What Divides Us?

Came across this quote from S. Michael Craven from the Center for Christ and Culture. The quote is from his recent blog post Love Believes All Things. I agree with the content and the tone of the piece and made some similar comments on a previous post myself.

"How many times have you heard the phrase “doctrine divides?” In response, I would say it isn’t doctrine that divides us but rather epistemology. In other words, it’s what we think we know with certainty that divides us. Such certitude is presumptuous and arrogant, the height of hubris when measured against the humility of Paul, who in the same chapter on love conceded the presence of mystery when he wrote, “Now I know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). If the apostle Paul did not know the truth completely, then neither do you or I. The consequence of this fact should be a more humble epistemology that is more inclined to listen, to process and ponder, rather than critique and attack."

You can read the rest of Michael's blog post here.

Don't Forget Mystery

In the church of my dreams, the Bible is central and speaks with "final authority on all matters of faith and practice" (to quote a document from the Baptist church of my youth). Such a valuing of the Scriptures will inevitably lead to teaching from the Bible that is doctrinal in nature. So far so good.

From this can arise the desire for a "systematic" theology that covers all aspects of Biblical revelation and attempts to draw together the different strands of Bible truth into a comprehensive whole. Affirming that Scripture is not internally contradictory and assuming that all strands of Biblical truth can be harmonised, we can then develop a system of belief that attempts to explain all - a kind of Biblical equivalent of the scientist's search for a Grand Theory of Everything.

This desire is, of course, understandable and at one level is to be welcomed. It does, however, have its risks. One problem that can emerge in a church or movement committed to expounding Biblical truth is that its understanding of doctrine can become overly formulaic and can fail to recognise that in the end, all doctrine ends in mystery.

When we say that "God is love", for example, we are saying something that at one level appears reasonably clear and able to be understood (to the mind made alive by the Spirit). But at the same time, we are also staring wide mouthed into the most profound mystery of the universe, a mystery that makes the unraveling of the human genome appear child's play.

Although the words of Scripture are sufficient, they are not exhaustive. They do not tell us all that can be known, only that which we need to know for our salvation and for living a godly life.

Perhaps Paul had something similar in mind when he confessed that "we know in part" and when he portrayed this present life as "looking into a dark mirror" or (as other versions put it) "seeing only dimly". Because so much attention has been spent in recent decades explaining that these verses in 1 Corinthians do not refer to the cessation of spiritual gifts with the closing of the canon of Scripture, we have perhaps not been as careful to explain what they actually do mean.

In context, Paul is saying that all of our current knowledge about the things of God is limited - not incorrect, just limited. It is like the knowledge that a child has about the world around him - simplistic, basic, lacking depth or rigor. "Now", says Paul, "we know in part."

What is Paul's response to the reality of our current childish knowledge compared to our future adult knowledge of spiritual things? Does he abandon doctrine? Not at all. Rather, he emphasises love: And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

In the church of my dreams, doctrinal teaching is important. But it is to be set forth with a healthy dose of humility and a recognition that at present we're just kids talking about big stuff that we don't really get. This being the case, we adopt humility in our dealings with each other, and we make great efforts to think, speak and act lovingly towards all those who belong to Jesus Christ, even with those who don't agree with our view of the Millenium.

The Gospels and the Gospel

Not being in the forefront of current Christian thought and discussion, I have only now got round to reading Dr NT Wright's response to the controversy that ran through British evangelicalism last year concerning the evangelical understanding of the nature of the atonement - a controversy fueled in part by Steve Chalke's book The Lost Message of Jesus and reported on in depth at my friend Adrian Warnock's site over the months.

In reading Dr Wright's response to the issue (a 13,000 word treatise which he modestly describes as being "only a tip-of-the-iceberg treatment written in haste") I was struck by several aspects of the article.

In particular, I was heartened by the way he demands that evangelicals must give more attention in their theological reflection on the nature of the atonement to the canonical gospel texts and not only to Paul's writings. The following is typical of his concern:

I am forced to conclude that there is a substantial swathe of contemporary evangelicalism which actually doesn't know what the gospels themselves are there for, and would rather elevate 'Paul' ... and treat Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as mere repositories of Jesus' stories from which certain doctrinal and theological nuggets may be collected.

As a third generation unbeliever, I was converted to the faith of Christ through reading and preaching that centered on Matthew and John. It was only later in my Christian life that I was introduced in any meaningful way to the Pauline corpus (through the preaching of Terry Virgo), a development for which I remain continually thankful.

Partly because of my own journey to faith, no doubt, I have always had a high view of the gospels and have at times wondered whether the focus on Paul's letters in so much of the preaching of the churches I have been part of has lead to an imbalanced theology in some respects. Shocking sentence, I know.

Although I have my own views on the controversy outlined at the start of this post, I am not going to share them here (not yet, anyway). Nor am I suggesting (as some have done) that the gospels and Paul are in any way in tension with each other.

Instead, I would rather state that in the church of my dreams, the gospel narratives are treated with the same reverence and respect afforded to the apostolic letters and Acts and that their theology of Christ - his life, his teaching, his kingdom works, his humanity, his divinity, his place in the history of God's saving purpose, his death and his resurrection - is taught, received and put into practice with the same vigor and commitment that we afford to the apostolic letters of Paul.

Where Does the Money Go in Church - Part 2

We've seen that one of the ways money was used in the New Testament church was to provide the necessities of life for oneself and one's family.

Beyond this, early on in Acts, we see money being used to help other believers in the local church. The key passages are well known and both describe life in the Jerusalem church:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. (Acts 4:32-33)


Both passages begin with a description of a state of mind and finish with a description of certain activities that arose from that state.

In chapter two we are told by Luke that this group of believers "devoted themselves" to four things:

1) the apostles' doctrine
2) the fellowship
3) the breaking of bread
4) prayer

This devotion then found expression in a way of life in which "all the believers had everything in common" and in which they "gave to anyone as he had need."

Evangelical commentators have sometimes got their proverbial knickers in a twist over this passage. Prompted, perhaps, in the mid-20th century by a fear of communism, many of that century's commentaries go to considerable lengths to argue that this "common life" was extraordinary, experimental and non-binding on believers in every age.

Presumably, these helpful commentators would not take such a view of being devoted to the apostles' doctrine, but would see that as an excellent example to be followed by Christians today.

Actually, devotion to the four things that the Jerusalem believers were devoted to will tend to produce similar ways of thinking in believers of all ages.

Apostolic doctrine

• Apostolic doctrine was soteriological - focused on God's act of salvation in Christ - and tended to produce worship and thanksgiving.

• Apostolic doctrine was also eschatological - focusing on the coming of the Kingdom of God and the passing away of this present evil age - and tended to loosen ties to the things of this world.

• It was also communitarian - emphasizing God's plan to bring Jew and Gentile together into one new man in Christ - and tended to produce unity and equality

• Finally, this doctrine was ethical - love being the fulfillment of the law and the greatest command - and highlighted one's moral responsibility to one's fellow man

The fellowship

In a similar, but perhaps more direct way, the church's devotion to "the fellowship" was an obvious way in which their mind set was shaped with regard to the sharing of possessions.

Fellowship, at its most basic level, means "sharing" or "common-ness" , the word (koinonea) being the root of our English words common, community and communism. These early believer were, according to Luke, "devoted" to this practical idea of sharing/participating together/being community.

Sharing their possessions was a natural outworking of this devotion.

The breaking of bread

There is not a consensus among scholars as to the precise meaning of this phrase and, in particular, the extent to which it refers to the "Lord's Supper" of bread and wine.

The phrase is used by Paul in his Corinthian correspondence with reference to the remembrance of the death of Christ through the act of eating bread and drinking wine. I have also argued elsewhere in this blog that the early church did in fact share the bread and wine in the context of an actual meal with real food present. This was certainly the case when the original meal was eaten by the Lord and the disciples the night before his arrest.

What is clear is that the phrase "the breaking of bread" does refer to eating food together and that it was a practice that the Jerusalem church was devoted to.

Prayer

So much has been written and said about prayer in the early church that I feel there is little I could add to the wealth of understanding on the subject.

Perhaps there is just one perspective that may be relevant. It is that the devotion to prayer enjoyed by these believers was present in the context of community life - in fact, perhaps the most extraordinary and beautiful community life recorded in Scripture.

Perhaps you're different, but personally I find it more natural to pray (even for long periods of time and into the night) when I am living in community with brothers and sisters who are devoted to the apostles' doctrine, devoted to the shared life and devoted to eating together often and remembering the Lord's death and resurrection.

I would go so far as to say that were you and I to be living in such a community, prayer would flood out of us. The healthy peer-pressure would be irresistible!

This began as a post about sharing possessions. It is still about that, but as an expression of devoted lives.

Christians sometimes get very nervous about sharing possessions with those in need. Sometimes it's because we don't see it as the overflow of a life devoted to sharing the truth of the gospel, sharing food, sharing the Lord's supper and sharing prayer.

A Multi-Gifted Body

Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth gives us some unique insights into the reasons why the church met and the activities that took place when they did.

"When you come together...", writes the apostle, "everyone has a...." He then lists a sample of the different gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit's presence that members of the community might exercise.

Here is the starting point for answering the question, "Why meet?" The church in Corinth met in order to build itself up in God through (a) the sharing of its life together and (b) the exercise by its members of its God-given gifts as guided by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all.

A shorter definition of this sentence might be to say that the reason the church gathered was for fellowship and edification.

A study of the word "worship" in the New Testament will reveal that it is never used as a word to describe the focus of the local church's meetings. (If you don't have a free online concordance, Bible Gateway is a good one to get you started.) That's not to say that the early church never sang praise or worship songs - far from it. But it appears that this was not the focus of their gatherings.

Perhaps more controversially, it's also difficult to argue that the primitive churches met in order to hear preaching. It's hard to write a sentence like that without appearing to endorse the anti-doctrinal elements that are rife in the "new church" or "emerging church" movements. For the record, I do not endorse this anti-doctrinal emphasis, believing it is dishonoring of God's word and that it also produces weak Christians. My point is simply that, while teaching played a prominent part in the meetings of the early churches, it is difficult to argue that this was the essential reason why they gathered.

Instead, Paul's letter paints a picture of a multi-membered body, each member filled with the Holy Spirit, coming together to share their common life in God and build up each other through using the gifts God had given them. In this sense, they were a charismatic church. In fact, the term is tautologous: there is no concept in the pages of the New Testament of any kind of church that did not function on the basis of the giftedness of its members.