Category: Church History


Is Organic Church a Fad?

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church History, House Church, Organic Church, Simple Church, The Viral Jesus Book, Viral Christianity, Worldview by rossrohde — 8 Comments
July 25, 2011

Is organic church only a fad?

Is organic church just the latest fad, in restless Western Christendom, to find a way out of our decline? When I was in Spain, every new idea was greeted with a roll of the eyes. The Spanish church leaders had “had it up to here” with the Americans coming with the next new fad that was going to revolutionize the church. Some missionaries wanted to introduce rock music or at least electric guitars. Others assured them that their para-church organization had the cool technique that would change Spain from resistance to responsiveness. Others were sure that if we could just go against the current, and adopt some of the look and feel of the emergent church, Spanish youth would flock to them. And cells, let’s not forget about cells. If we just have cell groups in our church we can change the situation over night. All of this was met with a shrug of the shoulders, a roll of the eyes and a rather cynical puff of breath…and with good reason.

We Americans have a bad habit of jumping on bandwagons until the next more colorful, exciting bandwagon comes along. We loved the new, the exciting, the trendy. Just give us the new technique in three easy steps, and we are ready to take it to the world…until it doesn’t work as advertized. Then we just look for a bandwagon that will go from zero to sixty miles per hour in 6 seconds flat, or one to which we can just add water and have an instant effective church. In other words, we just look for the next cool technique. My Spanish brethren had us Americans figured out and they were pretty tired of it.

While I am sensitive, and more than a bit in agreement with my Spanish brethren, as well as others around the world who have “had it up to here” with the faddish, the trendy and the instant; I’d like to offer another perspective. What would happen if we stopped looking at changes in the Church in the last 200 years, or so (more particularly in the last 40), as a series of unique changes and looked for the hand of the Holy Spirit in a long term trend? What if cell church didn’t stand alone from emergent church or the rise of para-church organizations? What if all of this was really a step by step process under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? In other words, what if the Holy Spirit is moving us in a direction, not skipping around randomly?

Here’s the long term trend I see in Western Christendom’s response to the Holy Spirit (at least some important steps along the way).

  • The 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings (1730-40’s – 1800-1820’s): Beginning of the easing of the clergy’s stranglehold on all ministry and the awakening of the heart to supernatural power in religious experience.
  • The foreign missions movement and the rise of para-church organizations (1780’s to present): re-acknowledgement of our role and responsibility in the Great Commission.
  • The Pentecostal Movement (1906-Present): Recognition of the, importance, intimacy and power of the Holy Spirit.
  • Cell Church (1970’s to present): recognition of the power of small intimate groups.
  • Emergent Church: (1990’s- present) recognition of the need for an expression of Christianity that makes sense in the postmodern world.
  • House Church (1950 [China], 2000 [West]-present): a return to New Testament’s simple ecclesiology and the God given organic design of the Church. This gives an adequate structure to allow for sustained viral movement of the Gospel.[1]

Note how each step builds on the predecessors to for the needed structure, insight, practice or behavior to accomplish what God is asking those involved to do. I don’t believe any of the subsequent steps could have occurred without the previous ones already in place.

As with all movements of God, these are both divine movements and human. Each has its strengths while reflecting human frailty and error. And, as with any time one tries to note historical trends; this is an over simplification. I’ve expressed these in simple steps for clarity; not for pinpoint historical accuracy. Nevertheless, I believe God is at work and we need to take a long term historical perspective and join with Him in what He is doing.

  • Has it ever occurred to you to take a long term perspective of what God may be doing in history?
  • Did you ever notice how any of these historical trends were related to each other?
  • Denominations often tend to get stuck in the forms and practices associated with their foundation. What happens when this happens?
  • Where do you sense God moving you in this overall movement of the Spirit?
[1] This is the premise of my book Viral Jesus: Recapturing the Contagious Power of the Gospel. The book will be released 2/2/12 by Chrisma House.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Where’s Jesus?

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church History, House Church, Jesus is Lord by rossrohde — Leave a comment
July 14, 2011

Government appointed Bishop Guo

On July 14, 2011 the AP posted an article: China’s Catholic church ordains another bishop: China’s government-backed Catholic church on Thursday ordained a third bishop without the pope’s approval in eight months, despite a Vatican appeal to Chinese leaders….read the rest of the article here.

How can China appoint Catholic Bishops, you may be asking? Well, as far as the Chinese Government is concerned, they severed ties with the Catholic Church in 1951. From that point on, they formed the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. This was a church, Catholic in practice, but which was actually a branch of the Chinese government. The government did exactly the same thing with the Chinese Protestants naming the government controlled Protestant church the Three Self Patriotic Movement. In both of these churches the Chinese government appoints all levels of leadership from Bishops to priests, from Three Self Denominational Leadership to pastors.

Of course from the Traditional Roman Catholic point of view this is absolute heresy; only the pope has the right to appoint bishops. This is no small matter to the Chinese government, either, which views the pope making such decisions as foreign interference in Chinese business. At stake is who controls the Church, who is its head?

Most of the readers of this blog come from a Protestant background (Greetings my followers from the Chinese Government: may Jesus bless you!). About now you are pretty incensed by both the Catholic Church and the Chinese government. How dare the pope, a mere man, think he is in charge of the Church? How dare some secular government try to control the Church? But, frankly, most of the Protestants need to get off their high horse. Who appoints the pastor in Protestant churches? In some denominations they are appointed by the denomination, in others by the elders of the local church, in others by the congregation…in other words by men (or men and women as the case may be). How is that much different than what the Catholics does? So, who is the Head of the Church? Note the change in capitalization.

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work (Eph. 4:15-16)

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).

What is it called when we say one thing and do another? What then, should it be called when we say that Jesus is the Head of the Church and we actually let men control it? What happens when we espouse Jesus as Lord, as a doctrine, but actually live under the control and rule of men or act as the ruler ourselves? The headship and lordship of Jesus should not be a mere doctrine, it should be a lifestyle. And we shouldn’t criticize the Chinese Communist Government or the Roman Catholic Church until we take a glaring beam out of our own eye. To see how Jesus can actually lead a church and be her Lord read Authority: How Jesus Leads a Church.

What then is my suggestion? Let’s get beam out of our own eye, not merely in what we say, but how we actually live our lives under Christ our Lord. Then we can honestly be concerned for the human abuse of the Church by the Chinese Government, the Catholic Church and the vast majority of Protestants.

  • Why do you think it is so easy to not realize how out of sync our practice is with our espoused doctrine?
  • Now that you know a little bit of the history can you see why the Chinese house church movement got stated?
  • Of the four branches of the Chinese church in 1951 (Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, The Three Self Patriotic Movement, The Roman Catholic Chinese Church and the Chinese House Church Movement [in order of size]) did you know the house church movement was by far he smallest ?
  • Did you know that the Chinese House Church Movement has grown from around 100,000 to probably over 100 million since that time; becoming by far the biggest branch of the Chinese Church?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Apex

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church History, Viral Christianity, Worldview by rossrohde — 9 Comments
July 11, 2011

We thought we were the very pinnacle of Christianity.

When I was a relatively young Christian studying in Bible College, I was led to believe that my expression of Christianity was the apex of all Christian expressions. Some may be asking what “apex” means. I’m using the word according to Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary’s second definition of the word: the highest or culminating point.[1] In other words, I thought that the Christianity I was experiencing at the time was as good as Christianity gets. We had Christianity nailed. The way we did things was the right way. Our doctrine was the right doctrine. Any errors from history had been corrected. And anybody who did things differently were not quite up to snuff; if not completely wrong or even worse, heretical.

We weren’t quite arrogant enough to say it quite like that…I take it back. Yes we were. And even if we didn’t say it, we certainly thought it explicitly, or believed it tacitly. We were certainly critical of everyone else; after all, we were the truest, purest branch of Christianity.  We had read the Scriptures and understood their true meaning.

It never occurred to us that the cultural glasses we were wearing affected the way we read the Scriptures and therefore twisted the meaning of what we were reading. It never occurred to us to ask any questions about this whatsoever. But, in reality, our hermaneutics came from our cultural understanding of how reality worked and how reading texts worked.

Where did that understanding of reality come from? We’d like to think it came from the Bible, but anyone who has honestly studied worldviews (including knowledgeable Christians) would tell us it came from the Western cultural worldview called the Enlightenment. And where did the Enlightenment get its understanding of reality? This is going to be painful, prepare yourself…pagan Greek philosophy. The hermaneutics I was taught in a good, honesty sincere conservative Evangelical seminary, which believed that the Bible was the God breathed Word of God, had more to do with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’s way of seeing things than Jesus’. Ouch. Those who have studied the Enlightenment will even tell you the arrogance described in the first two paragraphs is a tell tale sign of the Enlightenment.

Right now some of you are probably boiling mad. Sorry, I’m not trying to annoy you; but I am willing to ask honest and important if painful questions. If you don’t believe me go do some extensive study on this yourself. Read how the Enlightenment views texts and then honestly think about how you’ve been taught to read and discern the truth of the Bible. Read how the Enlightenment views the world and how you’ve been trained to understand reality. Then find out where these values came from. Don’t trust me on this, go find out for yourself. Just be honest with yourself. If you’ve never done this it might be painful, it was for me.

The Enlightenment itself is only about 250 years old (although its roots do go back to ancient Greek philosophy). The Early Church thought the Bible was the inspired word of God, but they most likely didn’t read the Bible like you do. They certainly didn’t have the same worldview you do. Yet God blessed them. God had a relationship with them and God bore fruit through them. And those Christians that got off track in history; do you think they did that on purpose? How did they get off track? Mostly by trying to conform what the Bible said to their erroneous worldview instead of changing their worldview to match what the Bible said. In other words, they did the same thing we are doing and it created problems. All human philosophy, including the Enlightenment has a basic core value: we can figure it out for ourselves, deep down, we really don’t need God. That’s why Paul told the Colossians: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ (Col. 2:8).

We desperately need the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth: But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come (Jn. 16:13). Our human hermeneutical schemes might be somewhat helpful, but without the Spirit, we can’t really understand God or his word. We don’t need Philipp Melanchthon, John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther or Menno Simons to tell us what the truth is. For that we need the Spirit and a dose of humility. They all saw the truth partially, and so do we. They were all wrong partially, and so are we. Paul himself said: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known (I Cor. 13:12). So, let’s have a little humility and a little respect for those who came before us. But, let’s never assume that we or they are the apex of Christianity. We are a bunch of imperfect people who God can still use and desperately loves. In the mean time, let’s trust the Spirit to use us and help us understand what we really need to know.

  • For those of you who have studied the Enlightenment, and how it has affected current Western Christianity, what would you say are two or three things we need to be careful of, or honestly question?
  • Have you ever wondered why our current practice of Christianity doesn’t much look like what we actually read about in the New Testament? Have you ever asked yourself why and what that might mean?
  • Do you think that church practice (ecclesiology) is tied to worldview, doctrine and our view of God? Or, is ecclesiology absolutely neutral and just a matter of personal preference?
  • Do you think things like the Enlightenment and non-biblical ecclesiology could affect our relationship with God? Why or why not?
[1] Definition of Apex, Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apex?show=0&t=1310404166.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

The Problem with Doctrinal Statements

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Jesus is Lord, Our Covenant With God, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — 5 Comments
June 1, 2011

Early document of the Nicene Creed

I’m aware that the title of this blog is going to make some people very uncomfortable. How could there be anything wrong with doctrinal statements? Hasn’t the church been doing doctrinal statements from the very beginning to protect us from heresy? Yes, doctrinal statements have their place. Yes, they can serve the helpful purpose of defining the difference between good doctrine and dangerous doctrine. But there is a subtle danger I’d like to point out that most of us have never really thought about. It is this subtle danger I’d like to address.

I remember way back in the early 1980’s when my wife and I were candidates for a mission organization. We were asked to develop a personal doctrinal statement. This doctrinal statement was then analyzed against the standard doctrinal statement of the mission to see if we were in or out. What’s wrong with that, one might ask? The problem is the assumption that one can determine one’s spiritual life by analysis of a written doctrinal statement. It can’t be done. Yet, that was the tool the being used for that very purpose.

Check, he got that one right.

Here’s how the process was handled.

Me

I believe that God is one and triune made up of three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Mission

Check, he got that one right.

Repeat as often as necessary.

That’s OK, but it says nothing about who I am as a person and how my life is lived. Let me ask you a question, which is more important, the ability to put the correct doctrine of the Holy Spirit on paper, or to be filled and controlled by the Holy Spirit? The way we actually act nowadays one would get the impression that getting the right propositional doctrine on paper is of utmost importance. Here’s what I believe to be of utmost importance: living a life that broadcasts the presence of Jesus Christ. Oh, and by the way, that could possibly be put down on paper in the rare occasion that it becomes necessary.

Let me express the problem in a different way. Do we realize that one can state and agree with every statement of the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds and still go to hell? Such a person could have a deep understanding of the subtle implications of each creedal point, yet live in a way that blackens the name of Jesus to those who don’t know Him.

My point is this. Let’s let our life be our creed. Let’s let the beauty of the presence of the Spirit flow out of our life like rivers of living water. The Early Church understood this. Their only creed was Jesus is Lord. But they also understood that a sign of a mature believer, an elder, one worthy of respect, was that their life was a testimony to those outside the church. In fact, each point of how one determines an elder in I Tim 3: 1:7 was based on how they lived their life. Oh, and by the way, those who were worthy of respect, like elders and deacons were also expected to hold and understand the deep truths of the faith, but that was also to be tested by how they lived.

I think the early Church was on to something; and I think their practice should be emulated. Let’s lead with our life in such a way that the beauty of Jesus is lived out in front of the world; and if necessary, let’s write down on paper what that means.

  • Why do you think we put so much emphasis on written propositional statements nowadays?
  • Do you think every correct doctrine can be lived?
  • What would the Apostle’s Creed look like lived out in a 21st Century suburban life?
  • Why do you think the 4th century[1] Christians put so much attention on written creeds?
[1] The approximate date of the Apostle’s Creed is 390 AD. The Nicene Creed was written in 325 and adapted in 381.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

The Supermarket Sniff Test

Filed Under: Christendom, Church History, Discipleship, Evangelism, Jesus is Lord, Meeting Together, Simple Church, Spiritual Life, Supernaturalism by rossrohde — 2 Comments
May 16, 2011

Can you do it here?

What defines essential simple church practice and ecclesiology? What differentiates us from our more traditionally based legacy brethren? First, I believe it is that we go back to the Bible as our sole source for ecclesiological practice. Second, we return to the historically accurate understanding of terms such as elder, pastor, apostle etc. But that becomes rather academic and detail prone and open to nitpicky arguments about what exactly does the word ______ mean or how exactly did the Early Church do XY and Z. I’m not against such discussions. A number of my posts have been exactly about these kinds of issues. So obviously I believe we should engage in such thinking and even debate. Nevertheless, I think we need a good simple church practice sniff test. Something that is so simple that we can quickly use it to help us determine if this is a necessary part of our practice or not. I think I’ve come up with this sniff test.

Necessary vs. Acceptable

However, I do want to first differentiate the difference between what is necessary ecclesiological practice and acceptable practice. In a healthy simple church, is it necessary to use a guitar or any musical instrument in worship? No, it’s acceptable by not necessary. Musical practice of any sort isn’t necessary, but often times profitable and enjoyable. So I want to be clear that I’m talking about a test that helps us determine the answer to the following question: is the practice of X indispensible in a simple church? Is it something we should do?

The Supermarket Sniff Test

Here is what I’m proposing for the simple church ecclesiological sniff test. Can you practice it in the cereal aisle of Safeway?[1] Whatever it is that you think needs to be done as church; can you do it in such a public setting?

Let me give a couple of examples of the Safeway sniff test. Should we teach in a simple church? Can you teach someone in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Sure, it’s just done through dialog and doesn’t require a pulpit, an overhead projector, a suit or robe and a loud sonorous voice. Should you pray in a simple church? Can you pray for someone in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Sure. I’d suggest that one were gracious to the casual non-participants pushing their shopping carts, but I’ve prayed for friends on the street or contexts like Safeway. Can you pray for healing in Safeway? Yes, I’ve done it, at least in a department store. It wasn’t flashy and loud but it could be done graciously and discreetly. Can you prophecy at Safeway. Sure. Can you cast out demons in Safeway? Now, were pushing the edge of our test. I’d be very careful about this and make sure that Jesus was directing me to do so. Not out of fear of embarrassment but out of desire to not humiliate the person being ministered to. But, Jesus did this very publically, as did the apostles. And, in the right circumstance, and under the direction of Jesus, I’d do it too.

What this test really does is helps us weed out unnecessary traditional practices that don’t necessarily add anything to the effectiveness of ministry. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, they often hinder effective ministry. Do we need a pulpit to do any effective ministry? No. I really can’t see anything pulpits add to effective ministry. Do we need choir robes? Do we need a sermon? Do we need clergy? Does someone need to be an official clergy to help someone they encountered in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Do they need titles or a seminary education? None of these things are essential, many actually hinder effective ministry.

Let’s just use a seminary education for example. I’ve had to unlearn much of the traditions and practices I learned in seminary to become actually effective in real life ministry outside of the cloistered, unreal vacuum of traditional church ministry. Honestly, most (but not all) of what is taught in seminary is only useful for ministering to people who are tradition bound Christians. Much is actually harmful to ministering to non-Christians and much of what is transferred through seminary trained traditions and practices ends up creating weak, ineffective Christians.  And, the good things I did learn in seminary, I could easily teach in a house church setting to any basically literate person. Much doesn’t even require literacy.

Now do we need Jesus’ power and direction to do ministry in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Yes and again I say yes! It’s absolutely indispensible. Yet, that’s something we’ve become far too used to ministering without. We rely on special buildings, furniture, clothing, titles, positions, degrees, plans, strategies, methodologies, models ad nauseam; but the one thing we really need, the one thing that Jesus made clear we should not do without (see John 15:5); we have treated as not particularly important at all. We are failing the sniff test, and it smells rotten.

  • Think of your typical church experience; could you do most of it at Safeway?
  • The things you couldn’t do at Safeway with their attending paraphernalia and accoutrements; are they necessary for changing your spiritual life for the better?
  • Why do we put so much focus and effort and spend so much money on the non-Safeway friendly things?
  • Does focusing on basic, simple and necessary things; without much of the adornment of the complex, expensive and traditional, really make life changing ministry less effective or practical?
[1] Supermarket chains are extremely regional. Safeway is a common chain in many parts of the United States and England (maybe Canada???). If I were in England I’d say Tesco. In Spain and France I’d say Carrefour and in Guatemala I’d say Paiz.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Kingdom Economics

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Meeting Together, Spiritual Life, Worldview by rossrohde — 3 Comments
May 12, 2011

Our desire for more of this should never be our motivator

When we enter into the Kingdom of God we are entering into a new way of life. It is meant to be a life that is not only lived differently than the world’s ways but exposes the fallacy of the world’s way of doing things. When we live exactly like our neighbors, there is nothing of the kingdom being broadcast and there are no fallacies being exposed. One area where we have become extremely lax is the area of economics. I’m not talking specifically about tithing or giving to the church. I’m talking about our relationship with money and how money no longer controls us but is used by us for the loving benefit of others.

When I was a new student at Bible College I took a survey of the New Testament class and a class on the book of Acts. When my professors got to end of Acts chapter 2 they were faced with the early believers living out Kingdom economics even if it wasn’t to their own advantage. I refer to this passage:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:44-47).

This passage where “all the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. ” sounded too much like communism to my worldly professors who were steeped in the values of a “free market economy.” So the justifications started. The New Testament believers did this early on and found out that it didn’t work, so they learned and changed later on, was my professor’s most common justification.

Is early Christian communism being described in Acts 2? No, kingdom economics is being described. Communism is forced by a centralized State. It is oppressive and destructive. What is being described in the New Testament is people living a life of love together. That love motivation is so strong, the thought didn’t occur to them to hold back their own worldly good for themselves, when it could help a brother or sister they love. In other words, they acted like a loving extended family that helps the young married couples get started by giving them practical gifts. That same motivation is basis of the practice of wedding gifts. However, in our greedy society, it has become so warped that social pressure and duty has replaced love as the main motivator.

Let me give you an example of how my friends and I are trying to live Kingdom economics. I’m planting a simple church among Hispanic day workers. Most of them get by working as extra help on construction sites and doing occasional gardening jobs. In this weak economy, they consider themselves fortunate to work eight or ten hours a week. Consequently, even if they are packing ten or more people in a two bedroom apartment, they are not making enough to survive. I don’t have lots of cash but I can “loan” them some money when they need to pay their share of the rent or buy a used mobile phone when theirs gets crushed on a construction site.

In reality how are they ever going to repay this? And, the truth is they try hard. What my friends and I have come up with is to have a work day where they repay with what they have (labor and carpentry skill) and we offer them love and fellowship. Here’s how it works. I make a “loan” to them. When enough becomes “owed” to me I organize a work day which will benefit my non-Hispanic friends. The whole simple church participates in this, not just the ones who “owe” me money. We go to a house that needs yard work, painting or some other work done. My friends and I work together to accomplish the task. Then we all have a barbeque together, share Jesus together and generally enjoy each other’s company. In the process, we have all gained and we have all loved. We are expressing the values of Kingdom economics which is based on love, not the world’s economics which is based on greed and selfishness. I believe that the last phrase in the passage I shared above “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” directly relates to “All the believers were together and had everything in common.” When we express love to one another, the intense love that violates the world’s economic system based on greed and selfishness, our love becomes contagious. And the long term end result is people see God in our actions and get saved.

  • Why do you think we don’t see much Kingdom economics in the Church nowadays?
  • Do you think my professors were right, that the early church gave up this practice because it didn’t work?
  • My example of how my friends and I are trying to live Kingdom economics is based on our specific situation. Do you have examples of how you and your friends are living Kingdom economics?
  • What do you think would happen if we held a “work day” for the benefit of our non-Christian friends or poor people who needed a helping hand?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Detox

Filed Under: Christendom, Church History, Jesus is Lord, New Covenant, Our Covenant With God, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — 1 Comment
May 9, 2011

Drugs and worldly principles: both require detox

In my last post Under the Influence I mentioned how easy it is for us to be under the influence of what Paul called “the basic or foundational principles of the world.” These principles, just like a drug, at first flush seem to improve our life, make us happier; they seem positive. But it’s an illusion; they are deceptive and very dangerous. I also gave two tests to check to see if we have become addicted to these principles. The first test was to see if our beliefs, life and practices reflected in every aspect the Lordship of Jesus. The second test was to verify our spiritual software, to check if we were functioning within the new covenant where our life is controlled by the inner voice of the Spirit of Jesus as he speaks into our heart and mind (Heb. 8:10). In this post, I want to do two more practical things. I want to give one final test to see if we are still under the influence of worldly principles and I would like to suggest a good detox program.

Test #3: Does your ecclesiology reflect the New Testament

When I was a new student in Bible College I noted a consistent pattern. When I took theology classes we would discuss the way things were in Bible times and then how we do them now. They were very different. Our theology came from systems which developed much later in Christian history, from specific historical leaders and only used the Bible to prove that this theology was correct. They were contrasted with other theological systems, also developed later, which were obviously wrong. This was so because they didn’t follow the system developed by the right human leader. So our practice came from traditions developed latter in history and our theology came from systems and paradigms developed later in history. At the time, I figured that’s just the way it is. It must be right, these great Bible teachers are teaching me this as truth; it has to be correct. Now I realize I was actually getting a heavy dose of human tradition along with a light dose of Bible proof texting.

Here is test number three. If your beliefs, and the practices that derive from those beliefs, don’t reflect the behavior of the people we see in the New Testament, there is something seriously wrong. Nowadays we tend to view things like church practice as if they were neutral, just a matter of personal or denominational choice. The Presbyterians do one thing, the Pentecostals do another and Baptists do some other variation. It’s all good isn’t it?

Actually the church practice of the New Testament, the way churches met, they way they interacted, reflected the actual lived out lordship of Jesus Christ. They also reflected the actual behavior of people who believed that Jesus spoke directly to their hearts and minds and they were to listen and obey. These later developments reflect something far different. The theology reflects the supposed need to have some theological expert (not the Spirit) interpret the Bible for us so that we view it the correct way. This short circuits the new covenant and places that theologian in the role of our lord instead of Jesus. The ecclesiological practices reflect human leadership, power and control structures based on humans making decisions for us. They reflect the human cultural structures where and when they were developed. This is in stark contrast with New Testament believers obeying Jesus directly as he spoke to their hearts and minds. The church was an integral part of this listening and discernment process.

Detox

Paul told us that we could become enslaved to these foundational principles, that they were weak, miserable, hollow and deceptive. The only way I know to become disentangled from them is step away from the practices that encourage them or even force us to behave according to them. This allows us the space to begin to actually hear the voice of Jesus without a lot of background noise.

How can we follow Jesus as our Lord if some other human has power and authority to counteract what Jesus is telling us to do? I’m not suggesting becoming a rogue who is immune to wise council. I’m suggesting we become someone who is responding to Jesus and allows the community to help us listen carefully. How can we live in the new covenant when we automatically assume that our theology must be vetted by a later theological and denominational systems and not the Bible itself. These theological systems have a good deal of the foundational principles of the world built into their behavior and practice. The end result of blindly following denominational and theological systems is that we become more and more separated from the voice of the Lord and direct obedience to him. We have become enslaved without realizing it. Just like a drug addict detoxes by stopping the use of the drug and finding an environment where drugs are prohibited, we need to do the exact same thing. It’s the only way I know of to get clean.

  • Does the word detox bother you? Can you think of a better metaphor for become disentangled from worldly principles?
  • Have you ever noticed how different theological systems fight with each other? Why should this be necessary if they are following what Jesus is telling them to do?
  • Have you ever noticed just how much our church structures mimic the structures of the world like business, government or the military? Now that I’ve made the observation, does it give you pause?
  • Can you think of any way to detox from the principles of the world and still stay in the structures and remain faithful to the structures that encourage them?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

How Elders Act and Reproduce

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Discipleship, New Covenant, Organic Church, Viral Christianity by rossrohde — 7 Comments
April 27, 2011

A good elder watches over the sheep.

In my last post, What is an Elder Really? I discussed how the meaning of the word “elder” has changed over time to mean something which was not intended in the New Testament. I concluded with this paragraph: An elder, then, is a more mature Christian. And such a mature Christian would use their maturity to serve others, coming from a position of humility and weakness, not from any position of apparent strength, title, power or positional authority. To do otherwise would be to set aside Jesus strict instructions about how “greater” (i.e. more mature) people were to behave. In my next post I’ll talk about how such people actually behaved and the important role they play in organic church.

How New Testament elders behaved

A New Testament elder was a more mature Christian. As such, they had much to give those who were less mature. Their goal was to lead newer, less mature Christians to maturity, which, in reality, meant lead them deeper into a relationship with Jesus. In doing so, they watched over the younger Christians. This is where we get the word “overseer” episkopos, which is also translated “bishop”. Sadly, even in translating it into the word “overseer” we get the idea in English of being over someone else positionally or having power over them. That’s not the idea. They watch over new Christians the way a shepherd watches over sheep. Here’s how James put it:

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock (I Pet. 5:1-3).

A good elder led not by power, but by example. You don’t need power, position or control to lead by example. You just need to be a good example. Furthermore, elders watched over the less mature Christians like a loving shepherd watched over sheep; looking out for trouble, finding any way they could to protect them. Again, no power is needed to serve in this way. What was needed was a servant’s heart and influence. Influence needs no power. It is a gift given to those who have it, by those who are being influenced. You have influence when people give it to you. No amount of power, position or title can give you influence. These things can only give you coercive power. To use coercive power is to “lord over,” what Jesus told us never to do in Luke 22: 24-27.

One last thing should be said about this verse. Elders or overseers are to shepherd the flock. The word shepherd is the same word we also translate pastor. Here it is being used as a verb, denoting the action a good elder takes. This verse has been used to suggest that an elder, a bishop and a pastor are all the same thing. That’s not actually true. A pastor is a person with the spiritual gift of pastor, mentioned exactly once in the New Testament (Eph. 4:11-13). A person with the pastoral spiritual gift is gifted to take care of the emotional and relational needs of those in the flock. This behavior is also easily explained using the metaphor of a shepherd. Elders watch over the flock through maturity and influence; those with the pastoral spiritual gift care for the flock through the use of their spiritual gift. The word pastor is never used in the New Testament as a noun, or as a verb,  to describe someone with positional power, as it is commonly used today.

How New Testament elders reproduced organically

To lead a person deeper into a relationship with Jesus, the main function of an elder, is to disciple them. This is the basic function of discipleship. But it is discipleship though life, by example, not the mere downloading of information, which has become so common today. It is better described as training. It is the way a kind, wise master carpenter would teach an apprentice. No amount of book learning will teach someone how to build a house. For that you have to handle wood, hammers, nails and saws until you are good at it.

In the same way, elders discipled less mature Christians to become closer to Jesus. They taught them the skills necessary to actually follow Jesus himself in a new covenant relationship. When they showed the deep lifestyle maturity described in I Tim 3:1-7, which is the natural outflow of being in an abiding relationship with Jesus, they were mature enough to be considered elders themselves. Note that this is measured by life skill/godly behavior, in other words, spiritual maturity. Oh, and one other thing, the ability to teach or train others to mature spiritually the same way. When elders teach immature Christians to become elders, they have reproduced themselves organically, because they have reproduced according to their own kind.

  • Most of us don’t think about pastors, elders and bishops this way even though that is what is being described in the New Testament; why?
  • Nowadays it is much more common to use the word “elder” as a member of a congregational churches board of directors. Can you see this described anywhere in the New Testament?
  • Does it make sense to you how in organic church no titles, positions or human power is necessary?
  • In the New Testament the descriptive words for Christians were an issue of maturity “elder,” function “overseer,” or spiritual gift “pastor,” “apostle,” “prophet,” etc. None carried the idea of power or position. Could you be comfortable in such a spiritual ambiance?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

What is an Elder Really?

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Organic Church, Spiritual Life, Viral Christianity, Worldview by rossrohde — 5 Comments
April 25, 2011

The word translated "elder" simply meant an older person.

The role of elders is crucial in organic church. However, the idea of what the word “elder” means has been so distorted by history that we need to clear up some misconceptions before we can even talk about what elders do and how they play an essential role in the Church. So this will be a brief, two part series. In this post, I’ll talk about how the word “elder” was used in the Early Church. In the next post, I’ll discuss the important role elders played and how they reproduced themselves organically.

The New Testament word for elder is one of those words whose meaning has been severely distorted by history. In the nearly 2,000 intervening years, we have significantly wandered away from the meaning of “elder” as it was used in the New Testament. I discussed this issue of changing meaning in a recent post When Words Get Ruined. Here is a “definition” from Bible Study Tools.com, of the Greek word presbuteros which we translate as the word “elder.”

Definition

1.       elder, of age,

a.       the elder of two people

b.      advanced in life, an elder, a senior

1.       forefathers

2.       a term of rank or office

a.       among the Jews

i.       members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)

ii.       of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice

b.      among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

c.       the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

This definition is a mixture of correct definition and history with some dangerous historical anachronisms added in. Of particular interest is definition 2b: “A term of rank or office,” and “Among the Christians, those who “presided over” the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably.”

It is true that the word episkopos, or bishop (an overseer, one who watches over) is used interchangeably with presbuteros, an elder. However, the idea that such people “preside over” the assemblies, is not quite on the mark. What is happening here is that we have transposed our current non-biblical church structure and culture onto the text. We are interpreting the New Testament through what we currently do, instead of basing what we do completely on the New Testament in its historical context. This is a dangerous hermeneutical practice.

Let’s look at the actually meaning of the word presbuteros. It means literally, someone who is older or more mature. That’s the way it was used in the New Testament. But, it was used metaphorically. It doesn’t necessarily mean whoever is advanced in years, but someone advanced in spiritual maturity. It is simply someone who is spiritually mature. This idea that it was a “rank or office” and that such a person would “preside over” another Christian would completely mystify the original readers of the New Testament. It probably would have offended the very early believers.

From the perspective of Jesus statements about leadership in Luke 22: 24-27 to have a “rank or office” would be akin to having a rank or office like a “king” among the Gentiles. And to “preside over” is just a nicer way of saying “lord over.” Christians aren’t supposed to lord over, preside over, or even lead. They are supposed to serve. And, they do it not from a position “over” but from a position of weakness, that of a child or slave. Just read Jesus’ actual statements. Keep in mind that this rebuke by Jesus was precipitated by the disciples trying to set up a primitive hierarchy where some disciples were greater than others. For more on this see my post Leadership???.

Whatever an elder did, in the Early Church, it was not from an office or rank; that’s Gentile behavior which Jesus warned us away from. In other words, it’s the way the world works; worldly behavior. Further, it was not even done from higher, but non-titular, status where one could “preside over.” Again, that’s what Jesus told us not to do. In fact, anything a more mature person, an elder, was going to do had to come without rank or power, but rather from a position of weakness. In the words of Jesus, “But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves” (Lk. 22:26).

An elder, then, is a more mature Christian. And such a mature Christian would use their maturity to serve others, coming from a position of humility and weakness, not from any position of apparent strength, title, power or positional authority. To do otherwise would be to set aside Jesus strict instructions about how “greater” (i.e. more mature) people were to behave. In my next post I’ll talk about how such people actually behaved and the important role they play in organic church.

  • Why do you think we have turned elders into people having positions of power, title and rank?
  • How can someone who is more mature actually help another from a position of powerlessness and weakness? Can someone help another if they don’t have the power to control their behavior?
  • Can you see why reading the New Testament through the lens of our current practice instead of reading our current practice through the lens of the New Testament can be dangerous?
  • Has it ever occurred to you to try to analyze our current church practice through what Jesus said in Luke 22: 24-27? And, can you see why, if we do so, we must be careful to read it through the actual historical lens of the New Testament, not through the lens of our current church culture and practice?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

When Words Get Ruined

Filed Under: Apostolic Ministry, Church History, Organic Church, Worldview by rossrohde — 6 Comments
April 18, 2011

Sometimes definitions get so ruined we can't communicate.

One of my frustrations as an organic church practitioner is that, as I dialog with more traditional Christians, I find that we use the same words, but often mean very different things by them. This makes true and thoughtful communication very difficult. Let me give you a few examples: elder, pastor, apostle, leadership, church, evangelist and teacher. I could give a few more, but this will suffice for now.

There is a cause for this. More traditional Christians have learned to use words, not by their original biblical meaning, but by what they have come to mean in the current cultural context of the church as we know it. Organic Christians find it helpful to go back to the original meaning of the words we find in the text. We do this because once one goes back to the design of the church, as we find it in the New Testament, these words and their original meanings become very helpful, descriptive and strategic. But if I use the word “pastor” meaning a person with a spiritual gift and God given design of caring for the needs of others; the traditional Christian hears “a person with the top hierarchical title and position in a congregational church.” They are two completely different things.

So what do we do about this? I can use a word, and have to explain it; or I can avoid the word and come up with something else. I’m going to give an example of how I’ve personally chosen to use both strategies with different words. For me, the issue is ease of clear communication. I realize others will have different opinions and reasons for how they use each of these words. I’m just giving an example of what I do.

Apostle

The word apostle is from the Greek apostolos. Here’s how StudyLight.org defines the word:

1. delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders

  1. specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
  2. in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
    1. of Barnabas
    2. of Timothy and Silvanus

An original reader of the Greek text in the year 68 A.D. would have completely understood that first line. From the word “specifically” onward, he or she would have been completely mystified as to what the writer of the definition is talking about. An apostle is a sent one. The twelve were changed from being mere disciples to apostles in Matt 10:1-2 when Jesus sent them on a mission. Barnabas, Timothy and Silvanus (as well as Andronicus and Junia [a woman]) are just more biblical examples of sent ones, apostles.

Apostles are people sent by God on a mission to extend his Kingdom. They existed in the 1st Century and they exist today. The Latinized version of this same word is missionary.[1] Someone convinced that only the original twelve were apostles, would probably whole heartedly agree that God still sends missionaries to extend the Kingdom; not realizing they are being completely inconsistent. What we have from “specifically” onward, in the above definition, is the traditionalization of the definition of the word. It is unbiblical tradition rearing its ugly head. That doesn’t come from Greek or the Bible, it strictly comes from the definer’s tradition. And, that’s the problem, in my opinion.

I still use this word because I can just say I am using the word by its original definition, “sent one,” someone sent by God to extend his Kingdom. The hearer may not agree that I can or should use this word in this way, but they can easily understand what I’m talking about. At least we’re communicating. For more on this read What Is an Apostle?.

Leadership

I can use the word “leadership” in a sentence, talking about Christians, without cringing. O.K. maybe I can’t; but I’d like to be able to. There is a reason for my personal cringe factor. The second we use this highly charged word, we all tend to go to the worldly meaning of leadership. It means someone in a hierarchical position who has positional power, control and authority over others. And, we use the word authority as a synonym for “power.”

This understanding of what leadership is all about is baked into our bones. When we use the word, we have an extremely difficult time getting to what Jesus was actually saying in Luke 22: 24-27. Jesus isn’t saying, “Be a new type of leader, one who expresses his or her leadership (positional power and authority) by serving for the good of others.” That’s being a benefactor; something Jesus tells us not to do in Luke 22:25. This is a concept commonly called “servant leadership.” Isn’t it amazing that we end up doing exactly what Jesus told us not to do…all in the name of Jesus. Servant leadership is an oxymoron. Jesus is actually saying don’t lead. That’s the way the Gentile power elite act. Do something different instead; serve others from a position of weakness; like a child or servant. For more on this read Leadership???

I no longer use the word leadership. I just tell the people I’m discipling, don’t lead, love and serve others. We’re all the same in God’s eyes. Once I use the word leadership with them, we’ll spend the rest of the day trying to figure out what’s good leadership and bad leadership. In my opinion, there’s no such thing as good leadership. Jesus told us to serve. I’ll stick with that. Leadership is non-Christian activity. I do this for ease of communication. I know that others won’t agree, and that’s fine, as long as we both know what we’re talking about.

  • Does it make sense to you why I’ve chose one strategy with “apostle” and another strategy with “leadership?”
  • Can you see how easy it is to have historical tradition even become part of our English Bible translations?
  • What could happen, as in the definition above, when we read a poor translation or study help and think we are getting the straight scoop?
  • Do you understand why organic church people, in going back to the original ecclesiological structure of the Church also tend to start using words as they were originally used in the New Testament? In your opinion, is this just rigid fundamentalism or is there a deeper reason?
[1] And, of course, the word missionary has taken on a completely different meaning from the Latin version of apostolos.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.