Archive for the ‘The Church’ Category

Simple worship

Posted: August 3, 2012 in The Church, worship
0

Ancient future worship. Modern worship. Emerging worship. Interactive worship. Liturgical worship. Postmodern worship. Contextual worship. Generational worship. Elmo worship. By the time you are through, the complexity of worship styles and approaches can leave your head spinning. Everyone has an opinion on HOW the church should worship. As a missionary, I have the added fun of thinking through how culture shapes and alters worship. In the end, sometimes I miss the simplicity of worship from my younger days.

That is when I go back and read through the life of Abraham, and think about his worship of God. It was simple. No law to speak of, no priesthood, no tabernacle or temple, no ceremonial liturgy, no Psalms, nothing that would come later in the covenant based worship. Genesis 12:6-8 describes what Abraham’s worship looked like.

Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.  Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord.

Wow, that seems way simpler than what we do today. Abraham is in daily relationship with God, praying and receiving revelation. In response to God’s revelation and guidance, Abraham wants to express his gratitude and awe of a personal, yet powerful God. He doesn’t travel to some far away place making pilgrimage. He doesn’t build some elaborate building or temple. He doesn’t start a cult or set up ceremonial laws. He grabs a few rocks and makes a crude altar. Most likely, he offered some type of sacrifice, although that isn’t stated here. It would have been something simple and on hand, possibly a sheep. Then he “calls upon the name of the Lord”. What did that look like? What did he say about the name of the Lord? We don’t know, and the author of Genesis thinks that information is sufficient.

Can worship really be that simple? We don’t even need to offer sacrifices anymore (see Hebrews), so we can even cut that step out. Simple worship doesn’t mean that Abraham’s reverence for God wasn’t meaningful or deep. Intricate ceremony doesn’t mean that the heart behind it is more sincere. This would be proven in Genesis 22 in Abraham’s case.

“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship (shachah) and come again to you.”

When God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Abraham tells his men that he is going to “worship” God. After waiting so long for his promised son, the heir of the land, Abraham doesn’t appear to hesitate when told to sacrifice him. Hebrews 11:19 tells us that he believed that God would raise him from the dead to fulfill His promise. Even though there was no law, there was an understanding somehow that sacrifice was necessary to approach and worship God. We will discuss this more when looking at worship in Leviticus. Though Abraham’s worship was simple, it had a challenge that most will never face in their lives, testing the authenticity of his faith toward God.

Thankfully, we know how the story ends. God provides a ram and Isaac is spared. The whole event is a clear foreshadow of God the father offering His son Jesus on the cross to make atonement for man and open up true worship. A clear message was also sent that God is not an idol who requires the life of children to satisfy Him (unlike Molech, a Canaanite god Israelites end up worshiping). The challenge to us is to return to the depth and simplicity of Abraham’s worship. Of course, we still need to consider culture, details of the service, words of the songs we sing, and other matters. However, if we lose the heart and power of true worship, we are wasting our time fighting over details or stressing out over complexity. Now if you will excuse me, I need to go grab a couple of rocks, make a pile, and call upon the name of the Lord.

 

I don’t feel like worshiping

Posted: August 1, 2012 in The Church, worship
0

“I don’t feel like worshiping today.” I have to admit that I have either said that out loud or thought that way more times than I would like to admit. It is basically saying that my worship of God depends on how I feel, which usually means am I happy with my life. Are things going well with ministry? my family? my finances? If they are, then yeehaw, it is time to do same David like worship and dance in the streets. However, if an unexpected bill comes in, my car breaks down, or the internet is too slow today, and my hands go in my pockets during worship (or I at least fold them behind my back to sort of look respectful when I am refusing to sing along). This kind of attitude doesn’t really go with the Biblical definitions of worship.

In the New Testament, the word “worship” is most often used for the Greek word “proskuneo”. “Proskuneo” has a very similar meaning to the Hebrew “shachah”, in that it was used to describe the action of bowing down and kissing the feet of a king, ruler, superior, etc… It can literally be translated “to kiss” or “kiss the hand to” and was the Oriental practice of touching one’s head to the ground as a sign of profound reverence. You can see this in the following verse:

Matthew 18:26 (NIV)
“The servant fell on his knees [proskuneo] before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’

In the same way as the Old Testament, when “proskuneo” is used to describe an action toward God, most often the word “worship” is used by translators.

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship [proskuneo] in spirit and in truth.”

Since it took on meaning beyond the original action of bowing and doing obeisance, we have to ask what additional meanings did it take on? First of all, no where in the New Testament is proskuneo/worship used to describe the whole service of when a church gathers together. That leaves the question though what actions or attitudes accurately describe worship. Prayer? singing? communion? Before we can try to answer these, we must consider why this Greek word was chosen. Also, just as with the Hebrew “abad”, a few times the Greek word “latreo” (service) is translated as “worship”. So, deep reverence and respect is combined with obedient lifestyles to make up the term worship.

I don’t see anything about our feelings in any of these Biblical terms. Of course, we want to “want” to worship God. I love the times of worship when I feel true joy AND happiness in my praise of God. Yet, even in the worst times of my life, I still should have deep respect and honor for God, as well as an obedient lifestyle. Obedience tested by the fires of trials often yields the sweetest worship times. Great hymns that we treasure have often been borne out of times of personal tragedy (“It is Well with my Soul” for example). Our obedience also doesn’t hinge on how much we are enjoying our lives. Otherwise, Jeremiah the prophet should have had a free pass to sin based on his suffering.

The other thing that you can’t get around is that whatever word is translated as “worship”, it seems to involve some type of action. Yes, true worship comes from the right heart attitude, but it is still an action. Whether we decide it is still bowing down, singing, or praying out, worship must not be reduced to a concept or feeling. That would be like saying, “I am an evangelist at heart, and my life shows Jesus, so I don’t need to actually say anything.” Lame. The Bible always portrays evangelism as proclamation of the Gospel, the message of the cross. In the same way, you can honor and respect God in your heart, but that is not worship. At least not in the Bible.

It doesn’t really matter then whether or not I “feel” like worshiping or not. God is ALWAYS deserving of my homage and obeisance. Worship is based on who He is, and He is never changing. He is king yesterday, today, and forever, so I must bow before Him forever. Isn’t that the picture we see in Revelation 7 as all the saints bow before Him in eternal worship? I guess I have to take my hands out of my pockets, set aside whatever worries me, and focus on the sovereign creator of the universe. You didn’t get to tell the kings of this earth, “Hey, I don’t feel like bowing before you, so maybe tomorrow.” Attitudes like this were followed by statements like, “Off with his head!” God isn’t going to whack my head off (hopefully), but it is His grace and love that motivate me to worship Him at all times.

What does the word worship mean anyway?

Posted: July 31, 2012 in The Church, worship
0

I guess we can’t go too far without answering one really basic question: what is worship? Seems like a simple thing, but I hear it used in all different ways. Some people use the word worship to refer to the whole Sunday morning experience as in “Wasn’t the worship service great this morning?” Others use worship exclusively to talk about what we do in the service generally before the sermon as in, “Man, worship time was awesome this morning!”. This is usually mostly about singing in people’s minds. Finally, some people believe you worship through your lifestyle, as in “Worship God by loving and serving others.” At this rate, worship may end up meaning being alive as in, “Wow! I am so glad to still be worship.” Ok, maybe that is taking it too far, but clearly we need some help from the Bible to define this.

Unfortunately “worship” is just an English word that we use to translate SEVERAL words in both Hebrew and Greek. Our word “worship” comes from the Old English “weorthscipe,” which means worthiness. We “worship” someone because they are “worth” the respect they receive. In British English, “Worship” was actually used as a title for various officials, usually magistrates and some mayors. You have to look at these passages in the Bible to decide if the word worship fits best, and why translators chose this term.

In the Old Testament, worship is most often used for the Hebrew word “shachah”, which originally literally meant to bow down before someone “worthy” of honor or obedience. Occasionally, some translations will use worship for the Hebrew word “abad”, which usually carries a connotation of serving, generally in a liturgical sense (there are a few other Hebrew words translated as “worship,” but the uses are more rare). What we need to think about is what these Hebrew words tell us about how people have relationship with God.

“Shachah” is often translated as “prostrated”/”bow down”/”pay homage” in the English Bible. This was the appropriate behavior when in the presence of a king or powerful ruler.  Here are a few examples from the NIV of this:

Genesis 23:7 (NIV) Then Abraham rose and bowed down [shachah] before the people of the land, the Hittites.

1 Kings 1:23 (NIV)
And they told the king, “Nathan the prophet is here.” So he went before the king and bowed [shachah] with his face to the ground.

However, when “shacah” is used as an action done before God, translators use the term “worship” to indicate that it isn’t just homage to a person, but rather to God. It may mean the person is literally bowing down before God, but it also reflects their heart toward Him.

Exodus 24:1
Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship [shachah] at a distance…

Exodus 33:10 (NASB)
When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship [shachah], each at the entrance of his tent.

From the first passage, we can see that God Himself is quoted as using the word “shachah” and He is telling the Israelites HOW they should worship. God has foundational guidelines for worship. Second, both of these references are from Exodus, yet the last passage seems to indicate that “shachah” has taken on a new meaning beyond bowing down. How else can we explain that the people “arise” and worship? That in it’s literal sense would be an oxymoron. The Jews themselves saw the progression of the term from a physical stance to a heart attitude and action meaning  paying honor to God.

The term “shachah” then shows us that worship is our deep humility before God, bowing before Him in all things, yet also carries a connotation of obedience. What good is it to an earthly king if you bowed down before him with no intent to follow his law? To “shacah” without obedience following is fairly useless to a king. Our worship of God rests on grace as we are saved in Jesus, however, our heart attitude needs to be that in worshiping God, we are combining it with an effort at a life of obedience. Otherwise, our worship can be hollow.

The other Hebrew word used for worship is “abad”, and literally means “to serve”.  When people are serving (abad) God, some translators use the term “worship” as in the following Scriptures:

Exodus 3:12(NIV)     And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain. ”

Exodus 20:5(NIV)     You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…”

The clear contrast here is of serving/worshiping God instead of serving/worshiping idols. In the first reference, the Israelites were to serve God through sacrifice and paying Him honor. In the second, they were commanded not to do the same for false gods. Like “shachah” there is an element of obedience in worship.

In the next post, we will look at the New Testament Greek words normally translated as worship. For now, let us think about and apply what we have learned from the Hebrew terms. Worship represented a deep felt humility and honoring one who was worthy of  respect and honor. So much so, that they often literally got down on their face to “worship” God. I am not saying we all need to hit the carpet, but our heart attitudes and lack of pride should show that same bowing down mentality. The Hebrew words also showed how worship is connected to our obedient lifestyle. Going and singing on Sunday, even if you have a great voice, doesn’t impress God. He is looking for worship that flows from our whole life of following Him and His holy ways.

Worship Wars: even better than Star Wars

Posted: July 28, 2012 in The Church, worship
0

Something seems really wrong with the whole title of the “Worship Wars”. It’s like I suddenly have visions of robed choir leaders lobbing grenades into the modern worship drummer’s cage. In a counter attack, the organist ducks and throws a mean upper cut to the cool guitar guy wearing jeans and t-shirt. All right, I realize that people take the debate in worship seriously, and so do I. I am just not sure who the genius was who coined the term “worship wars” and escalated the discussion to a global event needing United Nations intervention.

Initially the worship war was between traditional churches who favored hymnals and organs, and modern worship teams spawned in the Jesus movement who used guitars and newly written songs. Growing up, I always thought the worship war was between the liturgical churches using doxologies and schedules, and the Pentecostal churches whose spontaneous worship services included speaking in tongues and people getting slain in the Spirit. Pick up a new book on worship, and they will tell you that the worship war is between seeker friendly “pop” worship music, and emerging church’s eclectic mix of liturgy and multi-sensory experiences like mazes. If this war gets any more complex, we will need trading cards for each view on worship. Then, we could have a nerdy battle card game based on this.

I can’t really go any further in our series of posts on the church without wading into this dangerous territory. However, I want to make it clear that I am not a professionally trained church musician. I am not even an untrained, guitar wielding modern worship leader. I tried to learn to play the guitar at age 30, and achieved the level of “trained monkey”. I have “led” worship, although I would use that term very loosely. My favorite time was when I got so lost leading one song that I completely stopped in the middle of the song. Really nowhere to go after that. What I do have is 40 years of experience being a Christian who has gone to a LOT of worship services. In addition to that, I have been a Bible teacher for 17 years and have done topical studies on worship in the Bible.

After that glowing confidence builder, I want to once again bring us back from all the eloquent speakers, well written books, and convincing speakers to the simplicity of asking, “What does the Bible say about worship?” It won’t answer all of our questions, as the Bible is NOT a manual on worship with tons of details on music styles, activities, and so on. The Bible will provide us with the foundational purpose of worship along with some very practical examples. We can know what worship isn’t, which goes a long way in hopefully ending the worship wars.

As we study through, we will get to look at some statements that get thrown around the church these days. Worship is a lifestyle. You can worship God by scrubbing toilets. Singing is not necessary to worship God. The Bible says that we shouldn’t use musical instruments. Liturgy is better as it keeps us rooted in church tradition and avoids the “me centric” modern worship trend. No one understands hymns, so dump them for songs written in everyday English. Worship should be spontaneous. Worship is affirming who God is, it is not about our emotional high. What would it sound like if Raffi made a kids’ worship CD?

I have to be honest here. After 40 years of mostly evangelical church services, the 4 songs and done sets have lost something to me. Sometimes, I just hope they will sing 1 1/2 songs just to mess with me and the order. I do struggle at times with how some modern worship songs just talk about how I feel. Who cares how I feel, God created the universe! I don’t know who the guy is making a killing off of worship song Powerpoint backgrounds, but I don’t want to see anyone else raising their hands behind the words, or watch waves roll in as I try to read the lyrics to Amazing Grace. Don’t even get me started on how I feel when worship leaders tell you what to do. You raise your hands if you want, or say something to your neighbor, but leave me alone pal!

In the midst of all of it, I know that God must have something to say to the church today about worship. I know that there have been times during worship where God has given me my life call, touched me with grace that changed my life direction, and given me a vision of woman in a wedding dress (yes, my soon to be wife). God has brought me to repentance, used me to encourage others prophetically, and begun whole movements in churches I have attended through worship. It is so worth it to press through the issues to the heart of God on worship. Sing to the Lord a new song! … but just know someone will probably complain about your song (too loud, too long, not deep enough, too deep, not enough instruments, too many… bla, bla, bla).

 

Confessions of a Christian introvert

Posted: July 24, 2012 in The Church
0

I am an introvert and my name is Sean. I have been an introvert for over 40 years. I don’t need to take any more personality tests to tell me that I am an introvert. (it sounds cooler to call myself an “expressive introvert” but it doesn’t magically transform me into an extrovert). On my last personality test, here are a few of my answers:

If you hear the phone ring when you are at home, do you: a) run to the phone excited to see who is calling; b) listen on the answering machine until you are sure it is someone you know; or c) act like you don’t hear it, push ignore when they then try your cellphone, and then wait for the eventual notification sound of a text message when they get desperate to contact you. It might shock you to know that I chose c).

If you go to a party full of people that you don’t know, do you: a) immediately blend into the crowd, meeting as many new people as possible; b) search out at least one person you know and only talk with them b) change the tv channel, because there was no way you were going with your wife to some lame work party where you don’t know anyone, so you stayed home to watch Animal Planet. Again, c) seemed like the wisest choice to me.

The problem with being an introvert AND a Christian at the same time, is that the Bible keeps bugging you about having fellowship with other people. You see, fellowship is one of the main reasons that we have church. In Ephesians 2:14-16, Paul explains how Jesus has brought us all together in the church, “For he (Jesus) himself is our peace,who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself onenew man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” Paul is speaking about how Jesus has brought the Jews and Gentiles together in the body (the church), but this continues to apply to today’s church. God brings together people who would never have had fellowship together if it wasn’t for Christ.

As I read this verse, I realized how bad my attitude is sometimes about not wanting to hang out with other Christians. It is like I am taking so lightly all that Jesus did so that I could have a new family in the church. One of the ways that the church shows the world the Gospel message is through our fellowship. Unbelievers saw Paul, the Pharisee, hanging out with Gentiles, and thought, “What in the world is going on in there???” Today, unbelievers see people of all races and colors, backgrounds and education levels having fellowship and ask, “How are they getting over all their issues and prejudices?” The answer we give them is that Jesus has brought us together through the reconciliation of the cross. Let us tell you more about that!

Acts 20:7-11 is about God raising Eutychus from the dead through Paul.  You may be wondering what this has to do with fellowship. I was struck by the fact that at first “Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered.” Their fellowship with Paul and each other was so sweet that no one wanted to leave. It is midnight, and they are still going strong. Well, except for poor Eutychus who fell asleep, fell out the window, and died. I love how Paul prays and he raises from the dead, and then, “when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.” Wow, and my students think I can talk for a long time! Not even a kid dying and being resurrected stops their fellowship! They keep talking until daybreak!

What I get from this is that they loved having fellowship, and it was something that they WANTED to do. Only daybreak eventually ended their time together. I can still remember when my parents became friends with my best friend’s parents. They were evangelical  Christians who really discipled my parents. We would go to their house, or they would come to ours, and our parents would talk for hours and hours. Of course, we were so happy to have tons of time to hang out as friends, so it worked perfectly for us as kids. So, I ask myself the question, why wouldn’t I WANT to have fellowship too? The answer I came up with was two basic reasons I allow my introverted nature to rule me.

First, I care more about myself than I do other people. If I want to hang out and see a movie or play some Settlers, suddenly I am Mr. Extrovert. I am running to buy snacks and calling all my buddies. If I need someone to talk to, then I will call a friend to go for a run. My fellowship is so self centered, it is pathetic. I should be inviting people to our house for a meal to bless THEM, not just me. A new family joins our church, the best way for me to welcome them is to have them to our house and show interest in them; find out their story. Fellowship doesn’t work that different from marriage. If you are in marriage only to make yourself happy, you are in for some fun times sleeping out on the couch. Don’t sit around having a pity party that no one in the church invites you over, you invite other people over and focus on them.

The second reason was deeper and harder to deal with. I have so seldomly had close friends, that I don’t want to open up my heart to the pain of losing them if they or we move. Being in missions has been wonderful, but missionaries aren’t the most stable group. We are all constantly moving  around the world. I am simply tired of making new friends, much less looking for an inner circle of guys who I can trust with my inner thoughts and loyalty. I look around in my church and see guys I could make an effort to connect with, but I just don’t want to go through the whole process of building relationships. There are amazing families, and our kids are already friends, but then I think it gets even more complicated when you are making friends as a married couple. What if I like to hang out with a guy, and our wives have nothing in common? Just more convenient excuses to not allow anyone to get close to me and possibly break my heart when they move.

So, if my confessions of a Christian introvert resonates with you, it may be time to search the Scriptures and your heart. The New Testament portrays a wonderful gift that Jesus has given the church in the form of fellowship in the church. Your heart may tell you why you are resisting making Christian friends, and to stop giving the old, “I am an introvert” excuse as an easy smokescreen. In the last 5 years, God has given me some of the coolest Christian friends, and I am so thankful that Jesus is healing my heart through fellowship. And no, reading my blog and posting comments doesn’t count as fellowship. Nice try.

Church division: can’t we all just get along?

Posted: July 22, 2012 in The Church
2

41,000. That is the current number of different denominations in the church today. Are you kidding me??? There are that many different issues to disagree about to the point that you say, “Hey, I need to start my own church! I can’t compromise on this!”? I guess we know the answer to Paul’s question in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Christ IS divided. A lot. I searched around and found at least 47 different types of Presbyterian churches in just 1 minute. This isn’t just a Presbyterian issue, but one that is clearly out of control in the body of Christ. My blog is full of posts that have been issues which caused denominations and churches to divide (predestination, Lord’s Supper, baptism, and the Holy Spirit for example). As my 8 year old son recently said on a kayaking trip we took, “Can’t we all just get along?” Sorry son, I think the church is in for a big time out from Jesus.

The state of the church got me to thinking about something Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (you may be wondering if I know any book of the Bible OTHER than 1 Cor., but hey, it has been relevant to our church discussions). “ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…” Paul is saying that in his beliefs in Christianity, there were foundational beliefs/teachings/doctrine that he began with and focused on when introducing Christianity to new believers. This foundation was of course the Gospel of Jesus, His death and resurrection. This all led me to ask, “Did Paul have foundational beliefs that he never allowed compromise, while at the same time having “secondary” beliefs that he could agree to disagree on?

My point is this: the more systematic and detailed our denomination/church’s theology becomes, the more likely it is that we will separate from and refuse to work with other denominations. I am a Bible teacher, so I confess that I can talk for hours the smallest detail of theology (is God in time? are His thoughts sequential? is the subordination of Jesus eternal? what does “begotten” mean anyway? will there be dogs and cats in heaven?) However, the longer I study the Bible, the more I am see the need for concentric circles of beliefs (I am currently working on putting a patent on that name and making millions). What I mean by that is that the middle circle contains beliefs that I have that define whether you ARE a Christian based on the Bible or not. They are not open to compromise, and if you don’t believe them, we can’t work together in the church. Examples in the middle circle would be: salvation by faith, Jesus is God, eternal consequences, etc… (a very dangerous etc… if you ask me, just couldn’t figure out a better ending to that sentence). Click on the images below to make them bigger for a way cool illustration.

The second circle contains things that I feel sure about, but I could disagree with another Christian on them without questioning their identity as a Christian. Examples would be: details of eschatology, speaking in tongues, or how we do communion. Most of the time, I can disagree on these issues and still work together with these Christians to accomplish the Great Commission.

I have a crazy dream. If we could keep this inner circle to the absolute foundational beliefs, perhaps we could learn to live with diversity within our churches and not need to separate so much. An even crazier dream would be for us to create some kind of new denomination with a generic name like Christian Church. By using truth circles, we could take that number down from 41.000 to say, 11 or something. A global unification of the Christian church; is it possible? Some might see the rise of nondenominational (or interdenominational) churches as a positive sign that we are escaping the “naming” and division of the church. I am not so sure. Often, these nondenominational churches end up developing so much of their own tradition and statements of belief that they may as well be a denomination. They even start their own Bible schools and insist their pastors be trained there.

I count myself as lucky to have had some unique experiences as a Christian. In missions, I have worked with two different organizations that were not attached to one church/denomination, but were a mix of people from many denominations including Methodists, Assemblies of God, Catholic, and so on. We put our differences on the secondary doctrines aside so that we could focus on the blessing of the nations, spread of the Gospel, and mercy ministries to those in need. I noticed that people didn’t even ask one another what church they came from. That ceased to be people’s identity (I am a Methodist, etc…). It showed me that if it is possible in a “parachurch” organization, it should be possible within the church as well.

Unless I am hit on the head really hard, I seriously doubt I will ever be a relativist. I can’t ignore absolute truth so that we can all get along in the church. I am not echoing those voices in the emerging movement who say that truth is unknowable fully, so we should stop “building walls”. The Bible calls them a foundation, not walls, but they still shouldn’t be moved. I can envision a church/denomination though that establishes the unmovable essentials while allowing a diversity of beliefs in secondary ones for the sake of the Gospel and the unity of the body of Christ. Can anyone else out there see that with me?

What happened to the Lord’s Supper?

Posted: July 21, 2012 in The Church
1

A shot glass of juice (or wine if your denomination is old school) and a tasteless, white cracker the size of a Tic Tac??? What happened to the Lord’s Supper? My wife always laughs at me for using the word supper, because in the South, that can be lunch or dinner. Whichever meal it is, I could always count on supper being a lot of food. If you are hungry when you go to church, the Lord’s Supper isn’t going to help you at all. I can’t imagine needing to worry about Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians’ church in 1 Cor. 11 for eating and drinking TOO much.

I grew up in two different churches that handled Communion in different ways. The first had Communion every week and even had super cool cup holders in the back of the pews. The second only had communion once a month, but must have shopped at the same Communion store (silver trays, same tasteless wafer, plastic cups). I could have thought that the debate over Communion was only about how often you partook of it. I knew that it was something that you took seriously, sometimes can’t have unless you are baptized and older, and helped us think about Jesus and His death on the cross. Once I remember seeing the deacons preparing it in the basement of our church, and I felt as if I was spying on some sacred rite which I shouldn’t be seeing.

Then, I did something annoying. I studied the Bible to see what it says about Communion. First of all, the term “communion” comes from 1 Cor. 10:16 where Paul says, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ?” Paul is NOT calling this act communion, because in the very same book, he calls it the Lord’s Supper. His point here is that we can’t have fellowship with Jesus and demons. No syncretism. Church fathers later started to use the word communion to refer to the whole tradition. Eucharist? Nope. Not there either; also added later by church fathers (not that there is anything wrong with church tradition, I am just saying the apostolic church didn’t use these terms. Don’t waste your time looking for the word sacrament either). In Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-23, we find Jesus sharing the Last Supper with His disciples. During this Passover meal, He uses the bread and the wine to symbolize His body and His blood, pointing to His sacrifice on the Cross that was soon coming. Specifically in Luke 22:19, He says, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

Clearly, the early church took this to mean that they should continue this symbolic act to remind the church of the sacrifice of Christ as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. This is the only NT passage that refers to this act as “the Lord’s Supper” (11:20). From the references in the Gospels to the passage here in Corinthians, what is clear is that the Lord’s Supper was ACTUALLY a supper. This symbolic tradition was part of a whole meal that was shared by the church. Later in church history, the act of the Lord’s Supper got separated from the meal (sometimes called an agape feast). I won’t go into all the reasons for that, but I do want to highlight two key things that were lost when this happened.

The Lord’s Supper was supposed to be a time of fellowship. In all cultures, fellowship happens easily and often when it is surrounded by food. We can argue about how often the early church did this, but once a week or once a month would have provided rich times for people in the church to build relationship and get to know one another. Paul is angry in 1 Cor. because some in the church are not waiting for everyone to arrive to eat and they are gorging themselves and getting drunk while others go hungry. The Lord’s Supper to Paul was therefore a time for the unity of the church. Rich believers could share their food and drink with the poor believers. What an amazing picture of the kingdom of God to see Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, Greeks and Romans, men, women, and children all sharing a meal in happiness and joy!

Much of this is completely lost when it is separated from the meal. Communion today is more of an individualistic experience. I go up by myself and receive it, or it comes to us one at a time. Yes, in some churches, we drink and eat at the same time, but there should be no talking. It would be considered rude to start chatting with your neighbor during Communion. Where is the fellowship? Since the church provides the juice and wafer, how does it display the generosity and sharing in the body of Christ?

The Lord’s Supper was supposed to be a time of both heartfelt remembrance AND celebration. Of course, the Lord’s Supper is to remind us of God’s great love for us that He gave His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 warn us of the danger of drinking and eating in an unworthy manner. Perhaps this has led many to view the Lord’s Supper as a somber, serious time of reflection only. I would agree that taking the bread and wine should bring a humble remembrance of the cross and introspection of our lives, but it should be FOLLOWED by something else: a celebration! The message of the cross is good news (that is why it is called the Gospel), and should be something that brings freedom and joy.

By separating it from the meal, we rob the Lord’s Supper of the celebration of what Jesus has done for us. Recall that we are the Bride of Christ as the church, and that Revelation 19 pictures our wedding feast in heaven when the Lamb comes to take us “home”. The Lord’s Supper is a preview or down payment on the marriage supper of the Lamb. This is not the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16! That day was a day of fasting and mourning for the sins of the nation of Israel. It was the only “holy-day” of the Old Testament festivals that was somber. I fear that we have made the Lord’s Supper into our own Day of Atonement. Jesus came to fulfill the Day of Atonement, and now that it is accomplished, we can celebrate that “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:18).

Look, I know that people take the issue of the Lord’s Supper (Communion/Eucharist) very seriously, and so do I. I realize I could be in for some serious feedback from posting this. However, our doctrine or traditions should always be founded on Scripture, and at the very least, not contradict it. Orthodoxy can be a word which traps us in church traditions which have strayed from the simplicity of Scripture. I know the companies that make the tasteless wafers, small plastic cups, and silver trays may not like this, but I like the thought of sharing a meal with my Christian brothers and sisters where we remember the sacrifice of Jesus and how it has set us free.

To House Church or not to House Church, That is the Question

Posted: July 20, 2012 in The Church
4

Hey, I am all for being the “New Testament” church and being as true to the book of Acts as possible, but I am not so sure we all want to be EXACTLY like the church of Acts. For example, the church in Acts is almost constantly being persecuted. In the Western world, we tend to gloss over that part, and discuss how we want to “go back” to things like house churches, fluid leadership, and apostolic multiplication. You can’t read through Acts for too long without seeing that persecution was a major factor in making the early church what is was. It caused the early church in Jerusalem to be a very tight, unified body (Acts 4). The persecution of Saul caused a missionary movement out of Jerusalem and into the surrounding area (Acts 8). Knowing that they would face persecution made new believers a very committed Christian from the beginning of their faith. So, let’s be careful what we wish for.

One of the “early church” characteristics is that they often, and mostly, met in people’s home to have their church meetings. Some today feel that we should abandon all the expensive buildings we have made and return to the simplicity of having church in our homes again. This has all kinds of advantages such as no huge amounts of money spent on buildings, closer fellowship and better relationship building, and easier multiplication. Churches stay small and organic, without all the hierarchy, professional clergy, and performance issues that the traditional church has. We need to first establish whether this is mandated from the New Testament. Then we will ask two critical questions to form our view.

Acts 1:13 has the apostolic church in Jerusalem in what seems like a home, “And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying.” This changes quickly after Pentecost, as their number swells from 120 to possibly over 3,000 (we don’t know how many saved on Pentecost lived in the area, or were visiting and then returned to start their own fellowships). Still being connected into the Judaic system, Acts 2:46 says, “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts…” It would appear that they met at the temple as a larger group, first honoring the parts of Old Testament Judaism that weren’t repealed by Christ, then staying there in order to have opportunities for teaching and evangelism. For fellowship however, they broke apart most likely into individual homes. If “breaking bread” here refers to the Lord’s Supper, then perhaps there was some of their “service” taking place in the homes. This could be an interesting precedent of larger meetings for teaching and corporate worship, with fellowship and the Lord’s Supper taking place in homes as smaller groups.

The apostolic church continues to meet around the temple and in homes for several chapters further as evidenced in Acts 5:12, “And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico.” and 5:42, “And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.” The real question we must ask from here is whether Paul continued this pattern when he took the Gospel out to the nations. I would argue that we do. Paul uses three main locations for the churches he plants: 1) synagogues; 2) homes; and 3) large areas used for teaching/speaking. Paul’s use of the synagogue was part of his “to the Jew first” strategy for missions, believing the Jews in the nations would have increased receptivity and ministry usefulness due to their background in the Old Testament. Just like the Jerusalem church, this never lasted as a true home for any church, as the religious Jews pushed both out of their area (literally pushing James off the temple itself, killing him!)

Acts is relatively quiet about Paul’s churches meeting in homes, with the exception of Acts 18:7 where Paul meets in a house next to the synagogue after he is kicked out of that exact synagogue (too funny!) Building a house church doctrine from Paul based on Acts would be relatively weak. His letters, however, provide rich detail about house churches in Romans 16:5 (some feel the rest of Rom. 16 list house church groupings although only Aquila and Prisca’s are mentioned directly), Colossians 4:15 (woman’s house), and Philemon 2. Paul also uses larger venues like Solomon’s Portico, such as the lecture hall of Tyrannus for two years (Acts 19:9) and the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17 only mentions one instance, so we don’t know if this was a one time “open air”). Some take 1 Corinthians 11:22 to mean that the Corinthians church didn’t meet in a home but the evidence is unclear, “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?”

There are two questions we must ask at the end of this discussion.  First, does the New Testament command that the church meet in homes. No. You would have to conclude that it is implied by the example given in Paul’s letters, and to a small extent, the first few chapters of Acts. The stronger case would be made for WHY people feel it is better in homes, rather than saying it is “more Biblical”. As we looked at this earlier, having a group of 15 or less in the safe and hospitable environment of a home does make relationship building, accountability, discipleship, and multiplication much easier. There are many websites and books out now that can give you examples of success and details on how to set one up.

The second question that must be asked is, did God intend Christians to pray and use whichever strategy God highlights for a given people group or location? In other words, are there times when different locations other than homes work better? The book of Acts would give some evidence to this by looking at the meetings in the temple, synagogues, and the lecture hall of Tyrannus.  Perhaps God cares less about the location than He does about what is happening INSIDE that location. There could be times where a larger venue is needed to accomplish what God wants, and this can be combined with home groups like the early church in Jerusalem. As the church grew and then came into a time of acceptance by the government, we have to wonder if God would have them adjust to these changes through using different meeting places.

The bottom line is that if God had wanted to be specific about where churches should gather together, He would have done so.  He could have easily had Paul, Peter, or James write this into one of their letters as a command. By not doing so, the church should pray for wisdom and not fight and argue about what is “more Biblical” of a location. If God says rent out the lecture hall of Tyrannus, then let us use that building for the kingdom purposes. If He says meet in our house, than let’s hope we don’t live in Phoenix, Arizona (see recent news articles!). I really only have one request. Wherever we meet, can we have comfortable chairs, big windows, soft lighting, trendy coffee drinks, large flat screen tv’s, and lots of good parking?  I really am not that picky…

Is it time for the sermon to die?

Posted: July 15, 2012 in The Church
0

Ok, I get it. Our modern day church services seem a bit on the performance/spectator side. Often, the attendance of the church can be largely dependent on who is speaking that week.  At a church we attended, I always knew it was either hunting season or the head pastor was on vacation by how empty the parking lot was when we drove up. People have argued that the sermon today is more like a speech which we judge like we were at Toastmasters or something. Some have already dropped the sermon in favor of multisensory experiences or some interactive type of exercise.

Based on our 1 Corinthians 14 passage, unless you view prophecy as a sermon, you don’t see Paul calling for a sermon in the worship service. So does that mean that most churches today are spending most of the service on something that wasn’t even supposed to be there? Even though 1 Corinthians 14 doesn’t mention teaching, there are a truckload of other passages that do.  You want to go back to the early church? How about in Acts 6:2? We mentioned the passage about deacons, but didn’t include why the apostles needed help with tasks like the food distribution. “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” They weren’t saying that they were too “good” to help with this, they were only saying that they needed to be preaching and others could do this task.

Our qualifications for church leaders also mentions the need to be able to teach, as in Titus 1:9, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” If there is no preaching/teaching at church, when is the elder supposed to “give instruction”? 1 Timothy 3:2 says bishops must be “able to teach” as well. If not in the church service, when? Some might say in Bible studies outside of church, but that just doesn’t make sense. If this is so important, then why wouldn’t God want it in the main worship meeting? Bible studies are great, and I believe necessary, but they should be in addition to the teaching in the main meeting.

Of course, the hope is that we as Christians so desire the Word, that we gather together to study it together more than just one day a week. Recall what happened when Paul brought the Gospel to Berea in Acts 17:11, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Paul was teaching in the lecture hall every day in Ephesus as people were hungry for the Word (and he did this for about two years straight! Acts 19:9).  If you don’t like the 3 point sermon, fine, use stories and illustrations to highlight Scriptural truth in a creative way. Sermon not interactive? Then, adopt a teaching stance and have interaction by using questions and answers or discussion groups. Use video clips, Powerpoint, or skits if you want, just make sure that you are having the teaching of the Bible as central in your services.

Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 say that God has given the church the gift of teachers. There were no Bible schools, seminaries, or Sunday school then, so it has to be for the main times we come together even if it is also for these daily types of study. One of the very last things that Paul ever wrote was in his jail cell letter to Timothy, a church leader. 2 Timothy 4:1-2, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:  preach the word; be ready in season and out of season;reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” Paul knew that sound doctrine and an understanding of the Scriptures was absolutely critical and necessary for the success of the believer and the church. Let’s not kill the sermon just yet folks. Tweak, adjust, revamp if you want, but the Word of God must be taught in the church. (Duh.)

What should our church services look like?

Posted: July 12, 2012 in The Church
0

It sure would have solved a lot of problems if one of the New Testament books, preferably straight from Jesus, would have just laid out exactly what should happen when we gather together as a church.  Of course, many of the hot, controversial books out there today would be moot, but then perhaps we could all just get along when it comes to this issue.  Alas, there is little to nothing on exactly what the early church’s services looked like, so we end up squeezing the life out of the few places that do.

One of the most over squeezed ones is 1 Corinthians 14:26-33. When I first taught this book, I realized the significance of this passage in giving us a rare window to the early church. However, if I read one more book or blog basing a major teaching on this passage, I might actually explode (literally). Due to all the hub bub, I feel I must add my own lame attempt to interpret and apply this passage to the church today. I would rather just skip straight to showing how teaching (and preaching) must be present in the church. Some point to this passage to show how off we are today in having our services revolve around the sermon or teaching, so we must see what we can actually know for sure from this passage.

First of all, the context of the passage is that the Corinthian church has some serious issues in their church services.  In chapter 12, Paul begins to correct how they are misusing and misunderstanding the spiritual gifts, specifically speaking in tongues. It would appear that when their worship service started, everyone would all start speaking in tongues with no interpretation and chaos ensued therein. The Corinthians saw gifts as a way to show everyone how spiritual they were, and missed the point of building up others in a church service, as summed up in 12:7, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” and 14:12,”So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.”

As Paul concludes his thoughts on tongues and prophecy, he wants to give the church an idea of what an orderly service looks like. “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.” He clarifies that speaking in tongues should be done in turn, only 2 or 3 at most, and only if there is an interpretation so that everyone in the church can be built up. The point Paul really is hammering home is not so much WHAT they do, but HOW and WHY they do it as also in 14:33, “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” The real question is whether Paul (and therefore God inspiring him) intended this passage to be used as THE example of what a church service HAS to look like.

Those that believe this say that we are then seriously off today. What Paul describes to them is a leaderless, spontaneous, open, participatory, sermon less meeting that looks nothing like most church services do today. If the Corinthian church’s problem is that it is out of control, then I think it isn’t a stretch to think that Paul is saying that a church service needs some guidance and order. Church leaders would be expected to talk with members who kept speaking in tongues without interpretation.  Paul also never says that you can’t have a plan for your worship service. You don’t have to be spontaneous and leaderless in order to be participatory. Different people can lead a song, share a revelation, or teach, while still actually planning ahead.  Sure, sometimes the Spirit speaks, and there needs to be sensitivity to being able to flow with the Spirit, but you can’t always plan that!

I will admit that our worship services have overall become more focused on the “professionals” doing all the singing, sharing, and teaching. Church members often go with no expectation of involvement beyond singing along or saying an occasional amen. Can a pastor ask questions of church members during the sermon? an interactive teaching? are we too afraid to have times in worship with an “open microphone” so people could share a revelation? (some do this and have them run it by an elder before they share) Are we so stuck on having the “best sounding” worship we can have, that we don’t allow members an opportunity to be involved in leading worship? Does the pastor have to be the one who teaches every week?

What we have to remember though is that sound Biblical doctrine comes from multiple clear passages, not from difficult passages or only one passage that is not comprehensive. That is our problem with this passage, in that Paul never meant to write a comprehensive teaching on the church worship service here, and there are no other clear passages like this. We also have to interpret this passage in light of the rest of the Bible. As we will explore in the next post, the New Testament has A LOT to say about teaching/preaching in the church. There is simply no way that we can take this passage in Corinthians and say that it shows that the sermon or teaching was never supposed to be part of a service!

What I walk away from Paul’s teaching with is that our church service isn’t about us, it is about building up and serving others. It should allow for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but they need to be used with order and for the good of others. Church members should be allowed and encouraged to participate, but leaders are expected to address people who are out of control or sharing something against sound doctrine. Often our debates are over form, the style of music, type of building, or use of technology. I think just trying to apply the few things I listed above would keep me busy enough to not worry about “to hymnal or not to hymnal”.

Older Entries
Newer Entries