The Bible Nerd

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?

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.

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…

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.)

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”.

Anarchy sounds like a great idea at first.  If if feels good, just do it. We are all adults, aren’t we? God is the only one who can tell me what to do. That is my own personal, private business. Who are you to tell me what to do? Worry about yourself, buddy. All these thoughts and mindsets have been replaying themselves in my head for what seems like my whole life. I can honestly say that I am often a rebel without a clue. I usually love sitting in the back of a classroom. (being married, my wife loves the front, so we sit in the middle so neither of us can be happy…) At 13 years old, both my mother and teachers were ready to launch me into space to do some experiments for NASA. So, no, I have not always appreciated having accountability and leaders at church.

Our individualistic, Western oriented church has demanded our independence, especially since the 60’s and 70’s movements.  Reading through much of the “why the church must change or die” literature, I feel often like I am at a Occupy Seattle rally. I am not sure who the “man” is, but I am not going to swallow that pill and fall trap to the “system”. Stop trying to get me to join your church’s small groups, where I am sure that someone will ask me how my spiritual life is going and want me to set and stick to any kind of goal for my growth in Jesus. However, once again, that pesky New Testament will be hard to deal with carrying around this kind of attitude.

God has placed leadership in the church to provide accountability as well as make decisions that will determine the vision and programs of the body. We can’t even make it past Acts 6 without seeing the early church’s leadership engaging in both functions (there are many more things that church leaders do, but these are the ones I believe we struggle with). In Acts 5, God uses Peter to hold Ananias and Sapphira accountable.  Thankfully, most cases of church discipline are NOT this extreme.  In the very next chapter, the church leadership has to settle a dispute between the Hebrews and Hellenists over the widow list. The resulting decision created a whole new role in the church that today we call deacons (servants). If either side was displeased with the decision that the apostles made, Acts doesn’t mention it but it is hard to believe at least one person wasn’t still grouchy.

1 and 2 Corinthians are full of examples on how Paul expected church leadership to deal with problems that he had heard reported on.  From division and disunity (chapters 1 -4), sexual immorality and lawsuits (chapter 5 – 6), divorce (chapter 7), and all the way to issues with the resurrection (chapter 15), Paul was disturbed that church leaders in Corinth were either not addressing the issues, or were actually causing them! Sometimes today, we are so worried about not being “judgmental”, that our tolerance is then taken as moral indifference or relativism.  Of course, all believers are ultimately accountable to God, then to each fellow believer (Matthew 18:15-17), but He places responsibility on elders in the church to deal with members who refuse to repent.

This is one of the reasons that God places such high expectations and qualifications on church leaders as we saw in Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13.  We can’t expect them to be perfect and without their own sin that needs accountability, but Jesus sure expects that they aren’t new believers or people with habitual sin in their lifestyles.  As we stated before also, it is a group leadership, yet they have to make very important decisions at times. In Acts 15, the early church leaders met together in a council to determine the requirements on Gentiles when they became Christians.  This decision easily was one of the most important ones they made, yet I don’t see them having all church members vote on this.  The majority ruling doesn’t always lead to godliness (once again, thank you America for the example).

Thankfully, in addition to accountability and decision making, God has given the church leaders for things we usually do like: pastoral care and teaching to name two. I must stress though that just like with accountability, it is not solely the leaders’ role.  Just as we hold each other accountable as fellow believers, God uses gifts of pastoral care and teaching through the whole body. In our next post, we will start to discuss the role of teaching in the church. In order to do that however, we will have to dive into the fun world of what should our church meetings (often called the worship service) look like.  That should be fun. Until then, let us search our own hearts for attitudes of individualism, pride, or rebelliousness that have no place in Christ. I need to be reminded that my unwillingness to trust leaders as well as not being open to correction is often most detrimental to me.  And I care about me after all.

Let’s face the truth.  Leaders and bosses can be jerks sometimes.  If you go to church long enough, I will almost guarantee that you will have a story about when “my pastor/elder/deacon/minister/small group leader hurt me when he/she said or did…..(fill in the blank with discouraging comments, poor decision, unjust resolution… you get the picture). Jesus talks to the disciples several times about being a servant, and not lording authority over people like the non Christians.  So, why don’t we just get rid of church leaders and just make it a democracy?  It worked for America right? (snicker, snicker)

While Jesus was the suffering servant who modeled humility and love, the New Testament is once again clear on the fact that there should be appointed leaders in every church.  In Titus 1:5, Paul’s command to Titus says, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.”  Then Paul goes on to list what the qualifications for an elder are (Acts 14:23 has Paul and Barnabas doing the same thing for Galatia).  Before you think that was just localized to Crete, he tells Timothy about church leadership for Ephesus in 1 Timothy 3:1. “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.”  Overseer is often left as “bishop”, and Paul also talks about requirements for deacons in this chapter.

Why in the world would Paul spend so much time in these letters for two different churches talking about what leaders should be like if he didn’t want leaders??? It wasn’t just Paul that spoke of leaders, as Hebrews 13:7, 1 Peter 5:1, and James 5:14 all talk about leaders in individual churches.  I would contend that our problem with church leadership isn’t that we have them, it is that our expectations of them are wrong and that too often too much power ends up in one man’s hands.  Leaders are human, which basically tells us that they are sinners who need the forgiveness of Christ just as much as the members.  While leaders are held to different standards in Scripture, we need to make sure that leaders are there to point us to Jesus, not to replace Him.

The issue which absolutely must be dealt with is how many churches have veered away from group leadership.  No where do New Testament writers allow for one person to be at the “top” of a hierarchical church leadership structure making all the decisions.  There is only one head of the church, and that is Jesus.  Leadership is always discussed in the plural; elderS, deaconS, overseerS.  As the early church grew, it took on the structure of the Roman Empire and other man made organizations having one leader who had the ultimate authority.  Instead of provincial governors, the church appointed bishops (overseers) over an area of churches.  The passages about bishops simply don’t support its use in this way.  Elders and deacons were replaced eventually by a priest over each church.  A priest??? are you kidding me?  How clear is 1 Peter 2:9 on the priesthood of the believers? It only got worse, with more power concentrated in invented roles like cardinals and popes.

The Protestant Reformation addressed the abuse of power and misuse of the title priest.  I can understand why they picked the use of the term pastor, with Jesus Himself discussing His role as the Great Shepherd.  The problem often is that the pastor simply replaced the priest as being one man making all the key decisions for a church.  What I don’t understand is why the reformers didn’t go back to using the terms elders and deacons alone?  There is only one passage in the whole New Testament that uses the term pastor (Ephes. 4:11) and gives no definition of what that role really is.  I can understand wanting to not use bishop due to how it was misused.  The question I am often asked is, “If we don’t use the term pastor, wouldn’t there still need to be one “head elder” of each church?”

I suppose if we agree with the sentiment behind the question, we could even still use the term “pastor” for the head elder.  I don’t have a problem with that.  My question back would be why do we need one head elder? Here is where my experience in ministry kicks in.  What I have seen is that without one person who serves as a “head” of a group/organization/ministry, there are often problems.  Meetings meander on with no clear guidance or mediation, people often keep deferring to each other when no one wants to make a decision, or the group comes to a standstill when there is no clear majority on an issue.  I know there are answers you could give to solving these issues without a leader, but I haven’t seen it work in the last 17 years. There also does seem to be some support for a “head elder” role in passages like Rom. 16:3-5, Philemon 1-2, Acts 15:22, Acts 21:18, Philippians 4:3, and some would say that Timothy acted in this role for the church at Ephesus for a time (1 Timothy).

The thought I want to leave you with is twofold.  First, we clearly need and are commanded to have leadership to be called a church. This is one of the reasons the two guys on the golf course or buddies at the coffee shop don’t qualify as a church.  They usually never have leaders.  In the next post, I will take us through some Scriptures that explain why we need leaders.  Second, we need to make sure that we return to the Biblical foundation of group leadership of our churches.  I actually don’t care if you use the terms elders, bishops, deacons, presbyters, minister, pastor, etc…, so long as all the power in a church doesn’t end up in one person’s hands.  That is usually a recipe either for disaster at the worst, or a church that never reaches its full potential at the best.

We are the church.  That is what I hear all the time.  Occasionally, that means, “Stop complaining about THE church, because we are THE church.”  Usually though, it means that Christians are the church; it isn’t a building, programs, or an institution.  While there is truth in there, it is being taken to mean that if a few Christians get together and talk about “spiritual” stuff, then that is church.  You don’t need a building, structure, or any of that “other stuff” to be the church.

For example, in books that I have read lately, they said that the following counted as church: 1) two guys meeting to play golf every week, where between putting and chip shots, they discuss the Bible and other spiritual issues; 2) a few people getting together at Starbucks and doing a Bible study together; 3) a picnic at the park where they hand out food to the poor people and talk to them about God.  Now, none of these things are bad things, but NONE of them qualifies as being called church as far as the New Testament is concerned.  Much of this sounds a lot like New Age thought to be honest.  New Age thought focuses on making a spiritual connection, where the “journey” is more important than a book, building, or program.  You don’t need to go to church, a synagogue, or a mosque to connect with God; in fact, those places with all their rules and legalism will probably keep you from truly connecting to God.

How did some of our books about Christianity end up sounding like New Age stuff??? I think that some people are so fed up with problems they see in the churches they have attended, that they like the thought that they can have “church” without all that junk they dealt with before.  No pastors to make them feel guilty for not giving more, no elders telling them not to question church doctrine, and no boring meetings that you have to drag yourself to every Sunday.  Instead, you can order a mocha, sit in comfy, mod looking chairs, and talk about whatever you want with your friends.  Ditch the wooden pew and hymnals and let’s have deep thoughts about the latest, greatest Christian author.

I hate to throw cold water on all this post modern church talk, but “church” in the New Testament contains the following aspects: organized meetings with a group of Christians, appointed group leadership that holds the church accountable, teachers and preachers who disciple others in the truths of Scripture, and a ongoing relationship with the body of Christ as a whole.  I will take us through Scriptures for each of these, but let’s start out with the first one.  It is true that the “church” is used sometimes in the New Testament to mean all Christians together, and not one specific group.

For example, Matthew 16:18, Acts  8:3, and Ephesians 1:22 all use the “church” to mean not just one individual group, but all Christians worldwide or at least in one area.  In 1 Corinthians 15:9, Paul says, “For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”  We know that Paul persecuted Christians in many areas, so in this use, he means something closer to “all Christians”, and not just one individual group.  However, most New Testament references are referring to one individual group that is located in one area.  True, the “church of Corinth” might be made up of several house churches, but it is still an organized grouping of Christians in one area.  Christianity is not New Age thought in that it was never meant to be an individualistic experience. 1 Corinthians 16:9 brings it all together, “The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord.”

Of course, church would be easier if it was just something you could do by yourself or with a select group of friends.  If you disagree and fight with yourself, you need serious help.  Yes, the location is not the issue, in that you could have a church meeting on a golf course, in a warehouse, or a coffee bar, but the heart of meeting together was fellowship, accountability, discipleship, and evangelism.  That organized body of believers could be contacted by others in different areas, recognized as a group, and held accountable in the larger body of Christ.  In 3 John 1:19, when there is an issue with a believer, John writes, “I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.”  While we may not know what area exactly this church was in, John was able as an apostle of the early church to write to that organized group about an issue with one of its members.

In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul says, “That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.”  My point is this, how could Paul visit and teach in “every church” if there were no organized, recognizable group to meet with?  As much as we would like to free ourselves from all the hassle of meeting with other people, we just can’t do what we want and call it “church”.  Of course you can pray and meet with God outside of church.  Even more to the point, you don’t have to be a member of an organized church to go to heaven (that one might rile some feathers).  Playing golf and hanging out with your buddies just isn’t what Jesus had in mind when He talked about His bride the church.  In the next post, we will look at how the New Testament says that churches have leadership.  Maybe that is what we really are trying to escape by redefining church…

I have to be honest to start this whole series of posts on the church.  Yes, I have occasionally complained about “the church”.  Ok, ok, maybe I have complained a bit more than that.  I have read a few of the recent “manifestos” about how the church needs to change, and uttered an amen or two.  There are times when I have to use a whip and a chair to herd my family to church on Sunday mornings.  However, I have to wonder, when did “the church” become a bad word?  With the amount of negativity that is out there today, you would think we were talking about a root canal or a trip to the proctologist.

In the upcoming weeks, we will be discussing what the Bible has to say about the church, talk about all this focus on the New Testament church, and even delve into the deep waters of the Emerging Church movement.  Before we do any of that, I feel we need to step back and remember just what it is that we are talking about.  Too many have an irreverent, careless attitude when discussing something that God seems to care a whole lot about.  On the other hand, we can’t keep sticking our heads in the sand and act like there isn’t something monumental happening right now in the Western church.

The apostle Paul spent most of his life (actually risking his life) in order to see churches planted all over the Roman Empire.  In three passages specifically, he gives us God’s view on the church.  In 1 Timothy 3:15, he says, “… if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” First, Paul calls the church “God’s household”, which means that the church as God sees it isn’t a lifeless institution, but the people He calls His own and that “live” with Him.  Not only that, but He also says that the church functions as the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.  How does it do this?  God uses the church to teach the world truth through the study and teaching of His Word that happens in church, as well as through the behavior of the church members. I don’t work in construction, but I think things like pillars and foundations are pretty important to a building.  Based on this illustration, take out the church, and the whole thing God is building comes crashing down. (Yes, I know Jesus is the foundation and cornerstone in other illustrations)

In Ephesians 3:10-11, Paul blows us away with the following, “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  Wow! Paul is saying that God is using the church to make His wisdom known to spiritual powers.  How does He accomplish this?  In the context of chapter 3, the point is that as Jews and Gentiles come together in the church, the world (both natural and supernatural) will see God’s ultimate plan to unite us all in the redemption of Christ. Most people would be thrilled to get a revelation FROM an angel, but do you realize that as a part of the church, you are a revelation TO an angel?

Finally, Ephesians 5:25-27 should give us pause before we speak about the churh, “… just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”  The Old Testament prophets such as Hosea introduced the theme of God’s people as the bride or wife of God.  Paul continues this in presenting the church as the bride of Christ, and this comes to ultimate fulfillment in Revelation 19 where we see the marriage supper of the Lamb.  To those of you who are married, how do you (or would you) feel when someone is bad mouthing your wife?  Warm and fuzzy?  I don’t think so.  Yet, we often speak of the church forgetting the great love that Jesus has for it, even giving his own life to purify her.

Look, the church isn’t a building or a bunch of programs.  The church is the people of God, gathered together to worship, disciple, evangelize, and love this dying world.  Yes, we have to meet somewhere and we will discuss house churches and the lot later.  No, the New Testament never refers to one individual Christian as a/the “church”, so we are talking about a group.  She may be a woman with problems, but she is God’s household making His truth known, a vessel to show God’s wisdom to the heavenly powers, and the bride of Jesus.  Let’s show some respect and fear of God as we discuss the church.