Christian Unity

A Local View of Church Growth

2008-05-08T08:59:00.000-07:00

A couple of my favorite blogs have been talking about church growth recently. I've joined the discussion in a couple of my recent posts.

To talk about church growth, you have to talk about church membership.

Shepherds have a unique perspective on membership. Ezekiel 34 charges shepherds with going after strays -- they still belong to the flock. Those whose membership some people question are the very ones at the forefront of the shepherd's mind. Those are the sheep most needing his care. So the "membership" of the church might vary depending on whom you ask!

In our congregation, counting membership is harder than it should be. I wonder whether other congregations have the same difficulty. We have people moving in, moving out, and moving around. When people move in, we help them find one of our family groups to join. We try to keep track of the membership roll through our family groups. There are two difficulties with that. First, we have people who have been attending for awhile but have not actually joined a family group. Second, people move around between family groups--sometimes resulting in them being counted in two different family groups, and sometimes resulting in people not being counted in either group. And occasionally, we don't learn about someone leaving the congregation until after the fact, making it impossible to be as thorough as we would like to be as shepherds. We have recently assigned one of our deacons to help with making sure people are connected to one of our family groups, and that we provide a proper welcome and orientation for new arrivals. And we are working to better equip our family group leaders to maintain effective connection with the members of their groups.

From time to time, a few folks leave for one of the other area congregations. Our congregation is racially diverse, but has a higher percentage of African Americans (a little over 50%) than the community. Most often, those who have moved from our congregation to others in the area have been white. We have seen other congregations lose their diversity as a result of people moving around to find a place where they feel more comfortable. We do not want that to happen in our case, but it could happen. The best defense against that, as far as I can tell, is to build family, to make sure people's spiritual needs are met, to teach about the need for diversity, and to reach out to all segments of the surrounding community. At least we are trying to do those things.

From the old Atlanta Church of Christ, there are at least four groups now meeting in Gwinnett County on Sundays. Members are still moving from group to group. Some of that movement is cultural. Sometimes there is more to it than that. The cause can be something good or something bad. But whatever the cause, the Body of Christ does not lose a member when someone leaves our congregation for another congregation of Christians. It does make it more difficult to care for the sheep due to a lack of continuity.

A dozen or so members of our congregation have moved to one of the other area congregation over the past few months. Obviously I would prefer that these people had been satisfied to stay in our congregation. I can't speak for the underlying motives of these folks, but some of them have been looking for something and not finding it for several years now. As a shepherd, I'm interested in making sure people who leave our congregation are immediately connected to another congregation where their spiritual needs will be met. I'm also interested to make sure that any problems or issues motivating their move are addressed. The leaders of their new congregation have those same interests.

The Body of Christ neither grows nor shrinks when a Christian moves from one congregation to another. For meaningful numerical growth, we need to be reaching the lost in the community. That is happening once again in our congregation.

ICOC Progress Report

2008-05-01T07:58:00.000-07:00

Mission Memo is running a series of articles on the membership statistics for ICOC congregations. Today's article, the third in the series shows some fascinating charts comparing the number of growing congregations to the number that are not growing. The charts clearly show that the declining growth in the ICOC did not begin in 2003, but years earlier.

In 1998, 80% of the ICOC congregations reported growth in membership. But between 1998 and 2002, the number of churches reporting growth declined steadily to only 60% of congregations. That was a significant drop in only four years.

The Atlanta congregation was one of the best performing large congregations in the ICOC during those years, baptizing a combined 1,551 people in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The congregation also gained a net 138 people from move-ins, as more people were moving into Atlanta than moving out. Yet 848 people left the church during those three years. For every 10 people who were baptized in those three years, 5.4 people left the church. And remember, that was one of the best performing ICOC congregations. Many congregations were losing members almost as fast as they were gaining them.

Viewed against that backdrop, the good news in this year's report is all the more remarkable. Despite the fact that the number of baptisms is dramatically lower than in the late 1990's, many of these congregations are holding their own. No longer are members leaving these churches in droves. The bleeding has stopped.

There are some obvious reasons for that. The focus of many of these churches over the past few years has rightfully been on shepherding, taking care of the weak, feeding a more balanced diet of Bible teaching, and developing a deeper understanding of grace. As a result, people are feeling cared for and cared about. They feel safe. And so they are not leaving. These churches are healing.

What is even more exciting is that many of these churches are once again reaching the lost. Baptisms are happening once again, with increasing numbers. And these new Christians are coming into a healthier church.

As the Mission Memo chart shows, only about half of these congregations grew in 2007. But the trend is in a good direction. I believe our best days are yet to come.

Churches in Decline

2008-04-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

Jay Guin has just posted an interesting article discussing the membership decline in Southern Baptists churches. His article prompted me to do a little research. What I've learned is not all that surprising, but should concern anyone who seeks the spread of the gospel.

Mainline churches of all types in America are in decline. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, nearly half of American adults [leave] the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether.

On the other hand, non-denominational churches are growing.

From the USA Today:

The 2008 Yearbook of Canadian and American Churches, produced by the New York-based National Council of Churches, recorded growth trends in 224 churches, with a combined membership of 147 million Americans...

Only the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Mormons, the Assemblies of God (2.8 million) and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (1.4 million) reported increases; all others either posted declines or flat membership from 2005.

Looking beyond the membership and attendance numbers, baptisms are also down. From Yahoo News:

The number of people baptized in Southern Baptist churches fell for the third straight year in 2007 to the denomination's lowest level since 1987, and membership dipped slightly as well.

Baptists in 2007 baptized 5.6 people per 100 in attendance (based on 345,941 baptisms, 6.15 million attendance).

Closer to home for us in the Restoration Movement, the independent Christian churches have experienced a reduced growth rate in 2007. The Christian Standard publishes an annual issue with commentary on the state of their largest churches, including all congregations averaging more than 1000 in attendance for the year. The report indicates that in 2007, the megachurches baptized 6.4 per 100 in attendance, down from 7.2 per 100 in 2006.

Churches of Christ have been in decline since the 1990's, according to statistics gathered by KairosChurchPlanting.org.

These studies provide some troubling facts for church leaders to ponder. And clearly they are pondering. Article after article seeks to identify why the churches are declining, and to propose a solution. Many of the proposals, in one form or another, advocate adopting more of the modern culture in order to relate to more people, especially to the young. Some churches are experimenting with different kinds of music, different worship styles, different kinds of programs.

Those things can be helpful if done with discretion. But the scriptures call the church to be different from the world (Rom 12:1-2). And history tells us that churches that become like the world decline into irrelevance. If you haven't read The Churching of America (1776-2005) by Roger Fink and Rodney Stark, now would be a good time to do so. In that book, they present an important lesson of history:

The churching of America was accomplished by aggressive churches committed to vivid otherworldliness.

We need to stop being distracted by the pleasures of this world, and by doctrinal disputes on the fringes of the gospel. Jesus taught that a message of repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached to the world. Maybe he was on to something.

Separation of Church and State

2008-04-21T07:55:00.000-07:00

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- First Amendement to the Constitution of the United States of America

The recent mess in Texas should make people with minority religious beliefs nervous.

Based on an anonymous phone tip that now appears to have been a hoax, 416 children have been taken into state custody from a polygamous sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). While investigating the tip, the law enforcement officers observed pregnant minors in the LDS facility. Based on the apparently pervasive marital practices of this religous group, a decision was made to remove all these children from their homes. At issue are the practice of polygamy, arranged marriages of minor girls, and pregnancy of minors. And yet...

Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist who has studied children in cults....acknowledged that many adults at the ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy. When asked whether the belief system really endangered the older boys or young children, Perry said, "I have lost sleep over that question."

You wont' find me defending the practices that are under government scrutiny in this group. But the indiscriminant removal of such a large number of children from their homes (both boys and girls,) without specific evidence of danger in each child's case, raises serious questions. Just how far can government go to eradicate unpopular religious practices? Did they really think the boys were in danger? If so, on what evidence, and on what legal grounds?

How many of us could go back two or three generations in our own ancestry, and not find that we are descended from a 15 year old mother? Or that we are descended from an arranged marriage? Is that somehow unethical, or un-American?

Of broader concern to me is the ethical issue of government interfering with the practice of religion. Where will this kind of government action take us? Will a church continue to have the right to exclude homosexuals from the ordained ministry? Or, to exclude women from the ministry? Will parents have the right to teach their religion to their children? Or to home school their children? Will the American people consent to their government regulating religious beliefs and practices?

The polygamy issue is complex. Utah has quite a bit more experience in this area than does Texas. These Texas officials are in uncharted territory. They've opened Pandora's box, and they have no idea what is inside. They may find that their cure is worse than the disease.

Today, the issues are religious practices that many (including myself) find bizzarre and repugnant. I wonder whether that will still be true about the issues tomorrow.

I'll close with a quote I've lifted from my daughter's blog:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
(Pastor Martin Niemöller)

Command, Request, or Invitation?

2008-04-12T03:36:00.000-07:00

One reason for the inadequacy of the Command, Example, and Necessary Inference hermeneutic is that it does not make any distinction between commands, requests, and invitations. Anything of the grammatical form of a command is presumed to be mandatory, and failure to comply is seen as disobedience.

A Greek verb in the imperative mood can be a command or prohibition, a request or entreaty, or reluctant permission. Commonly cited examples of these different uses of the imperative mood are:

Command: Mark 2:14 Follow me!
Request: Matt 6:11 Give us today our daily bread.
Permission: 1Co 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so.

In particular, when the imperative mood is combined with the aortist tense, the sense is often as a request or an entreaty, or an invitation. Let's look at a few more examples.

Joh 21:12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."

Here Jesus was inviting the disciples to join him for breakfast, using the aortist tense and the imperative mood to convey an invitation.

In the next example, Lydia invited Paul and his companions to stay at her house:

Act 16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

Again, the invitation was in the aortist tense and the imperative mood.

Jesus invited the weary and burdened to come to him to find rest for their souls:

Mat 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Jesus invited the weary into his rest, using the aortist tense and the imperative mood.

A similar invitation is extended by the Spirit and the bride (the church):

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

The invitation to take the free gift of the water of life was extended using the aortist tense and imperative mood.

Paul used the same kind of verb to appeal to the Corinthians to accept him.

2Co 7:2 Make room for us in your hearts.

Paul is urging and pleading -- not commanding. Again, the verb is in the aortist tense and imperative mood.

Now let's look at another often-discussed passage:

1Th 5:26 Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.

Once again, the verb is in the aortist tense and the imperative mood. Paul is making an appeal or perhaps an invitation to greet one another with a kiss. It would hardly make sense to say "Kiss one another or face the consequences!" Instead he is urging them to show affection -- implying that they should feel affection for one another. To greet with a holy kiss without that affection (obedience "because I said so") would be hypocritical. Instead the Thessalonians were being urged to have affection for one another, and then to show it.

The last example we will examine is just a bit different from the others:

Php 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!

Here, rather than aortist imperative, Paul used the present imperative. Still, it makes no sense to say "Rejoice or face the consequences!" This was an invitation, not a mandate.

These examples illustrate that the scriptures convey a lot of shades of meaning. There surely are mandatory commands in scripture. But not everything in the form of a grammatical command is intended as a mandate. Sometimes God is giving us an invitation rather than a law. The context often supplies the answer directly. But in other cases, it is not so obvious. Understanding the meaning of scripture requires spiritual discernment. What is God's nature? What kind of relationship does he seek with us? And therefore, what is he trying to say to us in these passages?

1Co 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Without spiritual discernment, we will miss the point. And sometimes we have done just that.

Have We Lost Our Way?

2008-04-07T14:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I taught a class on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, on the subject of head coverings. Really.

I cannot remember ever in my life hearing someone else teach this passage. What possible relevance could the subject of head coverings have for a 21st century American church? Why risk the controversy? Why bring up a difficult subject that may confuse a lot of people? And, above all, why teach the congregation that we may have been neglecting a command of scripture for generations?

The reason I taught the class is pretty simple. I am teaching a series on the book of 1 Corinthians. I suppose I could have skipped this topic. But elders are admonished not to shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God to the church. If I choose not to teach this passage, I cannot claim to have taught everything I have been called to teach. God devoted half a chapter in 1 Corinthians to this subject for a reason.

But if I teach a passage of scripture, I have no choice but to teach what I believe it says. So that is what I did.

What kind of reaction would you expect to receive from your congregation from a lesson like that? The response of our congregation was one of keen interest, appreciation, and a desire to study it further. After service, the auditorium was buzzing with conversations on the topic in every aisle. Of particular interest to me, two brothers who are native of other countries came up to me afterward expressing their appreciation that the subject has finally been addressed. They were raised believing this teaching. From their perspective, the American churches have lost their way on the topic of women. We have become saturated with the culture in which we live. The church is becoming more and more like the secular world.

We Americans are like frogs in a pot of water. As the temperature rises to the boiling point, we hardly notice. We don't realize that the rising temperature will eventually kill us. To us, everything seems normal. But to these two brothers from other countries, the insidiously gradual secularization of the American church is obvious. We need to wake up to what is happening.

New Look!

2008-04-04T11:50:00.000-07:00

Don't worry, this is still the same blog! I decided it was time for a facelift. This simple setup makes better use of the screen space. And I like the brighter appearance. Now if I can just find time to add the missing series to my Past Series section, and maybe even add some tags to make the archives more useful.

Hope you like the new look!

Inconvenient Convictions

2008-04-03T11:53:00.000-07:00

Unity would be easy if it wasn't for those pesky convictions.

Through blogging about Christian Unity for the past 30 months, I've come in contact with a lot of great folks who share my desire to promote unity among Christians. I've found a growing number of Christians (particularly among Restoration Movement groups sharing the same conversion doctrine) who believe we've spent too long defending the borders of our various factions. Like me, these folks want to be part of the solution to that problem.

Most of the things dividing churches of Christ are of secondary importance. Communion cups, instrumental music, kitchens, cooperation between congregations, Sunday school classes, Bible translations, and the like are not the central issues of the gospel. (1 Cor 15:1-11) But unity among Christians is of central importance. Jesus prayed for it the night he was betrayed, so that the world would believe. That makes unity among the top priorities for the church. And we must not allow the secondary issues to derail things of higher priority.

Being united does not mean we have to agree on everything. I think it does require that we agree on the core gospel. And it requires that we treat one another with dignity and respect in the areas of disagreement.

I've found that a lot of people agree with me on those matters.

However, in a few ways I feel like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. My conviction about gender roles conflicts with the beliefs of the vast majority of people who are with me on the unity topic. I've listened to other viewpoints and studied the subject carefully, but I keep coming to the same conclusion. I think the scriptures define different roles for men and women in the church. Most of my fellow unity advocates seem to think otherwise. And often they have a hard time understanding me as a result. How could someone who loves unity believe what I believe about gender roles? I don't fit the normal mold.

I suspect that many of us are in my position on at least one subject. We want unity, but we have some inconvenient convictions that we can't deny in good conscience. I have to live by what I believe the scriptures say, whether others agree or not. And as an elder, my conviction affects more people than just myself. That doesn't mean I can't have unity with people who disagree with me. It just means both sides have to overlook a few things, and leave it up to God to take care of the differences.

Sitting on this side of the gender issue, I can clearly see that unity will be a lot more likely if people on the other side will at least show some respect and deference to my convictions. That doesn't mean they have to follow my convictions. But I'm already swimming against the current in order to be true to my beliefs. Any efforts to avoid making it harder for me are appreciated!

And of course I need to offer the same kind of consideration to people who hold different inconvenient convictions. I need to remember how I feel on "my issue" so I can understand how they feel about theirs.

It feels different on the other side of the issue. If we were more sensitive to that fact, it would go a long way toward enabling greater unity.

ElderLink Atlanta 2008

2008-03-30T05:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday my wife and I were blessed to attend ElderLink Atlanta 2008. This has become an annual event hosted at the North Atlanta Church of Christ. Saturday was the third time my wife and I have attended.

The program opened with Earl Lavender speaking on the problem of pain. One of the responsibilities of elders is to prepare the church for suffering. By helping people to glorify God in the midst of suffering, we help them understand the meaning of their trials. Christianity is not always a comfortable life. Paul was willing to share in the suffering of Christ when necessary in order to bring glory to God. We should prepare people so they will be ready when they encounter suffering.

John York spoke about leading relationally rather than judicially. Often elders govern like a supreme court, hearing hard cases and announcing verdicts. In churches of Christ, our view of scripture has been judicial / legal. The hermeneutic "command, example, and necessary inference" is a legal approach to scripture, deriving laws from the text. Instead, we should read the scriptures from a relational perspective. Jesus taught us to pray to "Our Father" in heaven. The concepts of being "In Christ," "the bride of Christ", "the body of Christ" etc are all relational concepts, and are central to scripture and to the church. The scriptures emphasize relationship, but taking a legal approach to the scriptures causes us to miss much of that.

During the breakout sessions, I attended the two sessions on how elders should handle sexual abuse cases in the church. Among the shocking statistics we learned, 20% of girls and 18% of boys in the US have been abused sometime in their childhood. There are an estimated 39 million survivors of sexual abuse in America. We learned how one congregation dealt with a sexual abuse situation, including the need to take care of the victim, the victim's family, the perpetrator, the church, the government, and the church leaders themselves. The sad truth is that we will all probably have to deal with this issue at some point.

John Siburt spoke on the relationship between ministers and elders, and the "tools of the trade" that each group uses to carry out their responsibilties: worship, conversation with scripture, spiritual disciplines, stories (ours and those of others), and relationships.

One of the highlights of the day for me was meeting Jay Guin. I've enjoyed reading his blog and comment on it frequently here. Among other things, I learned that I have been pronouncing his name wrong! (it's pronounced "Gyoo-win" or something close to that, not "Gwin.") We talked about blogs and opportunities to influence the church toward a better place through writing. I wish we had more time to talk!

I also was blessed to encounter a brother from my college days (just after the earth cooled...) who is now an elder in Raleigh. We had lost contact over the years, and it was great to reconnect. He traveled with another brother we both knew from college, whom I have seen at past ElderLinks. It is encouraging to see what God has done in these brothers' lives over the years.

I very much appreciate the North Atlanta Church of Christ for hosting this event, and also Abilene Christian University for making this event available. For me, the opportunity to learn from church leaders in other places is invaluable. The mature perspective and practical experience of the speakers at every ElderLink helps me to carry out my responsibilities in a better way. I need a lot more of this kind of thing!

Elders

2008-03-21T18:11:00.000-07:00

On one matter, the vast majority of churches of Christ are in agreement: a church cannot have only one elder. If the congregation does not have two or more men meeting the biblical qualifications, that church does not appoint elders. And if, for whatever reason, the number of elders in a congregation is reduced until only one remains, that individual can no longer serve as an elder.

While this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the scriptures, I believe it is an incomplete picture. Our understanding of the scriptures on this subject (and on many others) is tainted by our modern preconceptions about the church. Further, our understanding is clouded by our reaction against practices of other groups that we believe to be wrong. As a result, while we have very definite and strong convictions about the subject, our convictions are not completely aligned with scripture.

The basic idea of a plurality of elders comes from passages like these:

Act 14:21-23 They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God," they said. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

Act 20:17 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.

Php 1:1-2 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers [elders] and deacons: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Ti 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

It is apparent in each of those cases that there were more than one elder in each of these churches.

Let's consider another passage:

Tit 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Here, Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in every town. One might reasonably ask whether these elders were associated with a single congregation or with multiple congregations within that town. J. W. McGarvey comments on this passage:

Titus was left at Crete to ordain Elders in every city, which is equivalent to ordaining them in every church, because there was but one church in each city.

Later he states:

It is true that in these cities the disciples often had several meeting places, but there is no evidence of separate and independent organizations.

It is easily proven that first century cities often had multiple congregations. Romans 16 mentions at least three separate house churches (verses 5,14,15), along with numerous individuals who were not included in any of those three groups. The churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Ephesus were especially large, perhaps tens of thousands of members. It is quite likely that those groups seldom if ever assembled together as a single group after reaching such large numbers. The same may have been true in other cities as well.

The church in Jerusalem is particularly instructive on this question. Consider the following:

Act 21:17-19 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

When Paul arrived, he found all of the Jerusalem elders meeting together with James. That is very significant, since verse 20 tells us the church was exceedingly large:

Act 21:20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

Verse 20 speaks of how many "myriads" of Jews have believed -- literally, how many "tens of thousands." Suffice it to say that the Jerusalem church was huge, by modern standards. It seems completely infeasible for so many to assemble together regularly for Sunday worship in ancient Jerusalem. Communion alone would have been a logistical nightmare -- not to mention such mundane concerns as restroom facilities (without indoor plumbing).

So the Jerusalem church was really made up of many smaller congregations. There must have been many elders in Jerusalem, but no elder could have served as shepherd for every one of those thousands of disciples. Instead, they would have divided the work so that each of the available elders could focus on a manageable group of disciples.

Yet, when Paul arrived, he found the elders meeting together with James. And the group of elders together addressed the controversy of Paul's arrival and asked Paul to participate in some Jewish purification rites. In their shepherding role, they must have divided the labor. But in their overseeing role, they made a joint decision.

Today, when we read these passages, we naturally picture a church like our modern-day congregations -- a few hundred at most, in a modern church building, with a group of elders who serve only the people who assemble in that one place. In many cities there may be a dozen or more of these churches of Christ, each of which acts like it is the only church in the city. The leaders of those different congregations might get together on rare occasion for a fellowship breakfast, but you can be sure that the business of city-wide congregational oversight will not be on the agenda. We hold our autonomy dearly.

What if we acknowledged that there is one church of Christ in our city? Could we have one eldership in the city? Could we jointly oversee a collection of smaller congregations within the city?

James wrote to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations -- believing Jews in many remote places. In chapter 5 he instructed them:

Jas 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.

What would one of these Jews do if he needed to call elders, but there were none in his remotely situated house church? Wouldn't he call for the nearest elders he could find? Would those elders refuse to come because the sick one was a member of a small autonomous congregation lacking its own elders? Or was James only providing instructions for those lucky enough to be in a congregation that had its own elders?

In Acts 15, we have another instructive incident:

Act 15:1-2 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

The church in Antioch sent to Jerusalem for an answer to their dispute, even though they already had an apostle present. They specifically went to hear, not only from the apostles, but also from the elders in Jerusalem. As we know, the apostles and elders met to discuss the matter, and that same group wrote a response to the church in Antioch. No dominant elder nor apostle made the decision alone--despite the presence of numerous men possessing the gift of prophecy. The decision reached was a group decision.

Furthermore, the decision was delivered to many other congregations in the region besides Antioch:

Act 16:4 As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.

The elders in Jerusalem participated in a group decision which the congregations in the region were expected to obey. This incident sets a precedent for elders in one church to provide support for congregations in their region who did not have their own elders.

What should we make of all this?

First, it appears that our concept of a church is quite different from the biblical concept. There really is only one church, and parts of it meet in many places. In each city, a group of elders should oversee the church (singular) in that city. Their role can even extend beyond the city to support nearby congregations that lack elders.

For the purpose of shepherding, the work can and must be divided up into manageable portions. A shepherd must know his sheep. But for oversight, there needs to be a plurality. The group of elders should work together to come to decisions. No single elder is the emperor of his own little kingdom. Instead, the elders hold one another accountable to the high standards of the eldership, and make decisions as a group. That is the biblical example.

We who serve as elders need to take down the barriers between our congregations. We have been appointed by God to oversee the welfare of His church. We are only doing a limited part of that job.

Liminality

2008-03-12T07:09:00.000-07:00

Jay Guin taught me a new word.

In his recent post titled "The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ: Part 4, Defining Our Challenges" he describes what the progressive mainline churches are currently experiencing. He explains that liminality is "the condition of a human society that has just experienced major change." From Wikipedia:

The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. One’s sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed - a situation which can lead to new perspectives.

Some mainline churches are trying to move past legalistic confines of the past. In doing so, they need to redefine who they are and what they stand for. Along the way they are experiencing liminality.

I am struck by the similarity between their condition and that of the former ICOC congregations. Having thrown off the structures and rules that once defined us, we now are are seeking to discover the new boundaries. The Plan for United Cooperation, the disciplestoday.com web site, and the International Leadership Conferences (among many other things) are all efforts to create that new definition of identity, direction, and vision.

Fortunately, we have the scriptures to define what we need to become. And we have the Holy Spirit within us to produce the right fruits. Cooperating, communicating, and meeting together are all good things. But God has given us the only standard to define what the church should be.

Coming from such a clearly defined past, the ambiguity of the present is unsettling to some people. This is a test of faith. Do we really believe God is at work? Do we believe the scriptures are enough? Do we believe grace is sufficient? Are we still committed to seeking God's will? If so, then everything is going to be ok.

Judah spent seventy years in captivity. Some of the greatest examples of faith occurred during those years. For example, just read the book of Daniel! Like Daniel, we need to live by faith through the period of liminality. God will never leave us nor forsake us. We'll be ok.

Trade Barriers in the Church

2008-03-10T12:55:00.000-07:00

"Protectionism in all its guises, both domestic and international does not contribute to the welfare of American workers. At best, it is a short-term fix at a cost of lower standards of living for the nation as a whole." -- Alan Greenspan (2002)

Alan Greenspan, highly respected former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has been a long time critic of protectionism -- the practice of limiting foreign competition by erecting barriers to trade (tarrifs, quotas, subsidies, etc). Economists generally agree that trade which is free from such barriers produces benefits to the economies of both parties in the trading relationship. As Greenspan noted in the above quote, protectionism may appear to produce short term benefits, but actually leads to the long term detriment of those whom it was supposed to benefit.

Perhaps the same could be said about the "economies" of churches. Churches that share the same core doctrine about salvation often find themselves applying similar protectionist policies to retain their members.

For better or worse, there is a perceived competition among churches for members. In a given community, there may be many churches. Members in each of these churches could choose to attend whichever church they want. Since the viability of each congregation depends on its ability to retain its members, there is a built-in incentive for church leaders (especially full-time salaried leaders) to create barriers to keep people from leaving their congregation for another.

Sometimes, the barrier of choice is to convince members that the other churches are inferior. A church may accomplish this by emphasizing any existing (or imagined) doctrinal differences, or by creating the impression (whether true or false) that other churches are less committed, or have other spiritual deficiencies. By doing so, they attempt to deter members from wanting to be associated with one of the other congregations. At the same time, they may be neglecting the real spiritual needs of their own congregation.

Others take a different approach. They try to retain members by producing a high quality product. That might be accomplished by excelling in Bible teaching, preaching, and ministering to the spiritual needs of the members. Or it might be accomplished by building such strong family relationships among members, that people want to stay together. Or it might mean catering to certain demographic groups (alternate languages, music, specific ministries, etc). It might include all of those approaches, and more.

It is difficult to excel at everything, especially for a small church. It might not be practical for a church of 100 members to support programs in more than one language, for example. It would be better for each church to identify the area or areas of ministry in which they have a natural advantage, and to excel in those areas. Then the various churches can benefit from each other's strengths.

Protectionism prevents that kind of benefit, by building walls between churches. As Alan Greenspan said, protectionism does not contribute to the long term benefit of the average person. At best it produces a limited short term local benefit, with a larger long term cost. In the end, all the congregations would become poorer because of it. The average member would be worse off in the long run.

There are certainly some doctrinal issues between churches that warrant protective measures. But the constructive way to protect in those areas is to teach the scriptures on those doctrinal subjects. It is not necessary to sully the public image of another congregation to accomplish that.

Elders and ministers who are responsible for the care of God's church should take a constructive approach to retaining members. Let's help one another to excel at the task God has given us. We are on the same team.

The Stone - Campbell Union

2008-03-06T05:12:00.000-08:00

Two groups of restoration-minded Christians came together in 1832.

Alexander Campbell had been seeking to bring about the vision his father Thomas had articulated in his Declaration and Address of 1809. Working for reforms within the Baptist church for two decades, Campbell called for a restoration of the "ancient order". There was significant resistance to some of his teachings (particularly regarding the role of the the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments in Christian doctrine.) The so-called Baptist Reformers were finally pushed out of the Baptist fellowship beginning in 1829. Due to the autonomous nature of the Baptist churches, this happened in isolated places at first, and spread until by 1832 the Baptist Reformers were completely separate. These reformer congregations continued to associate with each other, and diligently preached the "ancient gospel" and calling people to the "ancient order." To avoid creating a new party named after a person (as the Lutherans and Wesleyans) or a characteristic doctrine (as the Baptists and Presbyterians,) they chose the name Disciples of Christ. For similar reasons, Campbell ceased publishing the Christian Baptist and began a new paper, the Millennial Harbinger.

The second group was led by Barton Stone. Stone had broken away from the Presbyterian church in 1803, and began calling believers to unite under the name "Christians" upon the Bible alone. He formed congregations throughout Ohio and Kentucky.

As the Disciples and the Christians went about preaching in the same territory, they naturally encountered one another. They found that they held many of the same convictions, and began to associate informally. But there was one difference in their doctrine. The Disciples held that a person must be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins in order to enter the fellowship of believers. The Christians taught baptism for forgiveness of sins, but they received new members simply by giving "the right hand of fellowship," and left it up to each one to decide whether to be baptized. The two leaders held each other in high respect, and communicated on more than one occasion about the possibility of a union between the two groups. Campbell had significant influence on Stone in bringing him around on the key topics of difference.

Meanwhile, the members of the two groups continued to associate with one another at every opportunity. Then in January 1832, representatives of the two movements (John "Raccoon" Smith from the Disciples, and Barton Stone from the Christians) met in Lexington to discuss a union. They agreed to unify based on the Bible and the Bible only. They were not concerned about their different opinions on various topics, and agreed not to make those opinions a condition of fellowship. The two groups in attendance became one that day, and went out to take the message of union to the other congregations.

Maybe we can do that again one day.

Marks of the Church

2008-03-02T14:33:00.000-08:00

A current conversation over at Jay Guin's blog sparked my interest in the "marks of the church." On the surface, the concept has some unpleasant connotations for someone who longs for the visible unity of the Lord's church. Proclaiming a list of "marks of the church" seems to move in the other direction, distinguishing one church from all the others. It says "We are the true church. The others are not."

Apparently the concept comes originally from the Catholic church. In the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, the phrase "[We believe]... in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" was added to the Nicene Creed. These four adjectives became known as the "Four Marks of the Church." The four marks are associated not only with the Catholic church, but also appear in creeds of many Protestant denominations.

A quick Google search brings back interesting results on the subject. In the early 1900's, in a book titled "Trail of Blood", J. H. Carroll identified eleven marks of the (Baptist) church:

1. Its Head and Founder--CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)

2. Its only rule of faith and practice--THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)

3. Its name--"CHURCH," "CHURCHES." (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)

4. Its polity--CONGREGATIONAL--all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)

5. Its members--only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)

6. Its ordinances--BELIEVERS' BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20)

7. Its officers--PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)

8. Its work--getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God's Word), teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"). (Matt. 28:16-20)

9. Its financial plan--"Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (I Cor. 9:14)

10. Its weapons of warfare--spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)

11. Its independence--separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

In more recent times, defining the marks of the true church seems to have become something of a hobby among a few groups. Churches of Christ have taken our turn at this hobby. Searching Google for "marks of the New Testament Church" helps to narrow down to the the efforts of churches of Christ to define these marks. A few examples of these efforts (ppt) suffice to show what they are trying to accomplish. These lists emphasize the features that make churches of Christ unique. They seem designed to prove that churches of Christ are the only true churches. While the principles in these lists may be correct, it cannot be shown from the scriptures that a church missing one of these characteristics is therefore not a true church. (For example, a church with a name not found in scripture is not for that reason a false church.)

Biblically, there was only one church, with local congregations in many places. A person who became a Christian automatically became a member of the church and began to assemble together with the other Christians in their location. Similarly today, any assembly of Christians is the church in that location. So the true mark of a church is that it is composed of Christians. Any assembly of true Christians is a true church of Christ.

There are many topics and issues on which many churches differ. Some of these differences are quite significant. The same was true in the first century. Based on the information we have from the scriptures, perhaps the Corinthian church was farthest from sound doctrine and practice in its day. That congregation was divided into factions; they condoned sexual immorality; they were taking one another to court; they were playing with idolatry; they were abandoning the gender roles they had been taught; they were corrupting the Lord's supper; they had an unhealthy attitude toward spiritual gifts; and some of them even denied the resurrection of the dead. Yet Paul did not hestiate to call them a church of God. They were sanctified by God.

The only definitive marks that distinguish a true church from a false one is whether or not its members are Christians. Whatever else may be wrong with them, they are an assembly of people saved by the blood of Christ. The other things matter, sometimes profoundly. But if the members are Christians, the blood of Christ continually cleanses them. The blood of Christ on each member is the only defining mark of the true church.

Church Membership - Part 2

2008-02-25T17:19:00.000-08:00

In my previous post I talked about church membership from a biblical perspective. There just doesn't seem to be any biblical support for a concept of church membership distinct from the list of Christians who assemble together at a regular time and place.

But there is another side to the story about church membership. This article from 2005 on Christianity Today advocates a definitive approach to church membership for the legal protection of the church. In the course of practicing its religious convictions, a church may have to take action that leads to a civil lawsuit. The biblical practice of church discipline is a clear example of a Christian doctrine that might lead to a lawsuit.

A person who is disciplined by the church might claim he or she did not consent to the practice as a part of being a member. By clearly defining who is a member, and clearly teaching the doctrine of the church on the matter of church discipline, a church can protect itself in the eyes of the secular courts. They can show that the disciplined member knew, or should have known, the teaching of the church regarding discipline. Since the disciplined member continued to be a member anyway, he or she assumed the responsibility for the consequences of that decision. So the church would have a strong position in the event of a lawsuit.

If the church has not taken adequate measures to define membership and to teach about church discipline, the threat of lawsuits might deter them from carrying out biblical discipline. That may in turn lead to harm coming to members of the church by the one who should have been disciplined -- and even more risk of lawsuits.

The approach advocated in the Christianity Today article is to have a "membership covenant" signed by each member, stating among other things their awareness of church discipline policy. With such a signed statement on file, a disciplined member would have little recourse in the secular courts. That approach probably sounds good to a lawyer, but it sounds pretty heavy-handed and insensitive to me. I don't know of any church that carries matters that far, in an effort to protect against the remote possibility of a future discipline case leading to a lawsuit.

I'm just not comfortable with placing requirements on church membership that come from an indisputably secular source. I think it should be enough to keep a membership list, to have a process for welcoming new members, and a regular practice of teaching the scriptures, including the subject of discipline. Then, if discipline is necessary, the church should document each step in the process as a person is warned about what will happen if they do not repent. In all such cases, the church should seek the advice of a good Christian lawyer to guide them through the process.

The day a Christian first arrives in our midst is not the time to talk about the prospect of expelling them from the church. Christians should be welcomed into the church with open arms and made to feel like a beloved part of the family. That is what they are!

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so take my advice on this with a grain of salt!

Church Membership

2008-02-20T20:04:00.000-08:00

What does it mean to be a "member" of a congregation?

We read of quite a few congregations in the New Testament. Paul wrote two letters to "the church of God in Corinth." Galatians was written to "the churches in Galatia." Romans chapter 16 mentions multiple churches (Gk ekklesias, or assembly). The term "church" referred to the people who assembled together regularly in a particular place. It was obvious who was a part of a particular church. What made a person a member of a certain church was that they were a Christian, and that they assembled with that group.

When a person went from one congregation to another, there seems to have been a practice of sending a letter of recommendation:

Act 18:27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

1Co 16:3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

2Co 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you?

Php 2:29 Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him,

Col 4:10 My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)

3Jn 1:10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

The purpose of those letters was to confirm the fact that the person was a faithful Christian. The letter did not add another requirement for church membership. Diotrephes apparently was refusing to accept some from another congregation who came with a proper recommendation -- and was publicly "called out" for his refusals.

Shepherds need to know who is part of the flock under their care. So there needs to be some kind of communication to let the shepherds know the sheep, and to let the sheep know the shepherds. But what should be the process for accepting a member into a local congregation?

It seems reasonable (and there is biblical precedent) to confirm with the previous congregation that the person is a faithful Christian. But a Christian's "membership" in the congregation should not be contingent upon the leadership exercising that option. It also seems reasonable to explain to the new member what the local leadership expects of all the Christians (Heb 13:17). But again, their "membership" should not be contingent on leadership getting around to having that conversation. As soon as a Christian begins assembling with the rest, he or she is a part of the assembly (aka church.) A Christian should not be expected to jump through hoops to become a member of the local congregation. There should be no probationary period!

Once someone is a member of a congregation, they should be considered a member until they move to another congregation, or until they fall away. If they move, there should be a positive communication with their new congregation to be sure that shepherds there are aware of their new sheep. If a person is showing signs of falling away, multiple persistent attempts must be made to bring them back. A sheep does not cease to be the responsibility of the shepherds when the sheep wanders away! (Eze 34:2-6 Eze 34:12 Eze 34:16) It is not the responsibility of the sheep to seek out the shepherd. Rather the shepherd is responsible to retrieve the wandering sheep. Wandering sheep are still part of the flock, and are still the responsibility of the flock's shepherds.

The modern concept of church membership is not found in the scriptures. It seems to have been invented to simplify the job of shepherds. But in effect it gives shepherds an excuse not to do an important part of their jobs. I don't think that excuse will stand up on the day of judgment.

Those are my thoughts on the question. I am interested to know how other congregations handle this.

Motivation

2008-02-18T06:12:00.000-08:00

Heb 10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

A primary responsibility of church leadership is to prepare God's people for works of service. (Eph 4:11-12) I've written before about the need for Christians to be active in doing good works. This is the purpose for which we were created in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:8-10) By doing good works we bring glory to God (Matt 5:14-16, 1 Pet 2:12). It is therefore essential for church leadership to be effective at promoting good works in the life of every Christian.

We are instructed to consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good works. So let's consider that question. What motivates people to do good works?

An interesting study published in 1973 illustrates some fascinating and valuable insights into motivation. Quoting from an article citing that study:

The 1973 paper "Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis" by M Lepper, D Green & R Nisbett, reported an interesting experimental observation. During children's free-play time, a fun drawing activity was introduced. They observed the children playing and selected those children who appeared to find intrinsic satisfaction in drawing. These children were placed under three different conditions.

Condition 1: "Good Player" certificate was shown to some of the children, and asked if they would like to draw to win the certificate.

Condition 2: Some children were given the opportunity to simply engage in drawing and the children were given the "Good Player" certificate unexpectedly.

Condition 3: Some children simply drew without expecting or receiving any reward.

Two weeks later, all these children were again allowed to engage in the drawing activity. The result was interesting. It was found that the children who chose to draw for the reward showed less interest in drawing, and also when the reward was withdrawn, these children simply stopped drawing. Children in the other two conditions showed no significant change in their interest in drawing. The result seems to suggest that the external reward of a "Good Player" certificate destroyed the original intrinsic motivation for drawing.

The above study suggests that intrinsic motivation (that which is based on satisfaction inherent in the activity itself) can be displaced by extrinsic motivation (that which is based on rewards and punishments.) Once intrinsic motivation has been displaced, it can be hard to get back. In the end, people often lose all motivation to do what they once were highly motivated to do.

How does this apply to Christians doing good works?

Clearly, God uses rewards and punishments to get us to do the right things. But we are also called to do things out of a higher motivation. The greatest command is to love God. The love of God should compel us to do the right things (2 Cor 5:14-15). God created this motivation by sending his son to die on the cross for us. We love because God first loved us. And therefore we serve in joyful, grateful response. That is an intrinsic motivation.

The second greatest command is to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are called to serve one another in love (Gal 5:13). When our serving is prompted by love for the person we serve, we are acting on intrinsic motivation. If our service is not prompted by love, we accomplish nothing. (1 Cor 13:1-3).

The reward and punishment God uses as motivation are heaven and hell. From the parable of the sheep and the goats:

Matt 25:34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.' "

Matt 25:41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels' "

We should use all the motivations that God uses to spur one another on toward love and good works. But if we add our own rewards and punishments to the mix, we are taking a dangerous path. Many of us have seen man-made motivations (supervision and management of performance with rewards and punishments) kill the healthy intrinsic motivation to do good, over a period of years.

The church should not manage performance with rewards and punishments like the corporate world does. Instead we should nurture people's intrinsic motivation. Like the apostle Paul, we should focus on traits like compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience (Col 3:12) We should cultivate the field so that the good fruit will thrive. Let's cultivate love as the fundamental motivation for the Christian life. Love never fails.

Echoes of Sand Creek

2008-02-10T20:01:00.000-08:00

I learned today that a group of churches of Christ in Oklahoma and Texas has taken out an ad in the Oklahoman disfellowshipping the minister of the Quail Springs Church of Christ for adding a second morning service with instrumental music.

Whatever a person's convictions are about instrumental music, one must question the wisdom of taking this quarrel public. What possible benefit comes to those outside the church by publicly displaying our dissensions and strife? Jesus prayed that we would be one so that the world would believe he was sent by God. What is the effect on that when the world sees our bitter infighting over such a topic?

We have been down this road before. I have previously commented on the Sand Creek Address and Declaration of 1889. In that fiasco, a group of churches disfellowshipped other congregations for introducing what they considered to be unauthorized practices. The events at Sand Creek marked the institution of a suicidal policy of purifying the church through division. That policy has played out over and over again in the years since 1889, resulting in splits over literally dozens of arcane disagreements. If a tree is known by its fruit, this policy is a tree that deserves to be cut down and thrown into the fire!

The lead character in the Sand Creek drama was a man named Daniel Sommer. One sad irony of Sand Creek is that Daniel Sommer spent his final years trying unsuccessfully to undo what he had done. Let us pray that the men who published the recent ad in the Oklahoman will one day have a similar change of heart, and that they too will spend their latter days striving to undo the damage they have done to the Lord's church. That day cannot come soon enough.

Why I Believe the Bible

2008-02-07T06:42:00.000-08:00

One of my daughters sent me a link to another great Voddie Baucham sermon titled "Why I Believe the Bible," based on 2 Pet 1:16-21. The sermon is on YouTube in six parts (roughly five minutes each). Voddie Baucham is a Baptist elder and preacher whom I've mentioned before. I've forwarded this sermon to our church leaders. Though Baucham is a Baptist preacher, he has some profound things to say that our church of Christ leaders need to hear!

At the end of the sermon he makes an appeal for expository preaching.

I just shared an expository sermon. I preached the text, in its context. I did not try to be more creative than God... Here's what I'm worried about. There are a lot of us who believe in the inerrancy of scripture. But some of us don't preach like we believe in the sufficiency of scripture.

As shepherds and teachers, we are responsible to teach the scriptures to our churches. We need more expository preaching. We need to preach the text! Everything the church needs is in there. If we can't find a passage that conveys the message we want to deliver, when properly understood in its context, maybe we want to deliver the wrong message.

When Christians Disagree

2008-02-03T14:19:00.000-08:00

Life in the church would be so much simpler if we all agreed.

But we don't.

We all share some essential things in common. We all believe in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead. We all repented of our sins and were baptized into Jesus. We all were added to his body, the church. We share in common the hope of heaven. We are brothers and sisters.

However, on many other subjects we have our differences. Some of those differences are the result of our differing backgrounds, and the different levels of knowledge about the Bible that we brought with us into the church. Other differences exist because some of us have been around longer and have learned things that others have yet to learn. And some of those differences are due to fully informed but different understandings on difficult topics. A congregation where everyone is in complete agreement on all subjects would be either very unusual, or very small; probably both!

The local congregation should be a place where Christians are safe to disagree with one another on many topics. It should be safe for a Christian to change his or her mind about a topic as he grows and learns -- and then later, to change his minds back again! Without freedom to change, there can be no real growth.

Of course the church leadership has a role to teach the truth, helping the members to come to a common understanding on these subjects. But notice how the apostle Paul dealt with differing viewpoints:

Phi 3:15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
2Ti 2:25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Paul did not demand uniformity of beliefs. Instead he gently instructed and patiently waited for the person's understanding to mature, as God works in each person's life.

The book of 1 Corinthians addresses several topics which are highly controversial in today's world. Among these are divorce and remarriage, head coverings, and the silence of women in public assembly. Is there room in the church of Christ for different views on topics like these?

I think churches are obligated to accommodate different convictions on some topics. Few churches today expect women to wear head coverings. But some women still believe that the scriptures command it. According to Romans 14, it is essential that churches eliminate any social pressure to conform to the majority opinion on a matter of conscience. Those who have the conviction to practice an unpopular belief should be respected for their integrity and perseverance. Rather than feeling shame or embarrassment, they should be held up as examples of devotion. That must be taught and reinforced regularly in the church.

The topic of women speaking publicly is a bit different. Church leadership makes the decision about whether or not to permit women to address the congregation. But if the church decides to permit it, they still must honor the conscience of any member whose conscience does not permit her to speak. And the congregation must constantly be vigilant so that a woman is not tempted to violate her conscience in this matter in order to conform to the majority. It might be necessary to abstain from having any women speak, simply to avoid causing one of these sisters to stumble.

Differences about divorce and remarriage present a more difficult situation. Unfortunately it is no simple matter to come to consensus about how to apply the scriptures to all the particular situations that can arise. In some difficult situations, after teaching to the best of our ability, we must leave the final decision to the person whose soul is at stake. It is up to them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. In other situations, the biblical madate is clear. Bible study, prayers for wisdom, and many advisors are the necessary ingredients for determining the correct counsel to give in a particular situation.

Teachers will be judged more strictly. Church leaders are responsible to teach the scriptures accurately. The church should teach sound doctrine on the subject as a matter of course, so that the members have solid convictions before an emotional situation arises to tempt them. Teaching "accurately" does not mean automatically teaching the most restrictive possible interpretation, nor the most permissive. Instead it means to communicate whatever ambiguity we see in the scripture, and to call the person to seek the Lord's will.

It would be much simpler if we could just ignore the ambiguities on difficult subjects, and teach one side of the disputed issues as if that were the whole truth. But that would not be honest. Instead, we must build an environment in the local congregation that allows the diversity and freedom for people to learn and to seek the Lord's will as individuals. The church needs to be a safe place to do that.

Now that would be a remarkable congregation.

First Corinthians: Practical Matters

2008-01-30T19:57:00.000-08:00

With the stirring conclusion to chapter 15, Paul had completed the primary task of the letter. He had addressed a litany of serious spiritual issues in the Corinthian church, concluding with the message of triumph and hope, the resurrection. In chapter 16 he addressed some miscellaneous practical matters, and closed the letter.

First, he gave instructions about how to collect the offering for the church in Jerusalem. They were to take up the collection on the first day of each week, so that no collection would need to be taken when he arrived. Paul requested cautious arrangements to avoid any appearance of impropriety with the money when it would be delivered to Jerusalem.

Paul wanted to come to Corinth -- obviously he saw the need for outside leadership help -- but had conflicting needs in Ephesus that prevented him from coming immediately.

1Co 16:5-9 After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you--for I will be going through Macedonia. Perhaps I will stay with you awhile, or even spend the winter, so that you can help me on my journey, wherever I go. I do not want to see you now and make only a passing visit; I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits. But I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost, because a great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me.

One can only imagine the difficulty in deciding to delay a visit to Corinth. The church there certainly needed help from a strong leadership. Since he could not come himself, Paul intended to send Timothy to them (1 Cor 4:17). The situation in Corinth would have been challenging for a seasoned veteran, but Timothy was a young man. Paul admonished the church to receive Timothy with respect and to treat him well.

Paul had wanted to send Apollos but he was unwilling to go at the time. Many commentators believe Apollos may have been reluctant to go because of the factions that had formed, one of which was aligning behind him. Perhaps he did not want to run the risk of feeding that unhealthy situation. Or perhaps some situation where Apollos was currently serving required that he not leave immediately. Paul assured the Corinthian church that Apollos would come when he had opportunity.

1Co 16:13-14 Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. Do everything in love.

Those five traits were characteristics of Jesus, and his followers are called to exhibit those same traits. Especially pertinent to the Corinthians was the instruction to do it all in love.

Paul urged the church to submit and support its leaders.

1Co 16:15-16 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it.

It seems that wherever Aquila and Priscilla went, they hosted a church in their house (Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19).

1Co 16:19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Paul sent his love and greetings, along with that of the others with him. It is remarkable, given the depth of issues he had addressed in this letter, the warmth of his greetings in the end. He did not hesitate to call them the church of God in the opening of the letter. And he did not withhold his affection at the end of the letter. With all their failures, these Corinthians were Paul's dear brothers and sisters. That would become all the more emphatic in the next letter.

The issues Paul addressed in this letter would apparently, for the most part, be addressed to Paul's satisfaction (2 Cor 7:6-9). But Paul would soon have to write them another difficult letter, and would have to visit them a third time (2 Cor 13:1).

We can take comfort in the devotion of Paul to this trouble-filled church. God does not give up on his children, and neither should we. In chapter after chapter, Paul called the Corinthian church back to the gospel. Because of the gospel, they should live a certain kind of life. That is also the take-home message from the letter for us today.

First Corinthians: The Resurrection Body

2008-01-30T05:06:00.000-08:00

Some in the Corinthian church were doubting the resurrection from the dead. Paul summarized their objections:

1Co 15:35 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?"

To answer these questions, Paul used three lines of reasoning:

1) He used the analogy of a seed. A seed is removed from its host plant and "dies" (ceases to grow and to be nourished) and is planted in the ground. Then it germinates and a new plant is formed. Similarly, when our bodies die, we will receive a new body.

2) He reminded them that there are a variety of types of bodies in this world. God gave to each part of creation its on body, suitable for that creature. Similarly, God will give us a body suitable to the world where we will live after the resurrection. That body will be different from the one we have today:

1Co 15:42-44 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

3) He reminded them how God changed things by sending Jesus. Man descended from Adam, who was created from the dust of the earth. But Jesus came from heaven, as a "life-giving spirit." The physical man (Adam) came first, and later the spiritual man (Jesus). On this earth we are like Adam, but in heaven we will be like Jesus.

1Co 15:45-49 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

So Paul reaches the conclusion of his argument. We will not enter the kingdom of heaven with our present bodies. Instead, we will receive an imperishable body at the resurrection.

1Co 15:50-53 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

It is worth noting that Paul was not only writing for the church in his day, since he wrote "We will not all sleep..." He probably did believe that Jesus would come back in his generation, but the Holy Spirit who inspired those words certainly knew there would be many more generations of Christians who would read these words. We are part of Paul's "we." We really are not just reading someone else's mail when we read this letter.

We will be changed at the resurrection. We will get new bodies. We will not be disembodied spirits. Our bodies will be different in some dramatic and unimaginable ways from our present bodies. The language of this chapter gives us a general idea of what will happen, but we do not know the specifics.

Paul presented this explanation to answer the doubters who were questioning how the resurrection could be possible. At the resurrection, it becomes a whole new ball game. We will be imperishable. Our new bodies will not die.

1Co 15:54-57 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

By the grace and power of God, we will overcome death. We will look back on death as a paper tiger. What a day that will be!

1Co 15:58 Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Let's persevere to the end, so that we can enjoy that victory!

First Corinthians: The Gospel and the Resurrection

2008-01-28T18:21:00.000-08:00

The Corinthian church had drifted far from the gospel Paul had delivered a few short years earlier.

Some of them had formed factions behind various favorite leaders.
Some of them were condoning blatant sexual sin.
Some of them were suing one another in pagan courts.
Some of them were disregarding the consciences of others regarding meat sacrificed to idols.
Some of them were toying with idolatry.
Some of them were abandoning teachings on gender roles in the church.
Some of them were despising the poor at the Lord's Supper, turning it into a self-indulgent sham.
Some of them were using spiritual gifts for their own selfish ambitions.
Some of them were denying the resurrection from the dead.

In each case, those Corinthians were missing the point of the gospel. Paul had repeatedly pointed them back to the gospel for correction.

Of all their errors, among the most severe issue was the denial of the resurrection. In chapter 15, Paul called them back to the foundational message of Christianity.

1Co 15:3-8 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Jesus had died "for our sins, according to the Scriptures" and was raised from the dead on the third day. Many witnesses of his resurrection were still alive at the time Paul wrote this letter. Those Corinthians who questioned whether the resurrection really happened could verify it with a large number of eyewitnesses. God did not leave them without evidence!

Paul reminded them that this was what he had preached to them a few years earlier, and this is the message they had believed. On this gospel the Corinthian Christians had taken their stand.

1Co 15:12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Some in the church were teaching that there is no resurrection of the dead. Paul pointed out what should have been obvious: Those who deny the resurrection of the dead are denying the heart of the gospel message. One cannot be a Christian without believing in the resurrection of the dead.

Paul offered a list of strong arguments for resurrection, concluding with:

1Co 15:16-18 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But of course Christ was raised from the dead (as all those still-living witnesses could testify.) And therefore we will all be raised from the dead.

1Co 15:21-23 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

The symmetry between Adam and Jesus is also discussed in Romans.

The resurrection of Christ foreshadows the resurrection of those who belong to him, which will occur at Jesus' return. When Jesus returns, death will be destroyed, and he will deliver the kingdom to his Father.

Paul continued to present the case for the resurrection:

1Co 15:29-32 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day--I mean that, brothers--just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

This may be the most puzzling passage in the entire New Testament. What is "baptism for the dead?" Some sources suggest that as many as 200 different interpretations have been proposed for verse 29. None of those potential explanations is without problems. The only consensus among scholars is that this is a perplexing verse. Perhaps the best we can do is to infer what it might mean from the surrounding verses and the general argument being made. The following explanation seems as likely as any other to me, though admittedly it has its own difficulties.

As 1 Cor 15:30-32 explains, Paul had given up his life to preach the gospel, at great personal cost and great risk. Why would he do that if there were no resurrection from the dead? Similarly, as we learn in Romans 6, all Christians were baptized into Christ's death. In baptism we were all united with Christ in his death. By our baptisms we enter into the suffering of Christ. We submitted to that in the hope that one day we may be united with him in his resurrection. But if there is no resurrection, why were we baptized into Christ's death? What hope motivates it? Why are people baptized into Christ's death, if there is no hope of a resurrection? Perhaps that is the meaning of verse 29.

1Co 15:33-34 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame.

Paul thus rebuked the Corinthian church for being misled by those who denied the resurrection. The Corinthian Christians should have known better. They should not abandon the teaching of an inspired apostle to follow the creative and innovative ideas of men!

Having duly chastized the church, Paul turned his attention to a more uplifting subject -- our future resurrection!