Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. |
Not A Pacifist | |
"I'm not a pacifist," I said, for the first time. It has since become something of a refrain in my life, as I mostly circulate in spaces where I find myself needing to explain the concept fairly often. I told him that I don't believe killing is a sin, necessarily, just that we aren't allowed to do it. I define the difference as this:
Pacifism is the belief that violence, or at least violence against people, is inherently evil. The reasoning may vary on this. Perhaps it comes from a belief that all life is sacred, or the belief that humans are the highest known moral beings and therefore acts against us are naturally evil, or the inalienable right to life. Maybe it stems from an idea that violence against an image-bearer of God is in some way violence against God. Whatever the reasoning, the basic idea is that violence is evil simply because it is violent. That there is no acceptable or redeemable use for violence.
Christian Nonviolence is the belief that Christians, specifically, are not given license to endorse or participate in the taking of human lives for any reason. That is, it isn't a question of sin, but a question of mission. As Christians, we are tasked with serving in the mission of reconciliation, and we know that no one gets a chance at reconciliation after death. To look at someone you know or suspect is going to Hell, and then send them to the final judgement or encourage someone else to do so, is fundamentally opposed to the mission of offering salvation to them.
As my brother showed, raising a Biblical argument against pacifism is relatively easy. Results may vary, but you don't have to read far into the Bible to find something that seems to contradict it. I submit that Christian Nonviolence is not so easily dismissed; but I must admit there are some basic ideas that need to be understood to see why.
Fundamentals of Nonviolence | |
Let's get this one out of the way first: when you submit to Christ, you give Him everything. Christ will not have half measures. It is one thing to recognize that we lay down our lives, our careers, our loved ones, our idols, and all kinds of other things at the foot of the cross; it is quite another to accept that we may not get some of them back. Christ is under no obligation to give us any of the rights our government promises. He is going to put us on the mission He has for us, and will give us everything we need to accomplish it. We can expect no less than that; but we can also ask no more than that.
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
Matthew 5:39-41 (NASB)
The fact is, Jefferson was wrong to claim that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God-given rights. It is, of course, good for a government to behave on the understanding that they cannot strip these things from any person or meaningfully hinder them (though few, if any, actually do operate in that way; the United States certainly doesn't), and our call to defend the widow and the orphan (that is, the defenseless, which includes sets of people now that it may not have included at the time) certainly means that we demand a high standard of treatment on their behalf, but from a theological standpoint the claim for ourselves is nonsense. There are only two rights for humans spelled out in scripture as coming by the declaration of God. First, all mankind is born into sin and has only the right to die under the weight of that sin. Second, that "as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13, NASB), and this latter right supersedes the former. If we understand that everything else, including our earthly lives, is a gift rather than an entitlement, we would be far more prepared to experience joy in our trials and sacrifices than we now are.
2. Christians have a Kingdom mindset
Now, there is some dispute about the nature of the Kingdom of God and whether or not it is present on the Earth today. I have a post in the drafts that argues that it is initiated on the Earth and that Christians are already part of it, and I will not attempt to fully recreate that argument here. The shortest possible way to make that argument is that, as baptism and communion and marriage are material images meant to showcase a deeper and current but not-yet-complete reality, so the church is a material image meant to showcase the deeper and current but not-yet-complete reality of the Kingdom. Just as those other images point to something that is already in place and will be fully realized later, the Kingdom is already in place and will be fully realized later. As we enjoy and live out the truth of salvation now while recognizing that the full benefits of salvation are pending, so we enjoy and live out the truth of the Kingdom now while recognizing that the full benefits of the Kingdom are pending. It is necessary to our present topic, however, to say something of what it means to claim that we are already citizens of that Kingdom.
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say [correctly] that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
John 18:36-37 (NASB)
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.
Baptist Faith and Message (2000), XVI. "Peace and War"
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for [their] body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, [being] by itself.
James 2:14-17 (NASB)
3. Christians have a mission focus
I mentioned above that this is a mission issue, and that is really the core of the whole thing. The fact is, we as Christians are called to put the mission of Christ above all other pursuits, even at the cost of our lives. Nothing, no practical consideration, no rights, no threat, no ideal, nothing holds higher sway over our decisions than the mission to which we have been called. This mission is to live out the way of Christ in such a way that we invite others into a saving knowledge of and relationship with Him and together grow ever more as His disciples. As bearers of this mission, we cannot kill any human; we cannot kill those apart from Christ because doing so actively prevents us from calling them to Christ, and we cannot kill those in Christ out of love for His body. No one on this Earth falls beyond these two camps, and both can, in the name of our mission, expect to be safe from the grave in our dealings with them, even when they mean us, or our loved ones, or our nations, harm.
All this is explicit. The evidence of the following fact is, however, yet more determinative and satisfactory. Some of the arguments which at the present day are brought against the advocates of peace, were then urged against these early Christians; and these arguments are examined and repelled. This indicates investigation and inquiry, and manifests that their belief of the unlawfulness of war was not a vague opinion hastily admitted and loosely floating among them, but that it was the result of deliberate examination, and a consequent firm conviction that Christ had forbidden it. The very same arguments which are brought in defence of war at the present day, were brought against the Christians sixteen hundred years ago; and, sixteen hundred years ago, they were repelled by these faithful contenders for the purity of our religion. It is remarkable, too, that Tertullian appeals to the precepts from the Mount, in proof of those principles on which we insist:--that the dispositions which the precepts inculcate are not compatible with war, and that war, therefore, is irreconcilable with Christianity.
Example and Testimony of the Early Christians on the Subject of War. Jonathan Dymond, 1821. Emphasis original.
Objections | |
1. Do you honestly believe Christians cannot defend ourselves?
Christian, your life is forfeit. Even so, there are ways to defend yourself that do not involve taking the life of another. If, however, such options fail, then no. If we absolutely must choose whether we die or we kill, then in the name of Christ, we die.
2. Do you honestly believe Christians should not defend others?
I believe Christians should do everything in their power to remove others from danger, provided they do not take any lives in the process.
3. Didn't Christ tell His disciples to take up swords?
No. Luke 22:36 reads in the NASB, "And He said to them, 'But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one," and this is sometimes used as justification for Christians to arm ourselves. After all, Christ literally did say to sell your coat to buy a sword, didn't He? Well, no. Not to the disciples, anyway. Look more carefully at that first part of the verse. "But now, whoever has a money belt...likewise a bag" is a very strange statement here when divorced from the verse before it. What does Luke 22:35 say? "And He said to them, 'When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?' They said, 'No, nothing" (NASB, first emphasis mine, second emphasis is a translation artifact). That is, Christ recalls to their memory that they, in actively serving Him on mission, were sent out without money belt and bag, trusting in His provision, and then He directly contrasts that with those who do have a money belt and bag. In essence, Christ tells them, "let those who do not trust in my provision arm themselves." But that description should never be accurate of Christians. Christ is not telling the disciples to take up swords, He is contrasting them with those who have no hope but a sword.
4. But John the Baptist didn't tell soldiers to give up being soldiers!
John the Baptist is an Old Testament prophet, that is, he operated outside and before the establishment of the church. He also didn't tell people about the Holy Spirit, as recorded in Acts 19. The fact is, John the Baptist was not laying down the expectations of the church, he was preparing people to receive Christ. The work of living in Christ is defined by Christ and the New Testament authors, and not one of them ever advocates for Christians to engage in or endorse the use of lethal violence; instead, they repeatedly call for us to be people of peace.
5. Doesn't Romans 13 give the government the option to use lethal force?
You are not the government.
5a. But what if I am?
Your call as a Christian is more important than your rights as a member of government.
Let it always be borne in mind by those who are advocating war, that they are contending for a corruption which their forefathers abhorred; and that they are making Jesus Christ the sanctioner of crimes, which his primitive followers offered up their lives because they would not commit.
Example and Testimony of the Early Christians on the Subject of War. Jonathan Dymond, 1821.
We can identify the process by which Paul sought to establish churches by grouping his letters into three major categories, and then exploring what general concerns he has in writing to each category of church. These categories align both with the time period in which he wrote them, and the stage of development the target churches were experiencing. The first category would be his early letters, written to the young churches in Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Rome. The second category are his prison epistles, written to the churches in Ephesus, Philippi, and Colossae; the latter receiving a general letter to the body as well as being the home church of Philemon. Finally, we have the personal letters to Timothy and Titus.
Early Letters | |
Toward this end, he reminds these churches about the work of Christ and the righteousness they enjoy through faith. He discusses the limits and purposes of the Law and reminds them of the pervasive nature of sin. He explains the hope of resurrection and assures the Thessalonians that they have not yet missed the end of the age. He introduces the nature of spiritual gifts and the functions they serve in unifying the body and advancing the mission of the church. He explains the way the church as a community should view its members and be seen by the world. He warns about false teachings that would lead the body astray. All of these things are foundational; they describe the essential nature of the church and its members and give them a way forward into maturity, and they help guide the church away from paths that will interfere with their maturity. Reed states that the gospel “transforms our whole lives and beings;” it is in the early letters that Paul details what that gospel, and therefore what that transformation, must look like in the church1.
Prison Letters | |
Philemon is an excellent example of Paul’s concerns in this body of letters. While dealing with a situation specific to one individual within the church and mostly speaking as though to one individual, Paul nevertheless writes the letter to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and “the church in your house” (1:2b, NASB2020). He is concerned not only with Philemon’s handling of the situation with Onesimus, but the church’s understanding of their relationships to one another. He talks to Philemon, and the three churches in this category, as partners in his work; reminding them of their contributions so far and his investment in them, reporting what has been done beyond their locations, and inviting them to act in a mature manner rather than directing their actions like he does in the early letters. The basic family-like structure of the churches is generally assumed, and Paul builds on this by using that structure to explain the church more fully. Take for instance Paul’s household instructions at the end of Ephesians 5 into the beginning of Ephesians 6. While we get a great deal of information from this passage about the roles of individuals within the family, and ought to apply those roles accordingly, Paul reminds us that he is primarily “speaking with reference to Christ and the church” in 5:32 (NASB2020). Here Paul does not need to define the gospel that unifies the church, but to showcase how the church is to operate using imagery they can understand and apply. He is concerned throughout with how the church views itself, how it partners with him and one another in the work of establishing people and churches, and the way the church lives as mature bodies.
Personal Letters | |
Much of his text in these letters deals with the administrative areas of the church. He is passing on his knowledge, his model, and ultimately his very work as an establisher of churches to Timothy and Titus. He gives criteria for leaders and discusses how the church should engage with them. He identifies false teachings and gives instruction on how to root it out and cast it aside. He invites them into the same work—and the same sufferings—that he himself walks in. He offers encouragement and reminds them of fellow workers they can lean on. He warns about troubles the churches will face and points them back to the source of their salvation and maturity. His language in these letters goes beyond partnership into inheritance, as a father reminding his sons of the proper care of their estate.
The Big Picture | |
These principles show a defined understanding of the establishment of a church. Paul has expectations for each church based on its level of maturity, guiding them to the next phase of establishment. He talks to all of them as though they are on the same road, directing the less mature churches in the direction of the more mature churches and speaking to the more mature as if they have already passed through the same place as the less mature. And this approach is expected to be normative, as Paul hands it off to Timothy and Titus and urges them to continue handing it to later generations.
Paul’s approach to the churches, all of the churches, is not unlike my approach to the rabbits we raise. The church is given the immediate support and nourishment and protection it needs in the form of the truth and its implications, just as the kits are kept secure from predators and the environment while maintaining access to their mother’s milk. As they churches begin to grow and take on a life of their own, they are examined for spot or blemish and guided in the way they should live, just as we inspect and care for and train the rabbits as they leave the nest. And as the church grows to maturity, it is left to operate without constant external guidance and encouraged to reproduce, just as those rabbits which prove themselves suitable are given their own space and opportunity to breed. There is a set life path that Paul sees the churches on, and it is by comparing their state to this life path that he sees what involvement they require from him. In learning from Paul how he sees that life path and approaches the churches, we can learn how to gauge the maturity of churches today and know which letters to best apply to their situation.
In my previous post in this series, I addressed the nature of Christ as the living Word of God. While I will be relating this post to that statement, I will not spend time revisiting the idea in detail; rather, this post will deal with the twin questions of the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture.
Inerrancy | |
The logic for the former is fairly straightforward. It relies on two essential claims; that God is the source of scripture and cannot be wrong about anything, and that the accuracy of that which can be seen is the evidence that the claims about that which cannot be seen are accurate. As stated previously, all revelation about God comes through the Son, who by His very nature is Truth and therefore cannot have falsehood within Himself. If the Bible is to be understood as the word of God, then it must be given to us by the Word of God, and as such must have His essential nature as truth without any mixture of falsehood. And, as Christ submitted Himself to a state which allowed His claims of divinity to be tested (ultimately by His resurrection, but also by His works in the flesh), so He has built into scripture the ability to be tested. This ability is carried in the details of things which happened in full view of human witnesses, including minutiae such as genealogies, miracles, and conversations between man and God. The accounts of these events are generally included by people in a position to know they are true, to indicate that the ultimate Teller of the story is faithful in the telling, and therefore can be trusted to tell of things which human eyes cannot witness on this side of eternity.
The logic for the latter is not really much more complex. It, too, relies on two essential claims; that God used human authors to pen scripture and therefore allowed their understanding to shape the way the scripture was recorded, even when that understanding was incorrect, and that the stories contained in scripture serve to illustrate essential truths rather than to prove them. The Bible, therefore, is a document in which God reveals truth to mankind through avenues accessible to mankind, with is focused primarily on allowing mankind to connect with that truth. As Christ used parables which were not true but were able to enlighten ears ready to hear, so He as the Word uses fables and ideas which are not true but are able to enlighten ears ready to hear. The accounts of these events are often written by people who were not eyewitnesses but had reason to believe the events at least so far as they illustrate truth, to indicate the lesson God wanted man to learn.
Both sides will affirm 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which in the NASB states that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." In the case of the former camp, this passage is evidence that all scripture is true and accurate; in the latter, it is evidence that the result of applying the scripture is the primary concern, rather than the actual content of that scripture. Both sides attempt to take scripture seriously, but have a different focus on how to do that.
I do not find the argument of the latter group convincing. The essential problem with the view that scripture can be truthful without being accurate is that the Bible itself doesn't really present itself this way. The parables of Christ, for instance, are presented in a manner in which their nature as educational stories is evident; He speaks in vague terms about archetypal characters rather than specifics, He makes interpretive statements like "such is the Kingdom of God," and he often uses them directly to illustrate the answer to a question or challenge. But this isn't the case of stories like Noah's flood or Jonah's whale, both stories that are widely considered folklore by those who hold the truthful-but-inaccurate stance. These events are described in detail, generally placed in a specific period or point in time, with specific named characters in specific named locations, as part of a narrative that has not been prompted and is not paired with interpretive statements. That is, if the Word of God is telling parables in the construction of scripture, then He is a significantly different kind of storyteller in the flesh than He was outside the flesh, the very way His mind seems to process stories is different, and this calls into question how much the two storytellers can really be the same Person.
It also places mankind in a position to judge what of scripture is to be taken accurately and what is not. In the inerrancy view, scripture itself tells us; that which is written in a manner that indicates it is history will be read as history, that which is written in a manner that indicates hyperbole will be read as hyperbole, and so on. It is not true that inerrancy demands that every passage of scripture be read as literal, but that it be literally read as the genre which it presents. By placing the authority on us as interpreters to determine what of scripture we will treat as what, we become arbiters of truth. But this is not a position we are ever granted. God is truth, and the arbiter of truth; we are recipients of and responders to truth. To hold that some elements of scripture which claim to be true can be false requires that we place something else, inevitably something of our own, as a higher authority on the nature of the text than the Author of scripture Himself. But for the Christian, there can be no higher authority than God, and there can therefore be no higher authority on how to read His words than He Himself.
I therefore stand on inerrancy, and posts from this blog will be written from the understanding that the Bible is true in the manner to which it presents itself as true on all matters.
Sufficiency | |
I do, of course, agree with the CBN and their ilk in the claim that the gospel is sufficient for the salvation of mankind, but then, so would the majority of the people the CBN and their ilk are condemning. The fact is, the argument for using man-made discussion points and theories is not designed to replace or supplement the gospel, but to apply it. The aim is to help people who are not Christians see how the gospel informs the problems they see in the world, and to help Christians see how the brokenness of the world is affecting real people so we can accurately and helpfully bring the gospel to those people. And for this purpose, the Bible itself not only isn't fully sufficient, but never claims to be. We have historically understood that application of the gospel in different contexts requires us to explain how the gospel plays out in the lives of real people in that context, and we see the Bible itself practice this. Paul, in Titus, uses ideas as presented by a pagan poet to explain how the gospel needs to be applied in Crete. Jude uses Jewish folklore that we don't hold as authoritative to illustrate his point. If we can understand that human authors of scripture can use man-made ideas to help them apply the gospel without watering the gospel down, why can we not understand modern Christians as capable of doing the same?
As such, I maintain that the sufficiency of the gospel for the salvation of human souls is a true stance that should be defended whenever it comes under attack, but that it is not under attack in this particular context.
Formatting note: As last week, I have chosen to leave this in bullet format partly because it seems to work for the objective and partly because I am currently plagued by the same recurring headaches that made me write it as bullet points in the first place.
- As established, the local church has a mission
- Great Commission, developing disciples, establishing churches
- In order to participate in establishing a church, the established and the establishing church are in some form of partnership
- Partnerships are fundamentally relationships in which resources are shared for a common goal without sacrificing identity
- The local church is an autonomous body with the ability to enter into partnerships.
- What does autonomy mean?
- Simply that a church is not required to be in partnership and can choose its own partnerships and methods without direct supervision from an outside agency or another church
- It should not be confused with church sovereignty, which would hold the local church completely above partnerships and accountability, though this confusion is common
- One result of this is the fact that the established church does not have direct control of the way the new church operates
- What does autonomy mean?
- Three broad generally-accepted categories of partnerships
- Churches
- Parachurch Organizations
- Secular Bodies
- There are subtypes, but that’s beyond the scope of this assignment
- The local church is an autonomous body with the ability to enter into partnerships.
- Churches
- The only partnership that definitely exists in scripture
- Arguments could be made to view Paul’s mission team as a parachurch organization, but I believe this to be somewhat inaccurate and anachronistic
- Acts does not discuss the church working with secular bodies
- Paul receives support from churches other than Antioch
- Paul organizes churches to support church in Jerusalem in epistles
- Shared mission, resources, methodology
- North Central Collective
- Local example in which four churches have agreed to a partnership
- This partnership includes a growing relationship, a shared vision and mission, shared resources, and agreement about how to best apply those resources to that mission
- Churches are in relationship and accountable to one another but do not have authority over one another
- Very good at highlighting the benefits of close, regionally-minded partnerships
- Southern Baptist Convention
- Large example in which thousands of churches have agreed to a partnership
- This partnership includes a shared vision and mission, a clear statement of agreed-upon doctrines (The Baptist Faith and Message), a large pool of shared resources, and agreement on channels that will apply those resources to that mission
- Churches are in cooperation and may have relationship and accountability on a local level, but have no authority over one another and have limited, if any, relationship on a national level
- Very good at highlighting the scope of work a partnership can accomplish
- The only partnership that definitely exists in scripture
- Parachurch Organizations
- Mission focus
- Engel & Dyrness argue that missions should be the “guiding hand in all the church’s programs” rather than simply one more program (p122)
- Missional authority lies with church
- “one of the lingering effects of the structure of missions created in an earlier day is the attitude on the part of many missions executives and missionaries that the churches are simply the source of resources—money and personnel, or perhaps gifts in kind.” - Engel & Dyrness, “The Church in Missions” from Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong?, p122
- If the mission has been given by Christ to the church, authority on how the mission is carried out must rest with the church and not external agencies
- Churches must retain control of what their involvement in parachurch activity is and how they will engage with that activity
- Mission focus
- Secular Bodies
- Partner to the extent that churches can retain mission focus and control of own actions
- Separation of church and state
- The church is not to put itself as a whole under the direct authority of the secular government or any other secular agency
- The church does, however, recognize the authority God has given governments in certain areas and must respect that
- The church may accept direction from secular agencies on a limited basis on specific ministry activities
- Where the church wishes to engage with areas that a secular agency has authority, it will have to determine whether or not submission to that authority’s rules and systems in that specific ministry is workable with the identity of the church
- If it is not, the church may need to seek an alternative method
- Fourth category: Individuals
- We describe the church as family throughout Antioch School
- This is good and appropriate; the church is a family
- The church is also a partnership, and as such should have the ability to see every member as an active participant in its mission
- This is good and appropriate; the church is a family
- Paul talks about churches as people
- He addresses individuals
- He talks about the unity of the people in the church
- Passivity
- Engel and Dyrness cite studies that show only 10% of people in an average church are active beyond Sunday morning
- They conclude, as do many others, that the vast majority of people in churches are passive participants because of the institutional model itself
- We describe the church as family throughout Antioch School
- I propose an alternative to this conclusion
- The people in our churches do not view themselves as active participants because the church itself does not view them as active participants
- Our entire model of church relies on people sitting passively and receiving
- The vast majority of people in a Sunday service will do nothing because we don’t invite them to do anything
- We put the preacher on a stage behind a podium where there is clear, visible division between him and the body, and have him talk without any opening for engagement
- We have designated leaders who pray on the stage in front of the whole body without any engagement from the body
- When we have someone we believe is suited for ministry, we send them away to be trained for ministry somewhere else, away from laity
- Here, Antioch itself helps address at least that problem
- The only things we actually invite most people to do generally are give money and sing
- So often we interrupt the singing so we can tell everyone to sit down and listen to a special person do ‘special’ music
- And then we tell them “go out and put into practice what you have learned” and get surprised when what they have learned is that the work of the church is the work of someone else
- This is, I believe, part of the source of the issue Roland Allen is talking about when he says on p144 of The Way of Spontaneous Expansion, “We have looked upon such spontaneous activity,” speaking here of spontaneous individual mission activity, “as something strange and wonderful...we have not known how to expect it, we have not known how to deal with it, and consequentially it is not unnaturally more rare than it ought to be.”
- Many articles do not go far enough in their call for reform because they still ground themselves on the idea of encouraging people to get up and do something out there without telling us to start by inviting and training people to do stuff in here
- I believe that all of our other partnerships would be more clearly understood and actively engaged if we began by asking how we can view the church as a partnership, how we can treat the congregation as active participants in our gatherings, how we can train them to associate the Christian life with action
- If we asked what everyone in the body is bringing on a Sunday morning, and where we can have an opening for that to be put into action during every aspect of the gathering, without demanding conformity or enforcing passivity from the people
- In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul describes church gatherings as having everyone involved, bringing whatever gifts they have to the service and the service having place for them
- We know that Paul advocated for all this to happen under the guidance of established, trained leadership, and not as a free-for-all
- We know that Paul advocated for all this to happen under the guidance of established, trained leadership, and not as a free-for-all
- If we got into a habit of viewing one another as partners on mission, and learned to see how what unites the church is our shared faith and our shared mission, and see the places where we lay our own desires down for the advance of the mission and the places where we maintain our individual natures and habits and styles and gifts, and how all of this serves the larger purposes of God under the authority of established leaders, then I believe we would have an instinctive sense for how the church partners with other churches under the authority of Christ, how we partner with parachurch organizations without giving over things that belong to the church, and how we engage with secular bodies without losing our identity as a church on mission.
- All of these partnerships, all of these things I’ve talked about, I believe they all start right here, in our churches.
- If we can have churches that view themselves internally the way the Acts churches did, then we can have churches who engage with each other and the world externally with the same impact as the Acts churches did.
- The people in our churches do not view themselves as active participants because the church itself does not view them as active participants
Foundation | |
I don't know what their faith is, but it isn't the one Paul declared would be in vain if Christ had not been raised.
Incidentally, and this isn't a core doctrine, it's just a side note here, but John is also why I believe in a very early dating of the gospels, which was important to my acceptance of their claims. There is no dispute among scholars, Christian or secular, that John was written after the synoptic gospels, and almost certainly after Acts. Everyone agrees that John wrote last. A great many people, however, put John after 70 ad, and I don't. My reason isn't historical or based on any specific papyrus or anything--so take it how you will--but rather it's literary. As a writer, I am struck by the fact that John has no apparent sense of dramatic tension. He shows throughout his writings that he is a writer who cannot allude to something and then wait to reveal what he's alluded to. Consider this segment of John 2:
The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
John 2:18-22 (NASB)
Everything else is built on this.
The Living Word | |
First, that God is three eternal persons. He is not three separate beings, and He is not one person presenting in three ways. Christ affirms God the Father as the creator of all things, prays to Him as the Eternal Source, follows His leading as the Great High King, speaks His words as the Author of all things, and points to Him as the Ultimate Glory. It is the Father who holds the ultimate right to determine and deliver judgment, who welcomes us as His children, who we come to know in salvation, and who we will ultimately glorify for all eternity. Christ declares Himself to be God the Son, the speaker of the Father's words, the enacter of the Father's will, and the one true means of access to the Father. Christ promises the arrival of God the Spirit, the One who delivers truth, the catalyst that unites the body of Christ, and the source that empowers the work of salvation in the life of the Christian and the church. Second, that mankind is severed from our proper relationship with the Father, enslaved to sin and unable to reunite ourselves to Him. Mankind, created to serve as image-bearers of God, instead serve from the womb as image-bearers of fallen Adam. God is making all things new, and our only hope to be reunited with Him is to be made new as well. This new creation is only available through the work of Christ on our behalf, which begins immediately when we are adopted as sons and will be fully realized when Christ returns to deliver final judgment on the world and completes the great work of redemption. |
God as Judge
Abraham calls God "the Judge of all the world," and rightly so. But which person of the Godhead sits as judge? In John 5:22, Christ declares that the Father is not the Judge, but has given that function to Christ. But in John 8:15, Jesus says He judges no one, and 1 John 2:1-2 describes Christ as our advocate standing before the Father, who is presumably (given the nature of an advocate) sitting in judgment. Within parables, the role of judgment is carried out variably by characters who represent either the Father or the Son. Consider what Jesus says later in John 5. In verse 30, Jesus says that He does nothing without direction from the Father, including judgment. I present this, and my statement above about the function of the Son, as the unifying theme; God the Son reveals the just will of the Father (the declaration of the Judge's ruling) and realizes the material truth of that just will by bearing the full weight of the Father's judgment on the cross and standing before the Father to plead the application of His work to our case as Advocate. That is, all ultimate judgment finds its origin in the Father and its expression in the Son. |
These, I believe, are the basics of the Christian faith. Everything else stems from them or explains them in more detail. All our models, all our atonement theories, all our theological frameworks and terminology find their soul here. Here we have creation, fall, and redemption; here we have God and man and our need for Him and His love for us. Here we have the Bible, in which God the Son reveals God and ourselves and what God has done and how we respond to that work, which can have no falsehood without sacrificing its essential purpose. In these things we must have unity and unwavering adherence; any deviation from this, any different Christ, any other gospel, any allegiance placed equal or higher than God, any ultimate source of truth other than the Father revealed through the Son through the lens provided by the Holy Spirit, is not Christianity. It may share many things with us, but it is not of us.
It's also helpful for me, because it forces me to sit down and think through each of these topics carefully, and examine my broader views in light of these basic understandings. I think we should each take some time now and then to really examine things we've taken for granted in our belief system, analyze exactly where we stand on them, and ask if we find ourselves disagreeing with these matters in any other area of our lives. It keeps us honest, it keeps us focused, and it helps us to have a more cohesive worldview.
While I respect the quick read and simple clarity of stating broad theological affiliations (like declaring oneself Reformed in their statement of faith, and allowing that one word to do a lot of heavy lifting in understanding the author's theology), that will not be the approach here. One, because it doesn't allow for the full reflection I'm going for. Two, because this is a blog, and it's my blog, and I like details. And three, because I don't always find myself fitting into neat little theological boxes. I don't claim either Calvinism or Arminianism, for instance, a point which has caused much confusion in people around me (I'll get to that later in the series). So, this will be a series of posts, each of which will detail some aspect of my basic theological foundations. These posts will go up on Tuesdays going forward.
But first, an introduction into who I am and how I got to the theological place I now hold. So you understand where things I say are coming from. This is essentially personal testimony stuff, much of which I've mentioned in some form or another on various websites and posts, so feel free to skip it or proceed as you wish.
Personal Background | |
I was baptized a few times there, because I didn't really understand that it didn't need to happen every time I understood something different, and when that finally stuck I was baptized in the Holy Spirit. This consisted of standing in the church library (the top right window of the rectangular building in the picture above) with the elders of the church praying and laying their hands on me until I started speaking in tongues. I felt a bit guilty at the time, because I suspected the result was at least partly my own doing to get it over with, but the elders didn't seem to notice and I figured God would sort it out. But tongues as a prayer language was an important part of life there, and I continued to do it into my teens.
When I joined Cub Scouts, however, I started to get exposure to a different take on the Christian faith. Our local troop was sponsored and used the space of a Presbyterian church, and one of the church's stipulations was that a couple scouts serve as ushers once a month, in uniform. I did this a number of times, and found myself wondering whether true Christianity was a much broader religion than I'd been led to believe, or whether one or both of the churches I was attending were wrong about what true Christianity was. My dad had already started teaching my brothers and I how to use study Bibles and concordances and perform in-depth study on our own, so I had the means to start looking into some of the claims each church was making. I was, therefore, a bit prepared to get an answer when NLCC took a wild turn.
My time at NLCC coincided with the Brownsville Revival and the Toronto Blessing, and after our founding pastor left and his associate took over, the church began to set its focus on being part of this revival movement. Shortly after that change took effect, I walked into the sanctuary and had a vision, which I took to the new pastor and explained. When asked for an interpretation, I told him the church was poised to receive a massive blessing and see a revival start, but we had to stay the course and focus on Christ and His work in us. I was declared a prophet from the pulpit, and then the church went ahead and focused on getting signs more than encountering God. The sermons grew shorter and shorter and pulled less and less from scripture. My dad, an elder, saw that the church was deviating away from the Bible and we stayed for years as others left so he could try to pull it back on track. Eventually I had a second vision, and when asked again for the interpretation, I told the pastor that we'd missed the blessing reserved for us by going off track, and had a lot of repentance to do if we wanted to be part of His work in the area. I was, at that point, told that I was an ignorant kid who didn't know what he was talking about, so I walked out of the sanctuary and didn't return until the day my dad announced we were leaving the church.
In the wake of this, I spent some time examining my faith. I don't know if they had a term for it at the time (though some may have called it backsliding), but what I did at that point was essentially what's now being called deconstruction. I started by asking if the foundational claim of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is God as evidence by raising from the dead, was true; having become convinced of that, I started building my beliefs bit by bit through analysis of different things I'd been taught. I ended up in Baptist churches, the first of which was called New Life Baptist Church (which I found an amusing circle for myself), where I was baptized as a believing adult who actually understood what I was doing. I'm no longer Arminian or Dispensationalist. I'm still in the process of understanding the full array of what I believe to be accurate Christian theology, and likely will be continuing to develop some aspects for the rest of my life. My beliefs about the church and our individual relationships to it, for instance, are currently being rewritten as I'm studying it in class and Bible study. As such, some of the things I address in this series may shift somewhat over time. There are things that I know won't change; I've done the research already and don't foresee any way of being convinced Christ didn't rise form the dead, for instance. But on the other hand, my view on the end times has never been as solid as I thought it was when I was a kid. I know that will likely change as I learn more about it. So keep that in mind as we explore these topics, that this series is a snapshot of where I am now on a process that started decades ago and will hopefully continue for many decades to come. I am open to your input on the places we agree or differ, and will incorporate how I came to a given view in light of the existing beliefs as much as I can.
Archives
January 2023
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022
January 2021
August 2020
June 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
Categories
All
1 Corinthians
1 John
1 Peter
1 Samuel
1 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Corinthians
2 John
2 Peter
2 Thessalonians
2 Timothy
3 John
Acts
Addiction
Adoption
Allegiance
Apollos
Baptism
Baptist Faith And Message
Baptists
Bitterness
Book Review
Christ
Christian Living
Christian Nonviolence
Church Planting
Colossians
Communion
Community
Conference Recap
Conservative Resurgence
Deuteronomy
Didache
Discipleship
Ecclesiology
Ecumenism
Envy
Ephesians
Eschatology
Evangelism
Failure
False Teachers
Fundamentalist Takeover
Galatians
General Epistles
Genesis
George Herbert
Giving
Gods At War
God The Father
God The Son
Goliath
Gospel Of John
Gospel Of Matthew
Great Tribulation
Heaven
Hebrews
Hell
Heresy
History
Holy Spirit
Idolatry
Image Bearing
Image-bearing
Immigration
Inerrancy
Ireland
James
Jonathan Dymond
Jude
King David
Law
Love
Luke
Malachi
Millennium
Mission
Money
New England
Numbers
Pauline Epistles
Philemon
Philippians
Power
Pride
Psalms
Purity
Race
Rapture
Redemptive History
Rest
Resurrection
Revelation
Romans
Sabbath
Salvation
Sanctification
School
Scripture
Series Introduction
Sermon
Sex
Small Town Summits
Social Justice
Stanley E Porter
Statement Of Faith
Sufficiency
Testimony
The Good Place
Thomas Watson
Tithe
Titus
Trinity
Trust
Victory
Who Is Jesus
Works
Worship
Zechariah