...a Study of John 3.1-17
Despite the current insistent denial by American evangelicalism that John 3:1-17 is a “baptism text,” it is a matter of record that no known Christian writer during the first fourteen centuries of Christian history ever denied it! Significantly, the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John that immediately follows Jesus’ insistence to Nicodemus that no one can understand or enter the kingdom of God without being begotten “of water and spirit,” begins with the statement that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.”
John 3:1 identifies Nicodemus as a man, a Pharisee and a ruler. In verse ten of this chapter Jesus recognizes him as “a teacher of Israel.” He may have been among those who had previously sent a committee to inquire of John the Baptist whether or not he was the Christ (John 1:15-28). Jesus didn’t answer Nicodemus’ complementary greeting. Instead He addressed the unspoken question that brought him to Jesus by night for a private conversation; “Are you the Christ?”
The beginning of proselyte immersion is lost in antiquity, but it is certain that it was practiced before the beginning of the Christian era. Newly immersed proselytes were frequently referred to as “newly born children.” As a Pharisee, Nicodemus would have been familiar with the proselyte immersion required of any Gentile who wanted to become a Jew. Three acts constituted the entire conversion process. 1) Circumcision, by which the candidate was cut off from his pagan roots, 2) Immersion, by which he was purified from the uncleanness associated with all Gentiles, performed seven days following his circumcision and 3) the offering of a sacrifice in the temple. This final act recognized the proselyte’s membership in the covenant community.
The purpose of this conversion procedure was to establish the Gentile as a part of the people of God, the covenant community established and perpetuated by faithfulness to the covenant made by God with Abraham. This covenant was the foundation of the Law given four hundred years later through Moses (cf. Galatians, chapter three). The converted Gentile, now recognized as one of God’s own people, was said to be dead to his non-Jewish past and raised to a new life; to have been begotten again.
Genneethee, translated “born” in the KJV,NIV, etc. is an ambivalent word. It literally means “begin.” When it speaks of the mother’s role in procreation, it is translated “born.” The same word applied to the father’s role is translated “begotten.” Since no one can claim, Biblically, that God is a mother, the only accurate translation of genneethee, in the third chapter of John, is begotten rather than born.
While it is a grave error to imply that either John’s baptism or Christian baptism had their roots in pre-Christian washings, it is likely that the earliest Christian believers, being familiar with these practices, had little difficulty understanding the terminology used by Jesus to introduce Christian immersion. It was not unusual for the New Testament writers to employ pre-Christian terms by pouring them full of Christian meaning. John’s use of the word logos to identify the pre-incarnate Christ is a significant case in point.
In Paul’s Pastoral Epistles, I and 2 Timothy and Titus, the apostle quotes from a series of early Christian hymns. He refers to each quotation referred to as “a faithful saying” (I Timothy 1:15; 3:1;4:9; II Timothy 2:11 and Titus 3:5-7). At least two of these (II Timothy 2:11 and Titus 3:5-7) are generally recognized as baptismal hymns. II Timothy 2:22 sings of the baptismal confession and Titus 3:5-7 celebrates baptism itself.
To appreciate the truth of which these Scripture verses sing, we must remind ourselves that, “for the Apostle and his contemporaries, Christian immersion cannot be reduced to a bare sign any more that the cross of Christ can be described as a mere symbol.” Christian immersion is accompanied by regeneration, which Jesus called being “born again/from above.” Anothen is rendered “again” in the KJV, the NIV and some other English translations. A notable exception is the more literal Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, which has “from above.”
The Apostle Paul, in Romans 6:3-11, and the Apostle Peter, in I Peter 1:22-23, leave no room for doubt concerning the efficacy of Christian baptism as the point of entry into the eternal life that was bought for us on Calvary. Dietrich Bonheoffer, whose Christian faith was tried by fire in Hitler’s concentration camps, summed the matter up perfectly when he wrote, “Only he who believes is obedient and only he who is obedient believes.” It has been so from the beginning. Jesus, Himself said “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned (Mark 16:16). The New Testament knows nothing of “faith only” salvation.
Whatever else may be said in regard to being born again/from above, it is not accomplished by manipulating prospective converts to generate an emotional experience and treats baptism as merely “an outward sign of an inward grace.”
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Messianic Hope of God's Israel
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept,
When we remembered Zion.
On the willows here, we hung our harps,
For there our captors required of us songs,
And our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.”
How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
If I do not remember you,
If I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!
Psalm 137:1-6
Thus sang the Jewish exiles in Babylon, captives of King Nebuchadnezzar, nearly six centuries before the coming of Christ. Many of them had become adjusted to the life style of the Babylonians but others could not forget Judea and the temple which was the center of their covenant community.
It was true that in Babylon, unlike Jerusalem, there was much wealth and water was plentiful. There was also the impressive Babylonian temple that towered high above the mud huts of the Babylonian people. On feast days there was the international market, the temple, with merchants from India, Persia, Arabia, Syria and possibly Egypt. Each of these brought merchandise of rare quality.
Still, the hearts of the Jewish exiles daily watched the sun move toward the western horizon, sinking over the Arabian Desert to rise over their beloved Israel. There they had been forced to leave there homes…homes that were their fondest memories even though they were much more humble than the homes of the Neo-Babylonians.
In Jerusalem now there was neither temple nor king. The Hebrew kings had failed, the magnificent temple of Solomon had been destroyed by the invading Neo-Babylonians and the Jews, some with fish hooks in their noses, has been led away to Babylon and exile.
After Nebuchadnezzar, several Neo-Babylonian kings had ruled over the exiles to second and third generations. To the east of the kingdom of Neo-Babylonia, there arose the kingdom of Persia under King Cyrus who soon became world famous as a great warrior and conqueror. The power of Neo-Babylonia began to wane. Cyrus would soon capture the Neo-Babylonian capital and Babylon’s fate was sealed.
The Old Testament book of Isaiah calls Cyrus “God’s anointed.” (Isaiah 45:1). Isaiah records the capture of Persia by Cyrus and his subsequent permission of the exiles to return to their home land. A remnant returned but most had roots too deep and memories of the homeland too short. They preferred to remain in Babylon. Those who did return took with them the synagogue and the Hebraistic culture that had developed during their captivity as they struggled to retain their identity and the worship of Jehovah in a strange land. We meet their descendants in the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the Book of Acts where they are identified as “Hebraists.”
It is in Isaiah, chapter 45, verse 1, that King Cyrus of Persia is called “God’s anointed.” The Hebrew word for an anointed person is mashiah, translated as christos in Greek. Our English “Messiah” is derived from the Hebrew Mashiah as “Christ” is derived from christos. The anointment was a ceremony at which divine authority was bestowed on the anointed person. In ancient Israel kings (e.g. I Kings 19:16), possibly patriarchs (Psalm 105:15), a messianic prince (Daniel 9:25), and even a foreign king (Isaiah 45:1) were anointed. These “messiahs” were each given divine authority to do God’s will. In the case of King Cyrus, he did God’s will by allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Judea. In a sense, then, a messiah may be called the servant of God.
The book of Isaiah records references to both the messiah and the servant. Israel is called servant in Isaiah 41:8, 9. Servant appears in the next chapter, 42:1, 3, and this servant is to bring forth justice to all races (not nations in any political sense). Israel is identified as God’s servant again in other passages in Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 44:1, 2, 26; 48:20 et al) that seem to indicate Israel was particularly favored as God’s chosen servant for the purpose of proclaiming God’s salvation to other races, a purpose they seldom remembered and finally forgot altogether. An Israeli guide in Palestine once told me that the Jewish mistreatment of 50,000 Palestinian Arab refugees was in fulfillment of the Jews’ responsibility to bless the nations of the world!
Beginning in Isaiah 49:5, there appears a servant with the apparent mission of restoring Israel. Then the servant, who may be regarded as an individual person, appears in Isaiah 50:10; 52:13 and 53:11. This servant is seen to suffer much in bearing the sins of many in order to bring the news of God’s salvation to the world.
In the spring of 1947, in an ancient ruin of Qumran on the northeast shore of the Dead Sea, several ancient scrolls were discovered. Among these “Dead Sea Scrolls” were many Biblical and non-Biblical manuscripts dating roughly to the time of Jesus. One of these, The Discipline Scroll or Order of the Community is dated from approximately 100 B.C. and contains rules and regulations for the community of Qumran. According to this document, the community seems to have consisted of believers in the orthodox doctrine and practice of the Mosaic law who were preparing the way of the Lord, the Messiah, to come (cp. Isaiah 40:3). The leader of this community was called “the teacher of righteousness.” Under his leadership the members of the community believed that they stood on the threshold of the Endzeit, the end time.
In Numbers 24:17 is this poetic expression:
A star shall come forth out of Jacob,
And a scepter shall rise out of Israel,
It shall crush the forehead of Moab,
And break down the children of Seth.
Ancient rabbis thought this star was the Messiah. In the New Testament Apocalypse, Jesus Himself is identified as this star (Rev. 22:16 cp. Matthew 2:2, 7, 9, 10). So Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph, who inspired Bar Koziba to lead the Jewish rebellion against Rome during the second century A.D., changed his name to Bar Kochba (son of the star), due to the rabbinic identification of the star with the Messiah. The rebels against Rome believed Bar Kochba was indeed the Christ.
Second only to the Old Testament in importance as Jewish literature is the Talmud. This writing contains a treatise called Sanhedrin, signifying the Jewish Supreme Court. The tractate is the chief depository of Jewish criminal law. It also contains several references to the coming Messiah. The question repeatedly raised is “when the Messiah is to come.” Some of the answers contained are:
1) when even the smallest nation ceases to have any power over Israel,
2) when there are found no conceited men in Israel,
3) when all (foreign) judges and officers are gone from Israel,
4) when a generation becomes altogether righteous or altogether wicked, etc.
These discourses are followed by the story of a rabbi called Joshua ben Levi. He is said to have met the Prophet Elijah standing at the tomb of another famous rabbi, Simon ben Johai. Joshua ben Levi asked Elijah, “When does the Messiah come?” Elijah’s answer was, “Go and ask him.” Ben Levi then asked, “Where is he?” Elijah replied, “At the entrance of the town.” So Rabbi Joshua ben Levi went there and found the Messiah and asked him just when he might come. The Messiah’s answer was, “Today.” Ben Levi waited all day, but the Messiah never came. He then went back to Elijah and complained that the Messiah had lied. Prophet Elijah smiled and said: “No, He did not lie. He only quoted from Psalm 95:7” This verse says, “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will listen to His voice!” It means that Messiah will surely come, the day all people listen to the voice of God.”
We have thus far considered the Messianic hope of Israel from the Old Testament and other Jewish sources. We have seen that Hebraic Jewish Messianic hope becomes prominent whenever there is a political or religious crisis. Many rabbis thought that if the Jews faithfully obeyed the Laws of God, this would prepare the way for the Messiah; but this never in fact happened. The political revolts of the Zealots only succeeded locally and temporarily. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and other smaller sects; and Judaism was about to lose its integrity under the impact of Roman authority. Then Jesus came!
Jesus did not claim to be the founder of a new religion. In fact, the Gospel records do not show Him even using the word. He said that He came “to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12)”. He said He came “that they might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10)”. He said He did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). In this way He identified Himself with the servant foretold by Isaiah. This servant of God was called the Messiah, the Anointed One (Matthew 1:16; 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 2:11, etc.). In this way, the Messiah and the Servant in the New Testament coalesce in the person of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
What is the significance of all this in the twenty first century A.D.? We live in another day of crisis. Man has become too proud of earthly knowledge, material wealth and his own accomplishments. We tend to forget that the environment about which we are increasingly concerned is God’s own creation. Indeed, we prefer to forget God Himself! This is a day for our rededication of ourselves to the Christ who gave Himself to reconcile us to the God we have forgotten.
Jesus said: “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it (Matthew 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24).” It cannot be mere coincidence that we find ourselves controlled by the use of human will. We have exchanged the commands of God for the majority rule of a materialistic democracy that daily becomes more and more characterized by Socialism. Our identity as “one nation under God” tends more and more to give way to uncontrolled humanism with bullets, bombs, drugs and machines. We have deluded ourselves into believing that, because the Soviet Union has collapsed, we no longer live in the shadow of a mushroom cloud. More dangerous than all the bombs and rockets is the danger of losing our lives in our greed, by polluting God’s air and water and squandering finite natural resources.
It is time for God’s people, the church to take up the cross of Jesus and follow Him; practicing His self denial along with God’s justice and righteousness here and now. It is time to give ourselves for the betterment of others rather than for the amassing of things. It is time for Christians, especially in the United States, to stop “standing for anything” and start standing up for Someone. It is time to be more concerned for being correct by God’s standards rather than politically correct by popular standards, or lack of standards. We need to abandon the flesh pots and temples of Babylon and return to the house of God.
Christians have a Messiah. His name is Jesus. We need to stop apologizing for our faith and begin to live by it. It is our God given task to establish and maintain His
kingdom here on earth as the servants of human society and members of God’s household.
• I am indebted to Dr. Toyozo Nakarai for clarifying for me the central truth contained in this writing.
CRG
When we remembered Zion.
On the willows here, we hung our harps,
For there our captors required of us songs,
And our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.”
How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
If I do not remember you,
If I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!
Psalm 137:1-6
Thus sang the Jewish exiles in Babylon, captives of King Nebuchadnezzar, nearly six centuries before the coming of Christ. Many of them had become adjusted to the life style of the Babylonians but others could not forget Judea and the temple which was the center of their covenant community.
It was true that in Babylon, unlike Jerusalem, there was much wealth and water was plentiful. There was also the impressive Babylonian temple that towered high above the mud huts of the Babylonian people. On feast days there was the international market, the temple, with merchants from India, Persia, Arabia, Syria and possibly Egypt. Each of these brought merchandise of rare quality.
Still, the hearts of the Jewish exiles daily watched the sun move toward the western horizon, sinking over the Arabian Desert to rise over their beloved Israel. There they had been forced to leave there homes…homes that were their fondest memories even though they were much more humble than the homes of the Neo-Babylonians.
In Jerusalem now there was neither temple nor king. The Hebrew kings had failed, the magnificent temple of Solomon had been destroyed by the invading Neo-Babylonians and the Jews, some with fish hooks in their noses, has been led away to Babylon and exile.
After Nebuchadnezzar, several Neo-Babylonian kings had ruled over the exiles to second and third generations. To the east of the kingdom of Neo-Babylonia, there arose the kingdom of Persia under King Cyrus who soon became world famous as a great warrior and conqueror. The power of Neo-Babylonia began to wane. Cyrus would soon capture the Neo-Babylonian capital and Babylon’s fate was sealed.
The Old Testament book of Isaiah calls Cyrus “God’s anointed.” (Isaiah 45:1). Isaiah records the capture of Persia by Cyrus and his subsequent permission of the exiles to return to their home land. A remnant returned but most had roots too deep and memories of the homeland too short. They preferred to remain in Babylon. Those who did return took with them the synagogue and the Hebraistic culture that had developed during their captivity as they struggled to retain their identity and the worship of Jehovah in a strange land. We meet their descendants in the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the Book of Acts where they are identified as “Hebraists.”
It is in Isaiah, chapter 45, verse 1, that King Cyrus of Persia is called “God’s anointed.” The Hebrew word for an anointed person is mashiah, translated as christos in Greek. Our English “Messiah” is derived from the Hebrew Mashiah as “Christ” is derived from christos. The anointment was a ceremony at which divine authority was bestowed on the anointed person. In ancient Israel kings (e.g. I Kings 19:16), possibly patriarchs (Psalm 105:15), a messianic prince (Daniel 9:25), and even a foreign king (Isaiah 45:1) were anointed. These “messiahs” were each given divine authority to do God’s will. In the case of King Cyrus, he did God’s will by allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Judea. In a sense, then, a messiah may be called the servant of God.
The book of Isaiah records references to both the messiah and the servant. Israel is called servant in Isaiah 41:8, 9. Servant appears in the next chapter, 42:1, 3, and this servant is to bring forth justice to all races (not nations in any political sense). Israel is identified as God’s servant again in other passages in Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 44:1, 2, 26; 48:20 et al) that seem to indicate Israel was particularly favored as God’s chosen servant for the purpose of proclaiming God’s salvation to other races, a purpose they seldom remembered and finally forgot altogether. An Israeli guide in Palestine once told me that the Jewish mistreatment of 50,000 Palestinian Arab refugees was in fulfillment of the Jews’ responsibility to bless the nations of the world!
Beginning in Isaiah 49:5, there appears a servant with the apparent mission of restoring Israel. Then the servant, who may be regarded as an individual person, appears in Isaiah 50:10; 52:13 and 53:11. This servant is seen to suffer much in bearing the sins of many in order to bring the news of God’s salvation to the world.
In the spring of 1947, in an ancient ruin of Qumran on the northeast shore of the Dead Sea, several ancient scrolls were discovered. Among these “Dead Sea Scrolls” were many Biblical and non-Biblical manuscripts dating roughly to the time of Jesus. One of these, The Discipline Scroll or Order of the Community is dated from approximately 100 B.C. and contains rules and regulations for the community of Qumran. According to this document, the community seems to have consisted of believers in the orthodox doctrine and practice of the Mosaic law who were preparing the way of the Lord, the Messiah, to come (cp. Isaiah 40:3). The leader of this community was called “the teacher of righteousness.” Under his leadership the members of the community believed that they stood on the threshold of the Endzeit, the end time.
In Numbers 24:17 is this poetic expression:
A star shall come forth out of Jacob,
And a scepter shall rise out of Israel,
It shall crush the forehead of Moab,
And break down the children of Seth.
Ancient rabbis thought this star was the Messiah. In the New Testament Apocalypse, Jesus Himself is identified as this star (Rev. 22:16 cp. Matthew 2:2, 7, 9, 10). So Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph, who inspired Bar Koziba to lead the Jewish rebellion against Rome during the second century A.D., changed his name to Bar Kochba (son of the star), due to the rabbinic identification of the star with the Messiah. The rebels against Rome believed Bar Kochba was indeed the Christ.
Second only to the Old Testament in importance as Jewish literature is the Talmud. This writing contains a treatise called Sanhedrin, signifying the Jewish Supreme Court. The tractate is the chief depository of Jewish criminal law. It also contains several references to the coming Messiah. The question repeatedly raised is “when the Messiah is to come.” Some of the answers contained are:
1) when even the smallest nation ceases to have any power over Israel,
2) when there are found no conceited men in Israel,
3) when all (foreign) judges and officers are gone from Israel,
4) when a generation becomes altogether righteous or altogether wicked, etc.
These discourses are followed by the story of a rabbi called Joshua ben Levi. He is said to have met the Prophet Elijah standing at the tomb of another famous rabbi, Simon ben Johai. Joshua ben Levi asked Elijah, “When does the Messiah come?” Elijah’s answer was, “Go and ask him.” Ben Levi then asked, “Where is he?” Elijah replied, “At the entrance of the town.” So Rabbi Joshua ben Levi went there and found the Messiah and asked him just when he might come. The Messiah’s answer was, “Today.” Ben Levi waited all day, but the Messiah never came. He then went back to Elijah and complained that the Messiah had lied. Prophet Elijah smiled and said: “No, He did not lie. He only quoted from Psalm 95:7” This verse says, “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will listen to His voice!” It means that Messiah will surely come, the day all people listen to the voice of God.”
We have thus far considered the Messianic hope of Israel from the Old Testament and other Jewish sources. We have seen that Hebraic Jewish Messianic hope becomes prominent whenever there is a political or religious crisis. Many rabbis thought that if the Jews faithfully obeyed the Laws of God, this would prepare the way for the Messiah; but this never in fact happened. The political revolts of the Zealots only succeeded locally and temporarily. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and other smaller sects; and Judaism was about to lose its integrity under the impact of Roman authority. Then Jesus came!
Jesus did not claim to be the founder of a new religion. In fact, the Gospel records do not show Him even using the word. He said that He came “to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12)”. He said He came “that they might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10)”. He said He did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). In this way He identified Himself with the servant foretold by Isaiah. This servant of God was called the Messiah, the Anointed One (Matthew 1:16; 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 2:11, etc.). In this way, the Messiah and the Servant in the New Testament coalesce in the person of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
What is the significance of all this in the twenty first century A.D.? We live in another day of crisis. Man has become too proud of earthly knowledge, material wealth and his own accomplishments. We tend to forget that the environment about which we are increasingly concerned is God’s own creation. Indeed, we prefer to forget God Himself! This is a day for our rededication of ourselves to the Christ who gave Himself to reconcile us to the God we have forgotten.
Jesus said: “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it (Matthew 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24).” It cannot be mere coincidence that we find ourselves controlled by the use of human will. We have exchanged the commands of God for the majority rule of a materialistic democracy that daily becomes more and more characterized by Socialism. Our identity as “one nation under God” tends more and more to give way to uncontrolled humanism with bullets, bombs, drugs and machines. We have deluded ourselves into believing that, because the Soviet Union has collapsed, we no longer live in the shadow of a mushroom cloud. More dangerous than all the bombs and rockets is the danger of losing our lives in our greed, by polluting God’s air and water and squandering finite natural resources.
It is time for God’s people, the church to take up the cross of Jesus and follow Him; practicing His self denial along with God’s justice and righteousness here and now. It is time to give ourselves for the betterment of others rather than for the amassing of things. It is time for Christians, especially in the United States, to stop “standing for anything” and start standing up for Someone. It is time to be more concerned for being correct by God’s standards rather than politically correct by popular standards, or lack of standards. We need to abandon the flesh pots and temples of Babylon and return to the house of God.
Christians have a Messiah. His name is Jesus. We need to stop apologizing for our faith and begin to live by it. It is our God given task to establish and maintain His
kingdom here on earth as the servants of human society and members of God’s household.
• I am indebted to Dr. Toyozo Nakarai for clarifying for me the central truth contained in this writing.
CRG
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Church is Constitutionally One
We found, in the first two segments of this trilogy that, as declared by Thomas Campbell in The Declaration and Address, the church found in the New Testament is essentially and intentionally one. Its essential nature is defined by fellowship . It is intentionally one as both the fulfillment and the fulfilling agency of God’s reconciling work in Christ. In this segment, we will examine Campbell’s assertion that the church is constitutionally one.
To say that the church is constitutionally one is to say that its oneness was expressed in its form as ordained and appointed by God. This foundational truth is expressed by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:1-6: “I am calling you therefore. . . to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with long suffering, bearing one another up, in love being eager to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all Who is over all and through all and in all” (Author’s translation).
The unity described here is organic oneness. The theme, “body of Christ” is prominent in Paul’s discussions of the church throughout his epistles. In I Corinthians 12:14-27 he underscores the truth that the unit in Christian unity is the individual believer: “… you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.”
Paul prefaces his appeal for the maintenance of unity with a call for a Christian attitude and life style, that are the quintessence of genuine Christian character. The Greek, haxios, worthily, is a picture word depicting the returning of a coin to the mint for weighing. It was common practice to shave precious metal off of coins. Eventually one could accumulate a significant amount of gold of silver. , Roman coins were circulated back to the mint and weighed in a balance in order to insure full value.
Paul encourages us to be “full value Christians” in our attitude toward one another for the sake of unity. A full measure of Christian character requires “all humility.” Such an attitude is the opposite of the “pride of life” which John identifies as one of the “things of the world” ( I John 2:16).
Genuineness includes longsuffering. Some complained about the time consumed in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ by scenes depicting the brutal prelude to Jesus’ crucifixion. They said it detracted from the film’s message. Actually, Gibson’s portrayal was mild compared to what happened historically in putting a prisoner on a Roman cross. Historians estimate that about forty percent of those sentenced to crucifixion died before they reached the cross.
The longsuffering of Christ serves as a challenge to the genuineness of those whom He instructed to take up their own crosses. It involves more than putting up with unpleasant people. We are to bear one another up in love, to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
Burton Coffman points out what is involved; “having an attitude that grants them [other members of the body] the same ‘right to belong’ which he claims for himself.”
In the little town which is home to the small congregation that lured me out of “retirement” some years ago, there are eight small ,struggling congregations. Four of them have roots in the Stone/Campbell movement and two other denominations are represented by two congregations each. It’s a friendly little town. They work together, send their kids to the same school and enjoy the same neighborhood activities
. . . until Sunday comes. Then they hide from one another in their separate church buildings and refuse to allow anyone the “right to belong” until he/she jumps through their institutional hoop. . If the church is ever to rise above the sectarianism that divides it, the “right to belong” is an absolute must.
Paul directs us to “be eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” He then tells us what constitutes that bond: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. In the Greek text of verses 4-6, no verb is expressed. Paul doesn’t say there is, or there ought to be. Rather in staccato sequence he enumerates the requisites that constitute the unity of the church.
W.O. Carver wrote; “Paul grounds his call for unity upon a sevenfold ideal and factual foundation. The whole Christian experience and movement are based on these fundamental, factual elements.”
One body! one fellowship recognizing no distinctions of race, culture, or religion; no economic caste system, no gender bias. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 3:28). Understanding the cross in light of the resurrection, “… the love of Christ constrains us… Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh…if anyone is in Christ he is a new kind of creature; the old things passed away…” (II Corinthians 5:14-17 - author’s translation).
One Spirit! In the New Testament, any body that was inhabited by more than one spirit was considered to be demon possessed. Since the church is he body of Christ, this is unthinkable. Every member receives the same (one) Holy Spirit at baptism.
One hope! In Ephesians 1:18, Paul prays that “ you may know what is the hope of His calling…” The hope to which he refers is not what we hope to get out of being Christians. No one should minimize our precious hope of heaven, nor the positive, hopeful outlook that His love engenders. However, when Paul uses the word elpis, hope, in the Ephesian letter, he goes far beyond the self centered attitude that brings people to the church only because of what they hope to gain from it.
W.O. Carver’s commentary on Ephesians is entitled, The Glory of God In The Christian Calling. In it, Dr. Carver shows the purpose of God fulfilled in human life as the stewardship of the church. That’s the “one hope of your calling.” .
One Lord! Our democratic culture has a hard time comprehending the concept expressed in “Lord.” John Adams was limited to a single term as president of the United States because his political opponents promoted the erroneous notion that he, wanted to establish an American monarchy.
The Biblical understanding of “Lord” is probably best illustrated in Jesus’ statement, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth…” ( Matthew 28:18). God doesn’t call committee meetings or take opinion polls. He gives commands. The Lordship of Christ is a vital aspect of the constitution of the church as a single body.
One Faith! When my brother arrived in Lackland Airforce base for basic training, he went through a processing procedure. He answered questions asked by the Lieutenant responsible for obtaining biographical information. When they came to the question marked “Religion,” he was asked, “Protestant, Catholic or Jew.” My brother replied, “neither!” “So…” the interviewer said, “you are an atheist?” My brother answered, “No. I’m a Christian.” Oh,” said the lieutenant, “ are you a Catholic or a Protestant.?” To which my brother replied, “Neither… just a Christian.” Eventually the officer wrote “Christian” on the form. He was probably the first man to go through Airforce basics with “Christian” stamped on his dog tags.
A primary reason for the division that has plagued the church for centuries is our insistence on hyphenating the one faith with denominational names.
One baptism! Coffman points out that “. . . seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament. ‘One baptism’ here means there is only one as pertains to the Christian life. There can be no escape from the conclusion that this is the baptism of the Great Commission. . .”
W.O. Carver wrote, “The only reference other than that of water baptism that would be tolerable [in this text], ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ is excluded here because the Spirit’s place is already introduced as the second of the fundamental Ones.”
“One God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all!” “One God” is the seminal truth of the gospel.
The unity constituted by these seven factual elements is an organic oneness. Such unity is clearly understood by what it is not as much as by what it is. It is not unanimity; absolute conformity of opinion codified into a creed. It is not uniformity; complete similarity of expression and method. It is not union; oneness of ecclesiastical affiliation. .
To realize the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” what is needed is the “worthy walk” implored by the apostle, the active determination to maintain the unity of the Spirit and an acceptance of Paul’s seven factual elements as constituting that bond. Paul has identified the constituting elements of the church’s essential and intentional oneness. The recognition and practice of these seven elements that make up the bond of peace is all that is necessary to the accomplishment of Paul’s plea and Jesus’ prayer for those who believe in Him to all be one in order that the world may believe that the Father has sent Him.
Our post-modern world, with its hunger for relationships in a world disconnected by the technology that connects it, is waiting to be won by a church that is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one!
To say that the church is constitutionally one is to say that its oneness was expressed in its form as ordained and appointed by God. This foundational truth is expressed by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:1-6: “I am calling you therefore. . . to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with long suffering, bearing one another up, in love being eager to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all Who is over all and through all and in all” (Author’s translation).
The unity described here is organic oneness. The theme, “body of Christ” is prominent in Paul’s discussions of the church throughout his epistles. In I Corinthians 12:14-27 he underscores the truth that the unit in Christian unity is the individual believer: “… you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.”
Paul prefaces his appeal for the maintenance of unity with a call for a Christian attitude and life style, that are the quintessence of genuine Christian character. The Greek, haxios, worthily, is a picture word depicting the returning of a coin to the mint for weighing. It was common practice to shave precious metal off of coins. Eventually one could accumulate a significant amount of gold of silver. , Roman coins were circulated back to the mint and weighed in a balance in order to insure full value.
Paul encourages us to be “full value Christians” in our attitude toward one another for the sake of unity. A full measure of Christian character requires “all humility.” Such an attitude is the opposite of the “pride of life” which John identifies as one of the “things of the world” ( I John 2:16).
Genuineness includes longsuffering. Some complained about the time consumed in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ by scenes depicting the brutal prelude to Jesus’ crucifixion. They said it detracted from the film’s message. Actually, Gibson’s portrayal was mild compared to what happened historically in putting a prisoner on a Roman cross. Historians estimate that about forty percent of those sentenced to crucifixion died before they reached the cross.
The longsuffering of Christ serves as a challenge to the genuineness of those whom He instructed to take up their own crosses. It involves more than putting up with unpleasant people. We are to bear one another up in love, to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
Burton Coffman points out what is involved; “having an attitude that grants them [other members of the body] the same ‘right to belong’ which he claims for himself.”
In the little town which is home to the small congregation that lured me out of “retirement” some years ago, there are eight small ,struggling congregations. Four of them have roots in the Stone/Campbell movement and two other denominations are represented by two congregations each. It’s a friendly little town. They work together, send their kids to the same school and enjoy the same neighborhood activities
. . . until Sunday comes. Then they hide from one another in their separate church buildings and refuse to allow anyone the “right to belong” until he/she jumps through their institutional hoop. . If the church is ever to rise above the sectarianism that divides it, the “right to belong” is an absolute must.
Paul directs us to “be eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” He then tells us what constitutes that bond: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. In the Greek text of verses 4-6, no verb is expressed. Paul doesn’t say there is, or there ought to be. Rather in staccato sequence he enumerates the requisites that constitute the unity of the church.
W.O. Carver wrote; “Paul grounds his call for unity upon a sevenfold ideal and factual foundation. The whole Christian experience and movement are based on these fundamental, factual elements.”
One body! one fellowship recognizing no distinctions of race, culture, or religion; no economic caste system, no gender bias. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 3:28). Understanding the cross in light of the resurrection, “… the love of Christ constrains us… Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh…if anyone is in Christ he is a new kind of creature; the old things passed away…” (II Corinthians 5:14-17 - author’s translation).
One Spirit! In the New Testament, any body that was inhabited by more than one spirit was considered to be demon possessed. Since the church is he body of Christ, this is unthinkable. Every member receives the same (one) Holy Spirit at baptism.
One hope! In Ephesians 1:18, Paul prays that “ you may know what is the hope of His calling…” The hope to which he refers is not what we hope to get out of being Christians. No one should minimize our precious hope of heaven, nor the positive, hopeful outlook that His love engenders. However, when Paul uses the word elpis, hope, in the Ephesian letter, he goes far beyond the self centered attitude that brings people to the church only because of what they hope to gain from it.
W.O. Carver’s commentary on Ephesians is entitled, The Glory of God In The Christian Calling. In it, Dr. Carver shows the purpose of God fulfilled in human life as the stewardship of the church. That’s the “one hope of your calling.” .
One Lord! Our democratic culture has a hard time comprehending the concept expressed in “Lord.” John Adams was limited to a single term as president of the United States because his political opponents promoted the erroneous notion that he, wanted to establish an American monarchy.
The Biblical understanding of “Lord” is probably best illustrated in Jesus’ statement, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth…” ( Matthew 28:18). God doesn’t call committee meetings or take opinion polls. He gives commands. The Lordship of Christ is a vital aspect of the constitution of the church as a single body.
One Faith! When my brother arrived in Lackland Airforce base for basic training, he went through a processing procedure. He answered questions asked by the Lieutenant responsible for obtaining biographical information. When they came to the question marked “Religion,” he was asked, “Protestant, Catholic or Jew.” My brother replied, “neither!” “So…” the interviewer said, “you are an atheist?” My brother answered, “No. I’m a Christian.” Oh,” said the lieutenant, “ are you a Catholic or a Protestant.?” To which my brother replied, “Neither… just a Christian.” Eventually the officer wrote “Christian” on the form. He was probably the first man to go through Airforce basics with “Christian” stamped on his dog tags.
A primary reason for the division that has plagued the church for centuries is our insistence on hyphenating the one faith with denominational names.
One baptism! Coffman points out that “. . . seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament. ‘One baptism’ here means there is only one as pertains to the Christian life. There can be no escape from the conclusion that this is the baptism of the Great Commission. . .”
W.O. Carver wrote, “The only reference other than that of water baptism that would be tolerable [in this text], ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ is excluded here because the Spirit’s place is already introduced as the second of the fundamental Ones.”
“One God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all!” “One God” is the seminal truth of the gospel.
The unity constituted by these seven factual elements is an organic oneness. Such unity is clearly understood by what it is not as much as by what it is. It is not unanimity; absolute conformity of opinion codified into a creed. It is not uniformity; complete similarity of expression and method. It is not union; oneness of ecclesiastical affiliation. .
To realize the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” what is needed is the “worthy walk” implored by the apostle, the active determination to maintain the unity of the Spirit and an acceptance of Paul’s seven factual elements as constituting that bond. Paul has identified the constituting elements of the church’s essential and intentional oneness. The recognition and practice of these seven elements that make up the bond of peace is all that is necessary to the accomplishment of Paul’s plea and Jesus’ prayer for those who believe in Him to all be one in order that the world may believe that the Father has sent Him.
Our post-modern world, with its hunger for relationships in a world disconnected by the technology that connects it, is waiting to be won by a church that is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What Shall I Love
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!”
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!”
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.”
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Church Is Intentionally One
In the Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell defined the nature of the unity proposed by The Christian Association of Washington, PA in 1809 and later promoted by the Campbell/Stone movement. The movement created excitement in the religious climate of nineteenth century America by challenging all Christians, regardless of party affiliation to unite by restoring the church ideal presented in the New Testament.
The culture and religious climate of the early twenty first century combine to create the most receptive audience for this plea than has existed at any time during its inception. The Restoration Movement is recognized as the first fastest growing Christian movement in the United States. It is second, if one counts Mormonism as Christian.
It was Campbell’s contention, stated in the first proposition of his Declaration and Address, that “The church of Christ upon 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 that none else can truly and properly by called Christians” (Emphasis added).
In the first of this three part series, we discussed the practical significance of the term “essentially,” as used in this first proposition. We urged that the unity which constitutes Christian fellowship is the very essence of the church. In this second part of the study, we shall propose that the unity which is the essence of the church is intended by God to be so; that it is the inevitable consequence of God’s reconciling purpose in Christ.
The unity of the church ideal presented in the New Testament is no accident. Mankind is dead, separated from God by sin (Ephesians 2:1-3). People are at war with people because they are at war with God. The Pharisee who thanked God every day that he not been created as a Gentile, a slave or a woman was giving voice to the ubiquitous bigotry of the human race. We align ourselves against one another on the basis of ethnic origin, cultural preferences, language groups, national boundaries, economic and social class distinctions and even gender.
The ludicrous treatment of women by the Afghan Taliban is an exaggerated example of the gender discrimination that creates the glass ceiling in business and deprives half the members of some congregations of service to the Lord because they are female. It was the apostle Paul’s contention that, in Christ, these distinctions imposed on people by those who are dead in sin have been done away in Christ (Galatians 3:27-28).
Paul had not always held this view. It was the assertion by Stephen, that God had always been concerned for all people, which propelled Saul of Tarsus into leadership of a jihad, a holy war, against the church. Saul was completely repelled by the church’s claim that the Messiah of the Jews was equally concerned for the salvation of Gentiles and that He had actually been executed by the despicable exhibition of crucifixion. It was blasphemy of the lowest order.
After having nearly stamped out the believing community in Jerusalem, Saul got himself appointed as an apostle of the High Priest for the purpose of finishing what he had started. He would travel to Damascus and continue his rampage. He had not counted on being knocked to his knees and blinded by this same crucified Christ!
Face to face with the risen Lord, Saul did what any other honest man would do. He completely reevaluated his thinking about the death of Jesus. In II Corinthians 5:14-21, Paul elaborates on that reevaluation; Verses 14-15 “…the love of Christ is controlling us having concluded this, that one died on behalf of all; therefore all had died, and He died on behalf of all in order that the ones living
may no longer live to themselves but on behalf of the one having died and been raised” (All scripture references are the author’s translation unless otherwise indicated). This truth drove Paul to the obvious practical application of itself: “So from now on we are knowing no one according to flesh… so that if anyone is in Christ [there is] a new creation; the old things have passed away, look, they have become new in kind.” In Ephesians 2:14-15, the apostle spelled out in bold relief what he meant by becoming “new in kind.” “For He is our peace, the One having made both [Jew and Gentile] one… in order that He might in Himself create the two into one new humanity making peace.” Those who have been reconciled to God in Christ cannot but be reconciled to one another. There is “one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6 NASV).
Far from seeing the church as a religious institution, Paul understood it as the creation of a new kind of human race! Since this new race is created from the dead material of the old, there is a real sense in which the church is all that’s left of the human race!
The “new kind” of people in Christ do not evaluate people according to the fleshly distinctions practiced by the old race who died in sin. (II Corinthians. 5:16). “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus; because as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor freeman, there cannot be male and female; because you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28).
In Antioch, as a result of a year of such teaching by Paul and Barnabas, “…the disciples called themselves Christians...” Acts 11:225-26 Some have said the name, Christian, was given in derision by enemies of the church. In the context in which the name was coined, there is no mention of opposition. The name was coined by the disciples as a result of apostolic teaching. The new kind of person required a new name. If I am not a Jew or a Gentile, slave or free, male or female, what am I? The disciples called themselves [Greek middle form of chrematisai] Christians, belonging to Christ in whom all such distinctions are broken down.
As a teacher in New York Christian Institute, it was my privilege to engage regularly in conversation with the late Dr. Dean Walker, who was one of our Directors. When we were preparing the curricula, our conversation turned to what we would teach concerning the Restoration Movement. Dr. Walker sorted through his voluminous vocabulary for a few minutes and then said, “Everything God has done in human history since the garden of Eden has been for the sole purpose of reconciliation.” In this statement, he expressed the conviction of both Thomas Campbell and the apostle Paul. “The church is intentionally one.” “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting against them their trespasses and placing in us the word of reconciliation” (II Corinthians 5:19).
Understood as the restoration pioneers understood it, the Restoration Plea is essentially a plea for reconciliation. Such unity as we have just visited in the writings of the New Testament cannot be expressed by institutional division any more than it can be expressed by distinctions of culture, economic status or
gender (Galatians 3:28). Paul recognized as much in I Corinthians 1:11-13 when he chastised his readers for lining up behind certain Christian leaders rather than behind Christ. His question, “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” sounds the death knell of denominationalism.
Some have suggested that the Restoration Movement is passé, that the Plea is irrelevant in today’s world. However, it seems to me that so long as Sunday morning is “the most segregated time in America,” something needs to be said about being one new humanity in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:15). So long as our congregations are economically stratified we need the New Testament admonition, “Let the brother of humble circumstances glory in his high position; and let the rich man glory in his humiliation…” (James 1:9-10 NASV). So long as there are congregations in which more than half of the members are deprived of the privilege of participation in the “service of reconciliation” (II Corinthians 5:18) because they are female, something needs to be said about restoring the new kind of humanity that made up the New Testament church. [No, I’m not advocating women elders and/or preachers!]
There is still a need to follow the example of Brush Run and Cane Ridge. There is no place in such a plea as that made by the Campbells and Barton Stone for fundamentalist legalism whose chief stock in trade is condemning and shutting out anyone who does not agree with their interpretation of proof texts. Stone and the Campbells began by subjecting their own presuppositions to the probing light of God’s word. Their plea, expressed so eloquently in the Last Will And Testament Of The Springfield Presbytery, was that all professing Christians should “go and do likewise!” Only when we capture a fresh dedication to self examination in terms of God’s reconciling purpose in Christ can we claim our churches are intentionally one.”
The culture and religious climate of the early twenty first century combine to create the most receptive audience for this plea than has existed at any time during its inception. The Restoration Movement is recognized as the first fastest growing Christian movement in the United States. It is second, if one counts Mormonism as Christian.
It was Campbell’s contention, stated in the first proposition of his Declaration and Address, that “The church of Christ upon 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 that none else can truly and properly by called Christians” (Emphasis added).
In the first of this three part series, we discussed the practical significance of the term “essentially,” as used in this first proposition. We urged that the unity which constitutes Christian fellowship is the very essence of the church. In this second part of the study, we shall propose that the unity which is the essence of the church is intended by God to be so; that it is the inevitable consequence of God’s reconciling purpose in Christ.
The unity of the church ideal presented in the New Testament is no accident. Mankind is dead, separated from God by sin (Ephesians 2:1-3). People are at war with people because they are at war with God. The Pharisee who thanked God every day that he not been created as a Gentile, a slave or a woman was giving voice to the ubiquitous bigotry of the human race. We align ourselves against one another on the basis of ethnic origin, cultural preferences, language groups, national boundaries, economic and social class distinctions and even gender.
The ludicrous treatment of women by the Afghan Taliban is an exaggerated example of the gender discrimination that creates the glass ceiling in business and deprives half the members of some congregations of service to the Lord because they are female. It was the apostle Paul’s contention that, in Christ, these distinctions imposed on people by those who are dead in sin have been done away in Christ (Galatians 3:27-28).
Paul had not always held this view. It was the assertion by Stephen, that God had always been concerned for all people, which propelled Saul of Tarsus into leadership of a jihad, a holy war, against the church. Saul was completely repelled by the church’s claim that the Messiah of the Jews was equally concerned for the salvation of Gentiles and that He had actually been executed by the despicable exhibition of crucifixion. It was blasphemy of the lowest order.
After having nearly stamped out the believing community in Jerusalem, Saul got himself appointed as an apostle of the High Priest for the purpose of finishing what he had started. He would travel to Damascus and continue his rampage. He had not counted on being knocked to his knees and blinded by this same crucified Christ!
Face to face with the risen Lord, Saul did what any other honest man would do. He completely reevaluated his thinking about the death of Jesus. In II Corinthians 5:14-21, Paul elaborates on that reevaluation; Verses 14-15 “…the love of Christ is controlling us having concluded this, that one died on behalf of all; therefore all had died, and He died on behalf of all in order that the ones living
may no longer live to themselves but on behalf of the one having died and been raised” (All scripture references are the author’s translation unless otherwise indicated). This truth drove Paul to the obvious practical application of itself: “So from now on we are knowing no one according to flesh… so that if anyone is in Christ [there is] a new creation; the old things have passed away, look, they have become new in kind.” In Ephesians 2:14-15, the apostle spelled out in bold relief what he meant by becoming “new in kind.” “For He is our peace, the One having made both [Jew and Gentile] one… in order that He might in Himself create the two into one new humanity making peace.” Those who have been reconciled to God in Christ cannot but be reconciled to one another. There is “one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6 NASV).
Far from seeing the church as a religious institution, Paul understood it as the creation of a new kind of human race! Since this new race is created from the dead material of the old, there is a real sense in which the church is all that’s left of the human race!
The “new kind” of people in Christ do not evaluate people according to the fleshly distinctions practiced by the old race who died in sin. (II Corinthians. 5:16). “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus; because as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor freeman, there cannot be male and female; because you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28).
In Antioch, as a result of a year of such teaching by Paul and Barnabas, “…the disciples called themselves Christians...” Acts 11:225-26 Some have said the name, Christian, was given in derision by enemies of the church. In the context in which the name was coined, there is no mention of opposition. The name was coined by the disciples as a result of apostolic teaching. The new kind of person required a new name. If I am not a Jew or a Gentile, slave or free, male or female, what am I? The disciples called themselves [Greek middle form of chrematisai] Christians, belonging to Christ in whom all such distinctions are broken down.
As a teacher in New York Christian Institute, it was my privilege to engage regularly in conversation with the late Dr. Dean Walker, who was one of our Directors. When we were preparing the curricula, our conversation turned to what we would teach concerning the Restoration Movement. Dr. Walker sorted through his voluminous vocabulary for a few minutes and then said, “Everything God has done in human history since the garden of Eden has been for the sole purpose of reconciliation.” In this statement, he expressed the conviction of both Thomas Campbell and the apostle Paul. “The church is intentionally one.” “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting against them their trespasses and placing in us the word of reconciliation” (II Corinthians 5:19).
Understood as the restoration pioneers understood it, the Restoration Plea is essentially a plea for reconciliation. Such unity as we have just visited in the writings of the New Testament cannot be expressed by institutional division any more than it can be expressed by distinctions of culture, economic status or
gender (Galatians 3:28). Paul recognized as much in I Corinthians 1:11-13 when he chastised his readers for lining up behind certain Christian leaders rather than behind Christ. His question, “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” sounds the death knell of denominationalism.
Some have suggested that the Restoration Movement is passé, that the Plea is irrelevant in today’s world. However, it seems to me that so long as Sunday morning is “the most segregated time in America,” something needs to be said about being one new humanity in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:15). So long as our congregations are economically stratified we need the New Testament admonition, “Let the brother of humble circumstances glory in his high position; and let the rich man glory in his humiliation…” (James 1:9-10 NASV). So long as there are congregations in which more than half of the members are deprived of the privilege of participation in the “service of reconciliation” (II Corinthians 5:18) because they are female, something needs to be said about restoring the new kind of humanity that made up the New Testament church. [No, I’m not advocating women elders and/or preachers!]
There is still a need to follow the example of Brush Run and Cane Ridge. There is no place in such a plea as that made by the Campbells and Barton Stone for fundamentalist legalism whose chief stock in trade is condemning and shutting out anyone who does not agree with their interpretation of proof texts. Stone and the Campbells began by subjecting their own presuppositions to the probing light of God’s word. Their plea, expressed so eloquently in the Last Will And Testament Of The Springfield Presbytery, was that all professing Christians should “go and do likewise!” Only when we capture a fresh dedication to self examination in terms of God’s reconciling purpose in Christ can we claim our churches are intentionally one.”
Monday, December 22, 2008
BIBLICAL ILLITERACY
“The Christian body in America is immersed is a crisis of biblical illiteracy.” George Barna. “George Barna is the founder of The Barna Group, a market research firm specializing in studying the religious beliefs and behavior of Americans, and the intersection of faith and culture. He also serves as the chair of Good News Holidays, a media distribution outlet.”
Wickipedia encyclopedia.
As evidence, Barna notes; “How else can you describe matters when churchgoing adults reject the accuracy of the Bible, reject the existence of Satan, claim that Jesus sinned, see no need to evangelize, believe that good works are one of the keys to persuading God to forgive our sins, and describe their commitment to Christianity as moderate or even less firm.” [Barna Research On Line, “Religious Beliefs Vary Widely by Denomination.” June 25, 2001
I would insert that another indication of biblical illiteracy is inherent in the concern for “commitment to Christianity” rather than commitment to Christ on the part of Christian leaders such as George Barna.
Dr. Michael J. Vlach lists, as evidence of this problem, the following, in his Special Report for Theological Studies.org; 1) “The most widely known Bible verse among adult and teen believers is “God helps those who help themselves,” 2)When given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers firmly embraced all thirteen as being biblical perspectives.
In the same report, Vlach notes that Gary Burge, professor of New Testament in Wheaton College has pointed out that biblical illiteracy is at a crisis level not just in our culture in general but in American churches. Burge is quoted as saying, “If it is true that biblical illiteracy is commonplace in secular culture at large, here is ample evidence that points to similar trends in our churches.” Burge points to research at Wheaton College in which biblical and theological illiteracy of incoming freshmen have been monitored. These students, who represent every Protestant denomination in the United States from every state in the country, have returned some surprising results. One-third could not put the following in order: Abraham, the Old Testament prophets, the death of Christ, and Pentecost. Half could not sequence the following: Moses in Egypt, Isaac’s birth, Saul’s death, and Judah’s exile. One-third could not identify Matthew as one of the apostles from a list of New Testament names. When asked to locate the biblical book supplying a given story, one-third could not find Paul’s travels in Acts, half did not know that the Christmas story was in Matthew [which it isn’t since the Christmas celebration itself is of pagan origin and not mentioned in the Bible.], half did not know that the Passover story was in Exodus.
Dr. Vlach quotes George Linbeck, the famous Yale theologian’s comments on the decreasing knowledge of Scripture from a professor’s perspective; “When I first arrived at Yale, even those who came from nonreligious backgrounds knew the Bible better than most of those now who come from churchgoing families.”
Author and theologian, David Wells is quoted, from his book, No Place or Truth, by Vlach as saying, {“I have watched with growing disbelief as the evangelical church has cheerfully plunged into astounding theological illiteracy.
Volker Gaeckle, Dean of Studies at Albrecht Bengel Center in Tuebugin, referring to a scientific study called PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) has written, “Churches should heed the PISA warning that text comprehension is a major problem. PISA’s assessment showed that people in thirty-two industrialized countries show an “insidious biblical illiteracy” even in Christian circles.
George Barna reports that examination of the heart of the matter shows shocking results indicating a “profound lack of belief in essential Christian doctrines. In his study of the beliefs of mainline Protestants (including Methodists, Lutherans, and Episcopalians) Barna documents a rejection of key Christian doctrines. Only 35% believe Christ was sinless, 34% believe the bible is totally accurate, 27% agree that works don’t earn heaven; and 20% believe that Satan is real.
Of Baptists (any type) in America, only 34% believe that Satan is real. Only 43% believe that works don’t earn heaven. Although most Baptists affirm that Christ was sinless and that the Bible is totally accurate, the majority is not strong. Only 55% affirm that Christ was sinless, and 66% hold that the Bible is totally accurate.
Of nondenominational Christian church, Barna reports that 48% believe that Satan is real, 60% say that works don’t earn heaven; 70% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
According to Barna’s report, the denomination with the highest commitment to essential Christian doctrine is the Assembly of God [AOG]. 77% believe the Bible is totally accurate, 70% believe Christ was sinless. Only 64% affirm that works don’t earn heaven. Only 56% believe that Satan is real. Even in this most theologically committed denomination, large percentages of people still deny essential Christian doctrines.
Concerning Theology, Barna returns to Gary Burge. Burge has explained that here is a general failing of the church to transmit our religious culture to the next generation. This includes an overemphasis on personal experience to the exclusion of serious Christian education. Burge is quoted as saying, “In short, the spiritual life has become less a matter of learning than a matter of experiencing. ..This has resulted in Christian ministries that put less premium on education that they do on personal development and therapeutic wholeness.”
Burge notes that this emphasis on personal development at the expense of learning has produced the following: “Thus sermons become more therapeutic and less instructional; and the validity of what we do on Sunday morning is grounded in what we feel, not what we think.”
Simultaneously with this trend from substance to feeling, many Christian churches have abandoned serious Bible exposition and theological teaching “Historical exegesis,” according to Burge, “is becoming a “lost art” in the pulpit.”
“Texts become springboards for devotional reflection…Biblical passages are taken out of context as the preacher searches for those stories that evoke the response and attitudes desired.” As a result, “The heart of a ‘good sermon’ is fast becoming the ‘emotional work’ that can be done in 20 minutes preaching time.”
Further, Burge also found that church leaders often find it difficult to find time for serious discussion of theology and the Bible. When asking several youth leaders about whether the addressed solid theological categories or Bible stories, the typical response was, “It is hard to find time. But I can say that these kids are truly learning to love God.”
Burge sees this attitude as part of the problem of Biblical illiteracy. “That is it in a nutshell…Christian faith is not being built on a firm foundation of hard-won thoughts, ideas, history, or theology. Spirituality is being built on private emotional attachments.”
According to Barna, Burge believes there is a third reason (in addition to the failure to transmit Christian culture and the abandonment of serious Bible exposition and theological content in preaching) for biblical and theological illiteracy. “It is the influence of unbiblical philosophy and worldviews being accepted by churchgoers. These continually assail the traditional Christian views of the inerrancy of the Bible, deity of Christ, reality of Satan, substitutionary atonement, and other key doctrines of the Christian faith. Existentialism and its emphasis on human experience has people looking to themselves, not to God or Scripture, for truth. Postmodernism has convinced many that there are no universal truths. According to Barna, “A minority of adult and teen believers contends that absolute moral truth exists.” Only 32% of born-again Christians still believe in the existence of absolute moral truth.
Barna and Mark Hatch have noted that “we cannot really cal the faith of American Christians a Bible-based faith. It is a synthetic, syncretistic faith…Christians today have accepted and combined so many ideas from other worldviews and religions that they have created their own faith system. The average born-again, baptized, churchgoing person has embraced elements of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Unitarianism and Christian Science – without any idea they have created their own faith.”
Barna’s investigation of the problem of Biblical illiteracy at is sources and practices have led him to some viable conclusions concerning the solution to the problem. He says “In many ways, we are living in an age of theological anarchy. The
church is rotting from the inside out, crippled by abiblical theology…but what can church leaders do about the crisis?” He lists five solutions suggested by some he calls “experts.”
[It may be a good idea here to remember that “an expert is a little “spert” away from home with a briefcase!]
First, church leaders need to be aware of the crisis. “Let’s acknowledge that we are in a state of spiritual anarchy.” Only by being aware of the problem can church leaders seriously address the problem. Barna has reported a less than positive response by church leaders with whom he has discussed this information.
He says, “When I first conveyed this message, most church leaders smiled and shook their heads, rejecting the possibility that such silliness would occur on their watch.”
Second, pastors and church leaders need to evaluate what their [own] people know and believe. “Whether through personal interaction with the flock or through more formal means of evaluation such as doctrinal questionnaires, church leaders need to find out what their people know and believe. A questionnaire about the basics of Bible theology given to people would reveal important information. Churches need to ask questions such as ‘Do you believe that Jesus lived a sinless life?’ of ‘Do you believe that Satan is a real person?’ It can no longer be assumed that the people in the pews ‘know the basics.’ Many do not.”
The results of such questionnaires and personal contacts will reveal to church leaders where their weaknesses exist. These findings may also help identify people who reject or cannot comprehend enough essential Christian doctrine in order to be Christians. Fruitful evangelism may result from such evaluations.
Burge believes that such a method will give “unparalleled insight” to church leaders and will be helpful to the people. “It is like taking a treadmill test and then talking about a fitness plan,” he says.
Third, church leaders must use powerful ways to instruct their people in the truth. “It may be well, too, that to usher in an era of theological sanity we will have to adopt new approaches to educating people about God’s Word and new tools to facilitate growth. This includes a well-planned systematic approach to Biblical truth. Rather than giving people disjointed morsels of spiritual truth each week, we must have a systematic method of enabling people to buy into a biblical worldview that transforms their life.”
This systematic approach must start in the pulpit. Millard Erickson, in his book, Where Is Theology Going, points out that decreasing literacy among the people probably influenced many preachers in the direction of less biblical content in their messages.[This is a vicious circle with each of two sources of influence feeding on one another].
Fourth, church leaders, including preachers, must alert their members to the unbiblical world views that have crept into the church.
Finally, we must encourage diligent and gifted teachers in the church. Burge states, “We need to identify young men and women in the church who have gifts of teaching and intellect and encourage them to pursue their gifts.”
**************************************************
In addition to the opinions and advice of the above sited experts, I would include a statement made a few years ago by Dr. Henry Webb, professor of History in Milligan College and Emmanuel: “The root of the problem is that no theology is being taught in our Bible Colleges!” No one, preacher, teacher or leader, can teach what (s)he does not know!
Wickipedia encyclopedia.
As evidence, Barna notes; “How else can you describe matters when churchgoing adults reject the accuracy of the Bible, reject the existence of Satan, claim that Jesus sinned, see no need to evangelize, believe that good works are one of the keys to persuading God to forgive our sins, and describe their commitment to Christianity as moderate or even less firm.” [Barna Research On Line, “Religious Beliefs Vary Widely by Denomination.” June 25, 2001
I would insert that another indication of biblical illiteracy is inherent in the concern for “commitment to Christianity” rather than commitment to Christ on the part of Christian leaders such as George Barna.
Dr. Michael J. Vlach lists, as evidence of this problem, the following, in his Special Report for Theological Studies.org; 1) “The most widely known Bible verse among adult and teen believers is “God helps those who help themselves,” 2)When given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers firmly embraced all thirteen as being biblical perspectives.
In the same report, Vlach notes that Gary Burge, professor of New Testament in Wheaton College has pointed out that biblical illiteracy is at a crisis level not just in our culture in general but in American churches. Burge is quoted as saying, “If it is true that biblical illiteracy is commonplace in secular culture at large, here is ample evidence that points to similar trends in our churches.” Burge points to research at Wheaton College in which biblical and theological illiteracy of incoming freshmen have been monitored. These students, who represent every Protestant denomination in the United States from every state in the country, have returned some surprising results. One-third could not put the following in order: Abraham, the Old Testament prophets, the death of Christ, and Pentecost. Half could not sequence the following: Moses in Egypt, Isaac’s birth, Saul’s death, and Judah’s exile. One-third could not identify Matthew as one of the apostles from a list of New Testament names. When asked to locate the biblical book supplying a given story, one-third could not find Paul’s travels in Acts, half did not know that the Christmas story was in Matthew [which it isn’t since the Christmas celebration itself is of pagan origin and not mentioned in the Bible.], half did not know that the Passover story was in Exodus.
Dr. Vlach quotes George Linbeck, the famous Yale theologian’s comments on the decreasing knowledge of Scripture from a professor’s perspective; “When I first arrived at Yale, even those who came from nonreligious backgrounds knew the Bible better than most of those now who come from churchgoing families.”
Author and theologian, David Wells is quoted, from his book, No Place or Truth, by Vlach as saying, {“I have watched with growing disbelief as the evangelical church has cheerfully plunged into astounding theological illiteracy.
Volker Gaeckle, Dean of Studies at Albrecht Bengel Center in Tuebugin, referring to a scientific study called PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) has written, “Churches should heed the PISA warning that text comprehension is a major problem. PISA’s assessment showed that people in thirty-two industrialized countries show an “insidious biblical illiteracy” even in Christian circles.
George Barna reports that examination of the heart of the matter shows shocking results indicating a “profound lack of belief in essential Christian doctrines. In his study of the beliefs of mainline Protestants (including Methodists, Lutherans, and Episcopalians) Barna documents a rejection of key Christian doctrines. Only 35% believe Christ was sinless, 34% believe the bible is totally accurate, 27% agree that works don’t earn heaven; and 20% believe that Satan is real.
Of Baptists (any type) in America, only 34% believe that Satan is real. Only 43% believe that works don’t earn heaven. Although most Baptists affirm that Christ was sinless and that the Bible is totally accurate, the majority is not strong. Only 55% affirm that Christ was sinless, and 66% hold that the Bible is totally accurate.
Of nondenominational Christian church, Barna reports that 48% believe that Satan is real, 60% say that works don’t earn heaven; 70% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
According to Barna’s report, the denomination with the highest commitment to essential Christian doctrine is the Assembly of God [AOG]. 77% believe the Bible is totally accurate, 70% believe Christ was sinless. Only 64% affirm that works don’t earn heaven. Only 56% believe that Satan is real. Even in this most theologically committed denomination, large percentages of people still deny essential Christian doctrines.
Concerning Theology, Barna returns to Gary Burge. Burge has explained that here is a general failing of the church to transmit our religious culture to the next generation. This includes an overemphasis on personal experience to the exclusion of serious Christian education. Burge is quoted as saying, “In short, the spiritual life has become less a matter of learning than a matter of experiencing. ..This has resulted in Christian ministries that put less premium on education that they do on personal development and therapeutic wholeness.”
Burge notes that this emphasis on personal development at the expense of learning has produced the following: “Thus sermons become more therapeutic and less instructional; and the validity of what we do on Sunday morning is grounded in what we feel, not what we think.”
Simultaneously with this trend from substance to feeling, many Christian churches have abandoned serious Bible exposition and theological teaching “Historical exegesis,” according to Burge, “is becoming a “lost art” in the pulpit.”
“Texts become springboards for devotional reflection…Biblical passages are taken out of context as the preacher searches for those stories that evoke the response and attitudes desired.” As a result, “The heart of a ‘good sermon’ is fast becoming the ‘emotional work’ that can be done in 20 minutes preaching time.”
Further, Burge also found that church leaders often find it difficult to find time for serious discussion of theology and the Bible. When asking several youth leaders about whether the addressed solid theological categories or Bible stories, the typical response was, “It is hard to find time. But I can say that these kids are truly learning to love God.”
Burge sees this attitude as part of the problem of Biblical illiteracy. “That is it in a nutshell…Christian faith is not being built on a firm foundation of hard-won thoughts, ideas, history, or theology. Spirituality is being built on private emotional attachments.”
According to Barna, Burge believes there is a third reason (in addition to the failure to transmit Christian culture and the abandonment of serious Bible exposition and theological content in preaching) for biblical and theological illiteracy. “It is the influence of unbiblical philosophy and worldviews being accepted by churchgoers. These continually assail the traditional Christian views of the inerrancy of the Bible, deity of Christ, reality of Satan, substitutionary atonement, and other key doctrines of the Christian faith. Existentialism and its emphasis on human experience has people looking to themselves, not to God or Scripture, for truth. Postmodernism has convinced many that there are no universal truths. According to Barna, “A minority of adult and teen believers contends that absolute moral truth exists.” Only 32% of born-again Christians still believe in the existence of absolute moral truth.
Barna and Mark Hatch have noted that “we cannot really cal the faith of American Christians a Bible-based faith. It is a synthetic, syncretistic faith…Christians today have accepted and combined so many ideas from other worldviews and religions that they have created their own faith system. The average born-again, baptized, churchgoing person has embraced elements of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Unitarianism and Christian Science – without any idea they have created their own faith.”
Barna’s investigation of the problem of Biblical illiteracy at is sources and practices have led him to some viable conclusions concerning the solution to the problem. He says “In many ways, we are living in an age of theological anarchy. The
church is rotting from the inside out, crippled by abiblical theology…but what can church leaders do about the crisis?” He lists five solutions suggested by some he calls “experts.”
[It may be a good idea here to remember that “an expert is a little “spert” away from home with a briefcase!]
First, church leaders need to be aware of the crisis. “Let’s acknowledge that we are in a state of spiritual anarchy.” Only by being aware of the problem can church leaders seriously address the problem. Barna has reported a less than positive response by church leaders with whom he has discussed this information.
He says, “When I first conveyed this message, most church leaders smiled and shook their heads, rejecting the possibility that such silliness would occur on their watch.”
Second, pastors and church leaders need to evaluate what their [own] people know and believe. “Whether through personal interaction with the flock or through more formal means of evaluation such as doctrinal questionnaires, church leaders need to find out what their people know and believe. A questionnaire about the basics of Bible theology given to people would reveal important information. Churches need to ask questions such as ‘Do you believe that Jesus lived a sinless life?’ of ‘Do you believe that Satan is a real person?’ It can no longer be assumed that the people in the pews ‘know the basics.’ Many do not.”
The results of such questionnaires and personal contacts will reveal to church leaders where their weaknesses exist. These findings may also help identify people who reject or cannot comprehend enough essential Christian doctrine in order to be Christians. Fruitful evangelism may result from such evaluations.
Burge believes that such a method will give “unparalleled insight” to church leaders and will be helpful to the people. “It is like taking a treadmill test and then talking about a fitness plan,” he says.
Third, church leaders must use powerful ways to instruct their people in the truth. “It may be well, too, that to usher in an era of theological sanity we will have to adopt new approaches to educating people about God’s Word and new tools to facilitate growth. This includes a well-planned systematic approach to Biblical truth. Rather than giving people disjointed morsels of spiritual truth each week, we must have a systematic method of enabling people to buy into a biblical worldview that transforms their life.”
This systematic approach must start in the pulpit. Millard Erickson, in his book, Where Is Theology Going, points out that decreasing literacy among the people probably influenced many preachers in the direction of less biblical content in their messages.[This is a vicious circle with each of two sources of influence feeding on one another].
Fourth, church leaders, including preachers, must alert their members to the unbiblical world views that have crept into the church.
Finally, we must encourage diligent and gifted teachers in the church. Burge states, “We need to identify young men and women in the church who have gifts of teaching and intellect and encourage them to pursue their gifts.”
**************************************************
In addition to the opinions and advice of the above sited experts, I would include a statement made a few years ago by Dr. Henry Webb, professor of History in Milligan College and Emmanuel: “The root of the problem is that no theology is being taught in our Bible Colleges!” No one, preacher, teacher or leader, can teach what (s)he does not know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
