Note: What follows is adapted from a message originally delivered to the Chapel Downtown in Winchendon, MA on August 13, 2022. This post is written from the outline of that message and may not be exactly what was said in person.
My dad has, a few times, told me a story from when I was a kid, no older than 4. I was apparently laying on the floor watching Looney Tunes while he was sitting on the couch reading the newspaper, when something about watching Wile E. Coyote fail again to catch Road Runner stood out to me.
"Dad," I asked, turning to him, "if the coyote can buy all this stuff from Acme, why doesn't he just buy food?" Now, as my dad tells it, he'd never thought about that before, and wasn't sure what to tell me. So he simply replied, "I don't think you're supposed to think about that." I accepted that answer and went back to watching the cartoon with no further objections. Dad usually tells that story to highlight the way that I've always thought about the world in a different way than he does, but I want to highlight something else. Because in that moment, that word from my dad was all I needed. All of my concerns, about plot holes and the show's structure and whatever limited understanding I had of money at that time, were completely overshadowed by the trust I had in my dad and his explanation of the experience I was supposed to be having. This isn't a strictly personal thing; it's personal to each of us, of course, but it's fairly universal that kids tend to trust their parents simply because of who their parents are in relation to them, unless and until they are given sufficient reason not to. The default state of kids toward their parents is trust. For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, [as to] what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, [as to] what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and [yet] your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a [single] hour to his life? And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is [alive] today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, [will He] not much more [clothe] you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear for clothing?" For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
|
Facing Death |
|
Therefore Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to [his] fellow disciples, "Let us also go, so that we may die with Him."
John 11:16 (NASB)
The Way |
|
Verse six, which we repeatedly cite and point to as it applies to our understanding of salvation, was originally stated as a response to Thomas asking for clarity about the way forward. Jesus responds to Thomas' concern with Himself. "Look to Me. See who I am, see where I go. Look to Me, Thomas!" The statement that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life" isn't just a statement on the nature of salvation; it is a call to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Doubting Thomas |
|
We don't know where Thomas was at this point, and we aren't even told he was absent until verse 24. But he was absent, and he returns to the other disciples to hear a fantastic account of their teacher and friend risen from the grave. This is an incredible claim! And while the Bible does later highlight the faith of those who did not see the risen Christ with our own eyes, at this point, Thomas is not only being told that Jesus is alive again but that He provided evidence to the other disciples while Thomas was away. And what does Thomas ask for? He gives his terms as "unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe" (John 20:25b, NASB). Thomas asks for the same evidence the other disciples received, with the addition that he would like to verify the wounds are real.
He has his chance eight days later. Eight days, and despite having nothing more to go on than the claims of the other disciples, Thomas is still there. He hasn't left them, he hasn't returned to his life; unlike the other disciples, Thomas doesn't know for a fact that Christ is risen, and he's still there. And then Jesus shows up, offers the same greeting, and turns to Thomas. In this moment, unique among all the other interactions recorded, He answers Thomas' concern with concrete evidence. He offers His hands and side to Thomas' scrutiny, and Thomas doesn't even take Him up on it. Seeing the risen Christ stand before him, hearing the voice of his friend and teacher, is enough for him. Thomas has, this whole time, been looking to Christ enough that he can recognize his Lord when faced with the wildest claim he's ever heard. He needs only to set his eyes on Christ once more to know everything he needs to know about the dangers and fear and doubts of the last week and a half.
Fix Our Gaze |
|
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Romans 8:32 (NASB)
A couple weeks before I first preached this passage, a young man was in attendance at our house church gathering after Sunday morning service who had written a song about Psalm 88 (below). This is a psalm of lament, and if I recall correctly, the only one that neither opens nor closes with a declaration of hope. But God put it in scripture anyway. Why? As he discussed why the psalm stood out to him, he noted that there was hope in the psalm; not in the words the psalmist wrote, but in the very fact that he was writing it. That is, the hope in the passage is inherent in the fact that, rather than bottling it up or pretending to be okay, the psalmist is crying out to God.
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others [to do] the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses [that] of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-20 (NASB)
Shall Not Abolish
|
|
Now, there are ways we try to work this out, and one of them is that modern Christians tend to recognize three main categories of the Law: the Civil Law, the Ceremonial Law, and the Moral Law. The Civil Law is a category we use to describe regulations that deal with the actual governing of the historic Kingdom of Israel (and, later, Judah) as a nation state. The Ceremonial Law is a category we use to describe regulations that deal with ritual cleansing and temple practice under the sacrificial system. The Moral Law is the category we use to describe that which is inherently sinful and not bound to any specific time, place, or system of practice. These categories are fine, and useful, and there are good reasons we recognize them, but it's important to note that Jesus isn't giving us room here to use that as an excuse to ignore any of those laws. He doesn't state that no stroke or letter shall pass from the Moral Law; He says the Law, the whole body of the Law, still stands. If the Law condemns something, it remains condemned. If the Law declared something as earning death, then that thing still warrants death. Nothing in this regard has changed.
Jesus doesn't even soften the Law. He actually holds people to a higher standard than the Law does! Note what He says about it in verse 20, "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." That's a high standard! And it keeps coming up in the following verses, such as...
You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell
Matthew 5:21-22 (NASB)
You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB)
Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.' But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' [or] 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.
Matthew 5:33-37 (NASB)
No. But how? The simple answer is that our relationship to the Law has changed.
Come to Fulfill
|
|
Consider meals. We, as humans, don't actually need meals as they presently exist. We need nourishment from food, and we need to eat at intervals that allow our bodies to process the nutritional value of the food without eating so much that we cause other problems. Meals are the means by which we, as a culture, meet that need and teach ourselves and our children about how to select foods and portions that best accomplish this purpose. But if someone, or a household, changes their relationship to the food in such a way that they can continue getting the food they need and practicing proper balancing of foods, without the structure of three square meals, then they would no longer need the socially normative meal structure. Their relationship to the food changed; meals did not get abolished, and their need for the basic function of meals still exists, but it is now being fulfilled through a different (and possibly better) way.
This is the essential nature of how Christ changes our relationship to the Law. The Law still stands, and our needs for its functions still stands, but those needs are being met in Christ and therefore we no longer find ourselves leaning on the Law for them. So, with that in mind, let's explore the functions of the Law and how Christ fulfills them. Because, for every function, Christ both removes the necessity of the Law's function and performs that function in such a way that we no longer need to lean on the Law.
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were [aroused] by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Romans 7:4-6 (NASB)
Revelation of God's Perfection
|
|
When I first delivered this message, I got permission to change the way we did communion for that service. This was because I wanted to allow communion to serve its function as a sign in a robust way by incorporating it into the lesson itself. At this point, then, I called on the people to take up the bread of communion. I told them to remember, as we held the bread, that the ultimate revelation of God's perfection and love was given to and broken for us, and that we will one day enjoy the perfected flesh that Christ now bears in His resurrected body. That Christ took on the function the animals bore in the sacrificial system, and in doing so, fulfilled the function of the Law in revealing God's glory. We no longer need the broken bodies of animals to tell us of God's perfection; the glorified body of Christ is more than sufficient for the task.
At this point, we ate together.
Revelation of Our Need
|
|
At this point, we drank together.
Setting God's People Apart
|
|
He. Teach me, O LORD, the way of Your statutes, And I shall observe it to the end. Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law And keep it with all [my] heart. Make me walk in the path of Your commandments, For I delight in it. Incline my heart to Your testimonies And not to [dishonest] gain. Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity, And revive me in Your ways. Establish Your word to Your servant, As that which produces reverence for You. Turn away my reproach which I dread, For Your ordinances are good. Behold, I long for Your precepts; Revive me through Your righteousness.
Psalm 119:33-40 (NASB)
At this point I reminded them that we are not merely set apart individually, but together; we are set apart as one body, and our sharing of communion declares our unity with Christ and with each other.
Our Response
|
|
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."
Galatians 3:10 (NASB)
But for the rest of us, for anyone reading this who is in Christ, we have some questions to answer. Are you living like you are in Christ? Or are you, instead, still trying to trust in the Law? I don't only mean in terms of salvation. I'm asking if we're still looking to the Law to do work in us that only Christ can do. Are we being made perfect by Christ, or by the Law? Are we looking to Christ for how to live our lives, or the Law? Are we looking to the Law to tell us who God is, or are we looking to Christ? What is it that sets us apart from the world around us? Do we look any different from the world around us, and if we do, is it because of the radical shift in perspective, the perfect love, that comes by relying on Christ? Or is our own separation found in what we condemn, what we hold accountable to the Law? If we are not distinct, then something is wrong. And if we are distinct, but only in our desire to wield the Law against one another and against the world, then something is wrong. We must be a people who let Christ do what He has promised to do in our lives, and not people who return to faith in the Law for results.
The Conceptual Church | |
But the point here is that, although the believers in Ephesus had already gone through the establishment process, they were now entertaining false theology and practices that necessitated a Pauline delegate to put them back on track and establish the proper order Paul had entrusted to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20. In its present state, Paul never describes the body in Ephesus as a church in his letters to Timothy2; but this will be explored more later. Paul is using the term for a condition in which the church is operating well, but he isn’t using it for the body at that time. He has a goal in mind for Ephesus to reach, and it is the body having achieved that place that he refers to as a church. This indicates some awareness that a local body must be at a certain level of maturity, or at least have certain traits in place, in order to be properly called a church; but it is an incomplete argument if left to stand on this point alone.
The Church Universal | |
These uses do not show Paul directly defining the local church, but they do show him applying the expectations of the universal church to the local church. From these uses, then, we learn that Paul expected the local church to follow Christ as its head, display Christ’s wisdom, glory, and authority in the world, and to operate with the knowledge that Christ has purchased it with His blood. These are broad ideas, but the application of them defines the parameters for Paul’s expectation of local churches. A local church is not part of the universal church, and therefore not a church at all, if it doesn’t apply these broad principles to its structure and life.
The Established Local Church | |
This is the crux, then. Paul would leave cities prematurely for a small assortment of reasons, but he never leaves a church when he does so. He gathers disciples early, but only after ensuring they have the word and mission in hand and have elders over them does he call them a church. That is, there is a clear point at which a group of gathered believers transitions from being a collection of disciples to being a church, and that point always has certain traits in place. This runs the danger of being an argument from silence, however, so let’s shift gears and look at it from a different angle.
This is, after all, the general idea Schaeffer is driving toward in “Form and Freedom in the Church” as presented in our reading. Schaeffer lists eight norms that must define a local church in order to be a church, and while he seems to argue for norms that are unnecessary within his list, the foundation of the list is solid: that there are criteria Paul used to determine the churchness of a body, if you will, and that we should be using the same criteria in our understanding of the church today.
The points that Schaeffer hits on well cannot be adequately discussed without separating them from those he does not, so allow a brief aside for that division to be drawn. Schaeffer’s eight norms are that a church is made up of Christians, that they meet together in a special way on the first day of the week, that there are elders responsible for leading the church, that there are deacons responsible for the material aspects of the church, that the church takes discipline seriously, that there are specific qualifications for elders and deacons, that there is “a place for form on a wider basis than the local church,3” and that baptism and the Lord’s supper are practiced. We can see the validity of each of these by comparing them to the text and to the broad principles laid out in the discussion of the Universal Church above. That the church is composed of Christians is at best alluded to in scripture, and indeed Schaeffer himself does not point to any specific passage as making that point, but it is a clear requirement in light of the understanding that the church operates with Christ as the head and that the church is the body for which Christ died; that is, in order for the local church to meet those criteria inherited from the universal church, the members of the local church must be Christians. There is no such logical connection, however, between the universal church criteria and Schaeffer’s statement that the church must meet in a special way on the first day of the week, and even the two passages he presents as supporting this claim do not actually speak to that claim at all; therefore this criteria will not be treated as valid here.
Three of his criteria can be composed into one assertion without losing any of its power of assessment. That the church has elders, that the church has deacons, and that there are specific requirements for those offices are all essentially pointing to one claim: that the church is only a church if it has leadership in place in accordance with the Bible’s definitions for elders and deacons. This leads directly to the claim that the church must take discipline seriously, as Paul urges churches multiple times in his epistles and which must be in place for the leadership so established to have any real authority in the operations of the church. What remains are the sacraments, which are generally assumed to be happening by Paul (although he occasionally sees need to clarify how they are to be happening) but draw directly from the giving of Christ for the body and the display of the glory of Christ, without even exploring the fact that Christ commanded them and they therefore point to His headship and authority; and the place for form beyond the local church. This one, we must be careful about. Applied in a way that says churches must be in network would rule out the church in Jerusalem as a true church until other churches were founded, but ignored entirely would rule out the discussion of the universal church as a means of assessment entirely. The Bible does not handle the issue in either manner, so neither should we. Therefore it will stay, but will not be discussed except to say that, for our purposes here, it has been sufficiently addressed in the section on the universal church.
The points that remain, then, are that the church is a collection of Christians that administers the sacraments as handed down by Christ under the authority of Biblically-defined leaders with the power to discipline members. By what criteria do the leaders discipline members? By the advancement of the gospel, the headship of Christ, the display of the glory of Christ, and to the standard of a body for which Christ gave Himself to establish a spotless bride. And indeed, Paul never describes a church as a church unless he knows for certain that it meets this definition. Ephesus was called a church when it did so, but was not called a church when it was no longer displaying the glory of Christ and had adopted teachings that showed them to be outside of the headship of Christ. Galatians and Romans, two epistles written to ensure the church had the basic teachings of Christianity down to bodies that may not have had elders in place to guide and discipline based on those teachings, do not refer to those bodies as churches. Titus was sent to cities, and not to churches, to appoint elders.
In every instance in which Paul or Luke describe a body as a church, it is an established church; that is, it is a church that meets the definition from the previous paragraph. In every place where Paul worked, he worked toward the aim of bringing a group of disciples to the place where they met that definition, even returning to hostile territory to ensure he didn’t leave the disciples with an incomplete job. Even when a great opportunity to establish a new church came his way, he turned aside from that opportunity to focus on finishing the work of establishment elsewhere. Paul sends Titus to finish work he could not finish himself, out of a desire to see that the work was fully and properly finished. Paul never considered his work complete in a place until a church was established by the criteria thus far described; and neither should we. If this is the goal Paul had in establishing churches, if the definition of a completed work was a body that could be rightly called a church because it was composed of Christians practicing the sacraments under the authority of Biblically-defined leaders with power to discipline the body under the headship of Christ and for His glory, then we cannot bandy the word around for anything less. This is Paul’s definition of an established local church, and it must also be ours.
2Or, indeed, in his letter to the Ephesians themselves.
3Page 66
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Matthew 5:9 (NASB)
And as I was considering what this view was all about and how it applied to the world today, I found myself sitting in a church service where we were splitting time between honoring the work of God in sending His people to reconcile His enemies to Himself, and honoring those Americans we send to kill the enemies of our nation. It seemed to me that we couldn't view both as equally valid pursuits. If we truly believe we are in the business of calling the enemies of God to restoration, how can we believe it a suitable exercise to also celebrate robbing people of their chance at restoration for something so minor as opposing a mortal nation? The problem in trying to frame this question, I've since found, is that there's a lack of understanding for what Christian Nonviolence actually is and how these things relate to one another.
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.
What I mean by that statement is this: if God has called a person to a specific work, and called a person to a specific church body, then the person is also called to contribute to the specific mission that church is tasked with, and certainly not to hinder it. Likewise, the church is called to contribute to the specific mission the person is called to, and certainly not to hinder it. The Biblical statements about every member of the church needing every other member and every part of the body having a necessary function attest to this. If that is true, then it must also be true that a person who feels called to a mission that hinders, or is hindered by, the mission of their church is either on the wrong mission or at the wrong church or, in some hopefully more rare occasions, the church has the wrong mission; and it is vitally important that they find out which it is and correct it. The question is how to do that.
The first step is always going to be prayer and scripture, by the way. Going to God for wisdom and clarity, digging into the Bible for anything that may grant that wisdom and clarity, and earnestly listening for Him to speak will be necessary if you want an honest, usable answer. Every piece of advice that follows assumes you are only implementing it after spending some time in prayer and the scriptures. Also remember that this is only advice; the Bible does not give us a check list for this, and I can only share as much wisdom as I have so far.
Questioning Personal Calling |
|
- Your spiritual gifts can give you some clue as to your mission, because your mission will be something God has equipped you to do;
- Your trained skills can give you some clue as to your mission, because your mission will be something you have been prepared to do;
- Your interests can give you some clue as to your mission, because your mission will likely be something you can recognize and be drawn to;
- Your context, including where you are physically and where you are on your specific life journey, can give you some clues as to your mission, because God has been molding and placing you to perform it;
- Your limitations can give you some clue as to your mission, because it will not be something you will be capable of or comfortable doing without leaning on God's power and guidance.
Consider Moses. His gifting and skills enabled him to lead a large body of people, to judge fairly and honorably, to write the texts they would need going forward, and to face great trials. His interest in protecting his fellow children of Jacob enabled him to see their need and desire to find some freedom for them. His life experiences gave him access to Pharaoh, knowledge of the Midian desert, the skills he used leading Israel, and an unshakable faith that God would do exactly what He said He would do. His difficulty at speech meant he needed always to lean on God for his words and on his brother to deliver them, and his willingness to run when things got hairy meant he had to rely on God to be the example of strong leadership Israel needed.
Questioning Church Membership |
|
Some initial questions:
- Have I submitted to the church leadership?
- Do I understand the church's mission?
- Do I understand my calling?
- Am I actually performing my calling, or at least seeking opportunities to do so?
- Have I invested in this church? Do I care about the people here and the work they do?
- Am I bitter about something and finding it difficult to work with the church because of that?
If none of these resolve the issue (and sometimes even if they do), you need to talk to the church leadership. The exact person will vary based on your church's leadership structure and your relationships to them, but identify someone in a position to handle your questions and who you feel comfortable receiving honest answers from. Ideally, you will have been already talking to this person while analyzing your calling.
Personal mission and church mission do not have to be identical to be compatible. Our church hosts a growing food pantry which some members feel strongly called to lead or participate in; the mission statement of the church does not include that, but it does serve the church's mission goal of serving the community in a Christ-centered way that enables opportunities for us to share the gospel. Take the time to find out whether or not your calling and the church mission are actually incompatible. It is entirely possible that the church leadership will know about directions the church is going, ministry opportunities, or just detail about the mission that you don't know for one reason or another, and they can point you to a way to do what you are called to do under the umbrella of the church's mission. It is, in fact, entirely possible that what you are called to do is something that doesn't exist at the church yet because they are waiting for someone called to do it.
Seek ways to serve. Use your spiritual gifts under the guidance of the church and for the building up of the body. As much as possible, seek ways to be an active, contributing part of what your church is doing. But if all of this is not working, and it becomes apparent that you are simply not built for what the church is doing, then it may be time to prayerfully look into places where you can be active and invested.
Questioning Church Mission |
|
That being said, when the leadership revisits the church mission, it will generally follow pretty similar steps to those for analyzing personal calling, with the additional understanding that church missions are generally paired with church visions; the latter being where the church is going, and the former being how it will get there. Wise church leaders will look at how the people God has called to that body can do a work that uses the available gifts, skills, and interests to engage with the church's context to participate in a work that only God can bring to fruit.
St. Paul the Apostle, Public Domain, from Wikimedia Commons
|
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.1 Corinthians 11:1 (NASB) While there is some dispute about the value of it, there is no argument against the claim that the church, as it exists today, is stamped with the theology of Paul of Tarsus. Regardless of denomination, there is a certain degree to which every church is an imitator of Paul, even when we disagree heavily about what that means. But if we are imitating Paul as he is imitating Christ, the question that must be asked is who he believed Christ to be.
|
There is a surprising lack of material on Paul's understanding of Christ, considering this is the very foundation upon which everything else we have of him is built. In seeking resources for this, I found only two books that spilled any ink on Paul's understanding of Christ, and one was citing the other. If there are journal articles that handle this matter in any detail, they were lost in hundreds of pages of results that seemed to exclusively contain more doctrinal arguments than anything. Paul urges strangers to encounter Christ, he tells his readers to look to Christ in all they do, he strives to live a life that can be rightly said to be Christ living through him. If we treat Paul as a theologian writing doctrine in a vacuum, we will get a lot of very good theology, but we will miss the point of what Paul was trying to communicate. In all things, Paul is writing about Christ.
“Pauline Christianity forms the heritage of western Christianity to this day, and therefore it is all the more important to understand as fully as possible Paul’s conception of Jesus Christ.”
Also, while I identified a host of passages about the work of Christ and His current status in regards to the present age, this post will focus entirely on the actual nature of Christ, whether eternal or incarnational. I am hoping to cover the other passages over the course of summer break, and now that I think about it I'd like to do a similar study as this with other Bible authors. May God grant me time on this Earth to write everything I want to write about this.
Christ as Lord | |
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The fact is, Paul almost never says the name of Jesus without appending a title, either Lord or Christ in our translations. This is the most fundamental truth of who Jesus is as far as Paul is concerned: he is God, and every mention of Him is apparently lacking if it does not in some way acknowledge that fact. This is, in fact, the first thing he learns about Jesus during his conversion; in Acts 9:5, Paul recognizes that whoever is speaking to him is certainly the Lord, but asks for further identification. When he receives the answer that this Lord is none other than Jesus, he immediately obeys Him. This fact will inform everything else Paul ever says or does concerning Jesus. Clarifying what it means for Jesus to be Lord, then, will tell us a great deal about everything else.
“What is perhaps even more noteworthy, however, is that there are a number of passages where Paul appears to apply Old Testament passages referring to the Lord to the figure of Jesus Christ.”
Image of the Invisible God | |
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
The claim that this God has fully revealed Himself, in the accessible form of a human being no less, was a revolutionary claim. This is not like Zeus, stepping down from a mountain to sleep with some randomly noticed maiden. That God, who cannot be known except at a great distance, who cannot be approached without extensive ritual and shedding of blood, should take on our mortal flesh and walk on our dusty roads is insane. The depth of what this would have meant for the first Christians may be lost on us, who have always known of Jesus in this way.
|
For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.2 Corinthians 4:6 (NASB) |
Character of God | |
“In that sense images of Christ are for Paul also in some ways images of God.”
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Son of God | |
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
This is no light language, either. A lot of the terminology Paul uses for Jesus play into positions of authority across the full spectrum of time. Whether this is about preeminence or calling Him firstborn or heir of God (Romans 8:16-17, 29; Colossians 1:18; etc.), describing Him as the head/husband of the church and all things (Ephesians 1:19-23, 4:15; Romans 12:4-5; etc.), or the supreme judge and ruler at the end of the age (2 Thessalonians 2:8; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; etc.), Paul regularly views Christ as bearing the full authority of God.
But the work the Father had for the Son was not to take place entirely on a throne in Heaven.
Incarnation | |
Jesus was the fulfillment of a great number of promises, and two of them relate to His ancestry. The first is that He was to be a descendant of Abraham, which Paul identifies as true of Him (Romans 9:3-5, Galatians 3:16). The other is that He was the son of David that would sit forever on the throne (Acts 13:22-23, Romans 1:3-4, 2 Timothy 2:8). His specific family is noted in Galatians 1:19, where He is stated as the brother of James.
|
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.Galatians 3:29 (NASB) |
The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Summary | |
“In summarizing this passage, we can see that several of the Pauline christological images are maintained. He uses the composite name, Christ Jesus, to describe both earthly and exalted status and events, with the figure moving between them. Although he is seen to be in the appearance of God, and equal with him in some way, Jesus Christ also is subordinate to him, being obedient to the point of death and consequently being exalted by him to a position of preeminence in the universe.”
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