Word of God Part 2

 

Did God speak outside of Scripture?  Does He still?  Can we speak His (new) words?

 

Speaking is a big focus of the New Testament, though I think we have overlooked it.  Many of the spiritual gifts have to do with verbal communication.  Are those gifts supernatural (spiritual) or not?  Can speaking gifts come from God, but not the words?  What about this verse from Peter?  “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God…”  Have you ever thought about Paul’s admonition to take up the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”?  Did you know that Paul follows with a request that his friends pray that “utterance may be given unto [him]”?

 

Maybe you’re like me, fascinated by how casually the Old Testament refers to God speaking to men.  God spoke to Cain.  God told Noah.  God visited Abraham.  He interrogated Job.  Was it like in the movies, where light streamed from heaven and men heard a voice?  How often did men have experiences like Abraham, who entertained God and a couple of angels in his tent?  Was the voice audible or not?  Did God come in dreams like He did for Joseph, instructing him to go ahead with his marriage to Mary?  Why doesn’t the Bible go into more detail about these fantastic communications?  Why do the authors seem to think we know what they mean when they simply say, “God spoke”?  Did they expect us to have similar experiences?  Does God still speak?

 

Did you know that the Bible never says anything about the end of the writing of Scripture?  Did you know there is no biblical instruction for determining a Canon?

 

Catholics ascribe authority to the words of the Pope (when he is speaking as Pope).  That way they have one universal authority to which all members of the church must submit.  Protestants rejected the Pope because they observed the fruit of his edicts, in the sixteenth century and before, that they were worldly.  Perhaps they also claim that the New Testament does not teach apostolic succession or the spiritual authority of popes.

 

But Protestants claim similar things about the Bible.  We use it as the universal and exclusive authority over the Church.  Now, the Bible does mention authority.  It says that men will live by the words of God, and I am fairly certain that the writings of the Bible fit into that category.  All Scripture, Paul wrote, is profitable for doctrine and rebuke and instruction in righteousness.  I’m willing to at least suggest that he had the Old Testament in mind.

 

The problem is that the Bible itself also teaches about the Church, and who has authority over it.  What it says is that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.  He is its authority, to which every member must submit.

 

Read Full Post »

The Anatomy of the Church by Frank Viola

 

Today I read an extra chapter from Frank Viola’s From Eternity to Here.  This is the chapter I bought the book for.  In The Anatomy of the Church, the author lists and describes 14 biblical images of the Church, from the familiar: Bride, Body to the obscure: Field, Loaf.  Each one includes references.

 

“Compare the bouquet of roses to a rose bush. In a rose bush, the roses are one organic whole. Each rose possess its own individuality, but none are individualistic. They grow together for they share the same root. The bush passes through seasons of death and resurrection together. They are one organism. The church that the New Testament envisions is a rose bush, not a bouquet of roses.”

 

Frank emphasizes the communal (non-individualistic) nature of the Church and the headship of Jesus Christ, brought forward in every image.  Jesus redeems individuals in order to make for himself a special people. And He takes us and baptizes us into one body.

 

I’m interested to study a few of these images more.  The Loaf and The Army particularly piqued my interest.  Is the Armor of God given to the corporate Church rather than to individuals?  What does that look like?  Where does this Bible teacher get the idea that the “grains” produced by Christ’s death and resurrection must be crushed and fired and turned into one loaf?

 

On the other hand, how beautiful and exciting to meet with a vision for the Church: for God’s love for her, His purpose for her, and His delight in her.  How do we respond to that?

Read Full Post »

“Is This a Fringe Movement?” Selections from Changing Church

“Why are we the only ones?” Anne asked.  The whole world seemed to have missed the point, ignored the passages God had given about church.

“We’re not.  That’s what I’m saying.  There may be prophets in hiding, or in the distance.  And God may be preparing the people.  Perhaps they were only waiting for a leader.”

“Like Elijah,” she nodded.  Many Old Testament prophets had been the single voice calling for repentance and declaring the word of the Lord.  But God had told Elijah’s self-pitying heart that God was active elsewhere.  It was a good reminder.  First God revealed to Elijah His awesome might, then His tender provision, and finally His varied work.  Elijah was really only a servant of the great leader.  The battle was God’s.

Read Full Post »

“By Whose Authority?” Selections from Changing Church

“As your pastor, who is a leader and protector and teacher of the church, I see God as both giving the authority and the job description.  I did not arrive at these conclusions lightly.  If I were not completely convinced that God’s word is explicit on these things, I would not have risked your indignation.  As to laziness, far from it.  It may only seem so to you because I am asking you all to take responsibility for your church.  You will no longer be able to sit in church on Sunday and trust your leaders to have a relationship with God for you.  You will have to spend time with Him yourself.  I’ll be here to teach, to guide, to help, to answer.  You can call me with your questions at any time of day.  I’ll be there.”

Read Full Post »

“This Sounds Like Chaos” Selections from Changing Church

“This sounds like chaos.  We just read God doesn’t like confusion.  Well, what if one man brings a lesson from 1 Timothy and another wants to tell us what he’s learning from Isaiah?  What if no one has any ideas for songs?”

“I’m trusting God to lay on our hearts messages and songs that will communicate to us as He wills.  I’m trusting you all to be respectful and to heed God’s leading.  Our schedule is abandoned.  We start at 10, in here.  We may not end until 3.  If you have to leave prior, we’ll understand.  If you want to bring sandwiches, that’s ok too.  Don’t you think they broke bread when the early church gathered?  Two or three may teach.”

Read Full Post »

Church Directed by Pragmatism or Faith?

I purchased a book today that is knock-my-socks-off exciting. First published in 1947 (originally written in 1930) by a missionary society (the author wrote the preface from Argentina), The New Testament Order for Church and Missionary is a well-studied book that includes biblical references and quotes from outside sources, as well as personal testimonial experiences of the author and his colleagues. If you read my series on Changing Church, you probably have a fair idea of the direction my thoughts on Church tend.

A lot of us recognize there is something wrong with at least one portion of our Church model, whether it is the drop-out rate after youth group, the worship, “extracurricular” involvement, or craving for deep teaching and mature discipleship that just isn’t available. Some authors and Church leaders have advocated programs based on secular entertainment or business or education models to turn these trends around. A faith-in-God-based approach would be to go to the Bible in case He had something to say about the way Church should be. It follows from the fact that God instituted and created the Church that He also knows what will be most effective in it, and if that is important to Him, He let us know what those things were.

Alex R. Hay, the author of this book from sixty years ago, says in his foreword that he sensed a movement of the Holy Spirit in Christians’ lives around the world pointing them back to the New Testament for their Church models. I commented to my mom, who was with my when I bought the book, that I was impressed that the same movement of the Spirit that I can note among the different movements, websites, books, and friends with which I am familiar was happening in 1947, too. Her reply was less than encouraging, “When was this written? And obviously the book didn’t change the world. The principles weren’t put into place.”

There are several answers to that statement. First, as the missionary agency was international, there may very well be congregations implementing the style of Church described therein. Or the book may not have been well-publicized. The copy I now own was apparently used as a textbook or reference book. There is underlining in it. I would say the fact that it was on a used bookstore shelf might reflect on its importance to the original owner, but since the book was published sixty years ago, it seems likely the original men taught by the book are retired or deceased. I don’t know when seminary training became prerequisite for pastorship at most churches, but these schools now present multiple concepts of ministry and theology, allowing students to study for themselves. They have to study modern methods, just like I had to wade through shelves and rooms and stacks of books to discover this gem, and it is only by God’s grace that I pulled this one off the shelf at all. The task of wading through all the books and theories can be overwhelming. That’s why we go to the Bible.

But here is my other answer to my mom’s observation. Is she saying that the work is less true or important because it is not popular? Because its ideas did not “win” in the subversive battle for Church structure? This is the subtle philosophy derived from evolution that governs our legal system, our philosophy, and our culture. I am told that because the cultural norm is for women to move out after high school, attend college, and pursue a career with a husband on the side, that my anti-establishment choices are not even going to work in this modern reality. Case law was specifically designed to undermine natural and moral absolutes*, taking the Darwinian view that the dominant or consensus idea is the “fittest,” so it is right for the current generation. Our philosophy takes the same position, that whatever is exists because it is best, the most pragmatic for our time. New ideas replaced old ones. We are in a progression. Thus the Bible is outdated. Family is obsolete. Our Constitution is a living document, and we humans are slaves to the drive of society.

The problem is the evidence refutes this perception. Majorities have never changed the course of the world. Change happens in a society because lobbyists speak loudly and corral the masses. Some things are always true. God, the transcendent eternal guide, is the source for truth, and the only Northern Star by which we can set our compasses in a world of experiments that take a lifetime to discover were wrong.

My brother asked without much thought one day if anyone had ever done a test to see on how little sleep the average human can survive. In case you didn’t catch on, if in the study a human did not get enough sleep to survive, he was dead. The experiment would be the same as seeing how long you can go without breathing before you’re dead. You can always push the envelope until there’s no envelope to push, and then there’s not much point in having that data. The same with the social experiments. The consequences of fooling around with God’s order are too dire to permit.

Go to God. Seek His plan. Implement it to the best of your ability. Trust Him. In Church. In your family decisions. In economics. In morality. In education. For salvation.

Read Full Post »

Review of Reimagining Church

If you happened to come at the Church dilemma from the same direction as Pagan Christianity, meaning, you started to suspect there was something wrong with the way we “do” church, this book is the next step. In Reimagining Church, Frank Viola describes his conclusions about God’s intention for Church meetings, using the tool of contrast with our normal church experience. Not hierarchy, but consensus. Not stage-centered, but participatory. Not merely intellectual, but spiritual. Not program-driven, but organic. Not Pentecostal or cessationist, but charismatic.
Three points stood out to me in Frank Viola’s book.

1) He believes that the Trinity should be the model for our church: unity in diversity, and applies that belief to his theology and ecclesiology. How should our leadership be? How does the Trinity do it? How should our fellowship be? How is it between the Trinity? I don’t see that this method is taught by the Bible, but it
may not be false.

2) Theology should be contextual and Christ-centered. He advocates for a chronological order for the books of the New Testament, the order in which they were written set alongside the timeline and history found in Acts. Also he believes the
meetings should be Christ-centered in that the product of every gathering is a better love for, trust in, or knowledge of Christ.

3) We need fellowship with other Christians. There is no excuse for excluding any of the redeemed from our fellowship unless they are unrepentant about habitual sin or demonstrably only professing “Christianity” without any familiarity with what that means. (We don’t have to fellowship with cultists or heretics, even if they say they’re Christians.) The Bible emphasizes the group-ness of the Church over the individuality of the Christian. Community is essential for biblical interpretation, for evangelism, and for our personal spiritual growth.

Read Full Post »

Ekklesia

The biblical word for Church is the Greek ekklesia, which means “an assembly.” It was used at the time to refer to the deliberative senates in politics.

The word is used 79 times in the New Testament, beginning with Jesus’ promise to Peter in Matthew 16:18, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This comes on the heels of Peter’s confession in verse 16, “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Because Jesus uses a play on words expressed by Matthew in the Greek, and names Simon in effect “pebble,” while saying on this foundation (big rock), I will build My Church, it is apparent that the foundation on which the Church is built is the truth of what Peter said: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Thus the doctrine of the Church around which all members of the Church congregate is the identity of their Head.  At the time of Jesus’ promise here in Matthew, the expectations of His disciples were for an earthly government led by King Jesus.  In this light, Jesus’ words surrounded by kingdom language would have been taken literally.  “Church” as a political council made a lot of sense.  Perhaps the disciples envisioned a sort of parliament or legislature with Jesus as King and Peter as prime minister.

Like many other kingdom things, the Church did not turn out to be what everyone expected.  The same has been true for me.  I am conditioned to envision a certain setting when I read the word Church.

I, like most Protestants, have been taught the doctrine of the Church.  There is the Universal Church, consisting of all believers since the resurrection of Jesus (or Pentecost) through the present time.  This Universal Church is the Bride of Christ, and might be compared to the “cloud of witnesses” assembled as examples to believers (Hebrews 12:1).

Secondly, the Local Church is usually defined as a specific group of believers who meet regularly.  Most frequently this local church has a name, a set group of leaders responsible for only their congregation, and independent budgets and ministries.

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church dominated the definition of Church.  “The Church” at that time encompassed the doctrines, authorities, and activities of the priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes.  Today also Church is often understood as a denomination or a religion.  We have for example the Lutheran Church, the Baptist Church, and the Pentecostal Church.

On a similar level, because local congregations usually meet in a special building for church, those chapels, cathedrals, sanctuaries, and halls come to mind when one hears church.

Finally, one might refer to the weekly meeting hosted by most congregations as the “church service.”

Are these definitions accurate?  How does the Bible use the word church?  What is the purpose of the church?  Who is included in the word?  When people are “at church,” what does the Bible say should be happening?

Back to the word ekklesia.

The church is accurately defined as the gathering of all believers. It consists of all who have died in the faith, but obviously those members are not presently contributing their gifts and fellowship to the meetings of the Church (though the Church may be edified by the foundation these former Christians laid).  Another obvious fact is that all the believers alive in the world right now are not able to meet at once in one place.  This was the case even in the New Testament at the beginning of the Church, so the Bible includes instructions and descriptions for what different smaller gatherings of believers were to look like.

Read Full Post »

Colossians on the Preeminence of Christ

Any discussion of the Church means nothing without first knowingWhom it’s all about.  Colossians 1, my favorite passage on my Savior, is the first I think of when answering the question, “Who is Jesus?” Verse 13 says, “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son…” Jesus is the Son of God. The kingdom that makes up the Church belongs to the Son of God. That Son is dear to God, attested by miraculous voices from heaven at Jesus’ baptism, again at His transfiguration; and ultimately proven by the resurrection.

“In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins…” (v.14) This same Son of God is the Redeemer, our Salvation, buying us back from God’s wrath over our sins. The means of the redemption was the very physical blood of Jesus, shed on the cross that we might be forgiven.

The following verses worship Jesus for who He has been from age to age.  They tell us about His nature in a way few had the privilege of observing even while He lived among us. “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him.  And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist: and He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” I can sense the excitement in Paul’s pen.  “Have you any idea who this is?!”  The Head of the Church, our Savior – is the image of a God who is invisible.  As much as we can see God, the glorious Eternal Creator, Jesus is that image. He is First. All things were created by Him, including not only nature, but also any power and all kingdoms.  Everything was created for Him.  That includes us.  That includes His Body, the Church. He is risen, in every area the First, having preeminence.  Is there any question why He and none other is the Head?  Could His ability be insufficient?

“For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” Paul repeats it.  Jesus was fully God, because this pleased God.  Jesus is the incarnation of God.  There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.  By His blood, there is peace and reconciliation between God and all things.

This formerly estranged party includes us: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled.  In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight…” To the enemies of God, He showed grace, so that we are instead seen as holy.  I can’t move forward without rereading.

Who is this Head of the Church?  Who are we?  What did Jesus do?  Why?

Read Full Post »