A fundamental rule of logic says, “Things that are equal to equal things are equal to each other.” Applied to the nature of human beings as God created us, this is a real revelation. Genesis 1:27 tells us “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” I John 4:16 says, “And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God and God remains in him”(author's translation). Since man is made in the image of God and God is love, we have no choice but to love. The question is, “What shall I love?” The difference between life and death, hope and despair, meaning and futility, and ultimately between heaven and hell for each one of us lies in our answer to this one simple question.
A popular song in the 1940’s sang the question, “What it this thing called love? Oh, who can solve this mystery? Why should it make a fool of me?” The song is no longer popular. Unless you are older than you care to admit, you have probably never heard it. However, twenty first century America is still wrestling with the questions it asked. As we might expect, the answer is found in the language of the New Testament. The old adage, “The Greeks had a word for it” is still true.
Of the three well-known Greek synonyms translated by our English “love,” two definitely do not describe the essential nature of God or the nature of people created in His image. All of these synonyms express the giving of self to an object or a person. The distinction between them is one of motive. The first of the three, eros is never used in the New Testament although derivatives of it are found in the Septuagint [The Old Testament in Greek] (Esther 2:17; Proverbs 4:6; Ezekiel 16:33 and Hoses 2:5). It describes giving self in order to get something. The ancient Greeks realized a great deal of esthetic satisfaction from things symmetrical, so they “loved” (eros) poetry, sculpture, architecture, classical language, etc. Marriage ceremonies among first century Greek speaking people included the word eros. The god of love was named Eros. The Latin speaking Romans called him Cupid.
Because of the emphasis of eros upon getting, an easy linguistic evolution transformed eros into a word that today is unacceptable in mixed company among polite people. This is the word from which we get our word erotic and in modern usage, it is concerned almost exclusively with sexual desire.
The second synonym, philia, is the love of friendship. It gives because it likes its object or is compatible with the person loved. We tend to like people who are like us and who like what we like.
Both eros and philia are spontaneous. The Greek language has no imperative form of either. Combined in man/woman relationships, the two make up the French “courtly love” of Hollywood and romance novels. It is what we mean when we say we “fall in love.”
The third synonym is agapaoo. Its noun form, agape, is the love that is the essence of the nature of both God and man. It is the love of John 3:16 and we learn its definition on the cross of Christ. No one falls into agape! R. C. Trench, in his masterpiece, Synonyms of the New Testament, writes that agape “…expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice and selection, from seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person…" In simple American English, agape, gives self because it decides to and the decision is made on the perceived intrinsic value of the thing or person to whom it gives.
I John 2:15 insists that it is impossible to love (like this) any two objects diametrically opposed to one another. “Do not love the world, or the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him.” Love, in this verse, translates the present tense of agapao. Literally, John says, “do not continually love, or go on loving, the world nor the things that are in the world.” John is describing a choice between two fundamental value systems.
In John 2:16, lest we misunderstand verse fifteen, John defines his own term, “the things that are in the world.” In this verse our English versions; "lust" translates the Greek epithumia. This is unfortunate because, in current usage, lust suggests a desire that is in and of itself is wrong or immoral. Epithumia, is neither good nor bad. It is a natural drive or appetite placed in us when God designed us to live in time and space in a carbon based environment. John lists three categories of God-given desires that are common to both humans and animals. John’s term, “the desires of the flesh,” does not imply that these appetites and drives are essentially wrong. In fact, without them, we would not long survive either as a species or as individuals. John does not say we should not have these desires but that we must not give ourselves to them (agapaoo). The drive for food, for drink, for sex or any other desire essential to survival is not evil. The difference between right and wrong in the exercising of these desires of the flesh is the difference between eating to live and living to eat!
John’s “desires of the eyes” defines the esthetic desires that are common to all human beings. In the United Sates, we recognize this as the desire for “the good life.” It has to do with cultural expressions and appreciation. John does not say we are not to have such desires. He says we are not to give ourselves to them. There is nothing wrong with having nice things or listening to good music and enjoying artistic beauty but it is very wrong to allow nice things to have me! There is nothing wrong with desiring contemporary music over traditional or vice versa. It is all wrong to love one or the other and divide the church with the rationalization that one is more effective in evangelism or worship than the other. Neither is worth it!
John’s “boastful pride of life” circumscribes the inborn desire to be recognized by our peers, to “be somebody,” to be first in the pecking order. The apostle does not say we should not desire such praise but that we must not love it. God is Himself said to inhabit the praises of His people. From Ephesians 1:5-6 we conclude that His purpose in creating us is that we might be His children “to the praise of the glory of His grace." This desire becomes boastful pride only when we give ourselves to it. When this happens, our pride prevents us from trusting God. Jesus asked the prideful religious leaders of Israel, “How can you believe, when you are receiving glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God” (John 5:44)? The proper use of the natural desire for recognition is to seek to please God in order to receive His recognition, “well done, good and faithful servant!”
The love of these “things of the world” is the basic motive of every sin ever committed. It began with Eve. “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food [the desires of the flesh], and that it was a delight to the eyes [the desires of the eyes], and that the tree was desirable to make one wise [the boastful pride of life], she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6). When the eternal Word became flesh, He subjected Himself to the same temptation to love the things of the world. Hebrews 5:15 tells us that He was “tempted in all things as we are….” The best-known recorded examples of His temptation to give Himself to the things of the world are found in the gospel record of His confrontation with Satan immediately following His baptism. The devil challenged Him to turn stones into bread [the desire of the flesh], to cater to the religious preconception of the Jews and perform an act of mystification and entertainment by jumping 450 feet from the pinnacle of the temple to the floor of the Kidron valley [the desire of the eyes] and to gain control over the kingdoms of the world by selling out to Satan [the pride of life]. He was again so tempted in the garden of Gethsemane when He struggled in prayer to love God rather than His own survival, to go to the cross for us instead of calling “ten thousand angels to destroy the world and set Him free.”
In I John 2:17, John shows us the eternal danger of allowing these natural desires to determine our value system and life style. “And the world is passing away, and also its desires . . .” (Author’s translation). We become like what we love. If we love the world and the things of it, we become like it. John warns us that the world is passing away and desires upon which it rests are passing away. If we love it we too will pass away.
BUT “…the one who is doing the will of God is remaining into eternity." (author's translation) The will of God is that we love Him, give Him our heart, soul, mind and strength, and that we give ourselves to our neighbors as [for the same reason] we love ourselves (Mark 29-31). Our destiny in eternity is determined by our personal, private answer to one vital question, “What Shall I Love?” It is for our sakes that Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments!”
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Church is Essentially One
Someone once wrote, “The church began in Israel as a patriarchal fellowship. It went to Greece and became a philosophy. It went to Rome and became an institution.” We may add: “the church went to Europe and became a plurality of institutions. It was transplanted to North America and became a chaos of sects and denominations” It was this chaos the consequent religious confusion preventing effective evangelism that brought about the Campbell/Stone Restoration Movement.
In 1809, at the request of the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania, Thomas Campbell wrote The Declaration And Address. It’s purpose was to advocate a scriptural basis upon which to challenge the division and religious bigotry characterizing the religious scene in the infant United States. The document became the Magna Charta of a movement that swept across the American frontier and shook denominationalism to its foundations. By 1811, it became apparent that the Association must, in order to practice the ideals that bound them together, form a functioning congregation. May 4 of that year marked the birth of the Brush Run, PA church.
Dr. Henry Webb, in In Search of Christian Unity, asserts, “ The most significant section [of The Declaration and Address] sets forth an eloquent plea for [Christian] unity . . . and incorporates thirteen propositions that have merited consideration of Christians who were and are concerned with the divided state of the church.”
The first of these propositions seems most effective in challenging the present day heirs of the movement with the need to reexamine the nature of the church. The concepts set forth there are foundational to any church that is to be restored on the basis of Scripture alone. This is especially true in light of what I believe to be some glaringly mistaken presuppositions of many proponents of what they construe to be the “Restoration Plea.”
After more than half a century of ministry within the movement, I have concluded that a major reason we have not accomplished the goal of Christian unity expressed in the writing and work of the Campbells is that we have too often tried to restore something that never existed, namely a Biblical religious institution. We have assumed that, if we can diagram a chart with appropriate proof texts to describe the “New Testament Pattern” and get enough people to conform to our chart, we will restore the correct New Testament institution. Some mistakenly take for granted that they have accomplished exactly this. We further assume that all that is necessary to bring about Christian unity is to persuade enough people to transfer from their incorrect denomination to our “undenominational” institution . Of course, when necessary, we will immerse them in the process.
The fatal flaw of this approach is that the church ideal found in the New Testament was not an institution at all! It was primarily a new race of people recreated in Christ (Ephesians 2:14-17). The race was a family whose Father was God (Ephesians 1:3-6; Galatians 4:4-5). The family was a flock (Acts 20:28) guarded and tended by shepherds (I Peter 5:1-4). From these and other scriptures, it is obvious that the church is all about relationships.
Functionally, the church found in the New Testament was a living organism with the Father’s only Son as its head (Ephesians 1:22-23). Structurally, the body, as any other living organism, was organized for growth and reproduction (Ephesians 4:11-17). This is a far cry from the authoritarian power pyramid that is characteristic of religious institutions. Jesus Himself expressly forbade such authoritarian leadership ( Matthew 20:25-28).
Campbell’s first Proposition begins, “The church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one: consisting of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can truly and properly be called Christians” (emphasis added). In this three part study, we propose to examine the key descriptive terms in Campbell’s proposition as they set forth the characteristics of the church we seek to restore.
First, Campbell affirms that the church is “essentially one.” He saw the church as one in essence. Unity is its inward nature. Its very existence is defined by its oneness. The plea that brought the Restoration Movement into existence is a plea for unity accomplished by restoring the church’s essential nature. By practicing that which is the essence of the church and eliminating the extraneous, the pioneers of the movement proposed to provide a ground of unity upon which “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures” could “. . .keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” Ephesians 4:4 (Author’s translation).
The essence of the apostolic church was fellowship. The Greek, koinonia, (fellowship) specifies a relationship between people who hold something in common. My grandson and I share a love of bass fishing. Our fellowship in a bass boat is rich indeed!
A few years ago, I was invited to attend a reunion of the crew of a World War II Naval vessel. It was a deep experience of nostalgic fellowship among men who hold common memories of serving aboard that vessel at a very crucial time in our lives. No one else can have part in that fellowship because it is grounded on a common experience shared only by that crew.
Church membership is like that! It is a fellowship created by a common faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. It is a unique relationship available only to those who hear and believe the word of Christ and “who manifest the same by their tempers and conduct.” It is anchored in the testimony of the twelve apostles of Jesus and Paul; men who were hand picked and prepared by the Lord for exactly this purpose (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:9; Galatians 1:1,11-16; 2:8). It is intensely practical (Acts 2:41-47; I John 3:16-18)
Christian fellowship is the essential unity for which Christ prayed, for which Paul pled and for which the restoration pioneers labored. The defining characteristic of this relationship is agape, love (John 13:35; I John 4:10-12). Those reconciled to God in Christ (II Corinthians 5:19b) are reconciled to one another (Ephesians 2:13-16). The manifestation of obedient faith (Romans 1:5) in Christ that sustains the fellowship known as “church” requires humility, gentleness, patience, and the acceptance of one another (Ephesians 4:1-3). Peter’s plea to “love the brotherhood” is a plea to take our relationship to one another in Christ seriously.
The Restoration Plea of the Campbell/Stone movement is, in essence, a plea for a restoration of relationships, for the restoration of fellowship with “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct” This being the case, the unit in Christian unity is the individual member of a living organism called “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:11-14) Christian unity so defined is synonymous with Christian fellowship.
If the plea of the restoration pioneers is to have meaning in the twenty-first century, we must re-examine some basic presuppositions. First, the plea is for the unity of individual believers, not institutions. It is essentially a plea for restored fellowship in the family of one God. It can never be accomplished by insisting on union in terms of membership in a religious institution.
Second, The plea is not for unanimity defined as absolute conformity of opinion. Scriptural interpretation that fears dialogue with those who disagree with it has more in common with Muslim Fundamentalism than with the Christian family of the first century or with the writers of New Testament scripture.
Third, the plea is not for uniformity, i.e. complete similarity of expression either of our cultural preferences, the kind of music we sing or whether we sing at all!
The restoration of the New Testament church ideal must begin with concentration on and examination of our own most cherished beliefs and traditions. The longer we hold those beliefs and the more deeply we cherish them, the more we must subject them to re-examination in light of renewed study of the texts upon which they are supposedly based.
The birth and proposed “baptism” of Alexander Campbell’s first child did not drive him to the Presbyterian creed upon which he had himself been weaned. Rather it drove him to an intense study of
New Testament teaching about baptism. He concluded that he had been wrong in his assumptions about infant baptism. The result was the immersion of the entire Campbell family! Perhaps the most difficult task facing those who plead for Scriptural restoration as the ground of Christian unity is to find the faith and courage to be consistent in the application of their own principles. Ridicule, derision and disassociation by those who believe they have already discovered and completely restored what is essential and have already eliminated the extraneous can be a powerful deterrent to honest self-examination.
If the Restoration Movement is to have the impact in the twenty-first century that it had in the first half of the nineteenth century, we must again realize the truth expressed by Thomas Campbell; “The church of Jesus Christ on earth [still] consists of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct . . ” Only then will our church, as that one modeled in the New Testament, be “essentially one.”
In 1809, at the request of the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania, Thomas Campbell wrote The Declaration And Address. It’s purpose was to advocate a scriptural basis upon which to challenge the division and religious bigotry characterizing the religious scene in the infant United States. The document became the Magna Charta of a movement that swept across the American frontier and shook denominationalism to its foundations. By 1811, it became apparent that the Association must, in order to practice the ideals that bound them together, form a functioning congregation. May 4 of that year marked the birth of the Brush Run, PA church.
Dr. Henry Webb, in In Search of Christian Unity, asserts, “ The most significant section [of The Declaration and Address] sets forth an eloquent plea for [Christian] unity . . . and incorporates thirteen propositions that have merited consideration of Christians who were and are concerned with the divided state of the church.”
The first of these propositions seems most effective in challenging the present day heirs of the movement with the need to reexamine the nature of the church. The concepts set forth there are foundational to any church that is to be restored on the basis of Scripture alone. This is especially true in light of what I believe to be some glaringly mistaken presuppositions of many proponents of what they construe to be the “Restoration Plea.”
After more than half a century of ministry within the movement, I have concluded that a major reason we have not accomplished the goal of Christian unity expressed in the writing and work of the Campbells is that we have too often tried to restore something that never existed, namely a Biblical religious institution. We have assumed that, if we can diagram a chart with appropriate proof texts to describe the “New Testament Pattern” and get enough people to conform to our chart, we will restore the correct New Testament institution. Some mistakenly take for granted that they have accomplished exactly this. We further assume that all that is necessary to bring about Christian unity is to persuade enough people to transfer from their incorrect denomination to our “undenominational” institution . Of course, when necessary, we will immerse them in the process.
The fatal flaw of this approach is that the church ideal found in the New Testament was not an institution at all! It was primarily a new race of people recreated in Christ (Ephesians 2:14-17). The race was a family whose Father was God (Ephesians 1:3-6; Galatians 4:4-5). The family was a flock (Acts 20:28) guarded and tended by shepherds (I Peter 5:1-4). From these and other scriptures, it is obvious that the church is all about relationships.
Functionally, the church found in the New Testament was a living organism with the Father’s only Son as its head (Ephesians 1:22-23). Structurally, the body, as any other living organism, was organized for growth and reproduction (Ephesians 4:11-17). This is a far cry from the authoritarian power pyramid that is characteristic of religious institutions. Jesus Himself expressly forbade such authoritarian leadership ( Matthew 20:25-28).
Campbell’s first Proposition begins, “The church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one: consisting of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can truly and properly be called Christians” (emphasis added). In this three part study, we propose to examine the key descriptive terms in Campbell’s proposition as they set forth the characteristics of the church we seek to restore.
First, Campbell affirms that the church is “essentially one.” He saw the church as one in essence. Unity is its inward nature. Its very existence is defined by its oneness. The plea that brought the Restoration Movement into existence is a plea for unity accomplished by restoring the church’s essential nature. By practicing that which is the essence of the church and eliminating the extraneous, the pioneers of the movement proposed to provide a ground of unity upon which “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures” could “. . .keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” Ephesians 4:4 (Author’s translation).
The essence of the apostolic church was fellowship. The Greek, koinonia, (fellowship) specifies a relationship between people who hold something in common. My grandson and I share a love of bass fishing. Our fellowship in a bass boat is rich indeed!
A few years ago, I was invited to attend a reunion of the crew of a World War II Naval vessel. It was a deep experience of nostalgic fellowship among men who hold common memories of serving aboard that vessel at a very crucial time in our lives. No one else can have part in that fellowship because it is grounded on a common experience shared only by that crew.
Church membership is like that! It is a fellowship created by a common faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. It is a unique relationship available only to those who hear and believe the word of Christ and “who manifest the same by their tempers and conduct.” It is anchored in the testimony of the twelve apostles of Jesus and Paul; men who were hand picked and prepared by the Lord for exactly this purpose (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:9; Galatians 1:1,11-16; 2:8). It is intensely practical (Acts 2:41-47; I John 3:16-18)
Christian fellowship is the essential unity for which Christ prayed, for which Paul pled and for which the restoration pioneers labored. The defining characteristic of this relationship is agape, love (John 13:35; I John 4:10-12). Those reconciled to God in Christ (II Corinthians 5:19b) are reconciled to one another (Ephesians 2:13-16). The manifestation of obedient faith (Romans 1:5) in Christ that sustains the fellowship known as “church” requires humility, gentleness, patience, and the acceptance of one another (Ephesians 4:1-3). Peter’s plea to “love the brotherhood” is a plea to take our relationship to one another in Christ seriously.
The Restoration Plea of the Campbell/Stone movement is, in essence, a plea for a restoration of relationships, for the restoration of fellowship with “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct” This being the case, the unit in Christian unity is the individual member of a living organism called “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:11-14) Christian unity so defined is synonymous with Christian fellowship.
If the plea of the restoration pioneers is to have meaning in the twenty-first century, we must re-examine some basic presuppositions. First, the plea is for the unity of individual believers, not institutions. It is essentially a plea for restored fellowship in the family of one God. It can never be accomplished by insisting on union in terms of membership in a religious institution.
Second, The plea is not for unanimity defined as absolute conformity of opinion. Scriptural interpretation that fears dialogue with those who disagree with it has more in common with Muslim Fundamentalism than with the Christian family of the first century or with the writers of New Testament scripture.
Third, the plea is not for uniformity, i.e. complete similarity of expression either of our cultural preferences, the kind of music we sing or whether we sing at all!
The restoration of the New Testament church ideal must begin with concentration on and examination of our own most cherished beliefs and traditions. The longer we hold those beliefs and the more deeply we cherish them, the more we must subject them to re-examination in light of renewed study of the texts upon which they are supposedly based.
The birth and proposed “baptism” of Alexander Campbell’s first child did not drive him to the Presbyterian creed upon which he had himself been weaned. Rather it drove him to an intense study of
New Testament teaching about baptism. He concluded that he had been wrong in his assumptions about infant baptism. The result was the immersion of the entire Campbell family! Perhaps the most difficult task facing those who plead for Scriptural restoration as the ground of Christian unity is to find the faith and courage to be consistent in the application of their own principles. Ridicule, derision and disassociation by those who believe they have already discovered and completely restored what is essential and have already eliminated the extraneous can be a powerful deterrent to honest self-examination.
If the Restoration Movement is to have the impact in the twenty-first century that it had in the first half of the nineteenth century, we must again realize the truth expressed by Thomas Campbell; “The church of Jesus Christ on earth [still] consists of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct . . ” Only then will our church, as that one modeled in the New Testament, be “essentially one.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
