with New Testament principles.
\nIn chapter 8, we learned that the biblical model of leadership militates against the poisons of forced submission, top-heavy authority structures, and hierarchical relationships (Matt. 23:11; Mark 10:42\u201345; Luke 22:26\u201327). The New Testament model of leadership serves as a safeguard to the real and living headship of Christ. It\u2019s also a check against authoritarianism. The budding of Aaron\u2019s rod beautifully illustrates that the basis of spiritual authority rests upon resurrection life (Num. 17:1\u201311). It\u2019s never based on position.
\nThe overseers of the early church oversaw by example\u2014not by coercion or manipulation. The respect they received from the other members was in direct proportion to their sacrificial service (1 Cor. 16:10\u201311, 15\u201318; Phil. 2:29\u201330; 1 Thess. 5:12\u201313; 1 Tim. 5:17). Their authority was rooted in their spiritual maturity rather than in a sacerdotal position. In the words of Peter, they didn\u2019t oversee by \u201cbeing lords over God\u2019s heritage, but [by] being examples to the flock\u201d (1 Peter 5:3 KJV).
\nTo be an example means setting forth a pattern for others to follow. Because elders were examples, (1) they were active in ministry (for they set the example), and (2) they encouraged the church to be just as active (others followed their example).
\nTherefore, if an elder desired others to win the lost, it was incumbent upon him to model soul-winning. Why? Because he was an example. In this regard, the notion that pastors don\u2019t win souls because \u201cshepherds do not breed sheep, but sheep breed sheep\u201d is a classic example of twisting the Scripture.
\nIf we push the shepherd-sheep metaphor beyond its intended meaning, we\u2019ll readily see its foolishness. Shepherds are incapable of breeding sheep. They also steal their wool and eat them for dinner!
\nSimply put, oversight in the New Testament was not a slavish obligation, nor a grim necessity. Instead, it was a valuable family resource marked by humility, relatedness, and servanthood.<\/p>\n
A Borrowed Leadership Paradigm<\/p>\n
Institutional Christianity has baptized secular leadership patterns and passed them off as being biblically valid. The result: Our modern notion of church leadership is culturally captive to the spirit of this age.
\nSeeing that the great weight of biblical teaching on leadership has been lost to the prevailing notions of our culture, the scriptural ground needs to be reclaimed.
\nAs we saw in chapter 5, the chief metaphor for the church is the family. This explains why the biblical image of leadership is that of a mother and a father (1 Thess. 2:6\u201312). Notwithstanding, even the parental image of leadership can become distorted and turned into cold prose if not viewed against the backdrop of the priesthood of all believers and our relationship with each other as brothers and sisters (Matt. 23:8).
\nPlainly stated, leadership in the early church was nonhierarchical, nonaristocratic, nonauthoritarian, noninstitutional, and nonclerical. God\u2019s idea of leadership is functional, relational, organic, and communal\u2014just as it is in the Godhead.
\nTo have the leadership of the church function according to the same principles as that of a corporate executive in a business or an aristocrat in an imperial caste system was never our Lord\u2019s thought. It is for this reason that the New Testament authors never chose to use hierarchical and imperial metaphors to describe spiritual leadership.
\nThe New Testament authors deliberately depict leadership with images of slaves and children rather than lords and masters (Luke 22:25\u201326). While such thinking comes in direct conflict with today\u2019s popular practice of \u201cspiritual authority,\u201d it meshes perfectly with the biblical teaching of the kingdom of God\u2014the realm in which the weak are strong, the poor are rich, the humble are exalted, and the last are first (Luke 6:20\u201326; Matt. 23:12; 20:16).
\nSince the elders of the early church knew that the church didn\u2019t belong to them, they didn\u2019t have their own agendas to push. Nor did they roadblock or muscle others into mindless submission by an appeal to their \u201cauthority.\u201d (While many elders do not operate this way, some unfortunately do.)
\nThe elders of the early church didn\u2019t operate as an oligarchy (absolute rule by a few) nor as a dictatorship (monarchical rule by one person). Again, they were simply older men whom the church organically and naturally looked to in times of crisis.
\nBy the same token, the early church didn\u2019t operate like our contemporary democracy. Many mistakenly think that our American democratic system is rooted in biblical theology. But there isn\u2019t a single example in the entire New Testament where church decisions were made by a show of hands. Granted, every Christian is equal in spiritual life, but each has a different gift (Rom. 12:3\u20138). The church is not a pure democracy.<\/p>\n
The Divine Rule of Consensus<\/p>\n
So what was the New Testament pattern for decision-making in the early church? It was simply by consensus. \u201cThen it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,\u201d and, \u201cit seemed good to us, having become of one mind\u201d was the divine model for making corporate decisions (Acts 15:22, 25 NASB). In other words, the decision-making of the early church was not in the hands of the elders. It was in the hands of all the brothers and sisters.
\nBecause the church is a body, all the members should agree before it moves forward in obeying the Head (Rom. 12:4\u20135; 1 Cor. 12:12\u201327; Eph. 4:11\u201316). In fact, a lack of unity and cooperation among the members reveals a failure to embrace the Head (Christ).
\nMajority rule, dictatorial rule, and a Robert\u2019s Rules of Order mentality do violence to the body image of the church. And they dilute the unvarnished testimony that Jesus Christ is the Head of one unified body. For this reason, Paul\u2019s epistles to the churches are saturated with exhortations to be of one mind (Rom. 15:5\u20136; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:3; Phil. 2:2; 4:2). Recall the Lord\u2019s teaching in the following text:<\/p>\n
Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. (Matt. 18:19)<\/p>\n
Significantly, the word agree in this passage is translated from the Greek word sumphoneo. Sumphoneo means to sound together\u2014to be in one accord. Our word symphony is derived from this term. So the meaning is clear. When the church is in sympathetic harmony, God will act.
\nIn this connection, consensus mirrors the decision-making activity within the triune God, whose nature we were created to reflect. God acts when Father, Son, and Spirit agree. Decision-making in the Godhead is communal and marked by mutual submission. In other words, it\u2019s consensual.
\nEven in the Old Testament economy, the Bible associates consensus with spiritual fullness (1 Chron. 12:38\u201340; 13:1\u20134; 2 Chron. 30:4\u20135). Conversely, it associates divided judgment with spiritual ruin (1 Kings 16:21\u201322).
\nAgain, the elders of the early church bore the bulk of spiritual oversight and pastoral care for the assembly (Heb. 13:7, 17, 24). But they didn\u2019t make decisions on behalf of the church. Nor were they solely responsible for the church\u2019s direction.
\nTherefore, an elder had no biblical or spiritual right to bark out commands to a passive congregation. Instead, the elders (once they emerged) worked together with the whole church toward reaching a unanimous decision and a single mind (Acts 15:22, 28). But it was the church, as a whole, that made the decision as \u201cone new man.\u201d
\nBut what about Hebrews 13:17? In that text, some translations have, \u201cObey them that are over you.\u201d The Greek word for \u201cobey\u201d in this passage is not hupakuo, the garden-variety word for obedience used elsewhere in Scripture. It\u2019s peitho (middle-passive form), which means to yield to persuasion. The author of Hebrews was simply saying, \u201cAllow yourselves to be persuaded by those who are more mature in Christ than you are.\u201d
\nSo within the decision-making process of the early church, the role of the elders was to help the church reach a consensus on a matter. By virtue of their relative spiritual maturity, they were sometimes able to persuade the church into a unified understanding of the Lord\u2019s mind. But they had no right to force the church to adopt their view. The elders were people who simply demonstrated qualities that built family solidarity (1 Tim. 3:4\u20135; Titus 1:6).<\/p>\n
The Meaning of Consensus<\/p>\n
A church reaches a consensus when all of its members have come to a unanimous agreement in support of a particular decision.
\nGranted, the church may agree with a decision with varying degrees of enthusiasm (some consenting \u201cwith a heavy heart\u201d). Yet a consensus is reached when all have come to the place where they have set aside their objections and can support the decision in good faith.
\nWhen a church operates by consensus, decisions are delayed until agreement is reached. This process requires that all the members equally participate in and accept responsibility for reaching the mind of the Lord on a given matter. (Incidentally, the mind of Christ doesn\u2019t belong to an individual. It\u2019s a corporate discovery\u20141 Cor. 2:9\u201316.)
\nWhen the church reaches a consensus, murmuring and complaining are eliminated. Why? Because every member has had an equal share in the decision. The church owns the decision. It was made by and for the church under the Holy Spirit\u2019s guidance.
\nDecision-making by consensus stands at odds with modern pragmatism. Pragmatism is the American attitude that says, \u201cIf it works, it\u2019s good; if it produces results, it\u2019s true.\u201d Those who look through the prism of modern pragmatism regard consensus to be idealistic and impractical. Yet it\u2019s the only sure safeguard to ensure that a group of people have obtained the mind of Christ.
\nSome may retort that this method would never work in our day. But this simply isn\u2019t true. I\u2019ve been part of a number of churches where it was practiced.
\nTo be sure, consensus is humanly impossible. But so is salvation (Matt. 19:26). It is the indwelling Spirit who makes decision-making by consensus a practical reality and a fruitful testimony to the indivisible life of Christ.<\/p>\n
The Challenge Before Us<\/p>\n
The disconnect between the institutional church\u2019s practice of decision-making and the New Testament reality is indeed profound. And it should give us pause to question why we have strayed so far.
\nIn many institutional churches, the pastor (and sometimes the \u201cboard\u201d) makes decisions independently of the church. The same is true in some house churches where elders have the rule. In those particular churches, the elders decide without any regard for the concerns or judgments of the congregation. Members are without a voice in the church\u2019s affairs. What is more, they are encouraged to \u201cgo elsewhere\u201d if they don\u2019t \u201cline up.\u201d
\nIn those churches that decide on the basis of majority rule, those who \u201close the vote\u201d are left to question the judgment of the populace. (Sometimes they are left to question the very ethics of the procedure.) The fact that Scripture is filled with examples where the majority was wrong is conveniently overlooked. So often, when the 52 percent see a great victory, the 48 percent are still grumbling and seeking to undermine the majority decision.
\nThere\u2019s no doubt that consensus is costly. It imposes responsibility upon all the members of a church to seek the Lord for themselves. It demands that each believer patiently wrestle and struggle with one another to secure the Lord\u2019s mind. It often means trading quick decisions for gaining confidence through delay. But what building together it affords! What working out of patience. What expression of mutual love and respect. What exercise of Christian community. What restraint imposed upon the flesh. What bearing of the cross. What dying to our own agendas.
\nIs such a cost not worth the value of securing the Lord\u2019s mind for His body? Is it not worth giving Him the opportunity to work in us more deeply as a people? Does not confidence in getting the mind of the Lord on a matter relating to His church outweigh the convenience of making premature decisions\u2014decisions that can damage the lives of our brethren and miss the Lord\u2019s will? We so often forget that, in God\u2019s eyes, the means is just as important as the end. Once again, Christian Smith puts it beautifully:<\/p>\n
Consensus is built on the experience of Christian community. It requires strong relationships able to tolerate struggling through issues together. It requires mutual love and respect to hear each other when there is disagreement. Consensus also requires a commitment to know and understand other people more than a desire to convince or railroad them. Consensus, as a way to make decisions in the church, is not easier, just better. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, consensus is the worst form of decision-making in the church, except for all the others. Consensus is not strong on efficiency, if by that we mean ease and speed. It can take a long time to work through issues, which can become quite frustrating. Consensus is strong on unity, communication, openness to the Spirit\u2019s leading, and responsible participation in the body. In achieving those values, consensus is efficient. Deciding by consensus, then, simply requires belief that unity, love, communication, and participation are more important in the Christian scheme than quick, easy decisions. It requires the understanding that, ultimately, the process is as important as the outcome. How we treat each other as we make decisions together is as important as what we actually decide.<\/p>\n
In approaching the matter of consensus, some have sacrificed God\u2019s truth upon the altar of convenience. But human convenience and expediency is a dangerously thin criterion for judging actions in the spiritual realm.
\nThe core question that must be asked, therefore, is not, \u201cIs this convenient and expedient?\u201d but, \u201cIs this scriptural, and is it in harmony with the organic nature of the church?\u201d You can rest assured that if the Lord has bid us to follow something, it will be possible and practical by His grace.
\nIn summary, the following is what leadership in the early church did: It encouraged every member to exercise his or her gifts; it helped to form spiritual solidarity among believers; it fostered a sense of community, cohesion, and unity within the church.
\nThe ability to wield power or impose one\u2019s will on others does not characterize biblical leadership. Leadership is characterized by the ability to weld the church together to reach undivided judgments on critical affairs. Any person who does this at a given time is leading at that moment.
\nAll in all, the New Testament knows nothing of an authoritative mode of leadership. Nor does it know a \u201cleaderless\u201d egalitarianism. It rejects both hierarchical structures as well as rugged individualism. Instead, the New Testament envisions leadership as coming from the entire church. The brothers and sisters supply direction and decision-making by consensus. Seasoned brothers supply oversight.
\nIn this way, the early churches were guided democracies. Decision-making was communal. It stood between hierarchical structures on the one hand and egalitarian individualism on the other. Elders were called to exercise pastoral oversight in the context of mutual subjection rather than in a hierarchical structure of subordination (Eph. 5:21; 1 Tim. 5:19\u201320).<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Is it possible that many of the problems that plague the institutional church today are directly rooted in our arrogant assumption that we\u2019ve found a better way to lead God\u2019s house in the twenty-first century than what we find taught and modeled in the New Testament? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do you think that the biblical example of decision-making by consensus better ensures that the Lord\u2019s mind has been reached compared to that of allowing a leader to dictate decisions to God\u2019s people? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do you believe that discerning the mind of the Lord on a church matter through consensus outweighs the convenience of making hasty decisions by a few people in power? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 11
\nREIMAGINING SPIRITUAL COVERING<\/p>\n
While the \u201cclergy\/laity\u201d distinction is embedded and assumed in religious circles, it cannot be found in the New Testament. Because the New Testament knows nothing of \u201cclergy,\u201d the fact that a separate caste of the \u201cordained\u201d permeates our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that we do not yet take the New Testament very seriously. The \u201cclergy\u201d practice is a heresy that must be renounced. It strikes at the heart of the priesthood of all believers that Jesus purchased on the cross. It contradicts the shape that Jesus\u2019 kingdom was to take when He said, \u201cYou are all brethren.\u201d Since it is a tradition of man, it nullifies the Word of God. The clergy system stands as a monumental obstacle to genuine reformation and renewal.
\n\u2014Jon Zens<\/p>\n
Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire builders have been people unable to give and receive love.
\n\u2014Henri Nouwen<\/p>\n
So who is your covering? This is the terse query raised by many modern Christians whenever they encounter those who meet outside the institutional church. But what is at the heart of this inquiry? And what biblical basis undergirds it?
\nIt\u2019s my contention that a great deal of confusion and subnormal Christian behavior is connected with a teaching known as \u201cspiritual covering.\u201d (It\u2019s sometimes called \u201cprotective covering.\u201d) This teaching holds that Christians are protected from doctrinal error and moral failure when they submit themselves to the authority of another believer or religious organization.
\nThe painful experience of many has led me to conclude that the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching is a matter that greatly troubles Zion today. And it desperately begs for critical reflection.
\nIn the next three chapters, I will attempt to cut through the fog that surrounds the difficult issues attached to the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching. Particularly the thorny subjects of authority and submission.<\/p>\n
Is \u201cCovering\u201d Covered in the Bible?<\/p>\n
Since I\u2019ve been gathering outside the institutional church, I\u2019ve observed many who have suffered opposition from leaders in the organized church. These brave souls have generated acute questions about ecclesiastical authority. In fact, they have been asked the same questions that religious leaders asked our Lord centuries ago: \u201cBy what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?\u201d (Matt. 21:23 NKJV). Or to put it in modern parlance, \u201cWho is your covering?\u201d
\nIf we strip it down to its bare roots, the idea of \u201ccovering\u201d rests upon a top-heavy, hierarchical understanding of authority. This understanding is borrowed from the structures that belong to this world system. It in no way reflects the kingdom of God. Consequently, there is a natural affinity between the hierarchical\/positional orientation of leadership and the modern \u201ccovering\u201d teaching.
\nInterestingly, the word covering only appears once in the entire New Testament. It is used in connection with a woman\u2019s head covering (1 Cor. 11:15). While the Old Testament uses the word sparingly, it typically uses it to refer to a piece of natural clothing. It never uses it in a spiritual way.
\nSo the first thing we can say about spiritual \u201ccovering\u201d is that there is scant biblical evidence to support it. Yet despite this fact, countless Christians glibly parrot the \u201cwho-is-your-covering?\u201d question. Some even push it as a litmus test to measure the authenticity of a church or ministry.
\nThis leads me to ask a question of my own: If the Bible is silent with respect to \u201ccovering,\u201d what do people mean when they ask, \u201cWho is your covering?\u201d Most people (if pressed) would rephrase the question as \u201cWho are you accountable to?\u201d
\nBut this raises another sticky point. The Bible never consigns accountability to human beings. It always consigns it exclusively to God (Matt. 12:36; 18:23; Luke 16:2; Rom. 3:19; 14:12; 1 Cor. 4:5; Heb. 4:13; 13:17; 1 Peter 4:5).
\nConsequently, the biblically sound answer to the \u201cwho-are-youaccountable-to?\u201d question is simply \u201cI\u2019m accountable to the same person you are\u2014God.\u201d Strangely, however, this answer is usually a prescription for misunderstanding and a recipe for false accusation.
\nSo while the timbre and key of \u201caccountability\u201d sounds slightly different from that of \u201ccovering,\u201d the song is essentially the same. And it\u2019s one that doesn\u2019t harmonize with the unmistakable singing of Scripture.<\/p>\n
Unearthing the Real Question Behind Covering<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s widen the question a bit. What do people really mean when they push the \u201ccovering\u201d question? I submit that what they\u2019re really asking is \u201cWho controls you?\u201d Common (mis)teaching about \u201ccovering\u201d really boils down to questions about who controls whom. And the modern institutional church is structured around such control.
\nOf course, people rarely recognize that this is what\u2019s at the bottom of the issue. For it\u2019s typically well clothed with religious garments. In the minds of many Christians, \u201ccovering\u201d is merely a protective mechanism.
\nBut if we dissect the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching, we\u2019ll soon discover that it\u2019s rooted in a one-up\/one-down, chain-of-command style of leadership. Within this leadership style, those in higher ecclesiastical positions have a tenacious hold on those under them. And it\u2019s believed (rather oddly) that, through such top-down control, believers are \u201cprotected\u201d from error.
\nThe concept goes something like this. Everyone must answer to someone else who is in a higher ecclesiastical position. In the garden-variety, postwar evangelical church, this translates into the \u201claymen\u201d answering to the pastor. In turn, the pastor must answer to someone with more authority.
\nThe pastor typically traces his accountability to a denominational headquarters, to another church (often called the \u201cmother church\u201d), or to an influential Christian worker. (The worker is perceived to have a higher rank in the ecclesiastical pyramid.)
\nSo the layman is \u201ccovered\u201d by the pastor, who is \u201ccovered\u201d by the denomination, the mother church, or the Christian worker. Because each person is accountable to a higher ecclesiastical authority, each one is protected (or \u201ccovered\u201d) by that authority. So the thinking goes.
\nThis \u201ccovering-accountability\u201d template is applied to all spiritual relationships in the church. And each relationship is artificially cut to fit the template. No relationship can be had outside of it\u2014especially those of the \u201claymen.\u201d
\nBut this line of reasoning generates the following questions: Who covers the mother church? Who covers the denominational headquarters? Who covers the Christian worker?
\nSome have offered the pat answer that God covers these \u201chigher\u201d authorities. But such a canned answer begs the question: Why can\u2019t God be the covering for the laymen\u2014or even the pastor?
\nHmmm \u2026
\nThe truth is that the guy on top ends up being accountable to no one, while accountability is pushed to the hilt for everyone below him. Of course, the real problem with the \u201cGod-denomination-worker-pastorlaity\u201d model goes far beyond the incoherent, pretzel logic to which it leads. The chief problem is that it violates the organic nature of the church. For behind the pious rhetoric of \u201cproviding accountability\u201d and \u201chaving a covering\u201d looms a system that\u2019s bereft of biblical support and driven by a spirit of control. In a word, the underlying issues that lurk behind the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching have to do with power and control.<\/p>\n
Covering Is Smothering<\/p>\n
It is my opinion that the doctrine of \u201cspiritual covering\u201d fundamentally supplants the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, the attempt to critically examine the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching and all that\u2019s bound up with it is far more than an arcane, theological exercise. It touches the very purpose of God\u2014a purpose that is wholly occupied with the absolute sovereignty and supremacy of Jesus Christ in His church.
\nIn the 1970s, God raised up many organic churches in virtually every part of America. Yet misteaching about spiritual authority caused the demise of virtually all of them. They experienced the smothering that follows \u201ccovering.\u201d Those who waded into the swirling waters of spiritual covering capsized under the crosscurrents of human power and control.
\nMay it not be so in our day.
\nWhile we are subject to the same foibles as those who have gone before us, we don\u2019t have to succumb to their mistakes. If we have to make mistakes, let\u2019s make new ones.
\nAs in the 1970s, the Lord is now reawakening His people to His all-consuming purpose of restoring His house. In light of this new awakening, may we scrap the old leaking wineskins that have hindered the flow of God\u2019s new wine.
\nWould to God that there would be scores of Christian groups who are gathering unto His Son alone. Groups that express His body in all of its fullness. Groups that are not hidebound by authoritarian leadership models or denominational structures.
\nMay you, dear reader, be added to their tribe.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 How familiar are you with \u201ccovering\u201d terminology? Have you ever used it as a standard by which to judge people and churches?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Does the word control or smothering describe your \u201ccovering\u201d experience? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 If \u201ccovering\u201d is a foreign concept to you, do any of the descriptions of it in this chapter resonate with experiences that you or your friends have had in the past? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 12
\nREIMAGINING AUTHORITY AND SUBMISSION<\/p>\n
No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
\n\u2014Jesus Christ in Matthew 9:16\u201317<\/p>\n
Within the fellowship of the Trinity there is no lusting after power and position. No trinitarian Person considers himself better than the other two, but in loving deference esteems the other two more highly.
\n\u2014Roderick T. Leupp<\/p>\n
In Christianity today, a great deal of talk about authority and submission is circulating. Granted, the Bible has something to say about authority and submission. However, it spills far more ink in teaching us about love and service than it does about authority and submission. They are but footnotes in the unfolding drama that the Bible portrays.
\nMy experience has been that when the fundamental aspects of love and servanthood are mastered in a church, the issues of authority and submission amazingly take care of themselves. (In this connection, those who put undue emphasis on these subjects are typically more interested in making themselves an authority figure than they are in serving their fellow brethren.)
\nSo while the Bible doesn\u2019t make a lot of noise about authority and submission, the subjects are present. And they are germane to bearing ministry, receiving ministry, and pleasing Christ\u2014the Head of all authority.
\nTo my mind, using unbiblical jargon like \u201ccovering\u201d only obscures the issue of authority and submission. It makes our conversation cluttered and our thoughts murky. If we stay with a New Testament vocabulary, we\u2019ll be better able to cut through the matted layers of human tradition that have obscured the subject.
\nLet me be candid. Most of what passes today for \u201cspiritual authority\u201d is a study in absurdity. The discipleship-shepherding movement of the 1970s is a classic example of the unspeakable tragedies that occur when bogus and foolish applications of authority are made. The aforementioned movement was riddled with spiritual mixture. And it degraded into extreme forms of control and manipulation.
\nHere is a summary of the discipleship-shepherding teaching. Every Christian must find a shepherd to disciple and \u201ccover\u201d him or her. The shepherd is \u201cGod\u2019s delegated authority.\u201d Therefore, his advice must always be followed. To disobey one\u2019s shepherd is to disobey God Himself. Thus, all Christians must trust in their shepherd\u2019s judgment above their own. If a person fails to submit to his or her shepherd, he or she has moved outside of divine \u201ccovering\u201d and will experience loss\u2014either spiritual or physical.
\nThe major error of the discipleship-shepherding teaching rests upon the false assumption that submission is the equivalent of unconditional obedience. Equally flawed is the idea that God vests certain people with unquestioned authority over others.
\nTo be sure, the leaders of the discipleship-shepherding movement were gifted men with noble motives. They didn\u2019t envision the direction that the movement would take. (Some of them have since apologized for their role in spawning it.) Even so, countless lives were devastated as a result. In many segments of the discipleship-shepherding movement, spiritual abuse was rationalized under the oft-repeated platitude that God works good despite the actors in the cast. God, it was taught, will hold individual \u201cshepherds\u201d responsible for wrong decisions. The \u201csheep\u201d bear no responsibility so long as they mindlessly obey their shepherds\u2014regardless of what they command the sheep to do.
\nUnder this rationale, the movement constructed new yokes of control that were whittled and shaped to fit the laity caste. These new yokes suffocated the believing priesthood. And they exhibited the same domination of souls that characterize the cults. So-called shepherds were transformed into God-surrogates for other Christians, seizing control over the most intimate details of their lives. All of this was done in the name of \u201cbiblical accountability.\u201d
\nIn the aftermath, the movement left a trail of broken and disillusioned Christians who continue to mistrust any semblance of leadership today. (Some suffered crueler fates.) As a result, those who were clergy-whipped in the movement developed an aversion to words like authority, submission, and accountability. Even today, they still struggle to discard the distorted images of God that were etched in their minds by their \u201cshepherding\u201d experience.
\nThe subjects of authority and submission, therefore, represent a sensitive and highly charged history for many. So much so, that when leadership terminology is merely uttered, alert lights go off and the red flag of victimization is raised.
\nMore than thirty years later, spiritual authority continues to be an emotionally laden and flammable subject. Despite the highly divergent take on the issue that\u2019s contained in this book, we are still treading on the edges of a hazardous minefield.
\nKeep in mind that erroneous teachings never spring from the mere employment of biblical words. They rather stem from running roughshod over what they meant to their original hearers. Words like authority and subjection have been debased for so long that they need to be \u201credeemed\u201d from the bogus connotations that have been attached to them.
\nTherefore, the safeguard to false teaching is not found in discarding these biblical terms. It\u2019s rather found in rising above the fray and recasting them according to their original renderings. To put it another way, we must learn not only to speak where the Bible speaks. But we must also learn to speak as the Bible speaks.<\/p>\n
The New Testament Notion of Subjection<\/p>\n
The Greek word most often translated \u201csubmit\u201d in the New Testament is hupotasso. Hupotasso is better translated \u201csubjection.\u201d In its New Testament usage, subjection is a voluntary attitude of giving into, cooperating with, and yielding to the admonition or advice of another.
\nBiblical subjection has nothing to do with control or hierarchical power. It\u2019s simply an attitude of childlike openness in yielding to others.
\nBiblical subjection exists, and it\u2019s precious. But it must begin with what God wants and what the New Testament assumes. Namely, that we are individually and corporately subject to Jesus Christ; we are subject to one another in the believing community to which we belong; and we are subject to those proven and trustworthy Christian workers who sacrificially serve our believing community.
\nI stress \u201cproven and trustworthy\u201d because false prophets and pseudo-apostles abound. It\u2019s the responsibility of the local brethren to examine those who claim to be Christian workers (1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 3:10; Rev. 2:2). For this reason, the Bible exhorts us to subject ourselves to spiritual leaders because of their noble character and sacrificial service (1 Cor. 16:10\u201311, 15\u201318; Phil. 2:29\u201330; 1 Thess. 5:12\u201313; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17). Perhaps the most luminous text to consider in this discussion is in Ephesians:<\/p>\n
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Eph. 5:21)<\/p>\n
Again, the Bible never teaches \u201cprotective covering.\u201d Instead, it teaches mutual subjection. Mutual subjection rests upon the New Testament notion that all believers are gifted. As such, they can all express Jesus Christ. Therefore, we are to be in subjection to one another in Christ.
\nMutual subjection is equally rooted in the biblical revelation of the body of Christ. God\u2019s authority has been vested in the entire body rather than to a particular section of it (Matt. 18:15\u201320; 16:16\u201319; Eph. 1:19\u201323). In God\u2019s ecclesiology, the ekklesia is a theocratic, participatory society where divine authority is dispersed to all who possess the Spirit. In this way, the church reflects the triune God where the relationship of the three divine persons is communal and nonhierarchical.
\nMake no mistake about it: God has not deputized His authority to any individual or segment of the church. Instead, His authority resides in the entire community. As the members of a believing community discharge their ministries, spiritual authority is dispensed through their Spirit-endowed gifts.
\nAt bottom, mutual subjection demands that we realize that we are members of something larger than ourselves\u2014a body. It also demands that we acknowledge that we are inadequate in ourselves to fulfill God\u2019s highest purpose. In other words, mutual subjection is rooted in the humble yet realistic affirmation that we need the input of our fellow brethren. It admits that we cannot be good Christians by ourselves. In this way, mutual subjection is indispensable to the texture of a normal Christian life.<\/p>\n
God\u2019s Idea of Authority<\/p>\n
The flip side of subjection is authority. Authority is God-given privilege to carry out a particular task. The New Testament word that\u2019s closest to our word \u201cauthority\u201d is exousia. Exousia is derived from the word exestin, which means a possible and rightful action that can be carried out without hindrance.
\nAuthority (exousia) has to do with the communication of power. Scripture teaches that God is the sole source of all authority (Rom. 13:1). And this authority has been vested in His Son (Matt. 28:18; John 3:30\u201336; 17:2).
\nIn other words, Jesus Christ alone possesses authority. The Lord plainly said, \u201cAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me\u201d (Matt. 28:18). At the same time, Christ has delegated His authority to men and women in this world for specific purposes.
\nFor instance, in the natural order, the Lord has instituted various and sundry spheres in which His authority is to be exercised. He has established certain \u201cofficial authorities\u201d that are designed to keep order under the sun. Governmental officials like kings, magistrates, and judges are given such authority (John 19:10\u201311; Rom. 13:1ff.; 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Peter 2:13\u201314).
\nOfficial authority is vested in a static office. The authority works regardless of the actions of the persons who populate the office. Official authority is fixed and positional. As long as a person holds office, he or she has authority.
\nWhen official authority is given to someone, the recipient becomes an \u201cauthority\u201d in his or her own right. It is for this reason that Christians are charged to be subject to governmental leaders\u2014regardless of their character (Rom. 13:1ff.; 1 Peter 2:13\u201319).
\nOur Lord Jesus as well as Paul exhibited the spirit of subjection when they stood in the presence of official authority (Matt. 26:63\u201364; Acts 23:2\u20135). In like manner, Christians are always to be subject to such authority. Lawlessness and the despising of authority are marks of the sinful nature (2 Peter 2:10; Jude 8). Yet subjection and obedience are two very different things. And it\u2019s a profound error to confuse them.<\/p>\n
Subjection vs. Obedience<\/p>\n
How does subjection differ from obedience? Subjection is an attitude; obedience is an action. Subjection is absolute; obedience is relative. Subjection is unconditional; obedience is conditional. Subjection is internal; obedience is external.
\nGod summons His people to have a spirit of humble subjection toward those whom He has placed in authority in the natural order. Yet we must not obey them if they command us to do something that violates His will. For the authority of God is higher than any earthly authority.
\nIn other words, one can disobey while submitting. That is, a person can disobey an earthly authority while maintaining a spirit of humble subjection to the authority\u2019s office. One can disobey while having an attitude of respect as opposed to a spirit of rebellion, reviling, and subversion (1 Tim. 2:1\u20132; 2 Peter 2:10; Jude 8).
\nThe disobedience of the Hebrew midwives (Ex. 1:17), Rahab (Josh. 2:1ff.), the three Hebrew young men (Dan. 3:17\u201318), Daniel (Dan. 6:8\u201310), and the apostles (Acts 4:18\u201320; 5:27\u201329) all exemplify the principle of being subject to official authority while disobeying it when it conflicts with God\u2019s will. It\u2019s also possible to correct a person in an authoritative office while still having a submissive attitude toward him or her (Matt. 14:3\u20135; Acts 16:35\u201339).
\nWhile God has established official authority to operate in the natural order, He hasn\u2019t instituted this kind of authority in the church. Granted, God gives believers authority (exousia) to exercise certain rights. Among them is the authority (exousia) to become the children of God (John 1:12); to own property (Acts 5:4); to decide to marry or live celibate (1 Cor. 7:37); to decide what to eat or drink (1 Cor. 8:9); to heal sickness and drive out devils (Matt. 10:1; Mark 3:15; 6:7; Luke 9:1; 10:19); to edify the church (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10); to receive special blessings associated with certain ministries (1 Cor. 9:4\u201318; 2 Thess. 3:8\u20139); to govern nations and to eat of the Tree of Life in the future kingdom (Rev. 2:26; 22:14).
\nYet astonishingly, the Bible never teaches that God has given believers authority (exousia) over other believers. Recall our Lord\u2019s words in Matthew 20:25\u201326 and Luke 22:25\u201326 where He condemned exousia-type authority among His followers. This fact alone should give us pause for serious reflection.
\nTherefore, it\u2019s a leap in logic and an overextrapolation of reason to suggest that church leaders wield the same kind of authority as dignitaries. Again, the New Testament never links exousia with church leaders. Nor does it ever suggest that some Christians have exousia over other Christians.
\nTo be sure, the Old Testament portrays prophets, priests, kings, and judges as official authorities. This is because these \u201coffices\u201d stood as shadows of the authoritative ministries of Jesus Christ Himself. Christ is the real Prophet, the real Priest, the real King, and the real Judge. But never do we find any church leader described or depicted as an official authority in the New Testament. This includes local overseers as well as apostolic workers.
\nTo be blunt, the notion that Christians have authority over other Christians is an example of forced exegesis. As such, it\u2019s biblically indefensible. When church leaders wield the same type of authority that governmental officials do, they become usurpers.
\nAdmittedly, authority does function in the church. But the authority that works in the ekklesia is drastically different from the authority that works in the natural order. This only makes sense because the church is not a human organization, but a spiritual organism. The authority that operates in the church is not official authority. It\u2019s organic authority.<\/p>\n
Official Authority vs. Organic Authority<\/p>\n
What is organic authority? It\u2019s authority that\u2019s rooted in spiritual life. Organic authority is communicated authority. That is, when a person communicates God\u2019s life through word or deed he or she has the support and backing of the Lord Himself.
\nBy virtue of the fact that they have the life of the Spirit, all Christians are capable of communicating organic authority. This is why the New Testament enjoins us to subject ourselves one to another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:21). But those who are more seasoned in spiritual life tend to express God\u2019s will more consistently than the carnal and the immature (Heb. 5:14).
\nOrganic authority finds its source in Christ\u2019s immediate direction rather than in a static office. Organic authority is not intrinsic to a person or a position. It doesn\u2019t reside in humans or in an office they may hold (as is the case with official authority).
\nInstead, organic authority operates outside of the individual. This is because it belongs to Christ. Only when Christ directs a person to word or action does that person exercise authority. Put another way, a person has the right to be heard and obeyed only when he or she reflects the Lord\u2019s mind. Organic authority, therefore, is communicative.
\nThe communicative nature of organic authority can be understood within the framework of the body metaphor that Paul draws for the church. When the Head (who is the source of all authority) signals the hand to move, the hand possesses the authority of the Head. The hand, however, has no authority in itself. It derives authority only when it acts in accordance with the communication of the Head. Insofar as the hand represents the will of the Head, to that degree the hand is an authority.
\nNote that the movement of the physical head in relation to the physical body is organic. It\u2019s based on the fact that a human being is a living organism. The same principle holds true for the spiritual Head and the spiritual body. Christians only exercise spiritual authority when they are representing Christ in their words and deeds.
\nOrganic authority, therefore, is flexible and fluid. It\u2019s not static. Organic authority is transmitted, not innovative. Therefore, it\u2019s not an irrevocable possession. Organic authority is also evaluated and affirmed by the body.
\nBecause organic authority is not officiated but derived, believers don\u2019t assume, inherit, confer, or substitute for God\u2019s authority. They merely represent it. This is a blunt distinction. Failure to understand it has led to untold confusion and abuse among God\u2019s people.
\nWhen discussing spiritual authority, the emphasis ought always to be on function and service rather than on a mystical notion of \u201cspirituality.\u201d Claiming authority on the basis of one\u2019s spirituality is practically the same as making oneself an official authority. For the claim to \u201cspirituality\u201d (in contrast with actual spirituality) can easily constitute a veiled office.
\nIf one is truly spiritual, his or her spirituality will be manifested in how he or she lives and serves. Spirituality can only be discerned by the latter and not by the touted claims of the person who assumes it. In this way, keeping the focus on service and function helps protect organic churches from devolving into personality cults.<\/p>\n
A Helpful Comparison<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s isolate some of the differences between official authority and organic authority.
\n1. Official authorities must be obeyed as long as what they declare does not violate the will of a higher authority (Acts 5:29; 1 Tim. 3:1). By contrast, those exercising organic authority never demand obedience to themselves. They rather seek to persuade others to obey God\u2019s will. Paul\u2019s letters are wonderful examples of this principle. They resonate with appeals and pleas rather than commands. They\u2019re littered with the language of persuasion. (More on this later.)
\n2. Official authorities bear full responsibility when they lead those under them into wrong practices. In Numbers 18, we learn that the burden of iniquity fell upon the shoulders of the priests\u2014the official authorities in Israel.
\nBy contrast, organic authority never nullifies the responsibility of others. In the church, believers bear full responsibility for their actions\u2014even when they choose to obey the counsel of others.
\nIt is for this reason that Scripture gives multiple injunctions to test the fruit of others. It equally teaches that deception brings divine judgment (Matt. 7:15\u201327; 16:11\u201312; 24:4\u20135; 1 Cor. 14:29; Gal. 1:6\u20139; 2:4; Phil. 3:2\u201319; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Tim. 2:14; 1 John 3:4\u201310; 4:1\u20136). The New Testament never teaches that if a Christian obeys another person he is no longer responsible for his actions.
\n3. Official authorities may be less mature, less spiritual, and less righteous than those they have authority over. Organic authority, however, is directly linked to spiritual life. It cannot be separated from it.
\nWe often tell our children \u201cobey your elders\u201d because those who are older (in natural life) tend to be more mature in their counsel. Thus they deserve our respect and subjection (1 Peter 5:5a). The same principle applies in the spiritual realm.
\nThose who have grown further in spiritual life bear a greater measure of organic authority. (Note that a person cannot exercise spiritual authority unless he or she is under God\u2019s authority.) A sure sign of greater spiritual maturity is a spirit of servanthood and childlike meekness. Consider the following texts that exhort us to esteem those who display both characteristics:<\/p>\n
Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints), that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors. I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking on your part. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men. (1 Cor. 16:15\u201318 NASB)<\/p>\n
Receive him [Epaphroditus] then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life. (Phil. 2:29\u201330a NASB)<\/p>\n
And we ask you, brethren, to know those labouring among you, and leading you in the Lord, and admonishing you, and to esteem them very abundantly in love, because of their work. (1 Thess. 5:12\u201313 YLT)<\/p>\n
Let the elders who take the lead [among the saints] well be esteemed worthy of double honour, specially those labouring in word and teaching. (1 Tim. 5:17 DARBY)<\/p>\n
Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. (Heb. 13:7 NASB)<\/p>\n
Be obedient to [Greek: persuaded by] those leading you, and be subject, for these do watch for your souls, as about to give account, that with joy they may do this, and not sighing, for this [is] unprofitable to you. (Heb. 13:17 YLT)<\/p>\n
You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders. (1 Peter 5:5 NASB)<\/p>\n
Clearly, the New Testament exhorts Christians to give weight to those who tirelessly labor in spiritual service. Such esteem is both spontaneous and instinctive. It should never be absolutized or formalized.
\nThe honor that a believer receives from the church is always earned by humble service. It\u2019s never demanded or asserted. Those who are truly spiritual don\u2019t claim to have spiritual authority over others. Nor do they boast about their spiritual labor and maturity. In fact, people who make such claims reveal their immaturity. The person who declares that he is \u201cGod\u2019s anointed man of strength and power for the hour\u201d\u2014or similar self-accolades\u2014simply proves one thing: He has no authority.
\nContrarily, those who receive esteem in the church have proven themselves to be trustworthy servants. Not in mere words, but in experience (2 Cor. 8:22; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 3:7). Earned recognition and trust from the body is the only valid benchmark for one\u2019s spiritual authority.
\n4. Official authorities possess their authority for as long as they hold office. And their authority works regardless of whether they make unwise or unrighteous decisions. For example, as long as King Saul sat on Israel\u2019s throne, he retained his authority. This was true even after the Spirit of God departed from him (1 Sam. 16:14; 24:4\u20136).
\nOn the other hand, organic authority operates only when Christ is being expressed. So if a believer exhorts the church to do something that doesn\u2019t reflect the will of the Head (even if it may not violate a prescribed mandate of God), there\u2019s no authority to back his exhortation. Again, only Jesus Christ has authority. And only that which flows from His life carries authority.
\n5. Official authorities virtually always function in a hierarchy. Organic authority is never related to hierarchy (Matt. 20:25\u201328; Luke 22:25\u201327). In fact, organic authority is always distorted and abused when allied with hierarchy. For this reason, hierarchical imagery is absent from the New Testament Epistles.
\nIn short, organic authority doesn\u2019t flow from the top down. Nor does it function in a chain-of-command, hierarchical mode. Equally so, organic authority doesn\u2019t work from the bottom up. That is, it doesn\u2019t flow from the church to the person. For even if a church decides to give someone authority for a specific task, it lacks authority if it doesn\u2019t reflect the mind of Christ.
\nOrganic authority works from the inside out. When the indwelling Christ leads a believer or a church to speak or act, the authority of the Head backs him or her. Jesus Christ, as represented by the indwelling Spirit, is the exclusive wellspring, mainstay, and source of all authority. And there is no covering over His Head.
\nThe upshot is that leadership problems in the institutional church stem from an obscenely simplistic application of official authority structures to Christian relationships. This faulty application is rooted in a one-size-fitsall mentality of authority. Indeed, it\u2019s a profound mistake to transplant the official authority template into the church of the living God.<\/p>\n
Organic Authority Is Always Framed in Love<\/p>\n
Whenever a Christian is exercising organic authority in the church, we do well to recognize it. To rebel against such authority is to rebel against Christ. Why? Because the only authority that exists is Christ. And when He is speaking through the church, genuine authority is at work.
\nScripture plainly says that \u201cGod is love\u201d (1 John 4:8, 16). For that reason, when God\u2019s authority is being expressed, love is present. To put it another way, the exercise of divine authority is always framed in love. Let me try to unravel that sentence.
\nLove is willing to admonish others when they falter. It rejects freelancing, do-it-yourself, lone-ranger spirituality. Instead, it values the interdependence of the body.
\nLove realizes that because we are members one of another and have the same ancestry, our actions have a profound effect on our fellow brethren. Love deplores individualistic, privatized Christianity. Instead, it affirms its need for the other members of the church.
\nLove is sometimes sweet, kind, and nice. But when it faces the horrors of unrepentant sin, it can be combative and unbending. Love is patient, respectful, and gentle. It\u2019s never strident, demeaning, or dictatorial. Love repudiates pompous and inflated claims to authority. Instead, it\u2019s stamped with humility and meekness.
\nLove isn\u2019t flabby or sentimental, but keenly perceptive and discerning. It never manipulates or imposes its own will. It never threatens, forces, demands, or coerces.
\nLove propels us to accept responsibility in being our \u201cbrother\u2019s keeper.\u201d But it forbids us from becoming intrusive meddlers into his life. Love never usurps the place of God nor judges the motives of others\u2019 hearts. Nor does it think the worst of them.
\nLove recognizes that we are called to represent the Holy Spirit\u2019s will to one another, not to substitute for His person or replace His work.
\nConsequently, organic authority isn\u2019t a license to probe into the intimate affairs of our fellow brethren to \u201cmake sure\u201d they\u2019re walking aright. The Bible never gives us liberty to quiz our spiritual siblings about their financial investments, how they make love to their spouses, or other areas of privacy.
\nThis kind of unnecessary probing\u2014exercised under the guise of \u201caccountability\u201d\u2014is the stuff that authoritarian cults are made of. Such thinking will ultimately turn any believing community into a psychological pressure cooker. (Of course, if a believer willingly desires to confide in another person about such personal matters, that\u2019s a different story. But that\u2019s a choice, not a duty.)
\nWe should never lose sight of the fact that the Bible puts a high premium on individual Christian liberty, freedom, and privacy (Rom. 14:1\u201312; Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:16; James 4:11\u201312). So respect for these virtues should be high among believers. Unless there\u2019s good reason to suspect that a brother or sister is living in gross sin, it\u2019s profoundly unchristian to poke and pry into their personal and domestic affairs.
\nThe New Testament warns us against being \u201cbusybodies\u201d in other people\u2019s matters, \u201cspeaking things which [we] ought not\u201d (1 Tim. 5:13 KJV; 1 Peter 4:15). By the same token, if a Christian is in serious straits spiritually\u2014struggling with grave sin\u2014love demands that he or she both seek and welcome help from others.
\nIn sum, because divine authority is always couched in love, it engenders a culture of spiritual safety and security. Subjection to God\u2019s authority isn\u2019t control. It\u2019s aid. It\u2019s never static or frozen into a formal system. It\u2019s not official, legal, or mechanical. Instead, it\u2019s relational and organic.
\nDanger looms whenever God\u2019s authority is transformed into a human institution\u2014no matter what name it flies under. As Christians, we have a spiritual instinct to subject ourselves to spiritual authority. And the church always benefits when we do so.
\nWhenever we welcome others to speak into our lives, we wedge the door open for the Lord to encourage, motivate, and protect us. It\u2019s for this reason that Proverbs repeatedly stresses that \u201cin the multitude of counselors there is safety\u201d (Prov. 11:14 NKJV; 15:22; 24:6). Love, then, is the divine umbrella that affords spiritual protection. Yet thankfully, it\u2019s not as narrow as the hearts of some who live under its reach. In the final analysis, only love has \u201ccovering\u201d power. For \u201clove covers over a multitude of sins\u201d (1 Peter 4:8; Prov. 10:12; 17:9).<\/p>\n
The Cost of Mutual Subjection<\/p>\n
Mutual subjection is radically different from unilateral subordination to authoritarian structures. At the same time, it should never be confused with the highly individualistic, morally relative, tolerant anarchism that marks postmodern thinking.
\nMutual subjection is costly. Let\u2019s face it. Our egos don\u2019t like being subject to anyone. As fallen creatures, we want to do what is right in our own eyes\u2014without the interference of others (Prov. 12:15).
\nSo the inclination to reject organic authority is deeply rooted in our Adamic nature (Rom. 3:10\u201318). Receiving correction, admonition, and reproof from other mortals constitutes a big cross to bear (Prov. 15:10; 17:10; 27:5\u20136; 28:23). It is for this reason that mutual subjection serves as an antidote to our rebellious flesh as well as to our lawless culture.
\nExercising spiritual authority is equally painful. Unless one is a control freak, the task of reproving others is both difficult and risky. Scripture tells us that a brother who is offended is harder to be won than a walled city (Prov. 18:19). Hence, the awkwardness of correcting others, coupled with the fear of confrontation, makes obeying the Lord in areas of expressing His authority hard on our flesh. (This awkwardness merely highlights the importance of cultivating loving, accepting relationships within the assembly.)
\nIt\u2019s far easier just to let things go. It\u2019s far simpler just to pray for our erring brethren and leave it at that. It\u2019s far harder to confront them lovingly with patience, humility, and compassion. (Again the exception to this is the self-righteous control freak. Such a person seems to relish correcting others.)
\nAll of this simply underscores the arresting fact that love is to govern our relationships with others. For if we love the brethren, we will subject ourselves to their counsel and admonition.
\nLikewise, love will compel us to approach our failing brethren in a spirit of meekness whenever they need our help (Gal 6:1; James 5:19\u201320). And we will refrain from imputing evil motives to their hearts (Matt. 7:1\u20134; 1 Cor. 13:5). At bottom, the way of love is always the way of self-denial.<\/p>\n
Mutual Subjection Is Rooted in the Triune God<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s return our discussion of mutual subjection to the archetype of the church: the Godhead. Because mutual subjection is based in love, it\u2019s rooted in the very nature of the triune God. God, by nature, is Community. The one God is made up of a Community of three persons who eternally share Their lives with one another.
\nWithin the Godhead, the Father pours Himself into the Son. In turn, the Son gives Himself unreservedly to the Father. And the Spirit, as the Holy Mediator, pours Their love from each to each. Within this divine dance of love, there exists no hierarchy. There exists no control. There exists no authoritarianism. There exists no conflict of interests. Instead, there\u2019s mutual love, mutual fellowship, and mutual subjection.
\nThe mutual sharing that perpetually flows within the Godhead is the cornerstone of love. In fact, it\u2019s the very reason that John could say, \u201cGod is love\u201d (1 John 4:8). For if God were not Community, there could have been no one for Him to love before creation. The act of loving requires the presence of two or more persons.
\nThe church is the community of the King. As such, it\u2019s called to mirror the reciprocal love relationship that eternally flows within the triune God. Thus within the fellowship of the church, there is mutual subjection governed by mutual love. There is no hierarchy, no control, and no authoritarianism. Why? Because the church is called to live by divine life\u2014the same life that exists within the Godhead (John 6:57; 17:20\u201326; 2 Peter 1:4).
\nWithin the family environment of the church, mutual subjection creates unity. It builds love, provides stability, and fosters growth. It gives rich meaning to Christian living. The Christian life was never meant to be lived outside of a face-to-face community. The ekklesia\u2014the community of the King\u2014is our natural habitat.
\nIn this regard, mutual subjection is an antiseptic against hard-line Nicolaitanism (clericalism). It emphasizes power for and power among rather than power over. It encourages the empowerment of all rather than the power of a few.
\nWhile our culture encourages self-reliance, individualism, and independence, these things are incompatible with the ecology of organic Christianity. Because God is Community, His children are designed for community. Our new nature calls out for it.
\nWe Christians are not isolated beings. Like the triune God who we were created after, our species is communal (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). We thrive on meaningful relationships with others of the same kind. The modern \u201ccovering\u201d doctrine obscures this unearthing insight. But the principle of mutual subjection brings it into sharp relief.
\nStated simply, the Trinitarian nature of God serves as both the source and the model for all human community. And it is within the love relationship of the Godhead that the principle of mutual subjection finds its true value. As Miroslav Volf says, \u201cThe more a church is characterized by symmetrical and decentralized distribution of power and freely affirmed interaction, the more it will correspond to the trinitarian communion.\u201d
\nMutual subjection, therefore, isn\u2019t a human concept. It instead stems from the communal and reciprocal nature of the eternal God. And it is that very nature that the ekklesia is called to bear. In this way, mutual subjection enables us to behold the face of Christ in the very fabric and texture of organic church life.
\nTo borrow language from John Howard Yoder, the authority and submission that Scripture envisions \u201cgives more authority to the church than does Rome, trusts more to the Holy Spirit than does Pentecostalism, has more respect for the individual than Humanism, makes moral standards more binding than Puritanism, and is more open to the given situation than \u2018The New Morality.\u2019 \u201d
\nIn sum, mutual subjection creates a culture that appreciates spiritual leadership without absolutizing it. It responds to spiritual authority without turning it into an instrument of control. For when \u201cmentoring relationships,\u201d \u201caccountability partnerships,\u201d and \u201cspiritual direction\u201d are governed by mutual subjection, they become spiritually healthy and mutually enriching. They also bear no resemblance to the modern practice of hierarchical \u201ccovering.\u201d
\nPerhaps a closing metaphor will help sum up all that I\u2019ve said in this chapter. We can compare mutual subjection to good music. When it functions in the context of intelligent humility and deep faithfulness to the headship of Christ, it makes a beautiful melody that resonates with the sweet harmony of the New Testament song. But when it is replaced by hierarchical systems that characterize the spirit of the Gentiles, its sound is distorted. Still worse, when it\u2019s rejected in favor of the postmodern sins of wholesale individualism and independence, its timbre and key cease altogether, and the dead chill of silence stands in its wake.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Where do you think your current thinking on \u201ccovering\u201d and \u201caccountability\u201d originates? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do you have any stories of damage by people who uttered \u201cno covering\u201d platitudes and thoughtlessly waved their hands at buzz words like \u201caccountability\u201d? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Are we not obligated by Scripture to cease from applying the concept of official authority in the church and instead return to the New Testament concept of mutual subjection to organic authority? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 This chapter points out that the New Testament does not support the idea that some Christians have authority over other Christians. How do you feel about this? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 13
\nREIMAGINING DENOMINATIONAL COVERING<\/p>\n
What life have you if you have not life together? There is no life that is not in community, and no community not lived in praise of God.
\n\u2014T. S. Eliot<\/p>\n
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, \u201cI follow Paul,\u201d and another, \u201cI follow Apollos,\u201d are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe\u2014as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
\n\u2014Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians 3:3\u20135<\/p>\n
Many Christians believe that denominations protect us from error. But this is an illusion.
\n\u201cDenominational covering\u201d is built on the superstitious idea that if I belong to a Christian denomination, I\u2019m somehow magically \u201ccovered\u201d and \u201cprotected\u201d from error. But this idea is a charade. Countless Christians who have belonged to a denomination have gone off the beam theologically and morally.
\nConsequently, the notion that people are \u201ccovered\u201d by tracing their accountability to a top-down organization is pure fiction.
\nThe only protection from error is in submitting ourselves to the Spirit of truth and the Word of God in the context of the body of Christ (1 John 2:20, 27). God\u2019s idea of accountability works from community to person. Not from parson to person. Spiritual protection comes from relatedness to the Holy Spirit and spiritual connectedness with other Christians. Therein lies the genius of Christian community. By contrast, the complicated, legalized, over-under system of denominational accountability is a manmade substitute for mutual subjection.<\/p>\n
The Tyranny of the Status Quo<\/p>\n
If you doubt that the denominational system is built on top-down control, try questioning it. If you do, it\u2019s quite likely that you will hear the rhetoric engines kick in.
\nThe frightening truth is that, all too often, those who raise questions about ecclesiastical authority send tremors through the ecclesiastical system. And they are often vilified as a result.
\nIf you are a dissenter who leaves the institutional church because you believe it to be unscriptural, you might be branded a \u201cheretic,\u201d a \u201cboat-rocker,\u201d a \u201ctroublemaker,\u201d a \u201cloose cannon,\u201d or an \u201cunsubmissive rebel.\u201d Such invocation of religious rhetoric is designed to stifle thought. It\u2019s calculated to derail honest dissent with the partisan status quo.
\nSometimes the religious machinery will concoct the most vicious and hurtful rumors on those who dissent. I have a good friend who used to be a pastor. He was part of the local pastors association in his hometown. After having a crisis of conscience regarding the biblical legitimacy of the modern pastoral office and the denominational system, he gave up being a pastor and left the institutional church for good.
\nNot long after, his fellow pastor friends in town began to spread vile rumors about him and his family. To their minds, a man couldn\u2019t leave the pastorate without being embroiled in some sort of scandal that forced him to leave. So they made one up out of thin air.
\nNone of the rumors were true. But my friend tasted firsthand the tremendous power of the religious system. More importantly, he learned to suffer with his Lord \u201coutside the camp, bearing His reproach\u201d (Heb. 13:13 NASB). Such is the price that many have paid for leaving the religious system.
\nInterestingly, advocates of the denominational system argue that denominations are a safeguard from the cults. But here\u2019s the irony: The concept of \u201cdenominational covering\u201d is very much like the skewed, master\/slave notion of leadership that marks most modern cults. Let me explain.
\nIn the denominations, members unreservedly follow a single leader, a board of \u201clay-leaders,\u201d or an organization. By contrast, the biblical principle of mutual subjection emphasizes submission to one another as opposed to unquestioned obedience to a human leader or hierarchical organization.
\nTo put an even finer point on it, the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching is often used as a bludgeon to dismiss those Christians who don\u2019t meet under a denominational flag. \u201cCovering\u201d has too often become a weapon in the hands of partisan religious groups to secure the theological terrain. And that weapon has often been fueled by sectarian bigotry.<\/p>\n
Autonomous yet Related<\/p>\n
Every church born within the first seventeen years of Pentecost was spawned from the Jerusalem church. But these new churches had neither a formal nor a subservient relationship to the church in Jerusalem. In this regard, the New Testament always envisions autonomous (independent), but fraternally related, churches. The early churches made their decisions apart from external control. It is for this reason that Paul admonishes the assemblies he worked with to take charge of their own internal problems.
\nIn God\u2019s thought, every church is one in life with all other churches. But every church is independent, self-governing, and responsible to God alone for its decision-making. Hence, the concept of a governing \u201cmother church,\u201d or denominational headquarters, is based on a wooden interpretation of Scripture.
\nScriptural principle affirms that each church is independent in its decision-making and oversight. (Consider our Lord\u2019s words to the seven churches of Asia. He dealt with each assembly according to its unique problems\u2014Rev. 1, 2, 3.)
\nThis principle is also underscored in Paul\u2019s letters. Paul consistently treats each church as an autonomous, self-governing organism. To Paul\u2019s mind, each church is directly responsible and accountable to God (Eph. 5:24; Col. 1:9\u201310).
\nIt\u2019s a gross mistake, therefore, to spin local churches together with the thread of religious federationism. Every church stands under the same Head. They are all one in life. Consequently, churches should cooperate with, learn from, and help one another just as they did in the first century (Acts 11:28\u201330; Rom. 15:25\u201329; 16:1; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 8:1\u201314; 13:13; 1 Thess. 2:14; Phil. 4:22). At the same time, each church should embrace the tradition that the apostles established for \u201cevery church\u201d (1 Cor. 4:16\u201317; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33; 16:1; 1 Thess. 2:14).
\nAccording to divine principle, each church should develop its own oversight, ministry, and unique testimony. On the other hand, there should be spiritual relatedness and mutual helpfulness among the churches.
\nIn short, there\u2019s no evidence in Scripture that a church has the right to regulate, control, or intrude upon the affairs, teachings, or practices of another assembly. The denominational system betrays this principle.<\/p>\n
The Church Council of Acts 15<\/p>\n
As a counterargument, some have sought to tease out of Acts 15 a biblical precedent for a governing \u201cmother church.\u201d But a careful analysis of this text shows that this is an unwarranted application. On the surface, it could appear that Paul and Barnabas went to the Jerusalem church because it had unilateral authority over every other church. However, this notion falls apart when the chapter is read in context.
\nHere\u2019s the story. Some from the Jerusalem church introduced a false teaching to the church in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas were prompted to pay Jerusalem a visit to settle the matter. Why? Because the teaching had originated from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1\u20132, 24).
\nIf the false teaching had come out of the Antioch church, Paul and Barnabas would have dealt with it locally. But because the doctrine came from the Jerusalem church, the two men went to Jerusalem to determine who introduced the false teaching. They also wanted to make sure that the Jerusalem elders and the twelve apostles didn\u2019t affirm it.
\nUpon their arrival, those in the Jerusalem church who taught the doctrine were identified (15:4\u20135). This led to a temporary church council, and the church repudiated the doctrine publicly (vv. 6ff.).
\nThe decision reached by the council, which included the approval of the twelve apostles, the elders, and the whole church, was circulated among the Gentile churches. This was done in the event that other churches would someday face the same troubling issue. The church\u2019s decision carried God\u2019s authority because the Holy Spirit inspired it (15:28) and the church affirmed it (vv. 23, 28, 31).
\nTo read anything else into this story reflects a failure to take seriously the historical specifics behind the account. It\u2019s an example of reading one\u2019s own biases into the text rather than reading meaning and direction out of it. Consequently, the idea of an authoritative \u201cmother church\u201d lacks scriptural merit.
\nTo be sure, the Jerusalem church was loved, appreciated, and helped by other churches (Rom. 15:26\u201327; 2 Cor. 9:11\u201313). But there\u2019s nothing in the New Testament that would lead us to believe that it possessed supreme authority, or that all other churches were subservient to it. Rather, each church was autonomous and directly responsible to God. None were subordinate to any other.<\/p>\n
Denominationalism Is Self-Defeating<\/p>\n
Another problem with the denominational system is that it frequently crushes that which it claims to protect. It effectively breaks up that which it alleges to build up. Like the misguided sectarian zeal that drove ancient Roman Catholicism, Protestant denominationalism has too often descended into a human institution that cracks the whip of despotism before its dissenters. It adeptly defends the party line. And it damns others for alleged doctrinal trespasses.
\nIt is for this reason that Paul thunders against the Corinthian Christians when they denominated themselves into separate camps (1 Cor. 1:11\u201313; 3:3\u20134). That God\u2019s family today be pressed into the partisan straitjacket of denominationalism is biblically unjustifiable. But today, it\u2019s part of the Christian subculture, and few people wince at it.
\n(Incidentally, many so-called nondenominational, interdenominational, and postdenominational churches are just as hierarchical as mainline denominations. The same is true for many modern Christian \u201cmovements.\u201d These also belong to the denominational system.)
\nMore striking, the denominational system actually helps perpetuate heresy\u2014the very thing it claims to curb. Think about it. If the autonomous nature of every church were preserved, the spreading of error would be strongly localized. But when a denominational headquarters is infected with a false teaching, every church connected with it embraces the same falsehood. Thus the heresy becomes widespread.
\nWhen every church is autonomous, it\u2019s difficult for an ambitious false teacher to emerge and seize control over a cluster of churches. It\u2019s also virtually impossible for a \u201cpope-like figure\u201d to emerge. Not so in a denomination. All related churches stand or fall together.
\nIt can also be argued quite soundly that to form a denomination is to commit heresy. Denominations are formed when some Christians split off from the larger body of Christ to follow their favorite doctrines or practices and create a movement with them.
\nThe sin of heresy [Greek: hairesis] is the act of choosing to follow one\u2019s own tenets. So a person can be a heretic with the truth if he uses it to fracture the body of Christ. A person can be technically \u201corthodox\u201d and yet be a \u201cheretic\u201d by using an orthodox belief to divide Christians from one another.
\nWhile the typical institutional church makes its boast about being \u201ccovered\u201d by a denomination, it actually affords less face-to-face accountability than organic churches. In the average evangelical church, for example, the pastor is said to \u201ccover\u201d the congregation. But in most churches of this ilk, the bulk of the congregation barely knows the pastor (let alone one another). It\u2019s not uncommon for \u201cchurchgoers\u201d to say less than three sentences to each other during a typical Sunday-morning service. By contrast, in an organic church, all the brethren know one another intimately. This includes the extralocal workers who help the church (1 Thess. 5:12a).
\nAll in all, \u201cdenominational covering\u201d is artificial. It turns the church of Jesus Christ into a hierarchical society. And it maps poorly to scriptural example.
\nIn a word, the denominational system has fragmented the one body of Christ by religious partisanship. It has alienated the family of God into separate tribes. It has disintegrated the fabric of our spiritual brotherhood and sisterhood into an endless morass of religious parties. It has fractured the fellowship of God\u2019s people. It has slashed the body of Christ into pieces. It has carved the church into splintered fragments. It has spawned thousands of warring clans out of the one family of Christ. (Shockingly, there are more than thirty-three thousand Christian denominations on the planet today.) In a word, the contemporary denominational morass has polluted the Christian landscape.
\nAdvocates of denominationalism believe that this system is helpful. To them, the different denominations represent the different parts of the body of Christ. But the denominational system is foreign to New Testament principle. It\u2019s incompatible with Christian oneness. It\u2019s based on human divisions that are biblically unjustifiable (1 Cor. 1, 2, 3). It stems from a fractured vision of the body of Christ. And it runs contrary to the unified diversity of the triune God.<\/p>\n
A Word About Christian Orthodoxy<\/p>\n
Clearly, the mere employment of institutional church structures like the pastor system of Protestantism, the bishop system of Anglicanism, the priestly system of Roman Catholicism, and the denominational system of Christendom can never safeguard the Lord\u2019s people from doctrinal error. Barring the raft of independent churches that have gone off the rails of Christian orthodoxy, many clergy-led denominations have followed in the same path.
\nHistoric Christian teaching on the essential doctrines of the faith plays a crucial role in keeping a church on scriptural track. Throughout the centuries, Christians have preserved the core beliefs of our faith: Jesus Christ is God and man, He was born of a virgin, He was crucified for our sins, He rose again in bodily form, etc.
\nThese core beliefs do not belong to any one ecclesiastical tradition or denomination. Instead, they are the heritage of all genuine believers. And they reflect the voice of the church throughout history.
\nThese \u201cessentials of the faith\u201d embody what C. S. Lewis called Mere Christianity\u2014\u201cthe belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.\u201d Thus the call to recover the ecology of the New Testament church doesn\u2019t translate into a summons to reinvent the religious wheel on every theological issue. Nor does it include a rejection of all that has been passed down to us by our spiritual forefathers. At the same time, everything that is postapostolic is subject to scrutiny and should be critiqued by the apostolic tradition itself.
\nThe call to restore organic Christianity sides with every voice of the past that has remained true to apostolic revelation\u2014no matter what segment of the historic church to which they may have belonged. The primitive church was rooted in the soil of Christian truth. And staying within that soil requires that we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. As C. H. Spurgeon affirmed, \u201cI intend to grasp tightly with one hand the truths I have already learned, and to keep the other hand wide open to take in the things I do not yet know.\u201d<\/p>\n
By What Authority?<\/p>\n
When the Lord Jesus was on earth, the religious leaders of His day pressed the vexing question: \u201cBy what authority are You doing these things and who gave You this authority?\u201d (Matt. 21:23 NKJV).
\nIronically, not a few in today\u2019s religious establishment are raising the same questions to those simple communities that are gathering around Jesus Christ alone\u2014without clerical control or denominational partisanship. \u201cWho is your covering?\u201d is essentially the same question as \u201cBy what authority do you do these things?\u201d
\nAt bottom, the modern notion of ecclesiastical \u201ccovering\u201d is a thinly veiled euphemism for control. For this reason it doesn\u2019t map well with God\u2019s idea of mutual subjection. And it represents a wholesale departure from the New Testament concept of authority.
\nWhile some Christians carry on rather loudly about it, the notion of \u201ccovering\u201d would be repudiated by all first-century Christians. To be sure, ideological divisions, doctrinal heresies, anarchic independence, and individualistic subjectivism are severe problems that plague the body of Christ today. But denominational\/clerical \u201ccovering\u201d is bad medicine for purging these ills.
\nThe \u201ccovering\u201d teaching is really a symptom of the same problem masquerading as a solution. As such, it compounds the problems of rugged individualism and independence by blurring the distinction between official and organic authority. It also creates a false sense of security among believers. At the same time, it introduces further divisions in the body of Christ.
\nJust as serious, the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching inoculates the believing priesthood from carrying out its God-ordained responsibility to function in spiritual matters. Intentional or not, the \u201ccovering\u201d doctrine strikes fear into the hearts of multitudes of Christians. It asserts that if believers take responsibility in spiritual things without the approval of an \u201cordained\u201d clergyman or denomination, they will be raw meat for the Enemy.
\n(On this score, many clergy chew up a great deal of Christian airtime touting how necessary they are to our spiritual well-being. They assert that they are essential for providing direction and stability in the church. It\u2019s the old \u201cwithout-a-vision-the-people-perish\u201d sermon. But it\u2019s routinely the clergyman\u2019s isolated vision that we are hopelessly perishing without.)
\nIn this way, the covering teaching contains an implicit threat that the \u201cuncovered\u201d are to blame for all the horrible things that will happen to them. As such, few things so paralyze the ministry of the body than does the doctrine of \u201ccovering.\u201d
\nTo put it succinctly, if we try to finesse the ills of the church by employing a technique of \u201ccovering,\u201d we\u2019ll end up with an illness that\u2019s worse than the maladies it\u2019s intended to cure. Stated simply, the \u201ccovering\u201d teaching brings with it very specific tones, textures, and resonances that have little to do with Jesus, Paul, or any other apostle. While it avows to scratch a peculiarly modern itch, it\u2019s alien to God\u2019s chosen method for displaying His authority.
\nIt is my judgment that the spiritual antidote for the ills of heresy, independence, and individualism is not \u201ccovering.\u201d It\u2019s mutual subjection to the Spirit of God, mutual subjection to the Word of God as understood in Christian community, and mutual subjection to one another out of reverence for Christ. Nothing short of this can protect the body of Christ. And nothing less can heal its open wounds.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 If the early church didn\u2019t create denominations, and Paul rebuked the Corinthians for denominating themselves, why do we unthinkingly accept them today? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 What spiritual risks might we run by acting condemnatory and smug toward those churches and ministries that have chosen not to wed themselves to a denomination or a religious institution? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 If we took our cue for relationships in the church from the Community of the Godhead instead of the denominational system or the clergy system, what might happen? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 14
\nREIMAGINING THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION<\/p>\n
There can be no doubt that every one of the great churches of the Reformation has developed its own masterful tradition, and that tradition today exercises massive influence not only over its way of interpreting the Bible and formulating its doctrine, but over the whole shape and direction of its life. Those who shut their eyes to this fact are precisely those who are most enslaved to the dominant power of tradition just because it has become an unconscious canon and norm of their thinking. It is high time we asked again whether the Word of God really does have free course among us and whether it is not after all bound and fettered by the traditions of men. The tragedy, apparently, is that the very structures of our churches represent the fossilization of traditions that have grown up by practice and procedure, and they have become so hardened in self-justification that even the Word of God can hardly crack them open.
\n\u2014Thomas F. Torrance<\/p>\n
Tradition is the living faith of the dead, and traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.
\n\u2014Jaroslav Pelican<\/p>\n
Virtually every segment of the body of Christ operates on the basis of some historical tradition handed down to them by their spiritual forefathers. For some denominations, these traditions comprise the very fabric that holds their members together. They define the church\u2019s purpose through statements of faith, confessions, creeds, and canons.
\nIn response to this tendency, many neodenominations hold anything that smacks of the word \u201ctradition\u201d to be anathema. And they have distanced themselves from any practice remotely routine or binding. (Interestingly, most churches that claim to be free from the influence of tradition have merely created their own.)
\nThe irony of these two tendencies lies here. Much attention has been given to the calcified, ecclesiastical traditions of men. But very little has been given to the divine tradition passed on by the apostles of Jesus Christ.
\nConsider the following passages that allude to this tradition:<\/p>\n
Therefore I urge you to imitate me.\u2026 my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. (1 Cor. 4:16\u201317)<\/p>\n
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor. 11:2 NASB)<\/p>\n
But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (1 Cor. 11:16 NASB)<\/p>\n
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thess. 2:15 NASB)<\/p>\n
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Thess. 3:6 NASB)<\/p>\n
What the Apostolic Tradition Is Not<\/p>\n
The tradition of the apostles is not a codified set of prescribed rules that the apostles created. Neither is it a detailed manual for church practice. (The truth is, no such manual exists.)
\nAs stated in chapter 1, some hold to the concept of \u201cbiblical blueprintism.\u201d According to this paradigm, the New Testament is a detailed manual for church practice. We simply need to study the practices of the early church, imitate them, and presto, we\u2019ll have a \u201cNew Testament church.\u201d
\nBut this viewpoint is flawed on two counts. First, it turns the New Testament into a modern replica of ancient Judaic Law. Second, those who hold to the biblical blueprint model disagree with one another as to which practices ought to be followed to create a \u201cNew Testament church.\u201d
\nSome, for example, focus on speaking in tongues, signs, wonders, and healings. They assert that if a church practices these things, that makes it an authentic \u201cNew Testament church.\u201d Others focus on taking the Lord\u2019s Supper as a meal. Others focus on having a plurality of elders. Others focus on baptizing new converts in the name of Jesus. Others focus on meeting in houses. The list is endless.
\nPoint: Technical correctness and outward conformity to a prescribed form of church order has never been God\u2019s desire. Such cold formalism will only yield death. It will also smother the organic life of the body of Christ. As John W. Kennedy once said, \u201cThe church of Jesus Christ is a living body, not a corpse. The imposition of a pattern has never yet made a church. It can never be too strongly or too often emphasized that the imposition of a pattern, or simply the gathering of people together, does not bring the church into being. A church cannot be organized, it has to be born.\u201d
\nFor this reason, the New Testament doesn\u2019t supply us with a detailed blueprint for church practice. It\u2019s a gross mistake, therefore, to try to tease out of the apostolic letters an inflexible code of church order that\u2019s as unalterable as the law of the Medes and Persians. Such a written code belongs to the other side of the cross.
\nThis, of course, doesn\u2019t mean that the New Testament is silent when it comes to church practice. It certainly isn\u2019t. But the New Testament isn\u2019t a manual for church practice. It\u2019s rather a record of how the living, breathing organism called the ekklesia expresses herself on the earth.
\nUnderstanding that the church is organic safeguards us from turning the New Testament into a method or a technique. It also enables us to see that the church is bound up with something far higher than a pro forma adherence to a prescribed pattern.
\nBe assured: The Spirit of God will never lead us into a dead orthodoxy based on the imitation of external forms. Instead, the Spirit always works according to the DNA that exists within the triune God\u2014for the church possesses that very DNA.
\nTo put it another way, God is a living person. As such, He has certain habits and tendencies that are innate to His divine nature. The apostolic tradition is simply the physical expression of those habits and tendencies.<\/p>\n
Recovering the Place of Tradition<\/p>\n
The New Testament word for tradition is the Greek word paradosis. It means \u201cthat which is handed down.\u201d
\nWhat, then, is the apostolic tradition? First, it contains the stories and teachings of Jesus. These are contained in the Gospels. Second, it includes the commands and practices of the apostles that were passed on to all the churches (1 Cor. 11:23ff.; 15:1\u20133; 2 Peter 3:1\u20132).
\nThe apostolic tradition, therefore, represents the normative beliefs and practices of the church of Jesus Christ. Beliefs and practices that were prescribed for each and every church (1 Cor. 4:16\u201317; 11:16; 14:33\u201338).
\nPut another way, the apostolic tradition is the embodiment of those organic practices that the apostles modeled in every church during the first century. It is these practices that constitute the new wineskin that God has fashioned to preserve His new wine. In referring to the apostolic tradition, F. F. Bruce says, \u201cPaul indeed seems to have attached some importance to preserving a certain measure of uniform practice throughout his churches.\u201d
\nSimply put, if our church practices are derived from spiritual life, they will be in harmony with the apostolic tradition. Consequently, what is written in the New Testament shouldn\u2019t be viewed as irrelevant history. It\u2019s a benchmark to test whether or not our church practices have a sound foundation.
\nSome may argue that if we are rightly following the Holy Spirit\u2019s guidance there\u2019s no need to give our attention to New Testament teachings and practices. But this argument ignores the fact that we are fallible creatures who easily confuse the Spirit\u2019s guidance with our own. Not to mention that it\u2019s relatively easy to confuse human tradition with God\u2019s will. Thus in order for us to discover the source of our leading, our church practice must have a biblical basis.
\nTo ignore apostolic traditions is to put us in the dangerous position of unknowingly substituting our own misguided feelings and unfounded thoughts for the Holy Spirit\u2019s leading. The New Testament is our standard for faith and practice. Both for individual conduct as well as for corporate life.
\nVoltaire once said, \u201cGod made man in his image, and man returned the favor.\u201d In like manner, God created the church in His own image, and man returned the favor. When we ignore the record of the early church and fail to recognize that it\u2019s a description of her spiritual DNA at work, we end up creating a church in the image of fallen humanity.
\nAll that to say, if we ignore what Scripture teaches by precept and example about the church, we\u2019re in danger of making the perilous mistake of creating a church after our own image. And that\u2019s exactly what we have on the earth today.<\/p>\n
Where Modern Evangelicalism Has Gone Wrong<\/p>\n
While the church is an organism, it does have a form. Look at your physical body. It\u2019s a living entity. Yet it has a specific form\u2014a particular expression. And within that expression there\u2019s a certain harmony and order.
\nWhenever the body of Christ gathers together, a form will eventually emerge. The form may be liberating or oppressive. It may be scriptural or unscriptural. It may be helpful or harmful. But it always exists.
\nIn the words of Howard Snyder, \u201cAll life must have form. Life without form is sick and dies; it perishes because it cannot sustain itself. That is the way it is with all life, whether human, spiritual, or botanical, for God in His creation is consistent.\u201d
\nFact: There is both order and life\u2014form and function\u2014in the church of Jesus Christ. And if the church is operating according to its organic nature\u2014its DNA, if you please\u2014it will produce a certain form.
\nMany modern evangelicals have embraced the benighted idea that only those things that are \u201cexplicitly commanded\u201d in Scripture are binding. Everything else can be safely ignored. Ironically, most who espouse this idea deny it in their practice.
\nEqually problematic is the notion that only the \u201ccommands\u201d of the New Testament are to be heeded, while its \u201cpractices\u201d are irrelevant and antiquated. This idea has deluded many Christians into embracing a raft of humanly devised practices that violate the DNA of the church. For example, salaried clergy, single pastors, hierarchical leadership structures, denominations, and pulpit-pew-styled services in basilica-like spaces (regarded as the equivalent of \u201cchurch\u201d) are all at odds with the organic nature of the body of Christ.
\nPoint: Normative apostolic commands are binding on the contemporary church. But normative apostolic practices are as well. By normative, I mean those practices that contain a spiritual subtext and are the outworking of the organic nature of the body of Christ.
\nSuch practices are not purely narrative. They carry prescriptive force. This means that they reflect the unchanging nature of God Himself. And they naturally emerge whenever God\u2019s people live by divine life together\u2014irrespective of culture or time.
\nIn that connection, the book of Acts and the Epistles are awash with references to the apostolic tradition. In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul declares how he taught his ways \u201ceverywhere in every church.\u201d To Paul\u2019s mind, doctrine and duty\u2014belief and behavior, life and practice\u2014are inseparable.
\nIn short, that which is included in the apostolic tradition is normative for all churches yesterday and today. The exhortations of Paul to \u201chold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you\u201d and to practice what \u201cyou have learned and received and heard and seen in me\u201d are the considerations that should guide our church life.<\/p>\n
The Correlation Between Theology and Practice<\/p>\n
Observing the apostolic tradition doesn\u2019t mean reenacting the events of the first-century church. If so, we would have to hold our meetings in an upper chamber with many lights (Acts 20:8), cast lots to appoint leaders (Acts 1:26), and climb upon rooftops at the hour of prayer (Acts 10:9). Not to mention having to speak and dress like all first-century believers did, in sandals and togas.
\nInstead, observing apostolic traditions means being faithful to what was theologically and spiritually significant in the experience of the early church. The apostolic tradition, therefore, represents the balance between reenacting the practices of the first-century church and ignoring them.
\nThe truth is that there are numerous practices of the early church that are normative for us today. These practices are not culturally conditioned. Instead, they are native to the organic nature of the triune God and deeply rooted in biblical theology. They are the church\u2019s DNA in operation. As such, they are the divine means for expressing the divine purpose.
\nTo put it in a sentence: Apostolic tradition incarnates the apostolic teaching that the church is a spiritual organism whose taproot can be traced back to the Godhead. Consider the following examples:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Open-participatory church meetings are solidly based on the well-established doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the every-member functioning of the body of Christ. They are also the organic outflow of the mutual, self-giving exchange of fellowship within the triune God. By contrast, equating church with a service in which a professional clergy is active and the rest of the body is passive violates both scriptural principle and the organic nature of the Godhead. (See chapter 2.)
\n\u2022 Observing the Lord\u2019s Supper as the communal meal of the church is built upon the centrality of Jesus Christ and the covenantal relationship of the believing community. It\u2019s also a tangible expression of the mutual partaking of divine life within the Godhead, which is often depicted by eating and drinking. By contrast, taking the Supper as a ritual that\u2019s guided by a clergyman and removed from a meal is a departure from the apostolic tradition and does violence to the mutual participation that\u2019s present in the triune God. (See chapter 3.)
\n\u2022 House church meetings rest squarely on the fact that the church is a face-to-face community\u2014a close-knit, extended family that engages in mutual sharing and mutual edification. As such, they provide the best atmosphere for fleshing out the familial love that flows between the Father and the Son through the Spirit. By contrast, it\u2019s virtually impossible to embody these elements in a building where the architecture fosters passivity among the congregation. (See chapters 4 and 5.) In addition, the idea of a sacred building contradicts Jesus\u2019 teaching that worship is to be desacralized (John 4:21\u201324).
\n\u2022 The practical expression of the church\u2019s unity is rooted in the New Testament teaching that there is only one body. It\u2019s also based on the unified diversity and oneness that the Father, Son, and Spirit share in the Godhead. The denominational system violates this principle and distorts the indivisible oneness that exists within the body of Christ and the triune God. (See chapter 6.)
\n\u2022 Plural oversight and decision-making by consensus are firmly grounded in the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is Head of His church. It\u2019s also rooted in the mutual decision-making within the triune God. By contrast, a single pastor system (or rule by elders) supplants the headship of Christ and contradicts the organic principle of decision-making found within the Godhead. (See chapters 8, 9, and 10.)<\/p>\n
Granted, there are other first-century practices beyond the ones just mentioned. Church planting by itinerant apostolic workers; gospel witness; missional living; social outreach; the baptizing of new converts; and the training of apostolic workers are just some examples.
\nThat said, the tradition of the apostles is vitally connected to the organic nature of the church, which is rooted in the triune God. And that nature is grounded in the unshakable teaching of the New Testament.
\nFor that reason, when the Holy Spirit has His sovereign way in birthing a church, it will spontaneously gather in a biblical fashion. The church will be led of the Spirit to fulfill the apostolic tradition. As Paul said, those who follow the Spirit (those who are \u201cspiritual\u201d) will adhere to the apostolic tradition regarding church practice (1 Cor. 14:37).
\nRegrettably, the tradition of the apostles has been largely ignored today. It\u2019s been viewed as irrelevant in the eyes of many contemporary Christians. In other words, the apostolic tradition has been buried under a mountain of human tradition.<\/p>\n
The Importance of the Apostolic Tradition<\/p>\n
Paul responded with unusual sharpness toward those who departed from the apostolic tradition, saying,<\/p>\n
Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord\u2019s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. (1 Cor. 14:36\u201338)<\/p>\n
Surprisingly, a gathering of Christians may abandon the apostolic tradition in lieu of their own self-constructed forms and still receive God\u2019s blessing. This has caused many people to conclude that the New Testament record isn\u2019t important. But this conclusion is profoundly flawed. We must not be deceived into thinking that God\u2019s blessing equals His approval. Just because God uses something doesn\u2019t mean that He sanctions it.
\nThe history of Israel teaches us that God can still bless a people who disregard His ways for their own. Throughout Israel\u2019s wilderness journeys, God met His people\u2019s needs. This happened despite the fact that He was continually at odds with them.
\nWhen the children of Israel clamored for a king in their rebellion against the divine will, the Lord condescended to their carnal desire (1 Sam. 8:1ff.). And He continued to bless them despite their disobedience.
\nYet tragic consequences followed their self-motivated decision (1 Sam. 8:11\u201318). The nation lost its freedom under a raft of evil monarchs. And it suffered a series of divine judgments. There\u2019s a sad parallel between the condition of Israel and many \u201cchurches\u201d that have opted for an earth-tied, man-managed religious system.
\nSo it bears repeating: God\u2019s blessing doesn\u2019t equal His approval.
\nBecause of His infinite mercy, the Lord will bless any group of people if He can find some ground to do so. But whenever they choose their own ways in place of His, they limit His blessing.
\nHow quickly we forget that the church belongs to God and not to us. It\u2019s part of our fallen nature to follow our own ideas regarding church practice. To enshrine our own traditions. To canonize our own personal preferences. To institutionalize what fits our own ideas of success rather than to follow what Jesus and the apostles have handed down to us.<\/p>\n
Whose House Are We Building?<\/p>\n
An unmistakable theme of the Bible is that God leaves nothing crucial for man to decide concerning His house. It\u2019s God\u2019s house that He\u2019s building in His way.
\nConsequently, the Lord\u2019s chief concern is not the size of the building. It\u2019s what the building is composed of (1 Cor. 3:9\u201315). In the Lord\u2019s eyes, how we build and what we build with are more important than the size of the building.
\n\u201cUnless the LORD builds the house,\u201d declares the psalmist, \u201cits builders labor in vain\u201d (Ps. 127:1). God alone is the Master \u201carchitect and builder\u201d (Heb. 11:10). Especially when it comes to His own dwelling place.
\nIn God\u2019s work, the governing principle is always, \u201cLORD \u2026 all that we have accomplished you have done for us\u201d (Isa. 26:12). Those who hold to the idea of a \u201cculturally relevant\u201d church have a penchant for forgetting that the church belongs to God, and not to human beings. The church is not a toy that\u2019s been given to mere mortals to experiment with. Neither is it the property of a special class of \u201cministers\u201d to shape the way they wish. It\u2019s an organic, living entity that has a specific expression. And it belongs to our Lord.
\nThe tragic story of King David\u2019s presumptuous act of placing the ark of God upon a wooden cart is the summary witness that God\u2019s work must be done His way (2 Sam. 6:1\u20137). The humanly devised scheme of placing the holy ark upon a cart appeals to modern pragmatic ears. Yet the idea was borrowed from the heathen Philistines, and it contradicted the Lord\u2019s plain instruction (Ex. 25:12\u201316; Num. 4:5\u201315).
\nPerhaps a simple illustration will help to underscore the force of what I\u2019ve tried to communicate in this chapter. Suppose that you hired a carpenter to build a den as an addition to your home. You sketched out a diagram specifying how you wanted the den to be built. You then carefully explained it to the carpenter.
\nAfter returning from a weeklong vacation, you are shocked to find that your new den barely resembles the image that you sketched out for him. You ask the carpenter why he failed to adhere to your plan. He responds by saying, \u201cI thought my ideas were better than yours.\u201d
\nHave we not done the same with the Lord\u2019s house?
\nRegrettably, scores of Christians have had no qualms with rearranging the spiritual furniture in God\u2019s house without consulting the Owner. Tragically, David is still placing the holy ark upon a Philistine cart. And Uzzah\u2019s human hand continues to try to steady it.
\nMay we not be so unwise.<\/p>\n
Questions That Must Be Faced<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do you believe we have the right to change New Testament principles and ignore the tradition of the apostles in preference for our own? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 What current problems in the church could be the result of replacing plural oversight with hierarchical forms of government; replacing open-participatory meetings with program-based, man-officiated services that foster passivity and suppress functioning; and replacing the organic expression of the body with a business organization run by hired professionals? Explain.<\/p>\n
\u2022 If your church practices conflict with New Testament revelation, will you continue to support them? Explain.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 15
\nWHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?<\/p>\n
What is called \u201cChristianity\u201d\u2014and what has come to be called \u201cthe church\u201d\u2014has become a tradition, an institution, and a system quite as fixed, rooted, and established as ever Judaism was, and it will be no less costly to change it fundamentally than was the case with Judaism. Superficial adjustments may be made\u2014and are being made\u2014but a very heavy price is attached to the change which is necessary to really solve the great problem. It may very well be, as in the time of the Lord, that the essential light will not be given to very many because God knows that they would never pay the price. It may only be a \u201cremnant\u201d\u2014as of old\u2014who will be led into God\u2019s answer because they will meet the demands at all costs.
\n\u2014T. Austin-Sparks<\/p>\n
All church structure (including the structure of authority) must come forth spontaneously from life. The river (life) makes its own riverbed (structure). We cannot make the riverbed (structure) and then invite the river (life) to come through our construction. Rather, the river moves and as it does it makes its own riverbed to flow through. So the life of the Spirit in the assembly will form its own structure. However, the basic structure of the church is set forth in the Scriptures and should be studied and restudied so as to check the structure being formed. The Spirit does not bring structures that are in opposition to the Word.
\n\u2014Rudy Ray<\/p>\n
In this book, I\u2019ve argued that the church of Jesus Christ has departed, rather than developed, from her original foundations. Many Christians\u2014including church leaders, scholars, and theologians\u2014would agree with me. However, not all agree on what should be done to remedy the situation.
\nSome have championed the idea of renewing the institutional church from the inside out. But those who have sought to revamp the established church have met serious resistance and frustration.
\nMy experience suggests that unless the extrabiblical clergy system is dismantled in a particular church, efforts to recover the organic nature of church life will be handcuffed. The following disheartening results will most likely occur: The pastor will feel threatened; the staff will resist the disruption of the status quo; the congregation will be thrown into a panic; individual believers will be utterly confused; and the people calling for change will find themselves the target of personal attack. That said, let\u2019s take a brief look at some recent movements that have sought to renew the institutional church.
\nBefore you read on, let me make a few introductory remarks. First, I thank God for all of the following movements. The Lord has used them all, without a doubt. Second, I\u2019m taking the liberty to critique them because I strongly feel that if we accept them as the answer to reforming the church, the Lord will get shortchanged in the end. Add to that, I\u2019m not critiquing them from afar. I have experienced all of these movements at one time in my life.
\nThird, I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong in my assessments, and I am open to standing corrected. Fourth, when I\u2019m finished, I will offer another alternative. One that some, I\u2019m sure, will be all too happy to critique themselves. I welcome this. But I only ask that those who make such critiques first experience for themselves what they are setting out to critique.<\/p>\n
Shopping at a Supermall<\/p>\n
The superstore megachurch trend is just one example of a failed attempt at renewing the church. Event-driven, shopping-mall churches have created specialized boutiques for every sociological slice in America today. From single parents, twelve-step recoverers, homebuilders, premarital couples, parents of adolescents, Generation Xers to working mothers, businessmen, actors, artists, and dancers.
\nAdvertised by extraordinarily gifted marketeers and driven by a formidable \u201cgrowth-industry\u201d mentality, megachurches attract thousands every Sunday morning into their enormous amphitheaters. They use the latest church growth strategies, organizational methods, and marketing techniques.
\nThey provide flawless multimedia worship. They supply pep-rallylike religious services. They offer high-tech visual effects. They possess tightly scripted gospel orations mingled with a heavy dose of comic relief. And they usually focus on the prominent charisma of the senior pastor.
\nThey have seamless, choreographed drama presentations. They attract frequent visits from featured celebrities whose clothes are always color coordinated. They contain a zillion splinter interest groups designed to meet every consumer need.
\nTo top it off, megachurches offer these mass-market religious resources to the public in exchange for minimal commitment, low visibility, and little cost. Stated simply, the megachurch movement is built on a corporate business paradigm that utilizes a market-driven approach to building the kingdom of God. It\u2019s no wonder that churches of this ilk are successful at swelling their ranks.
\nUnfortunately, those who are attracted to these large, flashy, organized Wal-Marts of the religious world can hardly find a place in their hearts for a simple, unextravagant meeting centered around the person of Christ alone. To their minds, choosing between a lavish supermall church and an \u201corganic church\u201d is like choosing between the flamboyant supercenter mall and the corner grocery store.
\nThe weakness endemic to the superstore church is that it so emphasizes the \u201cchurch scattered\u201d dimension of the body of Christ that the \u201cchurch gathered\u201d dimension suffers great loss. By focusing all attention on being \u201csensitive\u201d to the comfort zones of \u201cseeking\u201d unbelievers, many megachurches have failed to adequately disciple their new converts into radical abandonment to Jesus Christ.
\nThey have also failed to nurture close-knit communal relationships in the body. What is more, the business machinery that drives these mammoth institutions obscures the organic nature of the ekklesia.
\nWhile it labors under the banner of \u201ccultural relevancy,\u201d the supermall church bears too striking a resemblance to the shallow business structures of this age. It is for this reason that they don\u2019t have any profound or lasting impact on the culture.
\nPut plainly, the modern techniques used by the supermall church are as worldly as the system from which they\u2019re supposed to deliver people. In this way, the gospel has become trivialized, commercialized, and emptied of its power. It\u2019s been diluted as just another \u201cproduct\u201d in our consumer-obsessed culture.
\nPerhaps it\u2019s for this reason that the original innovators of the seeker-sensitive megachurch movement have recently stated that their model has largely been a failed enterprise.
\nIn a word, the megamall church of modern pop-Christian culture bears little similarity to the simple, Spirit-dependent, Christ-centered, spiritually dynamic, mutually participatory communities of the first century\u2014the very churches that turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6).<\/p>\n
Pulled Under a Wave<\/p>\n
The \u201cthird-wave movement\u201d and its cousin, the \u201crestoration movement,\u201d have been two highly influential players in the renewal game.
\nPopulated mostly by charismatics and Pentecostals, these movements stress the restoration of apostolic and prophetic power. For brevity\u2019s sake, I\u2019ll call these related movements third-wave-restoration.
\nPlease understand: I have no quarrel with the pressing need for a genuine move of the Holy Spirit in and through the church today. But in my opinion, most third-wave-restoration churches have put the cart before the horse. Namely, they have sought to possess the power of the Spirit before they have gone under the flesh-severing knife of the cross. (By the way, I\u2019m speaking of the principle of the cross, which is death to self.)
\nScripturally speaking, the cross is the exclusive ground for the Holy Spirit\u2019s power. Calvary preceded Pentecost. Our Lord\u2019s Jordan baptism preceded the arrival of the heavenly dove. The sacrificial altar preceded the heavenly fire. And the smitten rock preceded the flowing waters at Horeb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit only finds His resting place upon the altar of a crucified life.
\nRecall the Lord\u2019s command to Israel not to pour the sacred oil upon any flesh (Ex. 30:32). This command is an apt figure illustrating how the cross cancels out the old creation. This is crucial because the Spirit cannot do His deepest work through uncrucified flesh.
\nThe dangers of beginning with the Spirit rather than with the cross are numerous. For one thing, it can easily lead a person into an unwholesome quest for power without character. Mystical experience without godliness. Unrestrained soulish excitement without sound discernment. And demonic counterfeits without divine reality.
\nNot a few Christians who seek renewal routinely pack their bags and flock to the various \u201cChristian Meccas\u201d of revivalism sponsored by third-wave-restoration churches. Such people desperately wish to be touched by God. So much so that they have become consumers of every new wind of doctrine, fad, or experience that blows through the body of Christ (Eph. 4:14).
\n(A new wind seems to blow through certain Christian movements about every five years. Christians in these movements eventually get burned out with it and then look for another one to pick up. For some, this is a never-ending cycle.)
\nAs a result, many in the third-wave have developed an unhealthy dependence upon phenomenological experience. It\u2019s a dependence like that of an addict. They are driven to travel far and wide to acquire the next spiritual fix. Such dependence obscures the role of Scripture in the life of a believer. It equally fosters an unhealthy (and sometimes pathological) spiritual instability.
\nThis is not to suggest that the third-wave-restoration movement has been without value to the body of Christ. The movement has contributed a number of helpful spiritual accents. Most significantly, it has fostered a genuine hunger for and openness to God\u2019s moving. It has produced a sound blending of evangelical and charismatic theology. And it has created a vast collection of wonderfully anointed praise and worship music.
\nBut its basic flaws lie in its overemphasis on supernatural experience; its tendency to put power gifts on the throne rather than Christ the Giver; and its zealous support of the modern clergy system. Quite frankly, the pastor is king in the typical third-wave-restoration church. And congregants who have been renewed with the new wine of the Spirit find very little freedom to fully function in their gifts during a typical third-wave service.
\nWhile third-wave-restoration churches may boast about possessing the \u201cnew wine,\u201d they have all too often confined it to an old, leaking wineskin. A wineskin that inhibits mutual ministry, relatedness, community, and freedom. The old wineskin that\u2019s employed merely reinforces the \u201csit-and-soak\u201d mentality that plagues the body of Christ today.
\n\u201cChristian guruism\u201d is also epidemic in third-wave-restoration churches. High-powered \u201cprophets\u201d and \u201capostles\u201d are copious in the movement. They are revered as spiritual icons, basking in the limelight of fan-club followings.
\nA typical renewal crusade is similar to a rock concert where the featured celebrity gives an encore performance and takes his bow in the Christian limelight. It\u2019s not uncommon for third-wavers to arrive hours early to secure a prime seat to hear the latest circuit prophet who has come to town.
\nIn effect, the third-wave-restoration movement has so emphasized the so-called fivefold ministry that it has rivaled and obscured the priesthood of all believers. It has stressed the extra-local ministry at the expense of the local church. And it is the latter that God has established to be the normal environment for spiritual nourishment.
\nIt\u2019s no wonder that those who desire the fullness of God, but don\u2019t know organic church life, are compelled to try anything that promises them a greater surge of renewal juice.
\nRegrettably, many in the third-wave-restoration movement have rushed headlong toward spiritual ambiguity. They have wholeheartedly embraced a peculiar phenomenon that has little to no biblical warrant. At the same time, they have shrugged their shoulders at an experience of church life that has abundant biblical merit.
\nIronically, the very experience that multitudes in this movement are seeking to achieve can only be found in organic church life. When individuals taste body life, they will be forever cured of the unbridled urge to travel \u201cto and fro\u201d to attend the latest \u201chot spot\u201d of renewal. Instead, they will discover true and lasting refreshment and stability within the local assembly that\u2019s captivated by a revelation of Jesus Christ and God\u2019s eternal purpose in Him. Those who wish to \u201cchase God,\u201d therefore, will find Him in the ekklesia in His fullness. For she is His highest passion.
\nTo spin the metaphor, in seeking to ride the latest spiritual wave, many third-wave-restorationists have been caught in the undertow of a clergy-dominated ecclesiastical structure. As a result, some have been bitten by the sharks of counterfeit spiritual experience. And they are now drowning in the murky waters of religious mysticism and charismatic clericalism.
\nSadly, CPR cannot be successfully administered within the institutional matrix of the third-wave-restoration movement. The only hope for recovery lies in pulling the institutional plug to drain the rising water.<\/p>\n
Imprisoned in a Cell<\/p>\n
Another attempt at renewal in recent years has been the emergence of the \u201ccell church.\u201d Cell churches are based on a two-winged approach to worship. They provide a weekly \u201ccell group\u201d meeting (set in a home) and a Sunday \u201ccelebration\u201d meeting (set in a building).
\nThe smaller cell meetings are called by different names (small groups, kinship groups, home meetings, life groups, rap groups, etc.). These small home meetings are designed for fellowship, ministry, prayer, and evangelism. The larger meetings are designed for pastoral preaching, corporate worship, and taking a collection.
\nThere is much to be commended about the cell-church model. Particularly, its emphasis on close-knit connectedness, one-anothering, authentic evangelism, and body ministry. But its greatest weakness lies in its leadership structure.
\nBy and large, the cell church model has left the unscriptural clergy system (the pastor and staff) completely untouched. Native to cell churches is a top-heavy, hierarchical leadership structure that ultimately controls the community. (I have a friend who describes this model as the \u201clonger leash.\u201d)
\nThe congregation is given a measure of church life weekly at someone\u2019s home. Yet through a highly organized hierarchy, the pastoral staff controls the gatherings and steers them according to their own vision and leadings. (Each cell group has a leader over it. And it\u2019s not uncommon for the \u201cministry time\u201d in a cell meeting to be restricted to a discussion of the pastor\u2019s latest sermon.)
\nNot long ago, I was conversing with a cell church leader. He\u2019s a friend, and I love and respect him dearly. Interestingly, when he described what his particular cell group was doing, it was evident that he was the one in charge. He went on to explain how he gives the members direction, how he offers them personal counseling, and how he prays during the week to set the agenda for each cell meeting. Clearly, he was the one running the group.
\nWhile the cell church model looks impressive on paper, it doesn\u2019t quite match the free-flowing, organic expression of the church that\u2019s under the direct headship of the Lord Jesus\u2014an expression where decision-making and ministry are shared and the modern pastoral role is glaringly absent.
\nThe cell church deserves our applause for its emphasis on evangelism and its denunciation of \u201cprogram-based\u201d churches that find themselves mired in bureaucratic structures. But it warrants our disapproval for its blithe espousal of a rigid, multilayered, hierarchical leadership structure.
\nIn many cases, each cell group is an extension of the pastor\u2019s vision. And it buries the believing priesthood under layers of human hierarchy. Accordingly, the cell church model often violates the very principle it claims to uphold: that the church is an organism made up of individual \u201cspiritual cells.\u201d In stark contrast, many cell groups are nothing more than a facsimile of the same body part\u2014the single pastor\u2014and the leaders who serve under him. In these situations, the cell group is merely another program of the church. It\u2019s not the church itself.
\nStated simply, the mere addition of home meetings (cells) to a clergy-dominated structure fails to go far enough in restoring the church\u2019s native expression. Again, the church isn\u2019t an institutional organization. She doesn\u2019t operate by chain of command. She\u2019s a living entity. For that reason, she discovers her native expression when she is properly planted, equipped, then left on her own. As long as she is controlled by graded hierarchies and chain-of-command leadership structures, she will never discover her organic expression.<\/p>\n
Emerging into the Status Quo<\/p>\n
In recent years, the emerging church \u201cconversation\u201d has taken the Christian world by storm. The emerging church conversation is a Christian movement whose participants seek to engage postmodern people\u2014especially the unchurched. To accomplish this, \u201cemerging Christians\u201d (sometimes called \u201cemergents\u201d) deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs, standards, and methods to accommodate postmodern culture.
\nThe emerging church conversation is a mixed bag. It\u2019s by no means a monolith. However, certain streams of the emerging conversation are emphasizing the need to reexamine ecclesiology from top to bottom.
\nWithin these streams, there\u2019s a lot of high talk about community, being missional, liberating the laity, God\u2019s triune nature, scrapping the old way of doing church, and embracing a new paradigm shift for the body of Christ.
\nI have many friends who are pioneering in the emerging church. And I applaud much of what they are saying, especially in the area of upholding a \u201cgenerous orthodoxy\u201d that emphasizes accepting all Christians whom God has received. Equally so, the encouragement to embrace the positive contributions that Christians of all stripes have made in the past is a noble one.
\nMy main criticism of the emerging conversation rests here: When it comes to the practical expression of the church, many emergents have only slightly tweaked it. The old, leaking wineskin invented some five hundred years ago has been largely left unaltered.
\nSacral buildings, sermon-based church services, the clergy system, the modern office of the pastor, have all been left unchallenged and unchanged, even among those who carry on the loudest about deconstructing the face of the modern church. By and large, many in the emerging church world still believe that every church needs a \u201cminister\u201d just as every company needs a boss.
\nLet me give you an example of what I mean. Less than twelve months ago, two highly visible emerging church leaders wrote articles on how the practices of the established church are \u201cConstantinian,\u201d and this is one of the major reasons why many postmodern Christians find church to be irrelevant.
\nWhen I read these articles, I was thrilled. I then quickly called several friends who lived in the areas in which the authors of these articles were leaders. The report I received back was disheartening. They both said, \u201cFrank, we visited and their services are no different than any other church. They begin with music from the worship team. Announcements are given. Then special singing. Then the pastor preaches a sermon to a passive audience. The only thing we noticed that was different was that there was artwork on the walls of the building and the language was deliberately postmodern. Other than that, it was the same song and dance that you would find in any other Protestant assembly today.\u201d
\nI have found this to be true in my own experience as well.
\nIt seems to me that many of us are willing to tip over any sacred cow except the modern pastoral office and the Sunday-morning Protestant ritual. Regardless of how unbiblical these two religious traditions are, they seem to be off limits even to the most radical thinkers.
\nAt this point, I would like to propose a challenge. Can we please be daring enough and creative enough to change this five-hundred-year-old ritual\u2014which incidentally doesn\u2019t have a shred of biblical warrant to justify it? Can we accept the challenge to equip God\u2019s people to function under the headship of Christ without human control? And if we don\u2019t know how to do this, can we please be humble enough to bring in someone who can and see what happens?<\/p>\n
Adopting the Right Attitude<\/p>\n
What I\u2019ve said so far isn\u2019t meant to place judgment on any of God\u2019s dear people. I have respected friends in all of the aforementioned movements, and they are servants of God whom He is using.
\nMake no mistake about it: God has used and is using the institutional church. Because of His mercy, the Lord will work through any structure as long as He can find hearts in it that are truly open to Him. So there\u2019s no question that God is using megachurches, third-wave-restoration churches, cell churches, and emerging churches alike. (In my opinion, He\u2019s using them more than so-called house churches that are elitist and sectarian.)
\nBut this isn\u2019t the question at hand. The good is often the enemy of the best. And the Lord holds us responsible for following His Word insofar as we understand it. So comparing ourselves with others is shaky ground for seeking His approval (2 Cor. 10:12). Anything less than what God has disclosed in Scripture concerning church practice falls short of His full purpose. I don\u2019t say this judgmentally, but soberly. The words of T. Austin-Sparks capture the tone of my spirit:<\/p>\n
While the sects and denominations, missions, and institutions are a departure from the Holy Spirit\u2019s original way and intention, God has undoubtedly blessed and used these in a very real way and has sovereignly done great work through faithful men and women. We thank God that it is so, and pray that every means possible of use may have His blessing upon it. This is not said in any patronizing or superior spirit: God forbid. Any reserve is only because we feel that there has been much delay, limitation, and weakness due to the departure from the first and full position of the first years of the church\u2019s life, and because of a heart-burden for a return thereto. We cannot accept the present \u201cdisorder\u201d as all that the Lord would or could have.<\/p>\n
The Symptom Masquerading as the Cause<\/p>\n
I strongly believe that genuine church renewal requires that we distinguish between the symptom and the root of the problem. Elton Trueblood has rightly said, \u201cThe basic trouble [with the modern church] is that the proposed cure has such a striking similarity to the disease.\u201d
\nConferences for burned-out clergy, cross-denominational unity gatherings, support groups for pastors who suffer from \u201csheep bite,\u201d and workshops presenting the latest church growth strategy are vivid examples of Trueblood\u2019s penetrating observation. All of these supposed \u201ccures\u201d merely coddle the system that\u2019s responsible for the church\u2019s maladies. They simply treat the symptom while ignoring the real culprit. The result? The same drama continues to play out on a different stage.
\nIt\u2019s the clergy system and the institutional structure that inhibits the rediscovery of face-to-face community, supplants the functional headship of Christ, and stifles the full ministry of every believer. Consequently, all attempts at renewal will always be shortsighted until the clergy system and institutional structure is dismantled in a local fellowship. At best, such attempts will bring limited change. At worst, they will invite open hostility.
\nIt\u2019s my conviction that the attempt to work for a recovery of organic church life where Jesus Christ is Head from within an institutional church is a futile exercise. Such an attempt can be likened to the dismantling of a tower from the ground. If those disassembling the tower come close to compromising the structure, the tower will fall down on them. The only way to dismantle a tower is to proceed from the top down.
\nFor this reason, renewal movements that merely transplant biblical principles into institutional soil will never succeed in realizing the full purpose of God. As I have often said, organic churches that are planted in institutional soil do not take root. In the words of Arthur Wallis,<\/p>\n
A church is not fully renewed if the structures are left untouched. To have within a traditional church a live group composed of those who have received the Spirit and are beginning to move in spiritual gifts; to introduce a freer and livelier spirit into the worship with renewal songs; to permit the clapping and the lifting up of the hands and even to dance; to split the weeknight meeting into home groups for the purpose of discipling; to replace \u201cone-man leadership\u201d with a team of elders\u2014all these measures, good though they are, will only prove to be a patching operation. Individuals will undoubtedly be blessed. There will be an initial quickening of the church. But if it ends there, the long-term results will be detrimental. There will be a quiet struggle going on between the new measures and the old structures, and you may be sure the old structures will win in the end. The new patch will never blend in with the old garment. It will always look incongruous.<\/p>\n
For the past fifty years, a plethora of books have been published that have sought to reform and renew the modern church. To my mind, few of these books have produced any real change. The reason? The vast majority of them have offered cosmetic changes to a structure that lacks biblical and spiritual integrity.
\nSeeking to repair a house that has cracks in its foundation will never prove productive. I believe it\u2019s time that we honestly examined the structural integrity of the modern church system. I strongly believe that the clergy system, which includes the modern pastoral office, is what needs to be abandoned. It\u2019s the system that\u2019s one of the main culprits, not the people, the motives, or the intentions. Experience has taught me that an institutional church will never fully embody the dream of God until it recognizes that the framework within which it operates is inadequate and self-defeating. Despite the good intentions of the persons who populate it, the interior design of the organized church sets us up for defeat.
\nTrue renewal, therefore, must be radical. That means it must go to the root. Recovering the organic expression of the church and the practical headship of Jesus Christ necessitates that we forsake our ecclesiastical patches and Band-Aids.
\nIn this connection, I thank God for those Christians who have left their clerical professions and laid down their high-powered hierarchical positions to learn what it means to be a simple brother in an organic expression of the church. Sound radical? Perhaps. But it\u2019s certainly not impossible. I personally know numerous men who have left the clergy system out of conscience. Some of them are church planters today, and God is using them mightily. (By the way, all of them first learned to be non-leaders in organic church life before they went out to plant such churches themselves.)
\nA few of these men helped the churches they pastored make the transition from an institutional church to an organic church. But such a move is profoundly drastic. It goes well beyond the typical tweaking that many leaders feel comfortable with these days.
\nAs would be expected, those who have left their salaried, clergy positions have paid a tremendous price. For this reason, such a thought strikes a sensitive chord in the heart of the average religious professional, and many have violently resisted it. They have reacted in a way not dissimilar to the silversmiths of Ephesus who withstood Paul\u2019s message because it endangered their craft (Acts 19:24\u201327). Consequently, unless pastors are ready to examine this issue openly before God, any discussion of the matter will remain a highly flammable topic that can easily turn torrid.<\/p>\n
Despising Not the Day of Small Things<\/p>\n
Recall that after Israel\u2019s seventy-year captivity in Babylon, God called His people out of Babylon to return to Jerusalem to rebuild His house. While Israel was in captivity in a foreign land, she still assembled to worship God in the various synagogues that she built on her own. Israel still belonged to God. But God\u2019s will for her was to leave Babylon and return to Jerusalem to build the temple that He Himself ordained.
\nSadly, only a tiny remnant responded to the Lord and returned to the land (Ezra 9:7\u20138; Hag. 1:14). Most were unwilling to pay the price of leaving their comfortable lifestyles, their new jobs, their new homes, and the convenient new synagogue worship that they had constructed.
\nI believe the call of God to Israel to leave Babylon foreshadows the present cry of the Spirit to His people today. In view of the fact that only a small, seemingly insignificant remnant returned to Jerusalem to rebuild God\u2019s house, the prophet Zechariah issued this challenging rebuke: \u201cWho hath despised the day of small things?\u201d (Zech. 4:10 KJV).
\nWhy did the prophet issue such a word? Because despite the seeming smallness of the endeavor, God was in it. Despite the fact that most of Israel regarded the rebuilt temple \u201cas nothing\u201d in comparison to the surpassing splendor of the former temple, God was in it (Hag. 2:3). Despite the fact that the elders of Israel wept in despair when they saw the tiny remnant lay down the unimpressive foundation, God was in it (Ezra 3:12).
\nFrom Gideon\u2019s army of three hundred to Elijah\u2019s seven thousand who had \u201cnot bowed the knee to Baal\u201d\u2014from the Levitical priests who first entered the Promised Land to the hidden Annas and Simeons of our Lord\u2019s day who \u201clooked for the consolation of Israel\u201d\u2014God\u2019s most precious work has been accomplished through the small, the weak, and the unnoticed (1 Cor. 1:26\u201329; 1 Kings 19:11\u201313).
\nSuccess in the eyes of the world is tied to natural measurements. Large numbers, large budgets, large buildings, etc. are all signs of success to the worldly minded. Yet the greatest things in God\u2019s eyes are extremely small in the eyes of man.
\nLet me be clear. The call of God to recover the primitive simplicity of organic church life requires that we begin on an entirely new ground. A ground different from the religious systems and traditions that we fallen mortals have constructed. And that ground is the Lord Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
A Paradigm Shift<\/p>\n
To borrow a term from scientific philosopher Thomas Kuhn, we need a \u201cparadigm shift\u201d regarding the church before we can properly rebuild it. That is, we need a new worldview regarding the meaning of the body of Christ. A new model for understanding the ekklesia. A new framework for thinking about the church.
\nOf course, the \u201cnew paradigm\u201d that I\u2019m speaking of is not new at all. It\u2019s the paradigm that undergirds the entire New Testament.
\nOur day is not much different from that of Nehemiah\u2019s. In Nehemiah\u2019s time, Israel had just rediscovered the Law of God after being without it for many years. But once it was discovered, it had to be reexplained and reinterpreted. Consider the words of Nehemiah:<\/p>\n
They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. (Neh. 8:8).<\/p>\n
In the same way, twenty-first-century Christians must relearn the language of Scripture with respect to the church. The original meaning of countless biblical terms like \u201cchurch,\u201d \u201cminister,\u201d \u201cpastor,\u201d \u201chouse of God,\u201d \u201cministry,\u201d \u201cbride of Christ,\u201d \u201cfamily of God,\u201d and \u201cfellowship\u201d have largely been lost.
\nThese words have been invested with institutional power. A power that was foreign to those who originally penned them. Therefore, a pressing need today is the rediscovery of biblical language and ideas. We need to rethink our entire concept of church and discover it afresh through the lens of Jesus and the apostles.
\nBecause of common misteaching, we have many deeply buried assumptions that are in need of excavation and examination. Many of us have been mistaught that \u201cchurch\u201d means a building, a denomination, or a worship service. And that a \u201cminister\u201d is a special class of Christian.
\nSince our contemporary notion of the church has been so entrenched in human thinking, it requires a conscious effort to view it in the way that all first-century Christians did. It demands that we rigorously plow through the thick and tangled weeds of religious tradition until we unearth the virgin soil of organic Christianity.
\nAs we rethink the church in its scriptural context, we\u2019ll be better equipped to distinguish between the biblical notion of church and those institutions that pose as churches. Let\u2019s briefly isolate some of those differences now:<\/p>\n
The Institutional Paradigm
\nThe Organic Paradigm
\n\u2022 is sustained by a clergy system
\n\u2022 knows nothing of a clergy system
\n\u2022 seeks to energize the laity
\n\u2022 doesn\u2019t recognize a separate class called laity
\n\u2022 limits many functions to the ordained
\n\u2022 makes all members functioning priests
\n\u2022 renders the bulk of its congregants passive in their pews
\n\u2022 allows and encourages all Christians to engage in whatever ministry God has called them to
\n\u2022 associates church with a building, a denomination, or a religious service
\n\u2022 affirms that people do not go to church; affirms that they (together) are the church
\n\u2022 is rooted in unifying those who share a special set of customs or doctrines
\n\u2022 is rooted in unreserved fellowship with all Christians based on Christ alone
\n\u2022 thrusts \u201cordinary\u201d Christians out of the \u201cHoly of Holies\u201d and chains them to a pew
\n\u2022 liberates all believers to serve as ministers in the context of a nonclerical, decentralized form of church leadership
\n\u2022 places its priority on programs and rituals that keep its congregants at arm\u2019s length, insulating them from one another
\n\u2022 places its priority on face-to-face, shared-life relationships, mutual submission, openness, freedom, mutual service, and spiritual reality\u2014the very elements that were built into the fabric of the New Testament church
\n\u2022 depends on forced tithing and huge budgets
\n\u2022 depends on the Spirit of God to bring about generous, grace-based giving among members
\n\u2022 spends most of its resources on building expenditures and pastor-staff salaries
\n\u2022 spends most of its resources on \u201cthe poor among you\u201d and travelling workers who preach the gospel and plant new churches
\n\u2022 operates on the basis that the pastor\/priest is the functional head (while Christ is the nominal Head)
\n\u2022 operates on the basis that Christ is the functional Head through the invisible guidance of the Holy Spirit through the believing community
\n\u2022 extols and protects the clergy-dominated, program-centered system that serves as the driving machine of the organized church
\n\u2022 rejects the clergy system because it quenches the sovereign exercise of the Holy Spirit; yet lovingly embraces every Christian within that system
\n\u2022 recognizes and affirms hierarchical leadership
\n\u2022 rejects hierarchical leadership; recognizes and affirms the organic leadership of the whole body
\n\u2022 builds programs to fuel the church; treats people as cogs in the machine
\n\u2022 builds people together in Christ to provide the momentum for the church
\n\u2022 encourages believers to participate institutionally and hierarchically
\n\u2022 invites believers to participate relationally and spiritually
\n\u2022 separates church (ecclesiology) from personal salvation (soteriology); views the former as a mere appendage to the latter
\n\u2022 forges no link between personal salvation and the church; sees the two as inextricably intertwined (Scripture has it that when people were saved, they simultaneously became part of the church and immediately met together)<\/p>\n
To make the point better by someone else somewhere else, the organic paradigm represents \u201cthe winning back to God of things ordinary and the desacralisation of things made sacred by human hands.\u201d Because the traditional paradigm has been so entrenched in the minds of so many Christians, the mere notion of \u201ccoloring outside the lines\u201d is quite terrifying. The unfortunate result is that those who haven\u2019t had a paradigm shift regarding the church will either ignore or oppose those churches that have.
\nIn the eyes of those who see the world through institutional glasses, unless a church meets in the \u201cright\u201d place (a building), has the \u201cproper\u201d leadership (an ordained minister), and bears the \u201ccorrect\u201d name (one that indicates a \u201ccovering\u201d), it\u2019s not an authentic church. Instead, it\u2019s dubbed with innovative terms like \u201cparachurch.\u201d
\nHence, among those who haven\u2019t yet grown weary of running on the program-driven treadmill of institutional \u201cchurchianity,\u201d that which is abnormal is considered normal and that which is normal is regarded as abnormal. This is the unhappy result of not basing our faith and practice upon Scripture.
\nIn brief, nothing short of a paradigm shift regarding the church, coupled with an impartation of fresh light from the Holy Spirit, will produce enduring change. Readjustments to the old wineskin, no matter how radical, will only go so far.
\nConsequently, in my personal judgment, the church doesn\u2019t need renewal. It needs a complete overhaul. That is, the only way to fully renew the institutional church is to wholly disassemble it and build something far different. The brittle wineskin of church practice and the tattered garment of ecclesiastical forms need to be exchanged, not just modified. Some may disagree. But this is my conviction based on my experience, and I\u2019m not ashamed to state it.
\nIn short, what is needed is a new wineskin and a new garment (Luke 5:36\u201338).
\nThe words of Frederick Buechner are fitting:<\/p>\n
I also believe that what goes on in them [support groups] is far closer to what Christ meant his Church to be, and what it originally was, than much of what goes on in most churches I know. These groups have no buildings or official leadership or money. They have no rummage sales, no altar guilds, no every-member canvases. They have no preachers, no choirs, no liturgy, no real estate. They have no creeds. They have no program. They make you wonder if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burned down and to lose all its money. Then all the people would have left is God and each other.<\/p>\n
May we be delivered from carelessly imposing our pattern of church organization upon the New Testament authors. And may we have the courage to discard our institutional baggage. Or at least be willing to open our bags and inspect the contents.<\/p>\n
Counting the Cost<\/p>\n
So what alternative do I recommend? Very simply, a return to organic church life. The very thing that I have sought to reimagine throughout this book.
\nI believe that we are living in an hour when God is seeking to raise up multitudes in the spirit of the sons of Issachar \u201cwho understood the times and knew what Israel [God\u2019s people] should do\u201d (1 Chron. 12:32).
\nThe peril of ancient Israel rested in its willingness to follow the multitudes that surrounded it. By contrast, shouldn\u2019t we connect our obedience to what God has revealed to us in His Word? In Exodus 23:2, the Lord warned Israel about the peril of following after the multitudes. I think that warning holds good for us today.
\nAs the Scripture says, \u201cToday, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts\u201d (Heb. 3:15).
\nLet me be clear. There\u2019s a price to pay in responding to the Lord\u2019s will for His church. You\u2019ll have to reckon with being misunderstood by those who have embraced spectator Christianity. You\u2019ll bear the marks of the cross and die a thousand deaths in the process of being built together with other believers in a close-knit community.
\nYou\u2019ll have to endure the messiness that\u2019s part and parcel of relational Christianity\u2014forever abandoning the artificial neatness afforded by the organized church. You\u2019ll no longer share the comforts of being a passive spectator. Instead, you\u2019ll learn the self-emptying lessons of becoming a responsible, serving member of a functioning body.
\nIn addition, you\u2019ll have to go against the harsh grain of what one writer calls \u201cthe seven last words of the church\u201d (we never did it that way before). You\u2019ll incur the disfavor of the religious majority for refusing to be influenced by the tyranny of the status quo. And you\u2019ll incite the severest assaults of the Adversary in his attempt to snuff out that which represents a living testimony of Jesus.
\nAdd to that, living in organic church life is incredibly difficult. The experience is fraught with problems. Read the New Testament letters again with an eye to discovering the many hazards the early Christians encountered when living in close-knit community. When we live in the same kind of community life today, the same problems emerge. Our flesh gets exposed. Our spirituality gets tested. And we quickly find out just how deep the fall goes.
\nAs one person said, \u201cEverybody\u2019s normal until you get to know them.\u201d This is all too true for those who take the plunge of living in organic church life. The problems are endless. It\u2019s much easier to become a \u201cpew potato\u201d two hours on Sunday morning in an institutional church. Anyone can be a perfect Christian then. Organic church life, however, is a wedding of glory and gore. But this is the genius of God. It\u2019s His prescribed way to transform us into His image. For \u201ciron sharpens iron\u201d (Prov. 27:17).
\nYet regardless of the suffering that follows those who take the road less traveled, the glorious benefits of living in body life far outweigh the costs. The Lord builds on broken lives; His house is constituted out of conflict (1 Chron. 26:27). This being the case, \u201cLet us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore\u201d (Heb. 13:13). For it is there that we may meet the Savior\u2019s heartbeat.<\/p>\n
Closing Words<\/p>\n
If you have understood and accepted the message of this book, then you have drawn two significant conclusions:<\/p>\n
1. The institutional church as we know it today does not reflect the church that God originally intended.
\n2. The church that Scripture envisions is organic in its nature and expression, and the Lord desires to recover it today.<\/p>\n
That said, a major decision awaits some of you. To frame it in a question: What is the next step? Some of you are already part of an organic church, so perhaps this book will have helped you better understand your spiritual and biblical roots. Others of you may be content with your present church experience, even though it may not be organic. Still others of you desire to be part of an organic expression of the church.
\nIf you are part of the latter group, a new set of questions faces you. Namely,<\/p>\n
\u2022 What is the mission of God in relation to the church, and how can I best fulfill it?
\n\u2022 How can I find an organic church where I live?
\n\u2022 How are organic churches planted, and can I start one myself?
\n\u2022 If I\u2019m a leader in an institutional church, is it possible to have organic church life in my present situation? If so, how?
\n\u2022 What are the problems that organic churches face, and how are they best handled?<\/p>\n
If you are asking these questions, there\u2019s good news.
\nFirst, my coworkers have created a Web site that gives practical help to those who are asking these questions. Through the site, you can connect with Christians who are also reimagining church. In addition, you can request the help of those who plant organic churches to assist you in having one planted in your area. The site also includes resources for pastors who are struggling with the issues raised in this book. Just go to www.HouseChurchResource.org.
\nSecond, the questions regarding the mission of God as well as planting and sustaining organic church life are not easy to answer. For this reason, I\u2019m writing two other volumes to address them in detail.
\nThe first is titled From Eternity to Here: Rediscovering the Ageless Purpose of God. This book will seek to present the sweeping grandeur of God\u2019s eternal campaign for a bride, a house, a family, and a body. And it will focus on our place in the eternal drama of God\u2019s timeless plan.
\nThe second volume will discuss in great depth the biblical principles for planting and sustaining organic churches. It will also offer practical guidance on how you can apply these principles today. Visit www.ptmin.org and you will be notified when these new books are available.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX
\nOBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES ABOUT LEADERSHIP<\/p>\n
To be honest is to confront the truth. However unpleasant and inconvenient the truth may be, I believe we must expose and face it.
\n\u2014Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.<\/p>\n
I am not here attacking Christianity, but only the institutional mantle that cloaks it.
\n\u2014Pierre Berton<\/p>\n
For centuries, certain texts in the New Testament have been mishandled to support hierarchical\/positional leadership structures in the church. This mishandling has caused no small damage to the body of Christ.
\nThe notion of hierarchical\/positional authority is partly the result of mistranslations and misinterpretations of certain biblical passages. These mistranslations and misinterpretations have been influenced by cultural biases that have cluttered the original meaning of the biblical language. Such biases have transformed simple words into heavily loaded ecclesiastical titles. As a result, they have eroded the original landscape of the church.
\nThus a fresh reading of the New Testament in its original language is necessary for properly understanding certain texts. For instance, a look at the original Greek yields the following insights:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Bishops are simply guardians (episkopoi), not high-church officials.
\n\u2022 Pastors are caretakers (poimen), not professional pulpiteers.
\n\u2022 Ministers are busboys (diakonos), not clergymen.
\n\u2022 Elders are wise old men (presbuteros), not ecclesiastical officers.<\/p>\n
Thankfully, a growing number of New Testament scholars are pointing out that the \u201cleadership\u201d terminology of the New Testament possesses descriptive accents denoting special functions rather than formal positions.
\nWhat follows is a list of common objections to the idea that church leadership is nonofficial, nontitular, and nonhierarchical. Each objection is followed by a response.<\/p>\n
Objections from Acts and Paul\u2019s Epistles<\/p>\n
1. Don\u2019t Acts 1:20; Romans 11:13; 12:4; and 1 Timothy 3:1, 10, 12 speak of church officials?
\nThe word office in these passages is a mistranslation. It has no equivalent in the original Greek. Nowhere in the Greek New Testament do we find the equivalent of office used in connection with any ministry, function, or leader in the church. The Greek word for office is only used to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ in His high priestly office (Heb. 5\u20137). It\u2019s also used to refer to the Levitical priesthood (Luke 1:8).
\nThe King James Version mistranslates Romans 11:13b to be \u201cI magnify mine office.\u201d But the Greek word translated \u201coffice\u201d means service, not office. So a better translation of Romans 11:13b is \u201cI magnify my service [diakonia].\u201d
\nSimilarly, Romans 12:4b is better translated \u201cAll the members do not have the same function [praxis].\u201d The Greek word praxis means a doing, a practice, or a function rather than an office or position. The NIV and the NASB reflect this better translation.
\nFinally, 1 Timothy 3:1 says the following in the KJV: \u201cIf a man desire the office of a bishop \u2026\u201d But a more accurate translation puts it this way: \u201cIf anyone aspires to oversight \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
2. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are called the Pastoral Epistles. So that means that Timothy and Titus were pastors, right?
\nNo, it does not. Paul\u2019s letters to Timothy and Titus were first dubbed the \u201cPastoral Epistles\u201d as recently as the eighteenth century. But this is a misguided label.
\nTimothy and Titus were not local pastors. They were apostolic coworkers who were mostly on the move. They only occasionally spent a long period of time in a single place. (For instance, Paul sent Titus to Crete and Timothy to Ephesus to strengthen the churches there and sort out local problems.)
\nBecause Timothy and Titus were itinerant church planters, Paul never called them pastors or elders. These men were not resident ministers. They were part of Paul\u2019s apostolic circle\u2014a circle that was noted for its constant traveling (Rom. 16:21; 1 Cor. 16:10; 2 Cor. 8:23; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6; 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:15; 4:10). Therefore, calling these three letters the \u201cPastoral Epistles\u201d reflects a modern bias, not an objective processing of the truth.<\/p>\n
3. Don\u2019t Paul\u2019s lists of qualifications in the Pastoral Epistles, namely 1 Timothy 3:1\u20137 and Titus 1:7\u20139, prove that elders are church officers?
\nAll that\u2019s written in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus must be understood from the standpoint that Paul was writing to his apostolic coworkers, not to churches. This explains some of the differences between these epistles and the rest of Paul\u2019s letters. In Timothy and Titus, for example, the body metaphor is absent. The \u201cbrethren\u201d are only occasionally mentioned. And there is little emphasis on mutual ministry.
\nBy the same token, we don\u2019t find anything resembling nascent Catholicism in these epistles. The Spirit of God as well as His gifts are mentioned. And leaders are understood to gain recognition by their example rather than by any held position.
\nWhat we have in these texts, then, are the essential qualities of a true overseer, not a list of qualifications for an office that can be ticked off with a pencil.
\nThe summation of these qualities is: spiritual character and faithfulness\u2014godliness and responsibility. Paul\u2019s lists, therefore, merely served as guides to Timothy and Titus in helping them identify and affirm overseers in the churches with which they worked (1 Tim. 5:22; Titus 1:5).
\nIn addition, the flavor of these texts in the Greek is one of function rather than officialdom. Paul himself doesn\u2019t call an overseer an office-bearer, but a \u201cnoble task\u201d (1 Tim. 3:1b). Moreover, functional language is employed when Paul commends honor to those elders who \u201cguide well\u201d and who \u201clabor\u201d in teaching (1 Tim. 5:17 NKJV).
\nConsequently, to conflate the overseers in these texts with modern ecclesiastical officials\u2014like the modern pastor\u2014is pure fantasy. It\u2019s a function of our tendency to bring our organizational conventions to the New Testament and read them back into it. It\u2019s the result of a learned cultural framework that we bring to the text and nothing more. In short, the language of function rather than office dominates the \u201cPastoral Epistles\u201d just as it does Paul\u2019s other letters.<\/p>\n
4. First Corinthians 12:28 says, \u201cAnd in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers.\u2026\u201d Doesn\u2019t this text envision a hierarchy of church officials?
\nAgain, this question is indicative of our penchant for reading Scripture with the tainted spectacles of human hierarchy. It\u2019s a peculiarly Western foible to insist that every relationship be conceived in terms of a one-up\/one-down hierarchical mode. Thus whenever we see an ordered list in the New Testament (like 1 Corinthians 12:28), we can\u2019t seem to keep ourselves from connecting the dots of hierarchy.
\nWhile we twenty-first-century Westerners like to think in terms of organizational flow charts, the Bible never does. So it\u2019s an unwarranted assumption to think that every ordered list in Scripture is some sort of a veiled command hierarchy. Simply put, to see hierarchy in Paul\u2019s catalog of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28 represents a culturally biased misreading of Paul. The question of authority structures is not being asked anywhere in this text. Therefore, we do not exegete hierarchy from it; we impose it upon it.
\nA more natural reading of this passage understands the ordering to reflect a logical priority rather than a hierarchical one. In other words, the order reflects greater gifting with respect to church building. This interpretation meshes nicely with the immediate context in which it appears (1 Cor. 12, 13, 14).
\nTo unfold that, Paul is saying that within the scope of church building, the apostle\u2019s ministry is the most fundamental. That\u2019s because apostles give birth to the church and sustain it during its prenatal development. Apostles break the ground and plant the seed of the ekklesia.
\nSince apostles lay the foundation of the church, they\u2019re also ranked first (chronologically) in the work of church building (Rom. 15:19\u201320; 1 Cor. 3:10; Eph. 2:20). Significantly, while apostles are placed first in the church-building scheme, they rank last in the eyes of the world (Matt. 20:16; 1 Cor. 4:9).
\nProphets appear second in Paul\u2019s list. This indicates that they immediately follow the apostles in their value to church building. Much confusion (and abuse) surrounds the function of the prophet today. Briefly, prophets supply the church with spiritual vision and encouragement through prophetic utterances. Like apostles, prophets unfold the mystery of God\u2019s purpose for the present and the future (Acts 15:32; Eph. 3:4\u20135). They also root out the weeds so the church can grow unhindered.
\nTeachers are mentioned third. They follow the prophets in their value to church building. Teachers put the church on solid biblical ground. They supply instruction concerning God\u2019s ways. They also shepherd God\u2019s people through hard times.
\nTo continue the metaphor, teachers water the seed and fertilize the soil so the church can flourish and blossom. If we examine the ministry of the teacher with an eye for chronology, teachers build the superstructure of the church after the apostles have established the ground floor.
\nThis interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:28 follows the path of Paul\u2019s thought far better than that of a hierarchical command structure where apostles \u201cpull rank\u201d on prophets, and prophets do the same with teachers. It also brings to the fore an important spiritual principle: The absence of hierarchical authority doesn\u2019t mean egalitarian gifting.
\nWhile the New Testament affirms that all are gifted and all have ministry, it equally demonstrates that God disperses His gifts in a diverse way (1 Cor. 12:4\u20136). Every gift is valuable to the body of Christ. But some gifts are greater than others within their respected spheres (Matt. 25:14ff.; 1 Cor. 12:22\u201324, 31; 14:5).
\nThis doesn\u2019t mean that those with greater gifts are greater in authority (or intrinsic worth) in some formal sense. But God has called each of us to a different work. And some have greater gifts for different tasks (Matt. 25:14ff.; Rom. 12:6; Eph. 4:7).
\nWithin the sphere of our gifts, each member is indispensable to the general upbuilding of the church\u2014even those members whose gifts are not outwardly impressive (1 Cor. 12:22\u201325). Therefore, every Christian in the Lord\u2019s house is responsible for using and increasing his or her gifts. And we are all warned against hiding them in the napkin of fear (Matt. 25:25).
\nIn short, the idea that 1 Corinthians 12:28 denotes some sort of church hierarchy lacks argumentative force. The text has in mind greater gifting with a subtext of the chronological order of church building (some plant, then some water, etc.\u20141 Cor. 3:6). It doesn\u2019t indicate a pecking order of an ecclesiastical hierarchy or an authoritative ladder for Christians to climb.<\/p>\n
5. Don\u2019t Acts 20:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17; and Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 say that elders have \u201cthe rule over\u201d the church?
\nThe words \u201crule\u201d and \u201cover\u201d in these texts are a poor fit with the rest of the New Testament. And there\u2019s no analog for them in the Greek text. This is yet another case where certain translations have confused the modern reader by employing culturally conditioned religious terminology.
\nThe word \u201crule\u201d in Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 is translated from the Greek word hegeomai. It simply means to guide or go before. In his translation of Hebrews, New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce translates hegeomai into \u201cguides.\u201d This word carries the thought of \u201cthose who guide you\u201d rather than \u201cthose who rule over you.\u201d
\nSimilarly, in 1 Thessalonians 5:12, the word \u201cover\u201d is translated from the Greek word proistemi. It carries the idea of standing in front of, superintending, guarding, and providing care for. Robert Banks and F. F. Bruce explain that this term doesn\u2019t carry the technical force of an official designation, for it\u2019s used in the participle rather than the noun form. It\u2019s also positioned as the second in the midst of two other nonofficial participles. Bruce translates 1 Thessalonians 5:12\u201313 as follows: \u201cNow we ask you brothers to know those who work hard among you and care for you in the Lord and instruct you, and esteem them very highly in love because of their work.\u201d
\nThe same word (proistemi) appears in 1 Timothy 5:17. It, too, is incorrectly translated \u201crule\u201d in the KJV and NASB. In addition, in Acts 20:28, the Greek text says that the elders are \u201cen\u201d (among) the flock rather than \u201cover\u201d them (as the KJV puts it).
\nIn a similar vein, Paul\u2019s statement that overseers must \u201crule [proistemi] their own houses well\u201d in 1 Timothy 3:4\u20135 doesn\u2019t point to their ability to wield power. It rather points to their capacity to supervise, manage, and nurture others. Incidentally, managing the household didn\u2019t envision managing the nuclear family. It involved much more than that. It involved managing married and unmarried relatives as well as servants.
\nIn all these passages, the basic thought is that of watching rather than bossing. Superintending rather than dominating. Facilitating rather than dictating. Guiding rather than ruling.
\nThe Greek text conveys an image of one who stands within the flock, guarding and caring for it (as a leading-servant would). It\u2019s reminiscent of a shepherd who looks out for the sheep\u2014not one who drives them from behind or rules them from above.
\nAgain, the thrust of apostolic teaching consistently demonstrates that God\u2019s idea of church leadership is at odds with those conventional leadership roles that are based on top-heavy rule.<\/p>\n
6. Doesn\u2019t Romans 12:8 (KJV) teach that God gifts some believers to rule in the church? There Paul says, \u201cHe that ruleth, [should do so] with diligence.\u201d
\nThe KJV uses the word \u201cruleth\u201d in this text. But the Greek word that appears here is proistemi. Again, this word envisions one who superintends and gives aid to others. It doesn\u2019t refer to one who governs or controls them. So the text is better translated, \u201cHe that guards and gives care should do so with diligence.\u201d Paul\u2019s thought here is clearly one of earnest oversight rather than dictatorial rulership.<\/p>\n
7. Don\u2019t Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 teach that elders are ordained, implying that they are church officers?
\nThe mention of apostolic recognition (endorsement) is at least as friendly to the functional mind-set as it is to the positional interpretation. In Titus 1:5, the word translated \u201cordain\u201d in the Greek is kathistemi. One meaning of this word is \u201cto declare, to show to be.\u201d
\nIn Acts 14:23, the word is cheirotoneo. It means \u201cto stretch forth the hand\u201d or \u201cto choose.\u201d Both terms can be understood to mean the acknowledgment of those whom others have already endorsed.
\nSecond, there\u2019s not a shred of textual evidence to support the idea that biblical recognition bestows or confers authority. Paul never vested certain ones with authority over the remaining members of the community. The Holy Spirit makes overseers, not overlords (Acts 20:28).
\nElders exist in the church before they are outwardly recognized. Apostolic endorsement merely makes public that which the Spirit has already accomplished. The laying on of hands is a token of fellowship, oneness, and affirmation. It\u2019s not one of special grace or transferred authority. It\u2019s a profound error, therefore, to confuse biblical recognition with ecclesiastical ordination. The laying on of hands doesn\u2019t qualify religious specialists to do what lesser mortals cannot.
\nInstead, biblical recognition is merely the outward confirmation of those who have already been charged by the Spirit to a specific task. It serves as a visible testimony that publicly endorses those who \u201chave the goods.\u201d
\nIn many contemporary house churches, public recognition constitutes a Trojan horse of sorts. Some men just can\u2019t handle the recognition. It inflates their egos. The title gives them a power trip. Worse still, it transforms some people into control freaks.
\nWe must remember that in the first century it was the itinerant workers who publicly acknowledged overseers (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Therefore, it falls upon extralocal workers today (with the input of the church) to discern the timing and method of how overseers are to be acknowledged. The recognition of overseers\u2014when they emerge\u2014should not be pressed into any rigid mold. Some church planters directly recognize overseers. Others do so tacitly.
\nThe bottom line is that when we attach the recognition of elders to special ceremonies, licenses, seminary degrees, etc., we are speaking where the Bible doesn\u2019t speak.
\nWe do well to keep in mind that in the New Testament the principle of recognizing elders exists. But the method is open. And it always has the sense of recognizing a dynamic function rather than placing into a static office.
\nIn addition, we are on safe scriptural ground if elders are recognized by extralocal workers who know the church well. This safeguards the church from being controlled and manipulated by local, self-appointed leadership.<\/p>\n
8. Doesn\u2019t Paul use the word \u201capostle\u201d as an official title when speaking of himself?
\nContrary to popular thinking, most of Paul\u2019s correspondence contains a subtext that affirms that he is not an offici-apostle. Granted, Paul regularly makes known his special function in the salutation of his letters (e.g. \u201cPaul, an apostle of Jesus Christ\u201d). But he never once identifies himself as \u201cthe apostle Paul.\u201d
\nThis is a meaningful distinction. The former is a description of a special function based on divine commission. The latter is an official title. As previously stated, nowhere in the New Testament do we find any ministry or function in the body used as a title before the names of God\u2019s servants. Christians who are \u201ctitle happy\u201d need to seriously reflect on this.<\/p>\n
9. Doesn\u2019t Ephesians 4:11 envision a clergy? It says, \u201cAnd He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers\u201d (NASB).
\nNot at all. Ephesians 4 has in view those gifts that equip the church for its diversity of service (vv. 12\u201316). The gifts listed in this text are actually gifted persons who empower the church (vv. 8, 11). They are not the gifts that the Holy Spirit distributes to each individual as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11).
\nPut another way, Ephesians 4 is not discussing gifts given to men and women. It\u2019s discussing gifted men and women who are given to the church. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors\/teachers are people given by the ascended Lord to His church for its formation, coordination, and upbuilding. (See my article \u201cRethinking the Fivefold Ministry\u201d for details, www.ptmin.org\/fivefold.htm.)
\nTheir chief task is to nurture the believing community into responsible roles. Their success is rooted in their ability to empower and mobilize God\u2019s people for the work of the ministry. In this way, the Ephesians 4 gifts equip the body to fulfill God\u2019s eternal purpose.
\nThese ascension gifts are not offices. Nor are they formal positions. The Greek has no definite article connected with these terms. They are merely brethren with peculiar \u201cenabling\u201d gifts designed to cultivate the ministries of their fellow brethren.
\nIn short, Ephesians 4:11 doesn\u2019t envision a hired clergy, a professional ministry, or a special priestcraft. Neither are they a special class of Christians. Like Paul\u2019s catalog of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4 has in view special functions rather than formal positions.<\/p>\n
10. Doesn\u2019t the mention of \u201cgovernments\u201d or \u201cadministration\u201d in 1 Corinthians 12:28 show that the early church possessed church officials?
\nThe Greek word translated \u201cgovernments\u201d in the KJV and \u201cadministration\u201d in the NIV is kubernesis. According to New Testament scholar Gordon Fee,<\/p>\n
the noun occurs three times in the LXX [the Greek Old Testament], where it carries the verbal idea of giving \u201cguidance\u201d to someone. Since the word \u201cadministration\u201d in contemporary English conjures up the idea of \u201cadministrative skills,\u201d which is a far cry from what Paul had in mind, the better translation here might be \u201cacts of guidance,\u201d although it is likely that it refers to giving wise counsel to the community as a whole, not simply to other individuals.<\/p>\n
In this light, to invest an official form of church polity into this word is unwarranted and untenable. The only \u201cgovernment\u201d that the ekklesia knows is the undiluted government of Jesus Christ (Isa. 9:6). While overseers supply supervision and guidance to a local church, they don\u2019t \u201cgovern\u201d or \u201crule\u201d it. Thus the terms \u201cgovernments\u201d and \u201cadministration\u201d are poor translations.<\/p>\n
11. Doesn\u2019t the Bible say that Timothy was \u201cordained the first bishop of the church of Ephesus\u201d? And doesn\u2019t it also say that Titus was \u201cordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians\u201d?
\nSome editions of the KJV have these notes annexed to the end of the so-called Pastoral Epistles. But they don\u2019t appear in the Greek text. The translators of the KJV inserted them in the seventeenth century.
\nAs we have already stated, both Timothy and Titus were not bishops. Nor were they pastors. They were Paul\u2019s apostolic coworkers\u2014church planters, if you will (Rom. 16:21; 1 Cor. 16:10; 2 Cor. 8:23; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6; 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:15; 4:10).
\nSignificantly, the monarchical episcopate (the bishop system) did not take root until long after the New Testament was completed. Hence, the historical evidence that Timothy and Titus were \u201cfirst bishops\u201d is just as scanty as the idea that Peter was the \u201cfirst bishop\u201d of Rome. All of these suppositions conflict with the New Testament narrative as well as with church history. They are human inventions that have no biblical basis.<\/p>\n
12. Acts 15:22 mentions \u201cchief men among the brethren\u201d (KJV). Doesn\u2019t this imply the existence of hierarchical authority in the early church?
\nThe KJV translates this text using the terms \u201cchief men\u201d\u2014which gives it a hierarchical flavor. However, the Greek word for \u201cchief\u201d is hegeomai. And it simply means \u201cleading\u201d or \u201cguiding.\u201d (See the NASB and NIV.)
\nThis text underscores the fact that Judas (not Iscariot) and Silas were among the respected brothers in the Jerusalem church. They were responsible men\u2014probably elders as well as prophets (Acts 15:32). For this reason the church of Jerusalem selected them as temporary messengers to Antioch (compare with Prov. 10:26; 25:19). Therefore, to extract hierarchy from this verse cannot be justified.<\/p>\n
13. Doesn\u2019t Paul\u2019s metaphor of the body of Christ demonstrate that authority works in a hierarchical mode? That is, when the Head signals to the hand, it must first signal to the arm. So the hand must submit to the arm in order for it to obey the Head.
\nAnyone who is conversant with human anatomy knows that the above description reflects a flawed understanding of how the physical body works.
\nThe brain sends direct signals to those body parts it seeks to control through the peripheral nervous system. Consequently, the head controls all of the body\u2019s parts immediately and directly through the nerves. It doesn\u2019t pass its impulses through a chain-of-command schema invoking other body parts.
\nThus the head doesn\u2019t command the arm to tell the hand what to do. Instead, the head is connected to the entire body through the nervous system. For this reason, the proper application of the body metaphor preserves the unvarnished truth that there is only one source of authority in the church\u2014Jesus Christ. And all members are connected by His life and placed under His direct control.
\nIn this regard, the Bible is crystal clear in its teaching that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). While the old economy had human mediators, the new covenant knows no such thing. As participants of the new covenant, we need no mediator to tell us to know the Lord. All who are under this covenant may know Him directly\u2014\u201cfrom the least of them to the greatest\u201d (Heb. 8:6\u201311). Mutual subjection, not hierarchical submission, is what engenders the proper coordination of the body of Christ.<\/p>\n
14. Every physical body has a head. Therefore, every local body of believers needs a head. If it doesn\u2019t have one, it will be chaotic. Pastors are the heads of local churches. They are little heads under Christ\u2019s headship.
\nThis idea is born out of the imaginations of fallen humans. There is not a shred of biblical support for such an idea. The Bible never refers to a human being as a \u201chead\u201d of a church. This title exclusively belongs to Jesus Christ. He is the only Head of each local assembly. The church has no head under His own. Therefore, those who claim to be heads of churches supplant the executive headship of Christ.<\/p>\n
15. Don\u2019t John 5:30; John 14:28, 31; and 1 Corinthians 11:3 teach a hierarchical relationship within the Trinity?
\nNo, they do not. These passages don\u2019t have in view the Son\u2019s eternal relationship with His Father in the Godhead. They instead refer to His temporal relationship as a human being who voluntarily submitted Himself to His Father\u2019s will. In the Godhead, the Father and the Son experience communality and mutual submission through the Spirit.
\nKevin Giles accurately says, \u201cNothing in Scripture indicates that the Father-Son-Spirit are eternally hierarchically ordered in being, work\/function, or authority.\u201d
\nFor this reason, historic orthodoxy rejects the eternal subordination of the Son of God. It instead accepts the temporal subordination of the Son in His incarnation. Christ\u2019s subordination to the Father was temporal, voluntary, and limited to the time of His incarnation (Phil. 2:4\u201311). Gilbert Belzikian explains,<\/p>\n
It is impossible within the confines of orthodoxy to derive a model for an order of hierarchy among humans from the ontological structure of the Trinity, since all three persons are equal in essence. Moreover, because Christ\u2019s functional subjection is not an eternal condition but a task-driven, temporary phase of ministry, it is presented in Scripture as a model of servanthood and mutual submission for all believers (Phil 2:5\u201311).<\/p>\n
Kevin Giles adds, \u201cHistoric orthodoxy has never accepted hierarchical ordering in the Trinity.\u201d To paraphrase the Athanasian Creed, the Son is only inferior to the Father in relation to His manhood; He is equal with the Father in relation to the Godhead. Scripture confirms this in many places. One example is when the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus \u201clearned obedience\u201d\u2014not as the Eternal Son, but in His incarnate state (Heb. 5:8).
\nTherefore, the New Testament never supports a hierarchical structure or chain-of-command relationship in the Godhead. The Trinity is a communion of coequal persons (Matt. 28:18; John 5:18; 10:30; 14:9; Phil. 2:6). And the fellowship of the Godhead is egalitarian and nonhierarchical.
\nAgain, Kevin Giles isolates the point, saying, \u201cWhen a doctrine of the church builds on trinitarian thinking, there is no room for hierarchical ordering.\u201d Miroslav Volf insightfully adds, \u201cA hierarchical notion of the Trinity ends up underwriting an authoritarian practice in the church.\u201d<\/p>\n
Objections from Other New Testament Documents<\/p>\n
1. Doesn\u2019t Hebrews 13:17 command us to obey and submit to our leaders, implying that church leaders possess official authority?
\nAgain, a look at the Greek text proves useful here. The word translated \u201cobey\u201d in Hebrews 13:17 is not the garden-variety Greek word (hupakouo) that\u2019s usually employed in the New Testament for obedience. Rather, it\u2019s the word peitho. Peitho means to persuade or to win over. Because this word appears in the middle-passive form in Hebrews 13:17, the text ought to be translated \u201cAllow yourselves to be persuaded by your leaders.\u201d
\nThis text appears to be an exhortation to give weight to the instruction of local overseers (and possibly apostolic workers). It\u2019s not an exhortation to obey them mindlessly. It implies persuasive power to convince and to win over rather than to coerce, force, or browbeat into submission. In the words of Greek scholar W. E. Vine, \u201cThe obedience suggested [in Hebrews 13:17] is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion.\u201d
\nLikewise, the verb translated \u201csubmit\u201d in this passage is the word hupeiko. It carries the idea of yielding, retiring, or withdrawing, as in surrendering after battle. Those who occupy themselves with spiritual oversight don\u2019t demand submission. By virtue of their wisdom and spiritual maturity, they are to be accorded with respect. Christians are encouraged to be uncommonly biased toward what they say. Not because of an external office they hold, but because of their godly character, spiritual stature, and sacrificial service to the people of God.
\nIn the words of Hebrews 13:7, we are to \u201cimitate their faith\u201d as we \u201cconsider the outcome of their life.\u201d By so doing, we make their God-called task of spiritual oversight far easier to carry out (v. 17).<\/p>\n
2. The Bible teaches that those who watch over the souls of the church will have to give an account to God. Doesn\u2019t this mean that these people have authority over others?
\nHebrews 13:17 says that those who provide oversight are accountable to God for this task. But there\u2019s nothing in this text that warrants that they have special authority over other Christians.
\nBeing accountable to God is not the equivalent of having authority. All believers are accountable to God (Matt. 12:36; 18:23; Luke 16:2; Rom. 3:19; 14:12; Heb. 4:13; 13:17; 1 Peter 4:5). But this doesn\u2019t mean that they have authority over others. (Incidentally, desiring dominion over others is carnal. It\u2019s not an outworking of God\u2019s grace, but of fallen flesh.)<\/p>\n
3. Didn\u2019t Jesus endorse official authority when He commanded His disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees because they sat in \u201cMoses\u2019 seat\u201d?
\nNot at all. What Jesus said about the scribes and Pharisees was a rebuke to their practice of assuming instructional authority when they possessed none. Matthew 23:2 says, \u201cThe scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses\u201d (NASB).
\nOur Lord was merely exposing the fact that the scribes and Pharisees were self-appointed teachers. And they usurped authority over the people (Matt. 23:5\u20137; Luke 20:46). His statement was an observation, not an endorsement.
\nThe Lord made it unmistakably plain that despite their pretense before men, the scribes and Pharisees didn\u2019t have any authority (Matt. 23:11\u201333). They taught the Law of Moses, but they didn\u2019t obey it (23:3b, 23).
\nIn this light, the verse that follows, which says \u201ctherefore all that they tell you, do and observe\u201d (v. 3a NASB) cannot be understood as a blanket endorsement of Pharisaical authority. This interpretation utterly contradicts the next verse (v. 4). It also contradicts those passages where we find Jesus resolutely breaking Pharisaical teaching\u2014and commanding His disciples to do the same (Matt. 5:33\u201337; 12:1\u20134; 15:1\u201320; 16:6\u201312; 19:3\u20139; etc.).
\nInstead, this phrase must be interpreted by our Lord\u2019s reference to Moses\u2019 seat. Moses\u2019 seat is a literal reference to a special chair set aside in each synagogue from which the Old Testament Scriptures were read.
\nWhenever the scribes and Pharisees were seated in \u201cMoses\u2019 chair,\u201d they read straight out of Scripture. Because Scripture has authority, what they read from this seat was binding (regardless of the hypocrisy of the readers). This is the essence of Jesus\u2019 statement. The lesson is that even if a self-styled, hypocritical teacher reads from the Bible, what he says from the Bible has authority.
\nTherefore, to project an endorsement of offici-authority onto the lips of the Savior in Matthew 23:2\u20133 is an example of Jesus co-opted by Roman Papalism. As such, it fails to keep pace with the historic context of the passage, and it reflects nothing of the Gospels themselves.<\/p>\n
4. Doesn\u2019t the Greek New Testament support the idea that the church includes clergy and laity?
\nThe clergy\/laity dichotomy is a tragic fault line that runs throughout the history of Christendom. Yet despite the fact that multitudes have taken the low road of dogmatism to defend it, this dichotomy is without biblical warrant.
\nThe word \u201claity\u201d is derived from the Greek word laos. It simply means \u201cthe people.\u201d Laos includes all Christians\u2014including elders. The word appears three times in 1 Peter 2:9\u201310, where Peter refers to \u201cthe people [laos] of God.\u201d Never in the New Testament does it refer to only a portion of the assembly. It didn\u2019t take on this meaning until the third century.
\nThe term \u201cclergy\u201d finds its roots in the Greek word kleros. It means \u201ca lot or an inheritance.\u201d The word is used in 1 Peter 5:3, where Peter instructs the elders against being \u201clords over God\u2019s heritage [kleros]\u201d (KJV). Significantly, the word is never used to refer to church leaders. Like laos, it refers to God\u2019s people\u2014for they are His heritage.
\nAccording to the New Testament, then, all Christians are \u201cclergy\u201d (kleros) and all are \u201claity\u201d (laos). We are the Lord\u2019s heritage and the Lord\u2019s people. To frame it another way, the New Testament doesn\u2019t dispose of clergy. It makes all believers clergy.
\nTherefore, the clergy\/laity dichotomy is a postbiblical concept that\u2019s devoid of any scriptural warrant. It\u2019s also a bothersome menace to what God has called the church to be\u2014a functioning body. There\u2019s no hint of the clergy\/laity or minister\/layman schema in the history, teaching, or vocabulary of the New Testament. This schema is a religious artifact that stems from the postapostolic disjunction of secular and spiritual.
\nIn the secular\/spiritual dichotomy, faith, prayer, and ministry are deemed the exclusive properties of an inner, sacrosanct world. A world that is detached from the whole fabric of life. But this disjunction is completely foreign to the New Testament ethos where all things are to bring glory to God\u2014even the stuff of everyday life (1 Cor. 10:31).<\/p>\n
5. Don\u2019t the seven angels of the seven churches in the book of Revelation represent the presence of a single pastor in each local church?
\nThe first three chapters of Revelation constitute a flimsy basis upon which to construct the doctrine of \u201csingle pastor.\u201d First, the reference to the angels of these churches is cryptic. John doesn\u2019t give us any clues about their identity. Scholars are not sure what they symbolize. (Some believe they point to literal angels. Others believe they are human messengers.)
\nSecond, there\u2019s no analog for the idea of a \u201csolo pastor\u201d anywhere in the New Testament. Nor is there any text that likens pastors unto angels.
\nThird, the idea that the seven angels refer to the \u201cpastors\u201d of the seven churches is in direct conflict with other New Testament texts. For instance, Acts 20:17 and 20:28 tell us that the church of Ephesus had multiple shepherds (pastors), not one. This is true for all first-century churches that had elders. They were always plural (see chapter 9).
\nTherefore, to hang the \u201csola pastora\u201d doctrine on one obscure passage in Revelation is sloppy and careless exegesis. The fact is, there is no support for the modern pastor in Revelation or in any other New Testament document.<\/p>\n
Objections from the Old Testament<\/p>\n
1. In Exodus 18, Moses set up a hierarchy of rulers under him to help lead God\u2019s people. Isn\u2019t this a biblical pattern for hierarchical leadership?
\nIf we read this account carefully, we\u2019ll discover that it was Moses\u2019 heathen father-in-law, Jethro, who conceived this idea (Ex. 18:14\u201327). There is no biblical evidence to suggest that God endorsed it. In fact, Jethro himself admitted that he wasn\u2019t sure if God would support it (Ex. 18:23).
\nLater in Israel\u2019s journeys, the Lord directed Moses to take a different course of action regarding the problem of oversight. God commanded Moses to commission elders to help bear the weight of responsibility. Accordingly, Moses selected those men who were already elder-ing (Num. 11:16).
\nThis strategy was organic and functional. In this way, it was markedly different from Jethro\u2019s notion of a multilayered hierarchy of rulers.<\/p>\n
2. Don\u2019t the Old Testament figures of Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, etc. show that God\u2019s perfect will is to have a single leader over His people?
\nNo, they don\u2019t. As previously stated, Moses and every other single leader in the Old Testament were shadows of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were not types of the modern-day single pastorate that was invented during the Reformation.
\nBy contrast, God\u2019s will was to instill a theocracy in Israel. (A theocracy is a government where God is the sole King.) Regrettably, the people clamored for a human king, and the Lord gave them their fleshly desire to be like the other nations. But this was never His perfect will (1 Sam. 8:5\u20139).
\nGranted, the Lord still worked with His people under a human kingship. But they suffered dire consequences as a result. In like manner, God still works through man-made systems today. Yet they always limit His full blessing. Unfortunately, many Christians still assume that they must have a visible leader to rule over them.
\nIn sum, the Lord\u2019s perfect will was for His people to live and serve under His direct reign (Ex. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; 1 Sam. 8:7). Israel was called to be a \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d (Ex. 19:6). And she was to confer with the older, wiser men (elders) in times of crisis (Deut. 22:15\u201318; 25:7\u20139).
\nBut what Israel lost in her disobedience, the church gained (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). Tragically, however, many Christians have opted to return to the old covenant system of religious government\u2014even though God dismantled it long ago.
\nIt should be noted that it\u2019s only because of an indwelling Spirit that God\u2019s idea of leadership and authority can be observed today. Since the indwelling Spirit was not experienced during Old Testament days, God condescended to the limitations of His people.
\nWhen we come to the New Testament era, we discover that the indwelling Christ is the portion of all of God\u2019s children. And it is that portion that causes the church to rise to the supernatural level of the \u201cpriesthood of all believers.\u201d A level where hierarchical, titular, and official leadership styles turn obsolete and counterproductive.<\/p>\n
3. In Psalm 105:15, the Lord says, \u201cTouch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm\u201d (KJV). Doesn\u2019t this verse teach that some Christians (e.g., pastors) have unquestioned authority?
\nUnder the old covenant, God specially anointed prophets to be His oracles on the earth. Thus to speak against them was to speak against the Lord. But under the new covenant, the Spirit has been poured out upon all God\u2019s people. All who have received Christ (the Anointed One) are anointed by the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27); therefore, all may prophesy (Acts 2:17\u201318; 1 Cor. 14:24, 31).
\nIn this way, the prayer of Moses that all of God\u2019s people would receive the Spirit and prophesy has been fulfilled since Pentecost (Num. 11:29; Acts 2:16\u201318). Regrettably, Psalm 105:15 has been abused and misapplied by clergy leaders and self-proclaiming \u201cprophets\u201d to control God\u2019s people and to deflect criticism.
\nBut here\u2019s the truth. Under the new covenant, \u201ctouch not God\u2019s anointed\u201d is the equivalent of \u201csubmit to one another out of reverence for Christ\u201d (Eph. 5:21). For the Spirit\u2019s anointing has come upon all who have believed on the Messiah.
\nTherefore, \u201ctouch not God\u2019s anointed\u201d applies to every Christian today. To deny this is to deny that all Christians have the anointing (1 John 2:20, 27).<\/p>\n
The Problem of Mistranslation<\/p>\n
In view of the foregoing points, some may wonder why the KJV obscures so many texts that have to do with ministry and oversight. Why does the KJV repeatedly insert hierarchical\/institutional terms (like \u201coffice\u201d) that are absent from the original documents?
\nThe answer stems from the fact that the Anglican Church of the seventeenth century issued the KJV. That church rigidly espoused the wedding of the church and the state, and it possessed a mind-set that merged officialdom with Christianity.
\nKing James VI of Scotland ordered the translation that bears his name (the King James Version). In so doing, the king acted in the capacity of the head of the Anglican Church\u2014the state church of England. He then directed the fifty-four scholars who authored the translation not to depart from \u201ctraditional terminology\u201d throughout the project.
\nFor this reason, the KJV naturally reflects Anglicanism\u2019s hierarchical\/institutional presuppositions. Words like ekklesia, episkopos, and diakonos were not accurately translated from the Greek. Instead, they were translated into the Anglican ecclesiastical jargon of the day: Ekklesia was translated into \u201cchurch;\u201d episkopos was translated into \u201cbishop;\u201d diakonos was translated into \u201cminister.;\u201d praxis was translated into \u201coffice;\u201d proistemi was translated into \u201crule;\u201d etc. The original KJV of 1611 went through four revisions up until 1769. Yet these errors were never corrected.
\nThankfully, some modern translations have sought to rectify this problem. They have de-Anglicized many of the ecclesiastical terms found in the KJV. They have also accurately translated the Greek words that stand behind them. For example, ekklesia has been translated \u201cassembly;\u201d episkopos has been translated \u201coverseer;\u201d diakonos has been translated \u201cservant;\u201d praxis has been translated \u201cfunction;\u201d and proistemi has been translated \u201cguard.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Mess We Find Ourselves in Today<\/p>\n
The primary reason why our ideas on church leadership have strayed so far from God\u2019s will can be traced to our tendency to project Western political notions of government onto the biblical writers\u2014reading them back into the text. When we read words like \u201cpastor,\u201d \u201coverseer,\u201d and \u201celder,\u201d we immediately think in terms of governmental offices like \u201cpresident,\u201d \u201csenator,\u201d and \u201cchairman.\u201d
\nSo we regard elders, pastors, and overseers as sociological constructs (offices). We view them as vacant slots that possess a reality independent of the persons who populate them. We then ascribe mere men with unquestioned authority simply because they \u201chold office.\u201d
\nThe New Testament notion of leadership is markedly different. As previously stated, there\u2019s no biblical warrant for the idea that church leadership is official. Neither is there any scriptural backing for the notion that some believers have authority over other believers. The only authority that exists in the church is Jesus Christ. Humans have no authority in themselves. Divine authority is vested only in the Head and expressed through the body.
\nGood leadership, therefore, is never authoritarian. It only displays authority when it\u2019s expressing the mind of Jesus Christ. The basic tasks of biblical leadership are facilitation, nurture, guidance, and service. To the degree that a member is modeling the will of God in one of those areas, to that degree he or she is leading.
\nIt\u2019s no wonder that Paul never chose to use any of the forty-plus common Greek words for \u201coffice\u201d and \u201cauthority\u201d when discussing leaders. Again, Paul\u2019s favorite word for describing leadership is the opposite of what natural minds would suspect. It\u2019s diakonos, which means a \u201cservant.\u201d<\/p>\n
@book{Viola_2008,
\nplace={Colorado Springs, CO},
\ntitle={Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity},
\npublisher={David C. Cook},
\nauthor={Viola, Frank},
\nyear={2008}}<\/p>\n
Exportiert aus Verbum, 14:26 25. April 2019.
\naus Verbum, 14:16 25. April 2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
INTRODUCTION TOWARD A NEW KIND OF CHURCH We are living in an age hopelessly below the New Testament pattern\u2014content with a neat little religion. \u2014Martyn Lloyd-Jones Most professing Christians do not realize that the central concepts and practices associated with what we call \u201cchurch\u201d are not rooted in the New Testament, but in patterns established … <\/p>\n