Who is in charge in the Christian church? The obvious answer is Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 4:15; 1 Timothy 2:5). Also, the standard on which we are to base what we do is the Scripture (Isaiah 8:20; Galatians 1:8,9; Acts 17:11). But that still leaves the question of what is the place for human leadership. There are those who exalt human leadership to the point that it conflicts with the authority of Christ and of the Scripture. There are others, in response to this, who leave little or no place for human leadership in the church. How are we to approach this issue?
Scripture does call for and command subjection to human leadership (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12,13; 1 Timothy 5:17). Now this leadership is to be servant leadership (Luke 22:25-27; 1 Peter 5:1-4; John 13:1-20), and there comes a time when we must obey God rather then men (Acts 4:19,20; 5:29; Galatians 2:11-16). But while the leaders of the church are to meet certain qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), what determines who may possess this role?
One way to approach it is to see a special authority passed down by organizational continuity. The idea is that an unbroken chain of ordination guarantees the validity of the position being held. But this is not taught anywhere in Scripture. In fact, the disciples are rebuked for criticizing a man who is doing good in the name of Christ but not following them (Mark 9:38-41). The one passage most commonly used to support this view proves the opposite (Matthew 16:13-20). This statement is not made of Peter based on who ordained him, but based on his confession of faith. Therefore, those who have the faith of Peter have the authority of Peter. This same statement is later made to all the disciples (Matthew 18:18-20). (Note that it is those who have faith who have literally the "authority" to become children of God in John 1:12.) It should be noticed that while this passage is frequently applied to prayer, its most direct application is to church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17), doing the work of the church. But this authority is not an arbitrary authority, but is based on the recognition of Christ in our midst. In the same way Jesus, centering the authority in Himself, commands the eleven disciples (note it mentions their place as His students, not their office) to make disciples, baptize, and teach (Matthew 28:18-20). Therefore, while we should be subject to leaders, we should beware of those who claim some special authority based on something other then the agreement of the people of God. (I do not know that this necessarily requires voting, but it is at least a tacit agreement.) But we also should not ignore the requirement to be subject to leaders, rebelling against everything we do not like. And both leaders and congregation should not emphasize what they want, but should look to Christ, who is the real authority.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
A Touch of Humor - The Call
How do we tell if something is really God's calling? Is there a way to avoid making a mistake one way or the other?
Friday, January 27, 2012
A Voice from the Past - Justin Martyr
And to any thoughtful person would anything appear more incredible, than, if we were not in the body, and some were to say that it was possible that from a small drop of human seed bones and sinews and flesh be formed into a shape such as we see? For let this now be said hypothetically: if you yourselves were not such as you now are, and born of such parents and causes, and one were to show you human seed and a picture of a man, and were to say with confidence that from such a substance such a being could be produced, would you believe before you saw the actual production? No one will dare to deny that such a statement would surpass belief. In the same way, then, you are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again.
Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, First Apology, Chapter XIX (The Apostolic Fathers with Justin and Irenaeus, translated by Philip Schaff, Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001, p. 223)
While Justin's science was a little off, does his argument basically make sense? Is it helpful?
Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, First Apology, Chapter XIX (The Apostolic Fathers with Justin and Irenaeus, translated by Philip Schaff, Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001, p. 223)
While Justin's science was a little off, does his argument basically make sense? Is it helpful?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Secrets of the Knights Templar
There are many who claim to have found some mysterious secret about God or ultimate truth. Some lost to the ages and now perhaps only recently found by them or the group they represent. This is not a new idea, but part of a pattern that goes back to ancient times. But it is hard to fit this approach in with Biblical Christianity and the One who said He did nothing in secret (John 18:20,21). Yet there are continuously those who try to fit the two together. One example of this is the attempt to read things into the story of the Knights Templar.
The Knights Templar were a special fighting monastic order created to defend Palestine at the time of the Crusades. When Palestine was lost, they continued as an order in hopes of one day regaining it. But they were abolished based on charges brought by Philip the Fourth, King of France. This event has led some to claim there was a mysterious secret belonging to the Templars that King Philip abolished the order to destroy. But is there evidence for this? The Knights Templar were accused of worshiping an idol called Baphomet, cursing the cross, homosexual activity, and sexual activity with demons. None or this seems to reflect any kind of coherent philosophy or alternate form of Christianity. It also is not believable (even leaving aside the sexual relations with demons). These things were claimed to be in the initiation rites into the Templars. We are to assume young men wanting to enlist in the Crusades would all easily agree to such things and no one would blab. Also, Baphomet was a European distortion for Mohammed, who, it was claimed, the Muslims worshiped. Given it was a slander that Muslims worshiped Mohammed, it is not possible that the Templars picked it up from them. The only evidence for this was confessions elicited by torture, many of which were later retracted. All this ends up looking like an attempt by King Philip to confiscate the Templar's holdings (rumored to be very considerable). King Philip took a similar approach toward Pope Boniface VIII, who had opposed him, by claiming the pope had been involved in magic and summoning demons. These accusations helped lay the foundation for the later witch hunts. There was no real basis for the charges against the Templars, let alone a dangerous secret they held.
This is an example of the kind of approach that looks for mysterious secrets where there are none. It is better to stick with the clear, open form of Christianity, rather than looking for such mysteries. Is it really possible that the true meaning of Christianity had somehow been passed down secretly only to emerge without solid evidence at a later date? And is it not better to look to the open testimony of history to decide what Christianity is?
The Knights Templar were a special fighting monastic order created to defend Palestine at the time of the Crusades. When Palestine was lost, they continued as an order in hopes of one day regaining it. But they were abolished based on charges brought by Philip the Fourth, King of France. This event has led some to claim there was a mysterious secret belonging to the Templars that King Philip abolished the order to destroy. But is there evidence for this? The Knights Templar were accused of worshiping an idol called Baphomet, cursing the cross, homosexual activity, and sexual activity with demons. None or this seems to reflect any kind of coherent philosophy or alternate form of Christianity. It also is not believable (even leaving aside the sexual relations with demons). These things were claimed to be in the initiation rites into the Templars. We are to assume young men wanting to enlist in the Crusades would all easily agree to such things and no one would blab. Also, Baphomet was a European distortion for Mohammed, who, it was claimed, the Muslims worshiped. Given it was a slander that Muslims worshiped Mohammed, it is not possible that the Templars picked it up from them. The only evidence for this was confessions elicited by torture, many of which were later retracted. All this ends up looking like an attempt by King Philip to confiscate the Templar's holdings (rumored to be very considerable). King Philip took a similar approach toward Pope Boniface VIII, who had opposed him, by claiming the pope had been involved in magic and summoning demons. These accusations helped lay the foundation for the later witch hunts. There was no real basis for the charges against the Templars, let alone a dangerous secret they held.
This is an example of the kind of approach that looks for mysterious secrets where there are none. It is better to stick with the clear, open form of Christianity, rather than looking for such mysteries. Is it really possible that the true meaning of Christianity had somehow been passed down secretly only to emerge without solid evidence at a later date? And is it not better to look to the open testimony of history to decide what Christianity is?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Do You Have to Be Crazy to Be a Charismatic?
Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"
Do you have to be crazy to be a charismatic? Or does it just help? Let's look at the issues involved.
The idea that certain spiritual gifts have passed away has no solid basis in Scripture, and we are told not to forbid people to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39). (I know it is claimed that modern tongues are not real tongues, but would God command not to forbid something that is about to pass away?) Now there are rules laid down for the use of the gifts (1 Corinthians 14:26-40). However, the description given is fairly informal. We are instructed not to all talk at once and not to do things, such as speaking in tongues without an interpreter, which are not understandable. But we need to be careful of looking down on something because it is not dignified enough (2 Samuel 6:20-23). Also, the fact a gift is misused does not mean it is not legitimate. 1 Corinthians 12-14 was written to check the misuse of spiritual gifts. (Note that Paul was not shy, and if the gifts being used were largely counterfeit, we would expect him to say so.)
There is an emotional aspect to our response to God's truth. We are to rejoice (Philippians 4:4), we are to have peace (John 14:27); even faith, hope, and love have emotional components (1 Corinthians 13:13). But what is appropriate and what is overboard? Now I am hesitant to criticize other people's spiritual experiences, if they do not result in false teaching or disobedience to God's commands. But it is when people pursue experience rather then pursuing God and hold up their experience as necessary for everyone that it creates problems.
Scripture speaks of people being overwhelmed by the greatness of God (Daniel 10:8-12; Acts 9:3-9; Isaiah 6:1-5). I myself have felt the Spirit fall so powerfully I felt like I had been hit by a truck. But I have never fallen over backwards nor felt that God wanted me to. I do not feel I can discount this in all cases as a genuine spiritual experience, but I see no Scriptural basis for requiring it. I have known cases where God's truth has come home to me in such a powerful way I ended up crying or laughing . I am not at all sure this is the same as "holy laughter". As for "holy drunkenness," I do not think this is what Acts 2:13 means. Further, regarding rolling in the aisles, barking like a dog, or roaring like a lion, I do not see a Scriptural or rational basis for these.
But the basic problem is that certain spiritual gifts and emotional experiences are seen as showing a higher level of spiritual life in those who have them. This is contrary to Scripture (1 Corinthians 13:1-3; 12:28-30; Romans 12:3), which says God is at work in all His people to accomplish His purposes (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 2:10).
Do you have to be crazy to be a charismatic? Or does it just help? Let's look at the issues involved.
The idea that certain spiritual gifts have passed away has no solid basis in Scripture, and we are told not to forbid people to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39). (I know it is claimed that modern tongues are not real tongues, but would God command not to forbid something that is about to pass away?) Now there are rules laid down for the use of the gifts (1 Corinthians 14:26-40). However, the description given is fairly informal. We are instructed not to all talk at once and not to do things, such as speaking in tongues without an interpreter, which are not understandable. But we need to be careful of looking down on something because it is not dignified enough (2 Samuel 6:20-23). Also, the fact a gift is misused does not mean it is not legitimate. 1 Corinthians 12-14 was written to check the misuse of spiritual gifts. (Note that Paul was not shy, and if the gifts being used were largely counterfeit, we would expect him to say so.)
There is an emotional aspect to our response to God's truth. We are to rejoice (Philippians 4:4), we are to have peace (John 14:27); even faith, hope, and love have emotional components (1 Corinthians 13:13). But what is appropriate and what is overboard? Now I am hesitant to criticize other people's spiritual experiences, if they do not result in false teaching or disobedience to God's commands. But it is when people pursue experience rather then pursuing God and hold up their experience as necessary for everyone that it creates problems.
Scripture speaks of people being overwhelmed by the greatness of God (Daniel 10:8-12; Acts 9:3-9; Isaiah 6:1-5). I myself have felt the Spirit fall so powerfully I felt like I had been hit by a truck. But I have never fallen over backwards nor felt that God wanted me to. I do not feel I can discount this in all cases as a genuine spiritual experience, but I see no Scriptural basis for requiring it. I have known cases where God's truth has come home to me in such a powerful way I ended up crying or laughing . I am not at all sure this is the same as "holy laughter". As for "holy drunkenness," I do not think this is what Acts 2:13 means. Further, regarding rolling in the aisles, barking like a dog, or roaring like a lion, I do not see a Scriptural or rational basis for these.
But the basic problem is that certain spiritual gifts and emotional experiences are seen as showing a higher level of spiritual life in those who have them. This is contrary to Scripture (1 Corinthians 13:1-3; 12:28-30; Romans 12:3), which says God is at work in all His people to accomplish His purposes (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 2:10).
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I Will Build My Church
Christ has said He will build His church (Matthew 16:18). But what does that mean? It means that Christ is at work in the lives of each of His people to accomplish His purposes (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Colossians 1:28,29). It means that God has put His people together, giving each one a place and function to work together to build up the whole (1 Corinthians 12:11-27; Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:3-5). Further, it is God's work to bring people to see their need of Christ and become part of His church (1 Corinthians 3:6,7; Acts 2:47; 13:48).
Now I do not in any way want to deny the obligation for us to be involved in building one another up (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Hebrews 10:24,25) or to proclaim God's truth to those who need to hear it (Romans 10:14,15; 1 Peter 3:15; Matthew 28:18-20). But the question I have to ask is, what are we trusting in to accomplish this? Are we trusting in God and His power (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Hebrews 11:27)? Or are we trusting in our planning and our programs and our abilities and our organization (Zechariah 4:6; Isaiah 31:1; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5)? There is a thin line here. I do not in any way want to discourage industry or creativity or imagination in doing the work of God. But when we start relying on these to do God's work, it can produce a kind of desperation, where we see God's work as falling on our shoulders and the continuance of Christ's church as dependent on our efforts. This can cause people to go to greater and greater extremes, hoping to find the one right way to make God's work prosper. Also, when someone feels they have found the right way to make things work, it can produce pride (Proverbs 16:18) and promote division from those who advocate another solution (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).
One thing that makes this worse is the fact that western civilization in general seems to be turning away from Biblical truth. I am not sure this is entirely a bad thing, as I expect that much nominal Christianity of the past has been a superficial faith that results from simply conforming to the culture and has had little reality to it. But it is true that to maintain a Christian faith today requires a deeper commitment to go against the cultural flow. This also does not seem to me necessarily a bad thing. But good or bad, I do not see any quick fix to bring us back to where we used to be. Now I do not in any way want to oppose solid, responsible efforts to reach people for Christ and impact our culture with His truth. But we do need to trust that God is in control of our lives and the world (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 43:13). And we need to put aside the panaceas that so often backfire and do not accomplish their purpose.
Now I do not in any way want to deny the obligation for us to be involved in building one another up (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Hebrews 10:24,25) or to proclaim God's truth to those who need to hear it (Romans 10:14,15; 1 Peter 3:15; Matthew 28:18-20). But the question I have to ask is, what are we trusting in to accomplish this? Are we trusting in God and His power (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Hebrews 11:27)? Or are we trusting in our planning and our programs and our abilities and our organization (Zechariah 4:6; Isaiah 31:1; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5)? There is a thin line here. I do not in any way want to discourage industry or creativity or imagination in doing the work of God. But when we start relying on these to do God's work, it can produce a kind of desperation, where we see God's work as falling on our shoulders and the continuance of Christ's church as dependent on our efforts. This can cause people to go to greater and greater extremes, hoping to find the one right way to make God's work prosper. Also, when someone feels they have found the right way to make things work, it can produce pride (Proverbs 16:18) and promote division from those who advocate another solution (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).
One thing that makes this worse is the fact that western civilization in general seems to be turning away from Biblical truth. I am not sure this is entirely a bad thing, as I expect that much nominal Christianity of the past has been a superficial faith that results from simply conforming to the culture and has had little reality to it. But it is true that to maintain a Christian faith today requires a deeper commitment to go against the cultural flow. This also does not seem to me necessarily a bad thing. But good or bad, I do not see any quick fix to bring us back to where we used to be. Now I do not in any way want to oppose solid, responsible efforts to reach people for Christ and impact our culture with His truth. But we do need to trust that God is in control of our lives and the world (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 43:13). And we need to put aside the panaceas that so often backfire and do not accomplish their purpose.
Monday, January 23, 2012
A Touch of Humor - The Sound of Worship
How important is it to orchestrate every aspect of the worship service? When does this become manipulation? Where is the right balance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





