The Three Great Gifts of God

What would you consider the three greatest gifts of God?   Of course Christians would commonly go immedidately to the gift of Christ -- the Word becoming flesh. That is true, but perhaps some reflection would reveal a deeper understanding of just what this means.  I would propose three very specifc gifts.

The first gift is found in Genesis.  God saw fit to create the universe and all that is in it.  The Word participated in that creation:

        "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with          God in the beginning. ³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been           made. ⁴ In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."  John 1:1–4 (NIV) 

What happened during the creation event is truly remarkable.  

      " So God created mankind in his own image, 
         in the image of God he created them; 
         male and female he created them. (Gen. 1:27)

The first great gift of God to Man was life itself.  And, this was not just any life, but life that was created in His own image.  What exactly it means to be created in the image of God has been much debated.  Some elements seem obvious. Man can talk to God and have a relationship to him.  Man seems to be God's representative on earth and has dominion over it at God's command.  Man has intellect and can reason. Man has  the capacity to have godly attributes: love, purity, compassion, etc.   

This brings me to what I propose is the second greatest gift bestowed upon man.  Man has the ability to make choices.  Man has free will.   This is  also an attribute that has been endlessly disbuted.  Some in the scientific world would postulated all actions, even those that appear to be freelly  made, are determined by only cause and effect.  Others would ask how can we have free will if God already knows what is going to happen in advance?  There are other endless arguments whether free will exists with varying defintions.  ( examining each would take several books, not a short essay) What seems clear is God gave man the ability to choose one's course of action over another whether one defines this as "free will" or not.  We are not robots. 

Alas, this freedom to choose a particular course of action lets man make unwise choices.  Coupled with this abiltiy to choose is one's responsibility for one's actions.  Since Man through Adam and Eve made a choice forbidden to them, they sinned against God.  In short they wished to be completely like God.  This, then. leads to the third greatest gift of God.  

" for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,  through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.' (Ro 3:23–25).

This  gift truly is the grace of God towards Man.   What a gift?  The gift of justification by grace through Christ and received by faith.  So, we return to the first gift--life itself.  God gave Man life, the ability to chose, and even when their choice would lead to death, and then gift of life again if we choose to believe in Christ to be justified by Him.  What a glorious God!

Reflections on Cooperation and Religious Divisions

Attendance at a recent Missions Resource Network benefit dinner, sparked thoughts of the religious divisions and lack of coorperation that long characterised congregtions of the churches of Christ.  I was born and raised in the 40's, 50's, and 60's--more than 50 years distance from our present culture.  During those times,  many good practices were prevalent, chief among them a study and knowledge of scripture.  Alas, knowledge does not in itself mean understanding and practice.

Congregational autonomy was taken to a fault. Other than area "Sunday singings," little real cooperative efforts were the norm.   Sometimes a local city campaign with a prominent speaker in the church induced a "Billy Graham" effort of cooperation.   The 60's in particular were marked by the "anti" movement.  When my wife and I moved to Phoenix right out of the university, we sought the nearest congregation to our little one bedroom furnished apartment.  It was an "anti" congregation where the entire sermon was condemning other Christians who "cooperated" in any way with Christian based groups--Christian universities, orphan homes, other congregations and Christians who supported them, and those who did not conduct their services in the right way.  It was so bad we did not feel comfortable taking communion there.  Fortunately, we found a loving and accepting congregation nearby.  Though the "anti" movement within the churches of Christ has almost dissipated over the last half century,  in my view it damaged the message of Christ for decades.

The Restoration heritage of "back to the bible" unfortunately evolved in some circles into an insistence on "doctrinal purity" before one congregation could "be in fellowship" with another congregation.  This usually focused on insisting on using some "accepted" form of worship for being "in fellowship."   However, what was "doctrine" for one group was "liberty" for another group.  The emphasis was on  what what perceived to be the accepted "pattern" and not on relationships--whether relationship with God, with one another, or with other Christians.  The admonition in Ephesians 4 to use our God given spiritual gifts for service to others was little heard.  "Home Bible Studies"  consisted primarily of how the church was established in Act 2,  on baptism, and on the organization of the church.  Christ was not at the center of these lessons.  We know,  as my wife and I created a separate chart on the life of Christ.  The charts we were using had little about Christ. This insistence  on "pattern" or particular "forms" of worship lead to multiple  splits or divisions within the church.

Concurrent with the divisions within the church itself was an insistence that a congregation could not cooperate in any overt way with others in the community.   Those who  were providing a service to others--other faith based groups or  community service groups-- could not be associated with.   The thinking was "the church" would not get the credit for the service provided.  Doing so would lend tacit consent to the doctrine of denominations that we did not agree with.  Note here the insistence that the church of Christ was not a "denomination" but was "The Church"--never mind that the churches of Christ fit precisely the normal English language dictionary definition of a denomination.  ( Of course, Christ's church universal is one and not a denomination.  The forms it takes certainaly are different even within the churches of Christ).

The above attitudes contributed to the common perception that the members of the Churches of Christ believed they were the only ones going to heaven.  When pressed most members would deny this, but then insist only those believed or practiced as they did would would be acceptable to God.  The presupposition not stated was the Churches of Christ had completely restored the New Testament church found in the bible.    Never mind the fact there were significant differences in the understanding of the workings of the Holy Spirit,  and continual squabbles on forms of worship and other doctrinal matters.   The "worship wars" that came to other faith based groups came to the churches of Christ also--just later in time.

We are thankful that many of these attitudes are fading in our fellowship.  Para-church groups like MIssion Resource Network, Let's Start Talking, Eastern European Missions, Great Cities Missions, Kairos, Mission Alive, etc. are doing much for the Lord and are supported by both members  and congreagations alike.  Christian universities and colleges are supported as well.   Local congregations support groups such as Habitat for Humanity, Samaritan Inn, Local Food Banks, and Children's Relief Fund.  Members are emphasizing real relationships with God, each other, and developing relationships with their neighbors and the unchurched.   All of this does not mean we have abandoned baptism for the remission of sins, or even a cappella music.  But, it does mean the restoration of doctrine is balanced with the restoration of relationships.  It also recogizes that using the bible as a "rule book", "constitution", or a using "pattern" hermenutic may not be the best way or even a good way of determining  what God wishes us to do as individual Christians or congregations.

The Siren Allure of Political Activism

There are Christians on both sides of the political spectrum who are actively engaged in the political process.  On the modern liberal and progressive side, many espouse political activity as the means to enact “social justice” in our society. (1) “John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not "something that individuals have as a ready-made possession.  It is "something to be achieved." In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state.”   … "The state has the responsibility for creating institutions under which individuals can effectively realize the potentialities that are theirs." (2) (3)On the conservative side, the means to a just society and economic well being is through exercising the liberties guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and in free market capitalism.  “Free-market capitalism is not perfect. But it remains the single most efficient and powerful system for creating wealth, reducing poverty and developing less wasteful ways of organizing output and consuming resources.” (4). Both of these views have profound ideas about man and his relationship to the state.  What both views have is common is: a) a reliance on the how man is governed to enhance economic well being and liberty and b) active participation by each of us in bringing about a more just and equal society—though the definitions of these two terms might be different.

I submit the siren allure of political activity to further the state of man has inherent dangers for the Christian participant.  It is not that participation in the political process is to be denied or discouraged.  It is not a belief that any participation in civil government is wrong.  Some Christians believe with David Libscomb “that government is not a force for good: It is a force for bad, and Christians should attempt to persuade people to follow the laws of God rather than using force. He argued that Christians should not participate in politics, should not vote, and should not fight in wars.” (5) (6).   I am not of that persuasion.   On the contrary, I am a member of a political party, of political action groups, have served as a delegate to our convention at the state level, and attend various political activities.  So what then is the problem?  The problems are threefold: 1) Confusing the state and its functions with the mission of the church  2) Confusing participation in political activism with personal Christian responsibilities and 3) Letting the allure of political activism become your personal idol.

The United States had as its founding principles the Declaration statement that we are “endowed by God with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”   In addition, the Founders consistently stated its implementation in our Constitution was only suitable for a moral and religious people.    Along with the philosophy of the Enlightenment, these foundations are paramount for those of the conservative persuasion in particular.  It is a small step to believe that the United States is the favored Christian nation and in some sense is like the nation of Israel,-- God’s light to the world.  In short, it is a small step to confuse the mission of the church as the mission of the state.  But, the United States is not the church.  Our true citizenship is in the Kingdom.   This confusion can easily lead one to believe the actions you might take as a citizen activist serves the responsibility you have as a servant of Christ.  In fact, the allure can be so great you pursue and give your entire allegiance to the state not to the Kingdom.

It is true that God favored Israel when it kept its covenant and punished it as well as other nations when they became evil.  But he also blessed nations when they acknowledge Him as Lord.

 Jeremiah 12:14–17 (NIV)

¹⁴ This is what the Lord says: “As for all my wicked neighbors who seize the inheritance I gave my people Israel, I will uproot them from their lands and I will uproot the people of Judah from among them. ¹⁵ But after I uproot them, I will again have compassion and will bring each of them back to their own inheritance and their own country. ¹⁶ And if they learn well the ways of my people and swear by my name, saying, ‘As surely as the Lord lives’—even as they once taught my people to swear by Baal—then they will be established among my people. ¹⁷ But if any nation does not listen, I will completely uproot and destroy it,” declares the Lord.

There is no reason not to believe that nations are indeed blessed by God when they acknowledge him as Lord.  And, from Revelation 6 we know that God punishes nations for the evil that transpires.  As in the Old Testament he punishes those who are evil so that they may repent.  Revelation clearly depicts a difference between those who “dwell on the earth” and those who are sealed with God’s name (Rev. 6;10).  In other words it is the difference between those whose citizenship is in heaven and those whose allegiance and citizenship is on the earth.   In the words of John Mark Hicks in his comments on Revelation:   “They are part of the socio-political, anti-Christian powers (cf. Revelation 6:10; 11:10). They look to the powers rather than to one who sits on the throne in heaven for their guidance and life. This is the essence of idolatry.” (7)

But in no sense is being a citizen of a state the same as being a citizen of heaven.  Neither should one confuse “the church” with “the state”.  This confusion is not a problem for progressives who insist that all aspects of religion should be banished from the public square.   Christian progressives, however, have a different but similar attraction to the state.  In the progressive case transformation of society through the state is a prime objective.  The state is to provide salvation of man from injustice and should bring about equality and economic justice.  But, it is not the mission of the church to transform the forms of government.  If it was, Paul would not have sent the slave Philemon back to his master.  This is a telling case in that slavery is the epitome of injustice to Americans.  But, progressives “look to the powers” of the state for resolution rather than “the one who sits on heaven”.   In fact for them the purpose of the state is to “create individuals”. (3).  Our danger as Christians is we too would look to the state for individual transformation and put all of their energies into this effort...  As John Mark Hicks stated this is the essence of idolatry.

Conservatives believe that all human beings are by their nature “free” with society being a voluntary association of individuals.  They create a social compact and laws for the common good.   It is the duty of the state to protect individuals so that they can “be all they can be” or in the words of the Declaration be protected in their “pursuit of happiness.” The particular political form of society that our Constitution has enshrined is a republic that divides powers in order to ensure the protection of individuals.  The economic structure has also been named “democratic capitalism” –for it is far from a complete “free market” system where anything goes. (8).  One of the most cogent interpreters of our system has stated our democracy has three principles for success (9):

1)    Democracy defines the political part

2)     Capitalism defines the economic part

3)    The Moral Culture that defines the virtues that must be present

The voluntary association of individuals means not only individuals themselves but the free components of a civil society including families, churches, clubs, political groups, social groups, etc.  A free polity must first, as individuals, govern themselves. “A corrupt, lazy, dishonest, and decadent society cannot preserve human liberty. “  

With moral underpinnings required for our system to work, it is very easy to confuse our mission as Christians with our obligations as citizens.  We can rationalize our actions in pursuit of furthering the moral underpinnings of our political system with our personal obligations as citizens to our fellowman.  After all, we all have limited time.

As a citizen of heaven we have the obligation to use our God given gifts for “works of service” to our fellowman—Christian and non-Christian.  The depiction of the judgment in Matt 25 clearly indicates our obligation to the poor and the outcasts of society. It is quite easy for progressives to be seduced into believing their personal Christian duty for service is achieved through their political activism for social justice through the state.   For conservatives, the thought would be “we pay taxes for that.”  After all, the state takes my hard earned money for these social programs to provide for the poor and disadvantaged.

Since our political system requires a moral and religious underpinning  we are thus easily lead to believe that our mission as Christians is to transform that system. That is not our mission as Christians.  Likewise, since the “state” has taken over many Christian obligations for society at large (taking care of the poor, etc) it is easy to say this satisfies my individual responsibility.  Can you picture standing before Christ at judgment and in your defense saying “I gave him a cup of water through my taxes to the state?”  Can a progressive who believes transformation is accomplished through the state defend this  before Christ by saying “ I transformed lives through my actions for the state?”

When then, does the allure of political activism become an idol?  It becomes an idol when you place your allegiance to transformation of lives in the actions of the state. It becomes an idol when you transfer your obligation as a Christian for service to other individuals to service to and allegiance to the state. The siren call of political activism is a alluring seductress. 

Bibliography

1. About the Center for American Progress. Center for American Progress. [Online] [Cited: Aug 13, 2013.] http://www.americanprogress.org/.

2. Schambra, Thomas G. West and William A. The Progressive Movement and the Transfomation of American Politices. First Principles on Political Thought. [Online] July 18, 2007. [Cited: Aug 13, 2013.] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics.

3. Leadership for America: First Principles. The Heritage Foundation. [Online] 2013. [Cited: Aug 13, 2013.] http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles.

4. Wesbury, Brian S. A Protrait of the Economy. The Wall Street Journal. [Online] Feb 14, 2007. [Cited: Aug 13, 2013.] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117142605260108183.html.

5. Stringham, Edward. Foreward to On Civil Government. Foreward. [Online] Vance Publications, May 2006. [Cited: Aug 13, 2013.] http://www.vancepublications.com/cr/cr117f.pdf.

6. Libscomb, David. Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relationship to It. Nashville : McQuiddy Printing Co. , 1913.

7. Hicks, John Mark. Revelation 9: Imagine Your Work Nightmare. John Mark Hick's Ministries. [Online] Aug 10, 2013. [Cited: Aug 13, 2013.]

8. Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Free Market Capitalism. Lanham : Madison, 1991. 978--0-8191-7823-7.

9. —. Democratic Capitalism. National Review Online. [Online] Sept 24, 2013. [Cited: Sept 24, 2013.] www.nationalreview.com/node/359306/print.

Can the Church Have Unity in Diversity?

"Diversity" is a word charged with meaning in our world.  It usually provokes strong emotions from both proponents and antagonists.  In the secular world arguments for diversity rest upon two postulates: 1) Racial discrimination in the past necessitates positive inclusion of minority groups in decisions in order to "make up" for past discrimination in organizations 2)  "Studies show how diversity improves academic performance, reduces prejudice, lowers stress and psychological barriers, and has broad positive effects on workforce development." (1) This latter statement is the result of research of the social scientists who filed an amicus brief in the case of Fisher vs. University of Texas.

So how does this term “diversity” apply in the church setting or perhaps more appropriately in the kingdom setting? It should be clear the bible does not countenance any discrimination based upon race. Galatians 3:28 (NIV) ^“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”   So, there is no question that diversity in this sense is a fundamental tenet of any grouping of Christians.   In one respect this corresponds to the moral argument for diversity in the secular world.  That is, there is no place for discrimination based on the moral grounds for equality alone.

The second tenet for secular diversity is based on sociological arguments.  In this case both gender and racial diversity are postulated to give better organizational outcomes. Specifically, “racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. Gender diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, and greater relative profits.” (2)   Since there is no question that neither racial nor gender discrimination is permitted in a Christian group, setting aside the question of different roles for the present, it is the positive attributes that people from different backgrounds and different gifts bring that would enhance the service of Christian bodies.   This second tenet is certainly in line with the teaching that Christ gives each Christian “gifts”. (Eph 4:7-8) Each Christian is to be equipped to use these gifts in “works of service.” (Eph 4:12).  This corresponds with Paul’s teaching on the diversity in the body of Christ. Paul explains this in I Cor. 12:12 and continues through 12:27:  “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. “ …… Certainly here he is talking about the diversity among the individual members of the church. 

I wish to explore another meaning for “diversity” in the church.  In what sense can the beliefs and interpretations of scripture be diverse by either members or congregations and still “unity” be maintained?  In particular can the church be unified in diversity?  Is this type of unity biblical?

Let us examine whether individual members can have diverse views and still be “united”.   Closely related to “unity” are the concepts of being “one” and the concept of “fellowship.”  If we are “united” does this make us “one?”   What does it mean to be in “fellowship?”   And, in our discussion, how much “diversity” can we have and still be considered to be “one”, in “unity”, and in “fellowship?”

Perhaps, we should first explore what “unity” means in the biblical setting. The most comprehensive statement of unity is found in Eph 4:1-6

“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. ² Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. ³ Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism; ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

A striking portion of this scripture is the call for patience, love, and peace in fostering unity.    This unity is one “of the Spirit.” The Greek term for “unity” used here, ἑνότης, is only found here and in verse 13.  It “means a state of oneness or of being in harmony and accord.” (3).  Of course this brings the question of what being in harmony and accord means.  Whatever it is, it is “of the Spirit”.  Also, it is clear since the Ephesians are to “keep” or maintain this unity.  It is something that already exists, not something they are creating “from scratch”.  It is to be maintained “through the bond of peace.” Within the larger context of Ephesians the letter can be summarized as one of “reconciliation”.  The reconciliation is of Jew to Gentile and of man to God through Christ (Eph 2:14-18). The context is of maintaining unity through peace of Christians with very different backgrounds and ideas—that of Jews and Gentiles.  

 

These concepts of “bonding” and “peace” are also found in Paul’s writing to Colossi. (Colossians 3:14-15)

¹⁴ And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. ¹⁵ Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. “

Here “love” is the bonding ingredient with peace the result. 

The unity of the Spirit in the church is next expressed in Ephesians by the seven ones: 1) one body, Spirit, and hope 2) one Lord, faith, and baptism and 3) one God.  Paul talks extensively about the oneness of the body.  In Christ, there is only one body.  We have only one Spirit.  We have the same hope given by the gospel of Christ.  Before reconciliation we had no hope.  The calling of our hope is the calling of the gospel.  It is the calling of the reconciliation of man to God and to one another in Christ. The triad of the one Lord, faith, and baptism are tied together.   These three are bond together as the “baptismal declaration of faith” in Christ as Lord.  This concept is central. 

Galatians 3:27–29 (NIV)  ^27” For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. “1 Corinthians 12:13–14 (NIV) ¹³ For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. ¹⁴ Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

It would seem from the above that baptism is one of the unifying forces.  The ending of course is the Oneness of God in all of this. 

We have discussed oneness and unity but not yet fellowship, nor have we discussed either in terms of “diversity”.   The word for “fellowship” is κοινωνία which means “close association involving mutual interests and sharing, association, communion,^” (3).  There can be many types of “fellowship”.   There can be fellowship in ministry (2 Cor. 8:4), the right hand of fellowship in spreading the gospel (Gal. 2:9, Eph 5:11, Phil 1:5), fellowship of the Spirit (Phil 2:1), fellowship in giving and receiving (Phil 4:15), fellowship with affliction (Phil 4:14), and fellowship with sin (Rev 18:4)

We wish to explore the theological basis of fellowship and what this basis means for fellowshipping one another.  Here is what John has to say:

1 John 1:3–7 (NIV) ³ We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. ⁴ We write this to make our joy complete. ⁵ This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. ⁶ If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. ⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

It is the fact of the existence of Christ as Savior in the flesh that John proclaims and this is the theological basis of fellowship of John with other Christians and with the Father. There is another basis given here as well.  One cannot continue to live a life of sin and expect to have fellowship with either Christ or other Christians.  But, this does not mean Christians must be “sinless” in the sense they commit no sin?  The answer is no. Christ’s blood takes care of that.  So, we may conclude that fellowship is extended by John to those that believe in the tenets of the gospel (Christ came in the flesh, died, buried, and was resurrected).  In one sense the remainder of this epistle of John gives the basis for this fellowship and how we can know we have fellowship with him (See 1 John 5).

In order to illuminate how much diversity we can have and still be “unified”, it is instructive to examine some of the practices in congregations depicted in the New Testament.   Let us began with the congregation in Jerusalem.  The first church established on the Day of Pentecost was decidedly a “Jewish” church.  By Jewish is meant not only ethnic origin, but Jewish in its practices.  After its establishment, Peter prompted by the Lord in a vision preached the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts  10).  Gentiles, of course did not observe the Jewish laws and rites.  He was immediately criticized by Jewish brethren for this (Acts 11).  After the stoning of Stephen, persecution scattered some of the Jerusalem converts.  Some of them from Cyprus and Cyrene went to the Gentiles in Antioch.  The Jerusalem church sent Barnabus to Antioch.  He recruited Paul for work together at Antioch and also they proceeded on the first mission trip together.   After some time they returned to Antioch.  Here “Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”  They also wished them to keep the Law of Moses. “This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.”  This prompted the “Jerusalem Council” in Acts 15 where ultimately the elders and apostle at Jerusalem gave the following instruction to their Gentile brothers: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” 

However, it is evident the Jerusalem church continued themselves to observe the law.  Later when Paul returned to Jerusalem in Acts 21 we find the following:

Acts 21:17–26 (NIV)

¹⁷ When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. ¹⁸ The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. ¹⁹ Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. ²⁰ When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. ²¹ They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. ²² What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, ²³ so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. ²⁴ Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. ²⁵ As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” ²⁶ The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

I have quoted this extensively to illustrate how diverse the actual practices of the Jewish congregation in Jerusalem and the Gentile congregation were.  The Christians at Jerusalem continued their Jewish rites and customs.  Paul did so as well.  The Gentiles neither did this nor were required to do so.   For the purposes of our discussion, it is clear that the Jews in Jerusalem (which continued their religious rites and traditions as Jews) and the Christians in Antioch were in “fellowship”.    It also seems clear that the Jews above who were “zealous for the law” and believed one had to be circumcised were still in fellowship with the elders and church there even though they still believed Gentiles should do so.  In other words they were baptized believers that had a serious doctrinal error but not “put out” or dis-fellowshiped from the Jerusalem church.  Of course Paul had to continually combat Jewish Christians (teachers) who tried to bind the law on Gentiles for salvation (e. g. the letters to the Galatians and Romans). 

Does this mean that the Jerusalem Christians would have been “comfortable” worshiping with Gentiles in Antioch who did not observe their Jewish rituals?  I doubt it.  Does this mean Gentiles would have been totally at ease going to the Jerusalem worship service? Probably not.  But, lack of comfort is not a reason for not treating the others as “brothers in Christ.”

Let us see what other diverse practices we find in the scriptures with Christians still considering the participants “brothers.”   How diverse were the practices of Christians at Corinth?  First, Paul calls those in the church at Corinth “brothers and sisters” (I Cor. 1:26).   However, it is clear that there will be “brothers and sisters” who have different levels of maturity and thus with different understandings about what is an accepted religious practice (here eating meats sacrificed to idols).   Clearly there was a diversity of human “status” and no admonition to change this unless this enhanced one’s ability as a Christian: I Cor. 7:17-24

¹⁷ Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. ……²⁰ Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. ²¹ Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. ²² For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. ²³ You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. ²⁴ Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Perhaps the greatest statement of the freedom we have in religious practice is Paul’s in I Cor. 9:19-23

¹⁹ Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. ²⁰ To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. ²¹ To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. ²² To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³ I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

This statement is consistent with what we have observed in Paul’s behavior in Acts.  In addition, Paul speaks of our freedom (even of religious practices) in his letter to Colossae: (Col. 216-23)

Colossians 2:16–23 (NIV)

¹⁶ Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. ¹⁷ These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. ¹⁸ Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. ¹⁹ They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

²⁰ Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: ²¹ “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? ²² These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. ²³ Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Clearly, there is a great deal of freedom implied by these verses.   At same time, there is great admonition against imposing certain practices upon others.

The problem is the issues at the center when Paul was writing are not the issues today.  Most discussion is of two central natures: 1) Jewish practices vs. Freedom in Christ and 2) Gentile cultural practices vs. Freedom in Christ.   So, what was central to the limits of diversity then?  Clearly, unity without diversity would be conformity.  But, clearly first century congregations were not uniform in composition or religious practices.   The limits to diversity are sometimes stated as determining the limit of what is “truth” vs. what is “error.” Unfortunately stating the question this way most often leads to disunity, not unity. What is “truth” to one group may be “error” to another depending on how one interprets scripture.  Perhaps, we should examine what issues the apostles would not tolerate within the body.   That is, what are the core theological principles that unite Christians? 

First, it should be clear that the form of what we call the “formal” worship service was not the source of unity.   The Corinthian church and the Jerusalem church members did not have a “liturgy” or set form when they met.  In fact, there is no evidence of a set form worship services are to follow anywhere found in the New Testament.  One can immediately conclude that “worship wars” among us have little basis for conflict.     A set liturgy or set form to conduct a worship service may be “comfortable” and serve to say “we are in the right place” but is not a basis of unity nor should be a basis of disunity.  One place may conclude singing three songs (led by a song leader from the front), having a prayer, serving the Lord’s Suppers, having preaching and always concluding with an invitation song and a final prayer is good practice.   This “good practice” before long become “traditional” with deviations frowned upon.  Then it quickly becomes “sinful” if things are done differently.  Never mind that the first Christians who met in homes would not have had anything like this order (cite the church at Corinth or Jerusalem).

It would seem that the scriptures condemn those that:

 1) Deny the deity of Christ (I John)

2) Practice sin (many lists of vices and sins) as a way of life and

 3) Those that bind practices as a condition of salvation other than the simple gospel (Paul’s many admonitions against binding the Jewish law on Gentiles). 

 The major principles for unity are also three:

1)      We are united through love for one another and peace

2)      We are united by our acceptance of Christ and faith as our Savior through his death, burial, and resurrection and through his Grace the forgiveness of sins

3)      We are united by the unity of the Spirit given by our having  a) one body, Spirit, and hope and  b) one Lord, faith, and baptism and c) one God 

This leaves a lot of room for unity in diversity.

Bibliography

1. How Diversity Trumped Equity—and May Kill Affirmative Action. Color Lines. [Online] Oct 10, 2012. [Cited: Jan 15, 2013.] http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/10/how_diversity_trumped_equity--and_may_kill_affirmative_action.html.

2. Herring, Cedric. Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. American Sociological Review. [Online] Dec 2012. [Cited: JaN 15, 2013.] http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/2/208.short.

3. Arndt, W., Danker, F.W, and Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000.

What is Spiritual Discipline?

This essay is prompted by a paper entitled "Moving from Solitude to Ministry," by Henri Nouwen. (1) In this paper he states:

"But in the spiritual life, the word discipline means "the effort to create space in which God can act."  Discipline means to prevent everything in your life from being filled up. Discipline means that somewhere you're not occupied, and certainly not preoccupied.  In the spiritual life discipline means to create that space in which something important can happen that you hadn't planned or counted on." 

In this essay we wish to examine what spiritual discipline is.  Secondary, let determine whether Nouwen's definition fits the biblical description. Henri Jozef Machiel Nouwen (1932 – 1996) was a Dutch-born Catholic priest and writer who authored 40 books about spirituality.  He is one of several authors who have discussed the subject of Christian Spirituality.   A Google search reveals over 2.3 Million "hits". 

We begin by examining the definition of "discipline" as used in the bible.  The word translated discipline is used 53 times with only 11 times in the New Testament (NIV).  There are shades of meaning in the Greek.  The principle meaning and usage in the New Testament for discipline is in the sense "to discipline" from "paideuo" (παιδεύω) which is to teach or punish (See I Cor11:32, Heb. 12:6-7, Heb. 12:10).  The second major use in the New Testament is paideia (παιδεία) which has the connotation of instruction, training, and correction.  (Heb 12:5, Heb. 12:8).  In 2 Tim. 1:7, we find the term "self-discipline".  This term (σωφρονισμός) means “behave in a sensible manner, with the thoughtful awareness of what is best." (2)   From these definitions we can deduce the discipline of God connotes correction, instruction, and training from God.  Self-discipline is the use of good judgment to do what is best for us.

Nouwen states that “The word discipleship and discipline are the same word."  Is this true?  The word disciple or disciples is used 297 times in the New Testament (NT).   Clearly, this word is used much more frequently than "discipline."  The Greek word for disciple is "mathetes" (μαθητής).   This word means “to learn, to be instructed.  A person who learns from another by instruction, whether formal or informal—‘disciple, pupil.^"  (2)To be a disciple is to be a follower of a teacher in order to learn from them.   Clearly, then "discipline" and discipleship are not the same thing.   Though discipline as used in the NT is usually given "by God", a disciple is one who follows what is given in order to learn from His instruction.  Self-discipline is having the good sense to follow what God has instructed us to do.

What then is spiritual discipline? We might observe that this term is not one explicitly used in the bible.  It is, rather, a term used to describe a regular practice of activities leading to spiritual development in one's life.   Perhaps a more common term today for this end result would "spiritual formation."  Spiritual formation is defined as "the process by which the human spirit or will is given a definite "form" or character."(3) In Christianity this character is the character of Christ.  Christian Spirituality itself has a definite history since the time of Christ.  It has taken various forms though out its 2000 year history.  Some hint of this may be deduced from the title chapters of one of its histories, "The Story of Christian Spirituality."(4) Some of the periods are: early church fathers, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, the Medieval West, the Eastern Tradition, Russian, Protestant Europe, Catholic and Reformers, Anglican, Protestant American, and 20th Century Practices.    

To more clearly define what "spiritual discipline" is let us look at the definition of "spiritual".  The word for "spiritual" in the NT is pneumatikos (πνευματικός).  The essential meaning of “spiritual" is "from the spirit" (2).  This word is derived from pneuma (πνεῦμα) meaning wind, breath, life or vital force.  In the NT it is used as the power of God or God's life giving power.    In addition there are manifestations, works, and fruits of the spirit. (5).  Certainly that which is "spiritual" is not "physical".  It is immortal.  It is living a life without a me-centered, materialist point of view, but with the perspective of God.  Paul says it well in 2 Cor. 3:17-18 (NIV):

¹⁷ Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. ¹⁸ And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 Spiritual disciplines are then those actions which lead to the transformation of our character into that of Christ.  

Since it is the character or image of Christ we are to be transformed into, we should examine the spiritual life of Jesus.  However, this is somewhat difficult as the gospels are not written to tell us in detail about Jesus life of prayer or spiritual life.  Luke is writing a history. John is related the signs and miracles so we might believe.  Matt is writing from the Jewish perspective of the Christ. Mark seems to concentrate on his acts.  So... we are left with deducing the spiritual life of Jesus primarily from his acts and teachings. 

Nouwen defines discipline as "creating a space in which God can act" or "to prevent everything in your life from being filled up."    This strictly speaking is not the definition of discipline.   Effective spiritual disciplines do however allow the Spirit to transform your life into the image of Christ.  In that sense they do “create a space in which God can act”.  In order to do this one must not let one’s life be consumed by the material with the focus on one’s self.   One must not let one’s life be filled up with only earthly things without a Godly focus. 

The second portion of his definition that is discipline is to “create that space in which something important can happen that you hadn't planned or counted on” is more problematical.  Spiritual disciplines by definition are performed to enable the transformation of one’s character into a Christ-like image.  Certainly one can “count on” this happening if one has faith and the disciplines are effective.  But, the transformation is one enabled by the Spirit, not one achieved strictly by human effort.

Nouwen then moves towards advocating specific spiritual disciplines using the narration of Luke 6:12=19.   Here Luke relates Jesus spending the night in prayer, next appointing his apostles, and then proceeding down the mount to minister to the people.  Nouwen then formulates from this a process for a person to come to ministry.  The process is from solitude to community to ministry.  The first discipline he formulates is solitude (from Jesus praying alone).  Here he states one should recognize we are “beloved.”  This he states should come before any other so that we will not expect others to feel we are “beloved” as we already are.  Next he proceeds to community from the act of Jesus appointing his apostles.  But, within this “discipline” of community he adds the disciplines of forgiveness (for their not being God) and celebration (of others gifts).  To minister he says one must trust that God will heal if we reach out to help us have gratitude instead of resentment and to have compassion.

Though the above has elements that may be very beneficial, one has to recognize this is only one formulation of how to let the Spirit lead us in Spiritual transformation.  There is no “set formula” in scripture and the elements he gives are certainly not explicitly stated as what one should do to obtain spiritual transformation.   One can certainly to emulate Jesus by praying in solitude.  But, we are also told to pray without ceasing.   The community deduced from his appointing his apostles would seem more like an example of what leaders should do to select and train others than defining this as a discipline from Jesus working in community.   As to his last point, certainly in ministry one should trust God.  

As indicated there are many other paths that have been traveled to be able to accomplish spiritual transformation.   For example, one could start with a “transformation of the mind.” This has the explicit biblical admonition given below:

Romans 12:2 (NIV)

² Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

This is where Willard begins(3).  On the other hand, James Wilhoit enables Spiritual Formation through the church community and a curriculum to that effect. (6)  “The group of solitude disciplines might include those of Richard Foster's: meditation, prayer, fasting, and study; i.e., the inner disciplines. What he calls community is what Foster calls outer disciplines and corporate disciplines (confession, celebration, worship, etc.). What he calls mission would match Foster's "service" and "submission".”[1]⁽⁷⁾

 Though Willard is recognized for his writings on Spiritual Formation, these three are referenced only to point out Nouwen’s article is but one man’s interpretation of these issues.   In fact one can readily find various “lists” of spiritual disciplines.  Some of these are:

Solitude, Silence, Fasting, Frugality, Simplicity, Chastity, Secrecy, Sacrifice, Study, Worship, Celebration, Service, Prayer, Fellowship, Confession, Submission, Meditation, Guidance, Journaling, Learning, Evangelism, Stewardship, Restitution, Working with Sufferers. (8)

Dallas Willard in "The Spirit of the Disciplines", defines Spiritual Disciplines as”“Any activity within our power that we engage to enable us to do what we cannot do by direct effort…They are designed to help us withdraw from total dependence on the merely human or natural…and to depend also on the ultimate reality, which is God and his kingdom.” (9) We must recognize that specific discipline may be more or less beneficial depending on the personality type and personal needs of the individual.  For example, the disciplines that might be grouped around Solitude may be “just the ticket” for an introverted individual.  But the disciplines that might be grouped around Community in some way might be better suited for an extrovert.   We should not get fixated on a one size fits all method  to enable  each person to draw closer to God.

None of this essay is intended to negate the benefit of exercising personal or communal spiritual disciplines in any way.

The discussion on what it means to be a “disciple” would take a much longer essay.  Suffice it to say that discussing this subject would take a much deeper examination of what Jesus actually did and what he taught than this essay can address.

1. Nouwen, Henri. Moving From Solitude to Community. Leadership Journal . [Online] Christianity Today, Spring 1995. [Cited: April 7, 2013.] http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/1995/spring/5l280.html.

2. Nida, J.P. Louw and E.A. Vol. 1 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on semantic domains. New York : United Bible Societies, 1996.

3. Willard, Dallas. Renovation of the Heart. Colorado Springs : NavPress, 2002. 978-1-57683-296-7.

4. Gordon Mursell, General Editor. The Story of Christian Spirituality--TWo thousand years from East to West. Minneapolis : Lion Publishing, Inc, 2001. 0-8006-3289-3.

5. G. Kittel, G. Friedrich, G.W. Bromiley. Theological Dictionary of the New Testment. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1985.

6. Wilhoit, James C. Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered. Grand Rapids : Baler Academic, 2008. 978-0-8010-2776-5.

7. Foster, Richard. The Path to Spiritual Growth. New York : Harper Collings, 1978. 0-06-062839.

8. Comparison of Spiritual Disciplines. Achieving Balance in an Unbalanced World. [Online] April 10, 2013. [Cited: April 10, 2013.] http://achievebalance.com/twelve/disciplines.htm.

9. Willard, Dallas. The Spirit of the Discipline. [e-boob] New York : Harper Collins, 1988. 0-06-069442-4.

---

[1] Richard Foster’s grouping of spiritual disciplines was suggested by Dr. Robert Mitchell.

Does Our Individualism Prevent Submitting to the Kingship of Christ?

In the United States "individualism" has historically been one of the foundations of society. " John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophes of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property." (1) Consequently, Americans have in general resisted the control of their lives by any central governing authority. Submission has only been granted through a democratic process and “consent of the governed”.

 In contrast, Christ describes His domain as the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God. Mark has 20 references to “kingdom” or Kingdom of God; Matthew has 54 references to “kingdom” and 38 to “kingdom of Heaven”; Luke Acts has 46 references of “kingdom” with 38 with the “kingdom of God”; in John there are 15 direct references to Jesus as “King”. (2) Clearly, the gospels depicts relates our citizenship as one being subject to a “king”.

Our heritage rails against such a state. Our very Declaration of Independence stated we have had “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” (3). Our world is not the world of monarchies or dictators. In the core of our being we resist submitting to those who are associated with absolute power. We are schooled in the belief that we are and should be “free.” Kings are associated with suppression of liberty and despotism. We do not take kindly to be being “subjects” of anyone. We certainly do not acknowledge anyone in our society as “Lord”. And, we do not “bow down” to anyone. 

Does this affect our attitude towards “Jesus as Lord?” How do we relate to being “subjects” in a Kingdom? Yet we are told that: 

Philippians 2:9–11 (NIV)
"9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

It would seem our individualism may get in the way of acknowledging Jesus as Lord. Instead we wish to “do our own thing” in religion as we are prone to do as secular beings.

Does the Avoidance of Risk in Our Society Affect Our Practice of Christianity?

Have you noticed how much our current society likes to eliminate risk in all aspects of society?  Take a little walk through olden times with me.  Growing up these activities were common place:

• School playgrounds that had swings with wooden seats, merry go rounds, see saws, and large metal slides placed on the dirt or gravel areas
• No baby seats in cars, no seat belts, no airbags
• Riding on the car fenders shooting rabbits or riding in the back of the pickup
• Hunting alone with shotgun or 22 at age 12-- I really think it was earlier
• Driving a team of horses pulling a hay rake at age 10
• Riding bicycle without  a helmet

Until recently, we did not have these laws or organizations to protect against risk.

• No OHSA ( Occupation Safety and Health Association -created 1970)
• No Transportation Security Association ( risk of terrorist attack)
• No EPA ( reducing risks from air and water) 
• Extensive labeling of food products (to reduce health risks)
• Controls on common guns and their purchase ( to eliminate risk of attacks)
• Consumer Product Safety Commission ( risk from products)
• Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (minimize financial risk)

It seems obvious that our society is moving towards trying to minimize all risk.  Just today the news  was on moving legislation to try minimize the role of football in athletics in K-12 in Texas to eliminate concussions or other injuries.  There was a bill introduced in Missouri to confiscate all guns.  These examples suffice to demonstrate the fears that our society has.

Risk avoidance can also be equated to the fear of ..............you fill in the blank.  This fears can be classified into four areas: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/1201/prescol.html

• Fear of what our history has taught us to fear
• Fear of what we cannot control
• Fear of what appears to be an immediate threat or risk
• Fear of what we have seen/heard/read that is in our immediate memory particularly visual images

Do we have the same types fears and consequently try to avoid risk as Christians and in "doing church?"

• Do we fear any change in methodology will create a "slippery slope" 
• Do we fear those in the brotherhood who are trying new ways of "doing church" because they do not fit with the "way we have always done things"?
• Do we the "missional movement" because it threatens or comfortable way of doing church by  : a) using incarnational appproaches instead of  getting everyone to come to the building for our great programs and b) focusing on the unchurched "out there" instead correcting the doctrinal errors of our neighbors and leaving missions to the "missions committee"?
• Do we fear what we have read about "change agents" who tell us what we have been doing is not working?

Just Asking.