Accused of church aversion

This post was originally written in 2008. In this post, I reflect on the position experienced by those who begin questioning the traditional patterns of the church in our day. Have you ever been accused of having an aversion to modern church?

One might become ostracized when discussing ecclesiology with individuals whose only exposure to it is that of the position justified by tradition, then proven from scripture. The perspective of 'church' being implemented as it is found in practice throughout the New Testament is often frowned upon and dismissed as being impossible to embrace due to cultural restraints we now face daily. As emergent as many may find this to sound, I think it's at least owed a second look in our study.

Some of us can discuss this openly, humbly, and in Christian love. But most of us, will dismiss the other party as a confessing heretic only to never find ourselves in fellowship with one another again. Whether or not fellowship ever existed between parties to begin with bears little relevance when the topic matter creates enough friction to cause harm or hatred toward a brother.

Most often, proponents of this perspective are misunderstood. Rightly so, as the norm is created by those who are zealous and promote a complete retreat to the other end of the spectrum where there is no return to the middle in sight. Either way, we need to remember that the disillusioned generation that has spawned and multiplied under the wing of emergent theology, there is still a part of that group that still resides under the wing of biblical theology.

One that does well to seek discipleship under the teachings of our Lord, also does well to understand that it isn't a retreat that's needed. It's a recovery. So when you encounter someone who may share in this thinking, you could remember to hear out the evidence first. Or just do what's always done, accuse, dismiss, and then accuse them of having an aversion toward preaching, institutions, or true church. Or in other words, dismiss their legitimate aversion toward cultural christianity and assign them false convert status because they don't meet the status quo.

Portrait of a disciple: Philip, Deacon or Evangelist?

(Acts 8:5)  Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

Philip. Means lover of horses. If that is of any eternal value to you, God bless it! Philip, also the name of an apostle, and one who was known as one of the seven. The one I endeavor to discuss here is the latter. This Philip, plausibly one of the first deacons and later referred to as an evangelist. Was he one or the other? Was he both? We know enough about Philip from the book of Acts to confirm a few things.*

Philip was:

• selected as a deacon (therefore not one of the twelve) (Acts 6:1-5)
• a servant of tables and widows (Acts 6:2)
  
• full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3)
  
• a preacher of the gospel in Samaria (Acts 8:5)
• a performer of signs and miracles (Acts 8:6,13)
• a messenger of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12)
• spoken to by Angels of the Lord (Acts 8:26)
  
• directed by and submitted to the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:26,29,39)
• sensitive to opportunities to preach Christ (Acts 8:30-37)
• qualified to baptize (Acts 8:38-39)
• found at Azotus, preaching in all the towns en route to Caesarea (Acts 8:40)
• in Caesarea at least 25 years amongst the Gentiles when Paul came to enter his house (Acts 21:8)
• the father of four unmarried prophetesses (Acts 21:9)
  

Well, that is quite a list. If the bio of this man were en-scripted on a conference brochure, it surely would bring registrants! Honestly, doing careful evaluation of the activities mentioned in the scripture give us cause to think there was much more that Philip did that was not recorded for us. But then again, Philip was found in Caesarea where his journeying ended in Acts 8 some 25 years later. One could infer that he took retirement. But one could also infer that he remained there and did the work of an evangelist. Luke, the author of Acts, ascribed Philip as an evangelist should we?

So following well accepted conjecture that the appointment of the seven in Acts 6 is evidence of the first deacons in the church, we look to the question, was Philip a deacon?

Deacons are:

• dignified (1Ti 3:8)
• reputable (1Ti 3:8)
• proven blameless (1Ti 3:10)

Philip was:

• dignified (Acts 6:3)
• reputable (Acts 6:3)
• full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom (Acts 6:3)

With minimal references to that which an evangelist actually does (Acts 21:8, Eph 4:11-12, 2 Tim 4:5), one must consider what information is actually available. Since it is obvious that Philip served in the capacity of deacon, we return to the question, was he an evangelist? 

If Paul wrote to Timothy, and exhorted him to do the work of an evangelist, we could learn some characteristics of an evangelists calling from what he was instructed.

Timothy was to:

• correct false doctrine (1 Tim 1:3)
• encourage and be an example (1 Tim 2:1, 1 Tim 2:8; 1 Tim 3:1-13, 1 Tim 4:12)
• teach and instruct on matters of modesty (1 Tim 2:9-12)
• preach, teach, and read scripture publicly (1 Tim 4:13)
• teach honor amongst the elders (1 Tim 5:17) 
• be selective of those he appointed and remain pure (1 Tim 5:22)
• command the rich (1 Tim 6:17)
• testify of the truth of Christ (2 Tim 1:8)
• teach teachers (2 Tim 2:2)

an Evangelist is to:

• preach the gospel from the scriptures
• correct errors in the church
• prepare leadership for the church
• and spread the gospel from place to place

In conclusion, a candid look at the capacity of Stephen and Philip from the book of Acts tells two stories. One, they were worthy of their calling, and served the church as deacons. Two, they served well in preaching the good news.

Philip, was both a deacon  (Acts 6:1-5) and an evangelist (Acts 21:8).

Both narratives of the function of Philip in the book of Acts illustrate the principle of service that a disciple is to emulate (John 13:10-14) in the church of Jesus Christ. As a deacon, Philip may have served tables, but it is unlikely that the requirements of his calling were restricted to delivering soup and sandwiches (more on this in another post later). Philip's role as a deacon epitomizes the function of his role as an evangelist. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, he served his brethren through a posture of service and the function of a gift given to the church for its building and perfecting (Eph 4:11). The evangelist is not just a preacher of the gospel to the lost, he is an essential component to the equipping of the saints. Philip was not A deacon or AN evangelist!

Philip was a disciple living worthily of the calling with which he was called (Eph 4:1).

Are other people allowed in your refrigerator?

Growing up, the refrigerator door was not a toy. At least that is what I remember mom telling me when I would swing it open. She also used to remind me that no duration of time spent gawking into the shelves would make any yummy treats appear that were not already present. Needless to say, I was not allowed to swing, peer aimlessly, or pointlessly open the door to the fridge without reason.

However, should I need to provide myself with a sandwich or a cup of kool-aid, the door was always an option, and I generally exercised privilege when there was purpose to the opening of the fridge. But there was an unspoken policy in place when it came to other people opening that door.

Having many friends from the neighborhood over frequently, the house was common ground to most who passed through. But, the fridge was not to be opened by those who did not reside in the house. Our home operated on a budget and a single income, sometimes even on state or federal assistance, making the contents of our fridge very valuable indeed. The refrigerator door was not to be opened by those who were not residents of the home, and those who did would be quickly reminded not to enter the forbidden fridge zone.

After growing up, I began to notice that this rule was not unique to my home, or dictated by a denominator of neighborhood children running to and fro spreading germs and invading privacy. I even experienced the same taboo feeling of daring to open the refrigerator door in the homes of close family members whose homes were open, but not frequented enough to warrant fridge rights.

To this day, I can honestly say that a visit to someones home brings fear and trepidation if they say that I am welcome to help myself to the contents of their refrigerator. Even if they insist, opening that door and exposing unknown contents, and fumbling for unfamiliar condiments to assemble a sandwich can provide great anxiety. It is much easier when people just get what I need out of the fridge for me and everyone is much happier that way.

Other people's refrigerators are messy. Sometimes they contain really leftover leftovers. The contents of a fridge can tell you many things about a person or family. Many refrigerators can give you a quick glimpse into the financial situation of its owner. It is interesting how much we can learn from a refrigerator is it not? Most people are uneasy about other people entering their refrigerators, and likewise their lives. I think the two can easily be one in the same. While thinking about Christian fellowship, the refrigerator door showed me what it is like to really have all things in common with others.

When I was younger, other people were not allowed in the fridge. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, my fridge is open to any who dare open it. And it's contents belong to any who desires to have them, even if it is the last turkey sandwich.

For me, true Christian Fellowship can be seen in the privilege of access to your brothers and sisters refrigerators. Even more so, fellowship is established mutually. A refrigerator full of leftovers is not a blight on your reputation when you truly desire to have others see you as you are. Commonality exists in the content of our relationships, and is truly fostered in Christ-like conformity when we allow our guards to go down and the doors of our refrigerators to swing open. Even though it is easier to just have someone serve you from their refrigerator themselves, we miss out on much of the value had in earning the trust and love in genuine relationship with others. When all things are in common, the relationship becomes more important than the possession, and that last piece of cheesecake truly belongs to any who desires it. My fridge is your fridge.

Now if you really want to push someone's allegiance to the limit and test the measure of their resolve, ask them to help you clean a dirty refrigerator. That might be the fellowship breaker indeed!

Could someone please tell me where fellowship is?

It feels like forever since I remember my first struggle with the ideal of 'simple church.' You can call it home church, organic church, real church, or whatever church. But, principally, I was wrestling with what others were exclaiming to me was "biblical church."

You see, it all began when I started reading the scripture. No, I mean really reading the scripture! As I became more acquainted with the 'stories' and started to relate the 'characters' to actual 'events' lived out by real life 'people,' my biblical church view was becoming challenged.

As I was in the membership class of yet another church I had begun attending, looking for biblical fellowship and teaching, I started to feel completely torn in two. My brain was quite literally being divided between two positions. These two positions became the proverbial dogfight for quite some time.

One one hand, I was in an established church, in a respected community with excellent well accomplished elders. Their degrees and pedigree spoke loudly enough to attract any man dignified enough to label himself 'evangelical.' There were morning bible studies that brought together those who could get up early enough to make it in and hold their eyes open, and it was profitable, and allowed great discussions. Then at the strike of the hour, everyone shuffled from the classroom, to the foyer, to the sanctuary. Then, as the regular folk's began arriving, the sanctuary got settled, the organ piped on and the opening hymn began. At this point, you knew exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, and at what time it would happen. Like clockwork, you could count on your worship folder and your watch to dictate your actions, and along with everyone else, fall in lockstep with the symphony of the meeting that is called church.

On the other hand, I was not quite satisfied with the 'fellowship' endured through three songs, a prayer, a sermon, and a benediction. I felt completely isolated in a room full of people. Something was missing. I guess I had fellowship in the coffee room with the leftover McDonald's someone graciously brought in, but that would not really pass scriptural muster in most places for 'fellowship' would it? That would be too much like a soccer game being sanctified because a couple church folk show up there. I did get to chat with the pastor briefly in the foyer and shake his hand. Even though I knew him pretty decently, it was like I got to meet him all over again each Sunday morning. He was a pretty busy guy, and if I had tough questions after the sermon, he would ask me to hold on to them until later, there was a line forming behind me. I suppose I could understand that, people really do not like waiting in lines, especially when they are in a hurry.

It is safe to say I was torn. Although I was struggling greatly with it, I had started driving to a friends home after these Sunday services to meet with them, to share scripture, to pray, and to break bread as we remembered the Lord Jesus. We were actually allowed to casually approach one another, share in each others lives, and honestly dig into the scriptures together. There was no pulpit, and nobody bothered arranging music. But someone always had a teaching, and someone almost always brought a song. Even though there was no worship folder, I knew what to expect. Whenever I would arrive there after the Sunday services I attended, I would expect fellowship. Each Sunday I drove there, I left fulfilled. It was indeed challenging, and these days were often very long, but I was starting to see something I had never seen before. I was seeing the lives of other believers, having things in common with them, and bonding with them as if they were my own brothers and sisters.

I cannot recall the length of time that this went on, but the more it did, the more challenged I became. Ultimately, I found myself at war with what I experienced in the morning because of what I witnessed occur in the evenings. I was also confused by what was going on in the evening because of what I knew from the morning services. And in between the two, I was forced to open my bible and begin to study this thing called the church. My conscience became so conflicted that I could no longer read what I knew was the status-quo in the mornings into the texts that were coming alive in the scriptures when I was allowing them to say what they meant. The book of Acts stopped being obscure and primarily descriptive and began demanding my obedience to the truth of what the early church gave their lives for.

In all of this, I was left holding a bible, looking at two meetings, and asking myself, where is fellowship? Most importantly, I had to open the bible and begin listening to the words that God inspired himself, and asking myself the question, what is fellowship?

How about your experience? Do you struggle with the traditional established churches of today? Do you see a discrepancy between today's practices and what the New Testament illustrates? Which discrepancies are the most difficult to reconcile? I am curious to hear your thoughts? Is this a conversation you have ever had with yourself?

Neglecting the assembling of the saints: The Meeting Dynamic

In the previous 'Neglecting the assembling of the saints' posts, an intro, and breaking bread, I laid out quite a few points of doctrine that I have been focusing my thoughts and devotions on lately. It may be that I am obsessed with ecclesiology or it may be that I am trying to learn how important the meetings are to the unity and edification of the body. This entry will mainly concern itself with the importance of getting the Meeting Dynamic right.

If we have established, or at least considered, that the primary event in the meeting of the saints is the breaking of bread, then a few questions remain regarding how it all plays out logistically. Admittedly, one is hard pressed to develop a rubric or blueprint that stands alone as a sufficient foundation for all meetings in all places under all circumstances. But, it is obvious, from the pages of scripture, and early church history, that there was a common bond and thread running through the recorded meetings which took place in the churches of the saints. This common thread was the breaking of bread.

Overlooking the seemingly obvious feasting aspect of the meeting, we turn turn our gaze to the current approach to the Christian meeting in contemporary evangelicalism. It is, the "Sunday Service." Excepting to those who would hold the Sunday Service on Saturday, or substitute the meeting for some other day, the coming together in our modern context is similar in most occurrences.

• Designated place of worship (usually a building/steeple house)
• Designated order of service (welcome, prayer, singing, sermon, etc.)
• Designated teacher(s) or clergy
• Dismissal of the congregation or attendants

Now to the credit of some of those striving to build up the saints through the use of gifts given to "non-clergy" we can appreciate the invention of small groups, cell-groups, and bible studies that are more informal and can at times become involve open dialog rather than monologue. Although these insertions are a step in the right direction, they still do not represent a faithful adherence to scriptural examples of a meeting (or corrections of errors in said meetings, ie., 1 Cor 14:26 and following) where interaction, even spontaneous interaction, may occur.

If indeed the new status quo is the top-down pastorally directed order that we see today, then what impact would practicing the breaking of bread we see in the New Testament have on the meeting dynamic we currently see and practice today? I would conclude that there are negative and positive aspects. Whether they are seen as negative or positive, however, depends on your perspective.

• Relationships with believers you do not know would be formed
• The focus would be on body unity and not body separation
• People will get to know you intimately
• Having things in common, treating each others homes as if they are your own would be the norm
• Time-frames and schedules would be difficult to adhere to
• The brethren would bear the burden of ensuring the public reading and teaching of doctrine, relieving the chore of a singular individual to do it week in and week out
• Brethren would be more compelled to bear one another's burdens
• The weaker members would be more difficult to ignore and neglect
• You would have to share your food with others

These are just a few of the things which would accompany a meeting that resembles the New Testament practice of "breaking bread." Of all these, I believe they may be summarized in this statement...

"...we as Christians would be required to step outside of ourselves, our individualism, and our selfishness and become genuine members of a functioning, living, breathing body, and that body is Christ's."

A reminder from NorthRidge Church

I write this to voice my concern over a piece of literature I came across from NorthRidge Church. (If you are not a local reader of this blog, you can visit NorthRidge Church's website and see what they are all about, or at least what their website conveys.) The item in question is a reminder card given to new members being prepared for membership a few years back. I am not sure if it is still being used today. I dug it up in an old bookmark box trying to find a placeholder for a new book I am reading. Rather than scan and post the original, the table below will suffice. The glossy 2.5" wide by 5.5" tall (apx.) card reads,

Side 1	Side 2
Our Strategy (The Spiritual Journey) I.                    The Journey to Faith:  SALVATION 1.       Build Relationships 2.       Live and Share Faith 3.       Invite: To Weekend Services and Events 4.       Persist One-at-a-time	Our Strategy (The Spiritual Journey) II.                  The Journey to Full Devotion: SPIRITUAL GROWTH 1.       Attend Weekend Services 2.       Attend New Life Services 3.       Connect: to NorthRidge Groups 4.       Serve: in NorthRidge Groups 5.       Give: ‘excel in the grace of giving’

and this is what I see,

Side 1	Side 2
Our Strategy (Growing NorthRidge) I.                    The Journey to Faith: NORTHRIDGE 1.       Build Relationships 2.       Live and Share NorthRidgianity  3.       Invite to NorthRidge 4.       Persist One-at-a-time until they come to NorthRidge	Our Strategy (Growing NorthRidge) II.                  The Journey to Full Devotion: NORTHRIDGE PIETY 1.       Attend NorthRidge 2.       Attend NorthRidge 3.       Connect: to NorthRidge 4.       Serve: in NorthRidge 5.       Give: your money to NorthRidge

Anyone else seeing this?

Disclaimer: I am not a critic of NorthRidge church for the sake of being a critic. I am however, deeply perplexed and disturbed by the true message that is promoted by this establishment. I am afraid, that it is no gospel at all. Just because the name of Jesus is on it, doesn't mean he's in it.

Neglecting the assembling of the saints: Breaking bread

Yesterday I brought up a foray of topics in an attempt to clear the cavernous recesses of my mind. It did not work too terribly well, as it is still pretty dusty up there. But, I shall keep trying!

I would like to provide a synopsis of the three topics breaking bread, the meeting dynamic, and apostolic ordinance/tradition in 1st Corinthians. It is my hope that my study into the topics can spark discussion and hopefully enlighten myself, my readers, and others to glean from the scripture what I feel has richly blessed me as of late. The freedom of allowing the text to speak for itself is a wonderful experience. Before you think I am going all froo froo on you, do not fret, I am far from it.

Why is breaking bread so important to me right now? Well, there appears to be significance in the meals that transpire in the scripture when Jesus is present. I may be reaching at times, but It is a faithful reach. It is a reach that I believe seeks to be obedient to the custom in which our Lord implemented the practices that bore out our modern day Lord's Table.

For example, take note of the following scriptural examples from Luke's gospel, and as you reference them, ask yourself, what kind of meal is taking place, who is at the table/meal, what purpose does it serve, and what was the outcome of our Lord's teaching/purpose?

Luke 5:27-32, Luke 7:36-50, Luke 9:10-17, Luke 10:38-42, Luke 11:34-54, Luke 14:1-24, Luke 19:1-10, Luke 22:7-38, Luke 24:13-35, and Luke 24:36-53. (note: if you do not read these texts with the question above in view, you will be wasting your time)

One must also consider the Exodus account of the Elders ratifying a covenant with the Lord, at table, in his presence in Exodus 24:1-12. The Lord's final meal with his disciples and the meal between God and the Elders of Israel bear an uncanny similarity to one another.

Now that we see a pattern of bread breaking and fellowship at table in Luke, it logically makes sense to carry this context of what 'breaking bread' is into the account of Acts. Now compare  Luke 24:5-46 to Acts 20:7-12. Luke genuinely draws a striking paradigm between the two accounts, and they all entail coming together, breaking bread, eating together, the first day of the week, conversation, teaching of the word, and rising from the dead.

With the significance that is given to the contemporary practice of 'communion' this is not a subject that is often broached without raising a few eyebrows. Tradition, liturgy, and sacred rite are all things that can flare tempers and encroach upon individual preference. I am not sure the excuse of Christian Liberty finds itself wholly applicable to the disservice done to the body dynamic of God's people when they come together to break bread. The scriptural evidence is quite clear. The breaking of bread is a meal with God's people, gathered together, at table, in covenant with Christ, and remembering him. That meal was quite literal to our Lord, the disciples, and many other early Christians. Why has it become second place to us, and been relegated to oyster crackers and souffle cups of grape juice?

If the emblems have taken on more significance than the purpose of coming together in communion together and with the Lord, then why do it at all? The Church gathered is significant because the Church dispersed is the Church militant, diligently laboring in the fields for the harvest of our great King.

Special thanks to John Marks Hicks' book, Come to the Table for the light it has shed on many of the scriptural nuances illustrated in this post.

Neglecting the assembling of the saints

Ecclesiastical tradition is a hot topic for many Christians. Especially those that direct our 'coming together.' For some it evokes feelings of splendor, liturgy, and commonplace. For many others, it sparks debate, hostility, and downright angst. Even though I am beginning to feel that traditions might rank up there with the no-no's of silence regarding Politics and Religion.

Falling somewhere in the middle of the two camps, I find myself always questioning what it is we do, why do we do it, are we doing it right, and does our Christian liberty give us the flexibility to be 'right' even when we are way off in left or right field?

I suppose I could elaborate a million miles in many directions about the impact that liberty has on our 'Christian Practices.' But, I have grown weary of justifying what liberty allows. Today, as a believer, disciple, and wretch, I am more concerned with what did the scripture really say about what we do.

It is really easy to look at events in scripture, compare them to our current church traditions, and then read back into the text why it is okay to do it as we do it, even thought they do not align. Sprinkle a little liberty on top, and now we have justification for our behavior.

I am sorry if I fulfill my calling as a dissident, and resist this. But I am going to anyway. I cannot in good conscience continue to accept the Romish practices of yesteryear we call Protestantism (evangelicalism), and not protest that which at least is contradictory to scriptural revelation. And with that said, I am being pretty liberal here.

There is a great number of 'traditions' I have been looking at with great scrutiny as of late, and I am beginning to find that they are all inextricably linked together.

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
(Heb 10:23-25)

If I have your attention, and you are interested in joining me in this discussion, or even plausibly visiting my electronic monastery of ecclesiastical reflection and vein monkish babbling, here is what I am looking at the most lately.

• The breaking of bread - Is it sacrament, oyster crackers and dainty plastic cups of grape juice, transubstantiation, consubstantiation? Can we justify this current practice by measuring it against the examples of the New Testament?

• The meeting dynamic - What impact does the actual practice of breaking bread have on the meeting and the order we conduct our service?

• The apostolic ordinances/traditions - What of Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians? What is our response to Paul's instructions regarding the Lord's table, breaking bread, the gifts, and the issue of women speaking/not speaking (not teaching, prophesying) in the meeting?

How are all these tied together you might ask? Well, for this post I will leave it stated as simply as I can with all the information I have been absorbing concerning all of these topics.

If the assembling of ourselves together, to stir one another on to good works, in an 'official' manifestation of the assembled church meeting is as the New Testament demonstrates (coming together to break bread), then what do the apostolic ordinances of Corinthians, the existence of gifts, and the role of men and women all look like in that meeting?

I do plan to elaborate more on my thoughts regarding these issues here at the blog, and definitely amongst the beloved brethren I share fellowship with, but now I pose the question to you. While we may not be forsaking the assembling of ourselves together even in the most liberal of ecclesiastical practices, are we neglecting it?

Scripture...As We Live It #2 From Alan Knox

Featured from Alan Knox's blog, The Assembling of the Church, one of my favorite entries in his Scripture... As We Live It series,

If a brother or sister member of your particular church organization is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body referring them to the Benevolence Committee, what good is that? (James 2:15-16 remix)

You can find more in the series here. You can also see the original entry for this post here.

The Lord's Table, sippy cup and all

Okay. So I am having a real hard time believing that there are so few Bible reading believers who are not willing to stand in unity against the disunity of what passes for today's supposed Lord's Table, or Remembrance, or Breaking of Bread meetings.

If in John 17, the Lord Jesus himself prays for the unity of the disciples, and by proxy those who would become disciples in the future, unity is important right?

In Acts we see evidence of true communion through having everything in common, and truly bearing the burdens of the brethren that Christ may be glorified, including eating together.

In Luke we see bread being broken with sinners, tax collectors, and pharisees. Then we see the Lord break bread with the disciples on the night of his betrayal. Then we see him break bread with them again after he had risen.

Was Christ fractured into self-serving, compartmentalized, portions of individuality, or was he broken once for all that we may commune with him in the Kingdom?

I must say, I may be completely reactionary and responding to some things I am emotionally invested in working out. But, what I feel I am reacting to can be summed up in the simple purchase of ease, and convenience via individualized, sterile, disposable, longer shelf-life communion cups that include unleavened bread AND juice all in one for celebrating (?) the breaking of Christ's body and pouring out of his blood. Swallow, sip, and toss it away. No muss, no fuss.

Another reason to look at the scripture and ask, is this what it really said?

Half-baked sacrament or breaking bread?

As early as the late 1st century, and well into the 2nd, we begin to see a form of gatekeeping or table-fencing creeping into the meetings of Christians. If grace is a means received when one partakes of the Lord's Table, eating the bread or drinking the cup, then Christ really is only partly sufficient as a sacrifice no? Then the result would require an administration of the element of grace to those who are seen as worthy would it not? Interesting and yet perplexing thought here if you think about it.

"The Church had come a long way since the Last Supper, and much of it had involved a journey away from, and even against, it's original Jewish recipe. The result was half-baked sacramental theology with too many foreign flavors overwhelming the main ingredient."

-Ben Witherington III, Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper

Now, if the means of grace must be administered properly, then an effective system must be adhered to. Why not implement priests, altars, and appropriate delegates to serve the means of grace as it should be. If the sacrifice is being re-initiated, then the priesthood and temple shall be also. I wonder if this would look anything like the modern evangelical landscape, or would it look like the breaking of bread seen in the assembly of Christians?

Ben Witherington goes on to make another interesting point in Making a Meal of It,

"One wonders what Jesus, dining with sinners and tax collectors and then eating his modified Passover meal with disciples whom he knew were going to deny, desert, and betray him, would say about all this. There needs to be a balance between proper teaching so the sacrament is partaken of in a worthy manner and overly zealous policing of the table or clerical control of it."

What do you think? Is the Lord's Supper really something that has so much liberty of interpretation that we can do it in this way or that way? Or is it really so simple that a plain reading of scripture reveals the manner in which the disciples, and ourselves, should take it?

Coming up Methodist: Fire in the bones

continued from Coming up Methodist: God’s wonderful plan

Imagine the majesty of a sanctuary built and fashioned in the likeness of Noah’s ark, is intricately designed with sculpted wood, and has acoustics that power the message of any orator well into the vestibule with nary a sight of electronic amplification. It would be beautiful no? The vestige, edifice, and pomp that accompanied the services in that sanctuary over the years have surely done it justice, and the architects must have been proud. David Wilkerson and other circuit riders even used to preach to packed audiences of Christian youth that once populated the numbers of evangelicalism and showed a faint promise that Methodism was being blessed by God.

That was one of my first impressions of “Church.” I was impressed by a building.

Now it has become a hallowed orifice. Revival was only a hope of those who dared pray the Lord would fill the pews with soldiers donning the armor of God. Some would even drop to their knee and pray to the Lord a mighty spirit of proclamation would whisk across the weary saints who still dared to stand for the Kingdom of God. Now the attendance on a given Sunday is a mere trickle compared to its capacity, and another staggering 50% of the formerly mortgaged parcel lay in ruin occasionally intriguing members with its ghosts of a brimming past that once promised life to the congregation. Bearing with it all, the news that one could only surmise, is that this steeple house, has seen her day. She now lay there dying, waiting for her last breath. And yet countless resources are poured into keeping it all going. For what I would ask?

The day I departed the First United Methodist Church of Wayne I felt a great sadness in my heart. I wish I could explain to you what it was exactly, but can only begin to mark it with great burden. The overwhelming feeling of hope that had been born in me the day I made it my home, inherited my new family, made new friends, and became invigorated with the zeal of Christ’s Gospel was a distant shadow. Having a desire to preach the Gospel that had given me life was my sole passion. I could hardly think of much outside seeing the Kingdom be proclaimed, and witnesses encourage other witnesses to not look back from the plow (Lk 9:62). My shoulders bore a weight I could no longer carry, and my prayers, as though they were not being answered, actually were.

Sadly, the church, while teeming with the life of humans who had breath in their lungs, was spiritually gasping for air as the same old same old was the accepted, and yet revered, norm. A fish fry was no place for evangelizing the ‘un-churched’ and council meetings were regularly being held to discuss the squawking of those zealously desiring to proclaim Christ and Him crucified. A thick air of sectarianism could be sensed between what seemed like an organized army dashing the dreams of some barbaric tribal upstart with nothing but hope on their side. Eventually, the upstart limped off into the sunset in defeat, but not in surrender. Even though many were attempting to silence those who were pointing out the obvious offense there is the resonation in the faithful to speak with Jeremiah the Prophet,

If I say, "I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name," there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.
(Jer 20:9)

How could a place that bore the name ‘church’ be such an enemy of the Gospel of Christ? Would those who faithfully remain, those who genuinely love the Lord, those who would lay down their lives for the Master ever realize that they had been overrun with tares? Can you see the wheat of the field if the tares have outgrown it? Is it plausible that the once potent Methodism of yesteryear had smoldered like a candlewick at its fateful end? One could only imagine, one could only dream, that Christ would revitalize the hearts of those who have chosen ‘church’ over Him. Truly, the first love had become an edifice. Truly, the faint knocking at the door is the Christ calling out to those inside to repent (Rev 3:20) and sup with Him. If the Christ has set the fire in the bones of those who are sent to preach His word, then surely those who seek to quench it cannot possibly be of Christ, can they?

next: Coming up Methodist: Messengers from on high

Book Review: Mere Churchianity by Michael Spencer

Mere Churchianity: Finding Your Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality, is Michael Spencer's one and only book before his passing and he leaves us with a treatise on what he has termed 'Finding Your Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality.'

An enjoyable read for those looking to hear from one of the Internets most outspoken voices on the world of Christendom as many of us know it. Most notably, Spencer speaks volumes to those who have made an attempt or successfully escaped Christendom. With a humble down to earth approach, Spencer has directed his writing efforts in a new way. Now he is lending his effort toward a few specific groups of people,

 - Those who have already left the Church and rejected it

 - Those who have already left the Church and are seeking a genuine experience of 'Church'

 - Those who are thinking of leaving the Church

 - Those that have left and are thinking of going back

The readability readers of Internetmonk.com have enjoyed previously is also present here in this offering. Michael Spencer shares with his readers the personalized experiences from his life that have given him a desire to be and see a new example of the life that discipleship should give in the lives of believers.

Finding my own fundamentalist values challenged at every turn of the page has left me asking questions, turning to my Bible, and praying to the Christ for guidance on His will and how I can faithfully take part in it.

I would have liked to see a little more theological treatment of certain issues (mainly a definition of Church according to the Bible). I did not particularly care for some of the subtle ecumenical apologetics, and felt like I had read some of the latter chapters previously. Who knows, I could have been experienceing Deja-Vu, but it seemed like Spencer began to repeat himself.

Worth the purchase, so check it out!

"I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review."

You lay your gift at your altar, and I will lay my gift at mine.

In light of a recent discussion with a brother concerning how brethren are to treat one another when disagreement arises, I would like to re-post my thoughts on the matter from 2008. They are still the same as I have indicated here, and I still find it amazing that we seldom practice what we 'preach.'


An interesting thing has occurred to me. So many of us believe that we fully grasp the consequences of our actions before we make decisions. So many times does this behavior incessantly repeat itself. On the contrary, the Christian, should learn from the mistakes that have been made. The benefit would then be applying the lesson learned from the consequence to any actions thereafter. So what of the behavior that causes tension amongst members of the body of Christ? When bad decisions are made, consequences occur, and chastisement (by the Lord) follows, what then? Does the failure to make the right decision warrant excommunication of the offender? To what degree and extent are consequences to be carried out?

Mat 5:24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

So reading in Matthew, I observe the teachings of Christ, and the principle of reconciliation toward others when offense has occurred. Now I would ask the question, if you are making offerings up to God by way of worship, are you doing so without offense to God, or are you offending God by your worship for leaving such matters unattended? Or is it downright apathy and a willful choice to ignore it until it goes away?

On to the last part of my concern. In the case of division, and the clear cut obvious nature of it's existence, what is to be done next? Division is clearly defined as being a separation between two things. Whether these things be people, places, or things, they are no longer in unification or like-mindedness. The Greek word σχίσμα (schisma), is the root word from which we base our own English word schism. It is a metaphorical definition of division or dissension. In reference to I Corinthians 12:25 this point comes home in a full thrust. Paul was instructing the Corinthian Christians to treat each other (as different as they may be) and care for each other the same as those who were similar. The attitude toward the gifts of others or the lack thereof is to be the same. We grieve when others are afficted, and we rejoice when others are exalted, all this we do as if it were occurring to us. This is unity amongst the brethren in the spiritual sense. Not a denominational, creedal, or formal allegiance. But in a purposeful, intentional, and cohesive bond that is unbreakable because it exists in the whole that is Christ's body. Existing eternally for His glory and Temporaly for His purposes.

What's my point? Well, I would ask that if you preach Christ crucified, reconciliation of sinners toward God, and a righteous standard of living, then you should also exhibit that in your personal relationships with others. And where we fall terribly short (I do all the time), we attempt to correct the behavior, learn from it, and move on. Furthering our purpose, unison, and commission in the same spirit without division. If we are considering the differences of our brothers and their shortcomings when interacting with the body, we are also considering our own. This should be of the first things we consider before we cast our stones (or apathy) at each other.

Coming up Methodist: Gods wonderful plan

“God has a plan for you, to give you a future and a hope,” belted an older bearded man from the window of a black Buick Reatta cruising past as I stood on the concrete stairway of the First United Methodist Church smoking a cigarette waiting to go into the afternoon Narcotics Anonymous meeting. As I finished smoking my cigarette and watched the tail lights of the Buick cruise off into the distance, and I thought, “weird!” I was provoked to think of “Gods plan” and went in for my daily dose of Narcotics Anonymous.

Recently coming off of a seven year hiatus from reality, my life had been halted in its tracks, and through a series of providential events, the party was officially over. I had come to know the Christ through a faithful minister visiting the County Jail and preaching a faithful message of repentance, trust, and forgiveness. I had experienced a glimpse of reconciliation with the Creator, and I wanted to know more. But, I had only been able to get glimpses through the doors that were open, and ultimately through the ones I had walked through.

I had very little exposure to the organized Church at large, and even less exposure to genuine expressions of Christianity in general. The one thing I currently had in common with the First United Methodist Church (FUMC) at the time was that it was host to several twelve-step meetings throughout the week. As a matter of fact, the rumor in the recovering community was that the pastor of this church was very friendly towards those who called themselves addicts and alcoholics, and encouraged them to meet in the FUMC. He was even known to make appearances at the meetings. Quintessentially, he had already shattered many typical paradigms.

By all definitions of the practice, and the tendency of, this man was unique as a “pastor.” Comparing him to the stereotypes most would have of pastors was difficult, and only added to my interest in this particular church. He did not proselytize, pressure, or encourage church attendance. But, he did foster relationships with those who were coming to the NA/AA meetings. Of which, a few had already begun attending services and serving in the assembly in some fashion. At that time, relationships were what I craved, and genuine people were what I was looking for in my life, as at that point, all my past affiliations had suffered a major purging.

As it turns out, that bearded man yelling from the Buick Reatta was that same man who was pastor at the FUMC. As unconventional the approach seemed, it worked to grab my attention. But most importantly, it demonstrated a characteristic of a pastor that I had not known would become so important to me. This man, was a shepherd, with a shepherd’s heart, and he went after stray sheep. Tragically, he was not as appreciated by the majority as he was the minority. But, his deeds can be seen manifest in several people’s lives, of which a lasting impression of the love of Christ has been left. It may be safe to say, that a lost sheep is generally grateful to its retriever, and thus demonstrates gratitude. That gratitude can even be extended to the shepherd’s faults. It is even easier to extend that grace when that shepherd is also known as brother, servant, and friend.

This would be the advent of my journey into Methodism. Brief as it was, laden with trials, and chock full of surprises, disappointment, and malcontent it served as kindling to set a fire that has not dampened since. In large part, there is a core group of people in that old steeple house at 3 Town Square that showed an old sinner like me how to be loved. They also showed me how to love in return. Christ manifest in the life of a believer is a genuine outpouring of His characteristics, and in keeping with His commandments, loving God, and loving one’s neighbor. I didn’t live very close to any of those folks, but they made me their neighbor. As for the shepherd? He was one of a few men who stood in places I shouldn’t go, prodded me in the proper directions, was faithful to the Scripture by pointing me to them when we disagreed and in showing me the Words of the Good Shepherd ultimately, submitting to the Christ.

That man was, and is, a godly example toward me. Most notably, toward others, which proved more reputable. I write this as a bit of biography, but in part as a tribute to him, and by proxy, his wonderful wife. Dave and Ellen, you have both proved worthy of the office bestowed to all true genuine Christians, Saint. The wonderful plan (Jer 29:11), I would soon come to realize as a proof text well out of place Biblically, would prove to be a fulfilled word of knowledge from that rascally pastor, Dave. And today, there is evidence of a true wonderful plan at work in my life, in spite of tragedy or prosperity. There is a much larger story than me.

next: Coming up Methodist: Fire in the bones

Zacchaeus the Tax Collector With a Twist

Some of you might be interested in a post from a brother at 'Flee From Babylon'. It offers a few twists on how some of our ridiculous sectarianism suppresses the Holy Spirit, or at least, does so by acting as if there is such a thing as exclusive licensing on when, and how He works. Here's a snippet below, the rest can be found here.

The religous [sic] crowd of that day had nothing good to say about the saving work of Jesus Christ.  I was thinking that if this were to take place in America today, here are some of the comments you might hear shouted from the crowd after our Lord finished speaking…

“Lord – did you hear how Zacchaeus was trying to justify himself by his works, teach him the five points of Calvinism so he can REALLY be saved” ~ Hyper Calvinist

“Very good Lord, because that man has made a good moral decision he is now righteous in the site of God and so it is as you said, he has saved himself!” ~ Hyper Armenian / Pelagian

“Quick Lord, get Zacchaeus to repeat a sinners prayer and ask you into his heart before he changes his mind” ~ Modern Evangelist

The Big Red Tractor: A Modern Day Parable

Here is an interesting video demonstrating the paradigm of 'Doing Church.' It was originally presented at The Verge10 Conference by Francis Chan. It is not deep seeded with theological nuggets, but is brimming with insight that we could all stand to listen to, especially those of us who are 'Church Goers.' Francis Chan gives an explanation at the end of the animated segment that clarifies any confusion viewers might have while watching it. So if you do not get it at first, you will if you hang out until the end. The original post resides @ SimpleChurch Journal.

(HT: Alan Knox)

Enjoy the video...

The Big Red Tractor from Jacob Lewis on Vimeo.

Valentines Day : What Example of Love Do You Have?

Valentine's day. Come and gone. Did you send your child to school with pre-packaged valentines cards containing harmless 'quotes' and 'greetings' on them? I remember this practice from my days in elementary school. The teachers had us decorate our personalized mailboxes made of colored construction paper and hung them in the hallways outside our primary classrooms. They would hang there for a week awaiting the receipt of a classmate(s) contribution. Sometimes, other classes were allowed to send valentine cards to members of other classes. Every student was required to bring a box of cards to class, given a list of student names, and required to write one for each student.

Not every student received one. Some hardly received any. I do not suppose that my commentary is directly aimed at the practice itself, but I am curious if it contributes to the fleeting devotion to relationships that so many people today have. Sure, the blame can be passed on to television, pornography, and a sexually charged onslaught from the media on our youth regularly, but the truth in this matter is the adults are not exhibiting an example of love for children to emulate. Early on in my childhood, love was a fleeting shot in the dark or twisted version of anonymous love bingo that resulted in short term 'flings' and 'casual' encounters. What really is love?

Valentines day brings in truckloads of money for candy and card makers, but principally does no justice for the concept of love. If you grew up with the ideology of motel room excursions, drunken stupors, and 12:00 am police visits shortly after watching a 'valentine's day' celebration take place, then your perception might be slightly jaded like mine.

I am grateful I have an example that illustrates the true love that can be given to others. This love is demonstrated best by the one who has authored it, God. Incarnated as a man, lived on earth as Lord, and spoke to us through His Word the Bible, we hear from Him, and see by His actions, how to love.

(Rom 5:8 ESV)  but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

(Rom 8:34 ESV)  Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

(2Co 5:14 ESV)  For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;

Love expressed out of gratitude for the person for who they are AND what they have done embodies true love.  Knowing that I have been forgiven requires me to consider a few things for myself as I act toward others in my life,

(Php 2:3 ESV)  Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

(Joh 13:34-35 ESV)  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. (35) By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Uniquely expressing love for other members in the Church of Jesus Christ teaches me to love others in similar fashion. In an example of conditional love, meaning that the requirement for the love given of Christ is repentance, faith, and obedience to Him, we see an expression that is often interpreted as 'unconditional' love. It is too bad that so many see the need to perform acts, or give gifts to get love in return. Sadly, not receiving something in return often crushes the giver because all their hope is resting in reciprocation.

If we love because we have been loved first, our reward is in sharing the blessing given us. We get to love in the same fashion that our Lord has loved us by showing this love out of gratitude for what He did, not what others do for us. Reciprocation is not necessary for us to love others. Praise God. I think the principle given in Matthew 6:14-15 helps us understand love. Forgiveness, something we all need everyday and some time or another can only be given by those who have received it.

(Mat 6:14-15 ESV) For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,
(15)  but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

The Gospel of Inoculation

I will not say that my conversations with Church leaders and Pastors have been numerous but that I’ve had a fair share of them.  Also in these conversations I have been that aggressor, or the one who is believed to be empirically wrong.  Unfortunately, this is not a point of arrogance on my part, but a matter of educated understanding of the topics being discussed.  In and of it I accept the connotations of this sounding arrogant.  If believing one has truth, and others are in error regardless of their convictions defines one as arrogant, then so shall it be.  If it is my responsibility to be labeled the bad guy in such a manner, than so shall it be.  As for faltering on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, or backing from a stance in which Christ is the sole object of our purpose, it shall not be so.  The idea of salvation by number is running rampant and deceiving more than just the congregations of the American Church. It is deceiving the very Shepherds and Keepers of the flock.  They seem to believe that because the culture has become more relativistic, and more unreachable by the Gospel, that the message has to be re-delivered.  This implicates and loudly proclaims that the message delivered by Jesus Christ was insufficient.  Is it so that the one given to the disciples and taught in the Synagogues 2000 years ago has inevitably run its course?  This new “conversation” the Church is attempting to have with the world is tainted by the very world it is trying to reach.

 A rough application of the “theory of Osmosis” is that the substance with the highest density permeates the walls of the object containing the substance of the lowest density.  This flow or exchange of substance is completed by an instability being created within the inside of the once stable object.  Although the object was once stable, its very sustenance of low density is what allowed for it to be permeated in the first place.  This reaction can cause one of two outcomes.  One, the inside begins to swell and explodes outwardly or two, begins to contract violently and implodes on itself.  Either reaction is destructive in nature and results in the death or destruction of the object.  In other words, the world will not infiltrate the purity of Christ’s Church if Christ’s Church is truly that. The Church must permeate the world and fill its darkness with its light.  Being in the world means to be just that, IN IT AS A CHRISTIAN, not a spectator. It must maintain and continue to function has its purpose of Salt and Light to the World.  In order to win the affection of the lost, we must be the bearers of the light that is brighter than all.  Conclusively, the light that wins that affection is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Wearing a Christian T-shirt does not constitute radical Christianity, neither does not telling others whom you believe are going to Hell the truth about the one who delivers all men from that fate.  (John 12:32, 46, 14:6, Acts 4:12, Mt 22:29, Rm 1:16)

 Now, while many of these proponents of this “new-deliverance” claim to be adherents to the “inerrant, infallible word of God” they still seem to falter on the idea that it is exactly that.  God has delivered his word once and for all time (1 Thess. 2:4, 2 Tim 2:15).  There is no necessity for further revelation or further interpretation of the Gospel.  The Savior Christ Jesus was the last Prophet, High Priest, and Blood Sacrifice.  How is it we can allow the culture to dictate the very thing we believe changed our souls from the inside out?  Is the experience inside of our minds and souls something that is legitimate?  Shall we examine ourselves against the scriptures before we claim to be bearers of the word? (1 Cor. 11:19, 2 Cor. 10:18)  Of course we shall.  If it truly is the Savior who dwells within in us, we should be troubled by this predicament as well.  If it hasn’t before and is now starting to prick your conscience, please do something about it.  The problem doesn’t lie within the idea of our own salvation (if we desire to see others saved) but within the idea of our lack thereof.  If we cannot count it unto the Lord to be the sole provider of the power needed to save a soul, then we are eliminating him, and adding us (1 Tim 2:5).  In case we have forgotten, Man is the problem in the first place.  If it were our own righteousness that could warrant favor from God, Christ would not have had to die in the first place (Eph. 2:7-9).  In this manner we should be just fine aligning with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) or the Church for Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, Mormons) (2 Peter 2:1).  Better yet, let’s just do go the extra mile and uphold the Five-Pillars of Islam and join the Muslim Jihad against Christianity.  Secondly the idea behind a softer, easier, and gentler way of coming to the cross is non-existent.  Death to self requires just that, death!  If we do not die to self, we cannot be resurrected with Christ (Luke 14:26).  You cannot receive the Holy Spirit and comforter of God unless we are born again (Acts 1:8, 2:38).  To believe  the enemy is capable of setting up major world religions to blind MILLIONS to the truth of Christ, why could he not be capable of infiltrating the false Church being established by men under the banner of Christianity.  It is a sad day when we believe that we must entertain converts into the kingdom (2 Timothy 4:3).  It is a sad day when we believe the very prophecies that speak about this very thing are the methods we embrace and say are from the Lord.  What Idol are we going to worship next Sunday?

Pew Warming, Seat Sitting, Lazy Christians

Honestly, I have made it a point to ask folks I know that profess Christ if they remember the 'Sunday Sermon' and what it was about. I find it puzzling that they often have to think very hard about it, more often than not, do not recall. This is saddening in some regards, and is an indictment on myself as well as those who are guilty of complacency in their biblical study.

The Clergy and Laity divide has been perpetuated for so long that the gap between the two is unmistakably distinguished by the ignorance of the so called 'laity'. Arthur in his post "On Human Authority", has drawn on this point well by stating,

Pastors are trying to do what the rest of the body is too lazy or too religious to do for themselves, whether in the family or in the gathering of the church. The life of the Christian is one of ministry, for all Christians and not for a select few by virtue of "ordination" by human organizations or by the assuming titles.

I think his point is valid. I would like to add to this that many pastors encourage their flock to educate themselves, learn the word, study biblical languages, and make disciples. But, this can easily be stifled by hierachies that rule out lay-ministry as being a legitemate service. You can only serve if you hold academic proof of your ability. What happened to knowing each other by our love? By our fruits? Simply stated, most who are not credentialed cannot 'officialy' equip the saints. If a teacher, gifted of God cannot teach because the clergy says so, then what must he do?

This still does not put onus on the 'clergy' to ensure that believers are apt,able, and equipped. If Christians continue to remain lazy in their study, fail to hold themselves and others accountable, and most of all are unable to discern truth and hold their leaders accountable due to lack of spiritual malnutrition and ineptitude, then the clergy-laity divide will never close. We may never see the end of honorific attribution amongst believers until the coming of our Lord, but one sure can hope.