This past weekend my wife and I got together with some seminary friends and their wives for a cookout. At some point in the evening, all the men congregated and the conversation, as it inevitably will, turned to things theological. It didn't take long for a small disagreement to erupt among two of our party in particular. An innocent bystander and friend of both men, I listened with interest as they discussed the issue with relative detachment while at the same time obviously caring about their respective points of view. Holding such conversations is indeed a challenge if one is trying to be Christian about it, especially when it involves matters of deep conviction. I'm happy to report that both my friends handled themselves well, and the rest of the evening continued without the proverbial "elephant in the room."
But what about issues where we see a Christian brother as blatantly wrong or leading others astray? What about someone who holds a different view on a topic particularly dear to us? In the past, I've often retreated from such discussions. I don't like arguments, and have never yet been able to convince the other party that I'm right anyway. Is there any profit then to dialoging, or should we just remain mute on all points controversial and merely discuss things we agree on?
Taking the latter course would make conversation extremely boring if not utterly profitless. It seems to me that I will never have it all down pat, nor will anyone else. Desiring to hear the insights of others is a mark of spiritual maturity and intellectual humility. All God's children have the Spirit and are part of Christ's body: therefore, all have some ministry to the rest of the body. Consequently, I think it's important to discuss the things of God, including those things that may be controversial. But this must be done within the boundaries of like-mindedness spelled out in the NT. Romans 15:1-6 for example follows on the heels of Paul's discussion about Christian liberty and considering one's brother in the exercise of it. His main concern is the end result of glorifying God (15:6). The injunction is to receive one another (i.e., those with whom one disagrees) in the same way Christ received us (15:7). I think this point of receiving Christian brothers as Christ received us provides a much-needed perspective in times of disagreement. Christ didn't receive us because we were perfectly right or totally like him in every way. He received us in grace, despite our differences.
Perhaps we should imitate our Lord in the treatment of our Christian brothers (!). A fine line exists sometimes between righteous zeal for truth and self-justification: but perhaps the difference is humility of mind (Philippians 2:1-4), which focuses on the good of the other. Whenever we lose sight of the other's welfare, we have erred. We must seek the good of the other party in any disagreement: such was certainly Paul's contention in the area of Christian liberty (Romans 14, esp. verses 15, 19-21; 1 Corinthians 8:9-13). Paul was willing not to eat meat ever again if eating it would cause another brother to sin. How many of us demonstrate such care of others and self-restraint in a disagreement? Perhaps the greatest priority is love, without which any wisdom or knowledge is merely an annoying trumpet or jangling cymbal. As the old adage goes, "People will never care what you know until they know that you care." After all, we aren't even attracted to Jesus because of his superior knowledge, but because of his infinite, self-sacrificing love. To be like him, we must love others and accept Christian brothers in grace.
So then, do we merely cave in and falsely concede the opinion of the opposing party? Hardly. Christ many times put up with his disciples yet rebuked their misconceptions. He did the same with his Jewish opponents. So the apostles opposed false teaching, instructing those who, by their misconceptions, opposed themselves. Christian dialogue is a necessary means toward spiritual maturity: even the apostles themselves needed this (e.g. the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 concerning Gentile inclusion in the Church as equals of the Jews). In conclusion then, I would suggest that open yet humble discussion should not be avoided. Instead, it must be pursued when a matter of dispute arises in the interests of learning what is true in the other perspective and seeking some level of agreement. I believe the like-mindedness of which Paul spoke, however, does not concern the issue at hand. Rather, I believe his idea of like-mindedness concerned the way in which opponents view one another (Rom. 15:5). As Christ himself said, the one who is not against us is on our side (Mark 9:40). Believers are all on the same team. As teammates, we are to face the common enemy, not view one another as enemies. Indeed, those whom Paul specifically commanded to be ostracized were division- and offence-mongers (Rom. 16:17-18), whom he labeled as self-serving rather than Christ-serving. Let us then serve Christ by seeking the good of the other. Let us endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3).
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
On Church Membership
It's hard to believe that, at twenty-nine years of age, I still have never been an official "member" of a local church. Undoubtedly, this may cause some to seriously question my faithfulness in attending church meetings or my commitment to any one local assembly. For others, it may even raise doubts as to my sincerity in calling myself a Christian. Regardless of the accidents of my personal history which have resulted in my yet-unbroken stretch of non-church-membership, I confess myself a deeply committed and serious Christian who desires above all to be an active participant in the life of the Church, especially in a committed way to a local assembly.
Having said that, I admit to a certain (I hope not prideful) thankfulness that, so far, I have not been a "church member." But before I explain why, I'll recount my personal history. I was raised in IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) Bible churches in northern California, then went to a Christian college that required attendance to all services of the college's campus church. Having gone off to college before my eighteenth birthday, I left home without ever becoming an official church member. And throughout my ten-year stint at college and then grad school (at the same institution), I saw myself as a sojourner on my way to official church membership wherever my post-graduation path might lead. For this and various other reasons related to the campus church, I never joined that assembly either. Now having entered a (third) master's degree (at another institution), I have finally decided to officially "join" a church. In fact, were it not true that the church of our choice has been undergoing a transition period and there has been no membership class during our time in attendance, my wife and I would already be official members.
So much for my personal history. Now for why I'm thankful that, as of right now, I've lived the entirety of my life as a non-church member. The Christian life can be lived richly and fruitfully without church membership: my experience has included much of the activities and ministry involvement one might usually associate with a committed Christian experience. One can be taught, mentored, given ministry opportunity and a modicum of responsibility, all without church membership. However, I am not writing to promote not joining a church. I am merely stating that I am glad I have never yet been an official member of a church because "joining a church" does not make one a Christian. Nor can it make one committed. In fact, I am glad I've not been an official member of a church up until now because I believe church membership should not be taken lightly. Much like so many other formal relationships that have provided our society with strength in the past (such as personal contracts, oaths of office, marriage, etc.), church membership has become largely deprived of its meaning and emptied of the profound responsibility it confers upon the possessor. In short, I'm glad I've not been a "member" before because I don't know that I could have appreciated the seriousness of such a thing before.
Not that my lack of appreciating the seriousness of church membership is entirely my fault. In large part, I believe churches of the independent variety (those having no denominational affiliation and/or recognizing no outside authority of any kind) do not adequately appreciate the seriousness of membership because of their limited view of ecclesial authority. Independent churches' sense of church government has been severely reduced. In many independent churches, the authority in the church rests entirely in the office of the pastor, or else in some governing body (be they called elders, deacons, "the board," or what-have-you). Beyond that, there is no living authority (written constitutions and by-laws aside). So members are without recourse if they disagree with church leadership, unless there are enough dissenters to vote in new leadership (a concept rather foreign to Scripture, by the way).
Why is this a problem? Because Scripture depicts apostolic Christianity as no mere scattering of independent churches totally autonomous and beholden to no one. Paul, for example, had deputies, such as Timothy and Titus, with whom he entrusted the ordaining of elders/bishops/pastors in local churches. Yes, there was leadership in every local assembly, legitimate, apostolically-authenticated spiritual authority. But those authorities were not the final authority: they were under the authority of an apostle's deputy, who was under the authority of an apostle. If this sounds dangerously Catholic, please understand that just because a Catholic might say it, it isn't necessarily incorrect. The Pastoral Epistles depict just the scenario I have described. But independent churches seem not to recognize this fact. It may be they ignore it out of a fear of denominational corruption (one of the major reasons for "independent" churches in America, I think). But the same logic can be applied in other arguments to prove that there should be no marriage for fear of abuse of authority or infidelity, or that no government should be given authority beyond that granted by the governed (another un-biblical assumption). The fear of out-of-control authority in the American psyche has so penetrated the church that many Bible-believing Christians seem to have no concept of legitimate spiritual authority beyond the dictates of their own Spirit-led conscience and the Bible (often in that order).
What's my point? Well, this is a blog, not a book. I don't know: I'm still working my way through a lot of things. But one thing I'm beginning to appreciate is that our American independent churches have cut themselves off from the rich spiritual heritage of the Christian tradition. Many of our churches resemble American political and social ideals more than Apostolic Christianity. There is more a sense of fierce independence, of standing alone, than there is of faithful adherence to the faith once delivered along with submission to the authorities through whom this tradition has been carried from generation to generation. No, I'm not a Catholic...but I am a catholic in the sense that I see myself, and all true believers, as members of the one Faith deposited by our Lord, entrusted to his apostles, and subsequently passed on from faithful men to faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2). There is a living connectedness between the faith alive in our hearts today and Jesus' earthly life and ministry. The same Spirit regenerates sinners the same way today that he has throughout history, through the preaching of the Gospel. And all who hear and respond in faith are a part of the Church Christ promised he would build (Matt. 16:18). That Church has God-ordained authority invested in those faithful men who have been ordained by legitimate church leadership. Christ ordained his apostles with authority not only to preach the Gospel but to instruct their followers to obey everything Christ commanded (Matt. 28:20). The same Great Commission we use to justify our missionary efforts (and rightly so) must be recognized to confer authority upon the apostles of Christ and their delegated authority, down to the present day.
I am not claiming a traceable apostolic succession for one or another form of Christianity (though if one were to go this route, the options are relatively few: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, etc.). But I am arguing for the authority of Christ mediated through Scripture and his apostles to be recognized and taken seriously by American Christians of whatever denomination or non-denomination. I believe that church membership (which biblically is effected through Christian baptism, I believe) involves one in the authority structure of the Church of our Lord, and that is a serious thing indeed. I believe it entails being subject to discipline if warranted (1 Cor. 5), as well as being under the responsible supervision of ecclesial authorities (Hebrews 13:7, 17). And, when I do become an official "church member" (though I already have been baptized and therefore am a real though unofficial member of Christ's Church), that extrabiblical ritual of "becoming a member" will not necessarily put me under the authority of a particular church leadership that I am not already under (again, I believe baptism makes one in actuality a member of the Church). But by God's grace I hope to take it seriously and be counted a faithful man myself, who will be able to teach others also.
Having said that, I admit to a certain (I hope not prideful) thankfulness that, so far, I have not been a "church member." But before I explain why, I'll recount my personal history. I was raised in IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) Bible churches in northern California, then went to a Christian college that required attendance to all services of the college's campus church. Having gone off to college before my eighteenth birthday, I left home without ever becoming an official church member. And throughout my ten-year stint at college and then grad school (at the same institution), I saw myself as a sojourner on my way to official church membership wherever my post-graduation path might lead. For this and various other reasons related to the campus church, I never joined that assembly either. Now having entered a (third) master's degree (at another institution), I have finally decided to officially "join" a church. In fact, were it not true that the church of our choice has been undergoing a transition period and there has been no membership class during our time in attendance, my wife and I would already be official members.
So much for my personal history. Now for why I'm thankful that, as of right now, I've lived the entirety of my life as a non-church member. The Christian life can be lived richly and fruitfully without church membership: my experience has included much of the activities and ministry involvement one might usually associate with a committed Christian experience. One can be taught, mentored, given ministry opportunity and a modicum of responsibility, all without church membership. However, I am not writing to promote not joining a church. I am merely stating that I am glad I have never yet been an official member of a church because "joining a church" does not make one a Christian. Nor can it make one committed. In fact, I am glad I've not been an official member of a church up until now because I believe church membership should not be taken lightly. Much like so many other formal relationships that have provided our society with strength in the past (such as personal contracts, oaths of office, marriage, etc.), church membership has become largely deprived of its meaning and emptied of the profound responsibility it confers upon the possessor. In short, I'm glad I've not been a "member" before because I don't know that I could have appreciated the seriousness of such a thing before.
Not that my lack of appreciating the seriousness of church membership is entirely my fault. In large part, I believe churches of the independent variety (those having no denominational affiliation and/or recognizing no outside authority of any kind) do not adequately appreciate the seriousness of membership because of their limited view of ecclesial authority. Independent churches' sense of church government has been severely reduced. In many independent churches, the authority in the church rests entirely in the office of the pastor, or else in some governing body (be they called elders, deacons, "the board," or what-have-you). Beyond that, there is no living authority (written constitutions and by-laws aside). So members are without recourse if they disagree with church leadership, unless there are enough dissenters to vote in new leadership (a concept rather foreign to Scripture, by the way).
Why is this a problem? Because Scripture depicts apostolic Christianity as no mere scattering of independent churches totally autonomous and beholden to no one. Paul, for example, had deputies, such as Timothy and Titus, with whom he entrusted the ordaining of elders/bishops/pastors in local churches. Yes, there was leadership in every local assembly, legitimate, apostolically-authenticated spiritual authority. But those authorities were not the final authority: they were under the authority of an apostle's deputy, who was under the authority of an apostle. If this sounds dangerously Catholic, please understand that just because a Catholic might say it, it isn't necessarily incorrect. The Pastoral Epistles depict just the scenario I have described. But independent churches seem not to recognize this fact. It may be they ignore it out of a fear of denominational corruption (one of the major reasons for "independent" churches in America, I think). But the same logic can be applied in other arguments to prove that there should be no marriage for fear of abuse of authority or infidelity, or that no government should be given authority beyond that granted by the governed (another un-biblical assumption). The fear of out-of-control authority in the American psyche has so penetrated the church that many Bible-believing Christians seem to have no concept of legitimate spiritual authority beyond the dictates of their own Spirit-led conscience and the Bible (often in that order).
What's my point? Well, this is a blog, not a book. I don't know: I'm still working my way through a lot of things. But one thing I'm beginning to appreciate is that our American independent churches have cut themselves off from the rich spiritual heritage of the Christian tradition. Many of our churches resemble American political and social ideals more than Apostolic Christianity. There is more a sense of fierce independence, of standing alone, than there is of faithful adherence to the faith once delivered along with submission to the authorities through whom this tradition has been carried from generation to generation. No, I'm not a Catholic...but I am a catholic in the sense that I see myself, and all true believers, as members of the one Faith deposited by our Lord, entrusted to his apostles, and subsequently passed on from faithful men to faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2). There is a living connectedness between the faith alive in our hearts today and Jesus' earthly life and ministry. The same Spirit regenerates sinners the same way today that he has throughout history, through the preaching of the Gospel. And all who hear and respond in faith are a part of the Church Christ promised he would build (Matt. 16:18). That Church has God-ordained authority invested in those faithful men who have been ordained by legitimate church leadership. Christ ordained his apostles with authority not only to preach the Gospel but to instruct their followers to obey everything Christ commanded (Matt. 28:20). The same Great Commission we use to justify our missionary efforts (and rightly so) must be recognized to confer authority upon the apostles of Christ and their delegated authority, down to the present day.
I am not claiming a traceable apostolic succession for one or another form of Christianity (though if one were to go this route, the options are relatively few: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, etc.). But I am arguing for the authority of Christ mediated through Scripture and his apostles to be recognized and taken seriously by American Christians of whatever denomination or non-denomination. I believe that church membership (which biblically is effected through Christian baptism, I believe) involves one in the authority structure of the Church of our Lord, and that is a serious thing indeed. I believe it entails being subject to discipline if warranted (1 Cor. 5), as well as being under the responsible supervision of ecclesial authorities (Hebrews 13:7, 17). And, when I do become an official "church member" (though I already have been baptized and therefore am a real though unofficial member of Christ's Church), that extrabiblical ritual of "becoming a member" will not necessarily put me under the authority of a particular church leadership that I am not already under (again, I believe baptism makes one in actuality a member of the Church). But by God's grace I hope to take it seriously and be counted a faithful man myself, who will be able to teach others also.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
On Starting a Blog (Or, My Manifesto)
The title of this blog (Fidere Deo) means "to be faithful to God." I did not choose a Latin title to sound educated: that's just what came to mind. My main concern right now is to address issues related to a faithful (i.e., accurate) understanding and application of God's self-revelation to mankind. I believe God has revealed himself in many ways and at different times throughout history, culminating in the revelation of his Son, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). I believe that the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek New Testament are God's inspired word, written both as records of divine revelation and as revelation themselves (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Scripture comprises all of God's revelation that is necessary for life and godliness, and is intended to lead to the knowledge of God himself (2 Peter 1:2-3a). Therefore, Scripture is our primary and uniquely infallible source of information about God (contra natural theology, or what can be learned of God through creation as discerned by our fallen selves) : it is how God has both communicated and preserved other communications to us. Even the ultimate revelation of God, Jesus Christ's earthly life and ministry, is recorded accurately for us only in Scripture.
Therefore, I am concerned primarily with how to receive this gift of the Bible. What is the proper way to understand Scripture? How is the Bible to be put to work in my life today, and in the life of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)? So my purpose in writing is to start a conversation about the proper understanding of what God has revealed in Scripture (i.e., faithful interpretation) as a means to proper knowledge of God (i.e., relationship). Hence the title has a double meaning: Fidere Deo ("to be faithful to God") means both accurately handling Scripture and rightly aligning my life with Scripture. I desire to be faithful to God.
Therefore, I am concerned primarily with how to receive this gift of the Bible. What is the proper way to understand Scripture? How is the Bible to be put to work in my life today, and in the life of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)? So my purpose in writing is to start a conversation about the proper understanding of what God has revealed in Scripture (i.e., faithful interpretation) as a means to proper knowledge of God (i.e., relationship). Hence the title has a double meaning: Fidere Deo ("to be faithful to God") means both accurately handling Scripture and rightly aligning my life with Scripture. I desire to be faithful to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)