Another Look at Paris

Last week, I spoke about Paris, and I mentioned that in a tragedy like this, we as Christians become burdened for a little while and then a few days later, go on with their lives. Maybe we make a temporary Facebook profile picture, maybe we put up flags, but eventually the emotion of the moment dies down, and we ignore the still real ramifications of what's going on in the world.

And I must admit that I am as guilty about this as anyone else. I have had times where my burden for the situation in Paris, which was first so strong because of the number of people affected, and the superb opportunity for the church to shine a spotlight in this tragedy, has started to slowly dwindle. I pray about it every other day, but not as a consistent daily occurrence.

And it's only been a week since the events happened! How is this so? How is that the emotions that are felt throughout the world are so transient that we even now start to feel unaffected by the tragedy and more concerned with the implications of a text message we sent?

A far cry are we from the works of Nehemiah who kept his burden for 4-5 months. A far cry are we from the old men of the faith who would pray constantly and long-term for those affected by poverty.

Admittedly, we will not all be burdened like Nehemiah about every situation. That would be insane and a scary world. But I think we should be able to still desire prayer for these people.

And then of course, there are the people critiquing the fact that we are up in arms about this and not about the killings that happen in Africa. Ok, let's pray about those too. Further, I don't think it's ok for them to condemn anyone for the burdens that we have in society.

At any rate, I feel strongly about Paris, and wish that I could specifically do something to help. Since I'm not in that position, I'm praying the Lord would burden and guide those that are. And you can probably expect to hear about Paris for several Mondays to come. If you would, at least take that time, to pray about the situation.

Church, According to the Scriptures

In the much talk about revitalizing churches today in order to remain relevant to the culture, there seems to be little in the likes of a comprehensive analysis of what the Bible says church should look like. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that it would require a lifetime’s worth of study of the Bible to even begin to comprehend what the Bible has to say about church. 

This essay will thus only scratch the surface of this important topic, but what I aim to do is give a biblical foundation for church found by looking comprehensively at Paul’s admonitions to the young pastors Timothy and Titus, as well as examining the example set out by the apostles in the book of Acts. In so doing, I discovered what I call the three S’s of church management – sound doctrine, structure, and service.

Sound Doctrine

As I read through the pastoral epistles, I was immediately taken aback by the amount of times that Paul mentions and expounds upon sound doctrine. To him, it seems one of the primary roles of the church is to expound upon and share sound doctrine to the members of the congregation. 

From the beginning to end of Paul’s three epistles to these gentlemen he documents the importance of teaching sound doctrine because if they don’t, many will fall to fables. For instance, in I Timothy 4:6-16, Paul instructs Timothy,

“If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”

In the book of Titus, Paul expresses more of the same, as he writes, 

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.”

It is then important for the church to be a place where sound doctrine is taught. But what exactly does that look like? Well, one obvious starting point is that sound doctrine begins and ends with the Gospel and the rest of Scriptures. But even then, that doesn’t specifically guarantee that sound doctrine is being taught in the church and received by the congregation. 

Luckily, the Bible gives clearer guidelines for the pastor in this area. As the Bible says in II Timothy 2:14-16, 

“Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” 

Here Timothy as a pastor is asked to study the Word of God day in and day out so that he can rightly divide it. But more than that, he is supposed to study the Word, so as to avoid the profane and vain babblings that are fruitless and even harmful. 

Careful and Spirit-led study of the Bible should prevent the pastor from teaching false doctrine. If you need further evidence on this, just look at the apostles, and their ability to preach the entire redemption story through referencing and quoting many Old Testament passages by heart.

Structure

As we move through into next big area of the biblical church, we begin to take a look at structure. 

Structure in general is not given out in quite as much detail as one might expect given the very uniform structure of churches across the United States and even around the world. Yet there is still somewhat to be gained from an analysis of the structure mentioned within the Bible itself.

The structure of the leadership is described probably most detailed of all. The first thing to notice is that local leadership is key. Paul started a lot of churches in his missionary journeys, but he held no authority over those churches after he moved on. 

Instead, as Acts 14:21-23 states, 

“And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” 

Indeed, the very existence of the pastoral epistles goes to show that Paul was entrusting the care of the churches he planted to other men and not trying to run them via proxy. The significance of this is that the service which the church is supposed to do together (which we will discuss later) is hard to manage from a distant location.

But the leaders themselves have a little bit of a job to do. They are of course requested to teach sound doctrine, but they are also expected to live up to a considerable amount of character qualities. 

These pastoral requirements are documented in I Timothy 2:11-3:7 and Titus 1:7-13, and include: man, blameless, husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that rules well his own house, one with experience, not self-willed, not soon angry, a lover of good men, just, holy, temperate, one who holds fast to sound doctrine, and a good report of the unbeliever. 

That is quite a hefty obligation! But according to I Timothy, this is because it is “a good work.” The pastor’s actual work involves of course, expounding sound doctrine, but it also extends to nurturing and shepherding the flock of God as they need it.

Before we leave the structure of the leadership within the local church, it is important to discuss the deacons. ITimothy 3:8-13 documents a list about as exhaustive as the list of character traits for pastors for deacons, but little is given in that passage as to what the deacons actually do. 

What seems to be clearer about different functions of different leaders within the church is Acts 6:1-2. Here we read that the twelve apostles (that were serving as pastors) were supposed to be primarily focused with studying the Bible and declaring the sound doctrine of the Gospel. But the church still had other functions with which to participate in. Thus, we read, 

“And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” 

Thus, it would seem that the other leaders in the church are supposed to primarily be concerned with ministering unto the needs of the church congregation, while the pastor(s) focus on spreading the good news. However, this does not preclude the pastor from ever ministering to the sick, nor the other leaders from declaring the Gospel – just pay attention to the life of Stephen!

There are two other important points about structure of the church that I would like to make really quick. First, note that membership within the church wasn’t added until after people accepted Christ and then were baptized as an outward sign of the inward regeneration of the Spirit. Acts 2:41 declares, 

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” 

Thus, while church is certainly a place where all are welcome (Jesus came for the sinners right?), membership is reserved solely for the baptized believer. 

Second, there is precious little in the Bible about the structure of a church service. Indeed, Acts 2:46-47 indicates that the early church would come together daily in the temple or just in breaking bread from house to house. The only thing listed as happening when they met together is that they praised God continually. 

Thus, the Bible seems to be ok with a more informal church fellowship rather than just the service we consider the assembly of believers today. While the structure of the days we currently live demand that we have an opportunity for a structured church service, maybe we as Christians shouldn’t be so quick to apply the teachings of Hebrews 10:25 to describe as heathens anyone who missed a church service. That doesn’t seem to be its original context. We should only treat as sin that which is forsaking the formal or informal assembly of believers altogether.

Service

The main attention and purpose of the church should be service. Now by service I do not refer to the meeting time every Sunday that I just finished discussing, but rather the idea of meeting the needs of the believers, or the community, or just so much as obeying God. No matter the area in which this service is conducted, it all must be motivated from love and driven by the Gospel.

The early church clearly modelled that we should serve other believers within our community. It all begins with the example of material provision granted in Acts 2:45, where we are told the early church, “sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” But material provision is only the start of it. 

What is more important is that the spiritual welfare of those around them. II Timothy 2:1-2 explains the function of discipleship in the church, 

“Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

Here is the directive which shows that all Christians are called to a discipleship mechanism. This discipleship mechanism is something that can be done through a formula or a curriculum, but is much more likely to occur by simple one-on-one informal training. I

t takes noticing the potential of an individual and training him to grow in the Lord. In Acts18:25-27, Aquila and Priscilla model this form of discipleship quite well, 

“This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace.” 

And of course it would be remiss not to speak to how Jesus did not run through a program to train His twelve disciples, but instead served with them, spent time with him, and ultimately gave them the opportunity to serve alone.

But the church also has a function in serving the needs of the community. Little is given in the needs of the church to supply these needs, whether they be spiritual or physical. It is quite possible that these needs are to be met not by the church collectively, but the believer individually, and the church serves as support or maybe even a collaborative effort to fulfill that endeavor. 

Thus, the church will run ministries like the food pantry to help their members serve the community, but ultimately it is not the church (structured) but the church (body of believers) that are committed to evangelizing and supplying physical need. 

Nevertheless, the act of sending out missionaries with prayer and monetary support seems to be supported by the sending forth of Barnabus first, and then Barnabus and Paul, and then also including Silas and Mark. World evangelism is something that not every Christian can handle on their own. It often takes the pooling together of resources within a church to fulfill that function.

Furthermore, the primary duty of the church had to do with serving God corporately. In II Timothy 2:22, we hear the principle, “follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” We are called to serve God, but we are also called to do so collectively. 

In the book of Acts, we see this readily on display. In Acts 2:46-47, we read, 

“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” 

It is then a primary function of the church to allow opportunities for fellowship and opportunities for support meetings. The church should be a place where people come to be encouraged and challenged in their walk with God. But more than any of that, it should be a place where they come to praise the Lord for the goodness He has wrought in their lives.

Conclusion

So there you have it, the beginnings of what a church looks like, according to the Scriptures. Certainly, it seems that not much time has thus far been spent on such a summary and I hope that in the future more study will be done. If nothing else, I will provide a more complete summary of the subject over time and begin on my life-long quest of what a biblical church actually looks like. 

Why Going to Church is Not Enough

There was once a fellow who did everything right. He came to church every Sunday and sat in the front row. He listened to what the Pastor said and found himself yelling "Amen" in affirmation quite a number of times.

He tithed, and not only that, he gave 20%, not just the required 10! He was very liberal with his money, as well as his time for the service of God.

He then went home and continued to pray before his meals, and even read the Bible everyday. It seemed as if he was doing everything right, but yet he didn't seem to be making any progress in his spiritual life.

Despite the amount of time that he spent listening to talk about God or doing service for God, it just seemed that God was just kinda there in his life, and not something fully encompassing. No one around him could see it, but deep down, he knew it.

He knew that the reading he did during the day and the sermons he heard on Sunday were not having an impact upon his life. That although he was doing what he should be doing with being immersed in God's word, his heart was not being changed. But he just kept on reading, hoping that the time would come, when the magic of the Bible would clear up.

But it never seemed to happen. Why did this man never seem to actually grow closer to God. He became consumed with the words of God at all times, but he advanced nowhere.

I am about to make a radical statement (not really, I've not ever actually made one of those on these blogs) - reading the Bible and knowing all of its truths is not a magical formula for growing closer to the Lord.

Yes, reading the Bible is an instrumental part of spiritual development, but if you never open up your heart to hear what the Lord has to say, if you never allow what you hear in the Bible to actually impact the way you study the Word, then it doesn't really matter how much you read the words.

And note that just reading the words will not allow your life to suddenly change. As much as we want to ensure that we understand that we do it all by God's strength, that doesn't mean we have no influence in whether or not we choose to use God's strength in the first place!

So we must not just consume the words of the Lord, we must actually open up our hearts through prayer to allow them to expose our faults. And then we must yield to the Spirit to ensure that we can work through those faults by a still more constant prayer life.

It's not just about going to church, but what you do when you get there. In conclusion, I leave you with the words of Ecclesiastes 5:1,

"Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil."

The Battle for Supremacy: Church v. State

During the time of a unified Catholic church before the Reformation, there was a controversy that still holds some weight today. A controversy dealing with the scriptural understanding of who actually holds supreme authority on earth - church or state.

With such decisions coming from the government on freedom of religion, the question must again be asked - who has that control? Since the question is not new, let's spend some time examining the history of the viewpoints.

The argument between church and state authority stemmed first of all from an understanding that both the church and the state did have legitimate authority. To prove this, the two camps misused Luke 22:38, where Jesus proclaims that two swords is “enough.”

However, this misinterpretation does not answer the question of which “sword” had the higher authority. Of course, both the church and the state wanted to exert that influence themselves and thus had “biblical support” for the supremacy of their authority.

The legal rulers used Romans 13 to illustrate that the members of the church were to be “subject” unto the authority of the government. Furthermore, Romans 13 clearly states that to resist this authority is to resist God Himself. Taken with Romans 13's labeling of government officials as "ministers of God…for good,” this passage, according to the rulers, provided ample support that the government was a high authority on earth, and indeed higher even than the church.

On the other hand, the church used support from the book of Matthew. In chapter 16, Jesus tells Peter that He will build his church “upon this rock.” This the church uses to indicate that Peter is a representative of the church itself. Thus, when within the same verse, Jesus promises to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” the church finds this to mean that the church has immense authority upon earth. Further support can be garnered for this from the fact that Jesus goes on to explain, that whatever Peter shall “bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” and the same for that which he shall loose on earth – a sentiment that is repeated later on in Matthew 18. This according to the church, means that everyone (even government) is bound to follow the edicts of the church.

As we examine these arguments as we approach today's questions, I think we should clearly see the varying difficulties that both of these positions dictate. If we are honest in our interpretative framework, at best what both of these positions are able to prove is simply that both the church and the state should have legitimate authority.

Romans 13, as stellar as it is to show Christian's obligations to government, does not give the government control over spiritual concerns. It doesn't give the government control over the church itself, only over the members of the church in the sphere of politics.

The verses in Matthew honestly don't mention government subservience to church either, or any reason why governmental affairs should be handled by the church. At best, the church could only use this to claim authority over the life of the Christian. Even that interpretation takes a few giant logical leaps away from the text itself.

Thus, it is my contention that both the church and the state are wrong in this viewpoint. Ultimately, the church should have its authority over its own members and spiritual concerns, but the state should have its own authority over political and legal issues. An argument can be made that both should be concerned with moral concerns (but then the question becomes, how much authority over morality do you give to the slimy government?).

Of course, keeping the divide between the two authorities is much easier said than actually done. The fact is, that each of the two authorities have a desire to control the other from time to time, such as demonstrated by this very argument.

In actually solving this conflict then, it becomes necessary to write (and have an enforcement mechanism for) a separation between church and state. Ultimately, there is no perfect solution, but I believe that the United States system is probably a fair model to emulate in creating a new one.

In it, both the church and the state are ultimately protected from each other. In the “free exercise” clause, each individual is given the opportunity to choose for themselves which religion they want to enter or even to not be religious at all, whereas the “establishment” clause gives a practical application to the free exercise clause broadly speaking.

These work to protect the church from the state, as well as the harmful effects of the church controlling the state in that there is no way to use the coercive power of the government to violate the freedom of conscience. It's a win-win for all.

Oh, and since you're probably wondering why the church needs protected from the state, and the state needs protected from the church, let's just say, there's another politics post in two weeks, and it might just be related to this one...