Note: This is adapted from a paper I submitted as part of my education through the Antioch School. The objective of the paper was to demonstrate that I had "developed a basic biblical understanding of Paul’s concept of establishing local churches, while discerning the difference between what Paul understood to be normative for all churches in every culture and generation and what he intended to be merely cultural for his time and situation." Where the book of Acts covers the broad strokes of Paul’s concept of establishing churches, it is in his epistles that the goals and approaches of Paul are more fully fleshed out and understood. Paul in Acts is traveling around the northern Mediterranean, identifying places where the Holy Spirit is drawing him and a place exists where he can proclaim the gospel, bringing converts into community, establishing leaders among them, and then commending the young church to the hands of those leaders as he sets off to do the same elsewhere. We have snapshots of occasional details on how he does these things, but only snapshots of occasional details. In the Pauline epistles, the apostle actively walks churches at different stages of development through his expectations for them, problems they need to address, and next steps in their growth. 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.
Paul’s early letters focus on preserving the centrality of the gospel in the establishing of the church. He reminds these churches of the core of the gospel and its immediate implications for the Christian, calls them to turn away from worldly behaviors and concerns, and addresses ideologies that are attempting to undermine the gospel in the church. Paul is concerned in these books with the foundation upon which the church is being built, and the worldly systems that attempt to compromise that foundation. Galatians 5:1 summarizes this concern well when Paul writes that “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (NASB2020). It is his concern at this stage of the church’s establishment that it stand and build firmly on the truth of the gospel without allowing that truth to be watered down with falsehoods. 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.
Paul’s prison letters focus on the practice of life as a body in the established church and the role of the church in the unfolding plan of God. These letters deal heavily with relationships within the church and the importance of continuing to grow in a manner worthy of the calling they have received. In Colossians, he urges the church, “Therefore, as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude” while in Philippians he says, “Brothers and sisters, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” (Colossians 2:6-7, Philippians 3:17, NASB2020). These churches have solid foundations, and his attention with them is drawn to the way they live and grow. 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.
In the final set of Paul’s letters, the focus turns to the reproduction of established churches through a process of maturing leaders. These letters deal heavily with identifying and preparing leaders, removing false teachings from the body, and ensuring that the mission of the church continues through future generations. His attention is toward leaders and the impact they have on the body, as highlighted when Paul says, “Pay close attention to yourself and to the teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Timothy 4:16, NASB2020). 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.
Each category of Pauline epistles, then, addresses specific periods of a church’s establishment. More than that, however, they work together as a whole to show what the process of establishment itself looks like. There are bits specific to the environment in which the letters were written; the concern about the circumcision party exists because of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism at the time, which has changed, and dictates about the behavior of slaves only find direct footing in a culture that has slavery. But the principles Paul is drawing out by these specific circumstances, and by the groups of letters collectively, are universal in scope. Paul applies them across the board to every church with which he interacts, and hands instruction off to Timothy and Titus to continue applying and handing down these principles. 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. 1 Jeff Reed, “Paul’s Concept of Establishing Churches,” 1991. 12.
0 Comments
Nearly every major Protestant denomination has, in the last couple hundred years, had to wrestle with the question of whether or not the Bible should be read as an inerrant word from God, or as a perfectly useful work heavily influenced by the limited knowledge of its human authors. And I phrase it that way on purpose; too often those who hold to inerrancy characterize those who don't as not having any trust in the Bible, which isn't entirely true. The fact is, we must all hold some degree of tension between the claim that God wrote the Bible with His perfect knowledge and the claim that human authors wrote the Bible with their full personality and understanding of the world intact, and the debate has been marked by people emphasizing one side of that tension over the other. 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.
In the interest of fairly presenting the complexity of the issue, and ensuring we have a shared understanding of terms, allow me to explain the general issue before taking a stance. Inerrancy is conceptualized as a question of the degree to which we can trust scripture on matters that are not directly relevant to the matter of salvation. There is always nuance, but there are essentially two sides to this matter within Christianity, and they define the two major movements at battle whenever a denomination finds itself fighting over this issue. One side, who is said to hold to inerrancy, maintains that all scripture must be true in its presentation of all matters it addresses. That is, the Bible is only trustworthy to get us into proper relationship with God if it is wholly trustworthy in all matters. The other side, which will sometimes claim it views the Bible as inerrant in all essential doctrines (and thereby also occasionally claim to hold to inerrancy, but by a different definition), holds that the Bible is accurate in all matters directly relating to salvation, but that the accuracy of other matters is not a hard requirement to trust the Bible's essential message. That is, the Bible is trustworthy to get us into proper relationship with God, regardless of how accurately it portrays secondary issues. 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.
I have addressed this to some degree already, so this will not be as long, but it warrants mention as it is presented as the fight currently happening in Evangelical circles concerning matters like Critical Race Theory. The essential claim is that those willing to use external ideas, like CRT and Intersectionality, are holding the gospel as insufficient to address the true needs of mankind that must be supplemented by man-made ideas. As such, groups like the Conservative Baptist Network position themselves as standing on the sufficiency of scripture in opposition to this perceived erosion of faith in the gospel as all we need for salvation.
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. What follows was originally a paper completed as part of my studies through the Antioch School. The objective of this assignment was to demonstrate that I had "designed a set of guidelines that could be used for a mission program anywhere that is aligned with an advanced understanding of biblical keys, including the role of local churches networking with other churches and mission agencies/apostolic teams as taught in Acts." 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.
The first few things I would want to affirm will be fairly straightforward, as I hold pretty orthodox views on the basics of Christianity. These are things that, for the most part, are not really contested within Christianity, and I would go so far as to say that these cannot be laid aside without abandoning Christianity. As such, I'm just going to toss all of these into one post and then focus on more secondary and/or controversial topics for the remainder of the series.
The Christian faith stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ, and this is where I started when I began my deconstruction phase. I did not consider anything short of a literal, physical resurrection from the dead to be acceptable; if Christ was dead, or never existed, then I was prepared to throw the whole religion out as baseless and false. If Christ did not exist, then all of Christianity is built on a lie; if He died and stayed dead, He failed to prove Himself to be God in flesh, and therefore Christianity is built on a lie. A symbolic or metaphysical resurrection is not even worth considering, as it cannot be verified and means essentially nothing. I recently saw a tweet where someone asked, "if it was absolutely, undeniably, 100% demonstrated tomorrow that Christ was still dead in a grave, how would that affect your faith?" and I read through response after response of people saying it wouldn't do anything to their faith. 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. I looked at the gospels as historical documents, because that's fundamentally what they claim to be. I could go into detail in another post, but I was convinced that they were faithful recollections of real events, with Luke and John having the most convincing lines of argument for me. Luke because of his research; the number of details that Luke includes that support his claim to be operating from eyewitness interviews was staggering. Luke stated outright that his goal was to ensure his reader(s) could have confidence in the teachings they've received, and he makes sure to name sources, include stories that other gospels didn't include that show Christ interacting with people beyond the disciples, provide geographic and cultural details that improve clarity, and (as he continues into Acts) distinguish between the things he personally witnessed and the things he didn't. John stood out to me for his honesty and intimate familiarity with the story, how he really turns his focus to who Christ is and lets the person of Jesus stand out on the page even more than the specific things Jesus did or what order exactly He did them. The bit where John and Peter run to the tomb and John is the only writer who records that, well actually, he won that race, but that's an aside; details like that drove home that this was a real person telling real stories about his own real experiences, show a bit of the character of a man who wants to note that he ran faster than his friend, but is willing to admit hesitance to actually enter the tomb. 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. |
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.
Formatting Note: Due to headaches, I was not able to convert my thoughts into an article or paper format, and instead turned in a bullet list of major points I felt such a paper would need to cover. I have elected to leave it in this form when posting it here because I kind of like how it works.
All scripture passages are NASB unless otherwise noted.
- A missionary should be identified and affirmed through both the sending church and the Holy Spirit.
- Terms:
- A missionary is here defined as someone who is being sent out from an established church to perform the work of establishing another church in another context, regardless of the cultural and physical distance from the sending church.
- The sending church is here defined as an established local church that is actively participating in the establishment process of another church.
- Justification:
- Acts 11:22: The news about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
- Acts 13:1-3: Now there were prophets and teachers at Antioch, in the church that was there: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set Barnabas and Saul apart for Me for the work to which I have called them." Then, when they had fasted, prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
- Acts 16:1-3: Now Paul also came to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brothers and sisters who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to leave with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
- Acts 18:24-27a: Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was proficient in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was accurately speaking and teaching things about Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began speaking boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him;
- “It is significant that in all the subsequent ‘sendings’ of missionaries in Acts, the emphasis made by Scripture is never upon an individual volunteering or upon his own subjective sense of call, but always on the initiative of others.”1
- “Whereas we seem to have emphasized exclusively the individual’s subjective sense of a highly personal call of God, and often reinforced this by emotional appeals for individuals to volunteer, the New Testament by contrast stresses either the corporate initiative of congregations or the informed initiative of missionaries in selecting suitable people.”2
- Acts 11:22: The news about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
- Means:
- Identification and affirmation of a missionary involves the recognition of maturity and giftedness in an individual that makes them suitable for the work of church establishment. This person is then set apart for the work of mission.
- In almost every instance of a person becoming a missionary in Acts, they are identified as such by the Holy Spirit through the means of the local church or an established and informed church leader. This practice is so overwhelmingly common in Acts that it should be taken as the primary means of identifying missionaries.
- In the odd case of Apollos, we have no record of who sent him to Ephesus to teach and make disciples, but we can infer that he was not operating under the guidance of a local church, as he is shown to have no existing relationship to any local church. In this instance, the initial push toward mission work seems to have been stirred in the heart of Apollos directly; but this being a solitary event in the scripture record suggests this should be taken as a valid, but unusual, means of initiating the process.
- Every leader identified as a missionary in Acts, including Apollos, is affirmed by a local church, which takes on a managerial role in the work of the missionary.
- Emphasis on identifying, affirming, and sending the missionary is on the Holy Spirit working through the local church.
- Terms:
- The missionary should be trained through a system approved by the sending church.
- Terms:
- Training here refers to all forms of preparation for the work of mission. This includes, but is not limited to, doctrinal education, discipleship, leadership practice, target language study, and target cultural exposure.
- Justification:
- Acts 18:26b: But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him.
- “In a very real sense, this is our work for which we feel responsible, as an extension overseas of our own local evangelistic ministry” (emphasis original).3
- “Para-church structures are useful to the extent that they aid the Church in its mission, but are manmade and culturally determined.”4
- “Since they are manmade and culturally determined, all para-church structures should be subjected to continuous rigorous sociological and theological analysis to determine their effectiveness as instruments of the church” (emphasis original).5
- Acts 18:26b: But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him.
- Means:
- Some aspects of missionary preparation are matters that must be handled within the church. Discipleship, for instance, should not be outsourced in general. Aspects of the mission which directly reflect on the sending church’s understanding and practice should also be handled by the church.
- More advanced training can be handled in the church if it has either the internal resources to handle it or a partnership, like the Antioch School, that provides certain resources to be utilized by the church in education.
- While there is no scriptural precedent for external seminaries or Christian colleges, they are not inherently an invalid approach. However, the means by which they function and recruit should be revisited in light of the expectation that the sending church is ultimately responsible for the people they send out. This will be covered more clearly in competency 5, but the basic idea is that the church should have some say on what external education program is used by the missionary, or at least the ability to review the education a missionary receives and determine its suitability.
- Terms:
- The missionary should be equipped through the participation of the sending church.
- Terms:
- Equipping here includes, but is not limited to, financial support, manpower, and necessary materials.
- Justification:
- Acts 15:39-40: Now it turned into such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas, and left after being entrusted by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.
- “Sending churches are there to support a plant, not to control it.”6
- “It is crucial that you have the support of your sending church...your sending church has the money, resources, and manpower you need.”7
- Acts 15:39-40: Now it turned into such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas, and left after being entrusted by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.
- Means:
- The sending church needs to take responsibility for sending the missionary.
- The sending church can do so in cooperation with other bodies; in Paul’s epistles, he thanks churches beyond Antioch for supporting his work.
- Other bodies include missions agencies, provided these agencies serve as a means to support the mission of the sending church rather than an authoritative body over the church.
- The specific list of resources a missionary needs in a specific context may vary, and the sending church should be open to exploring those needs with the missionary.
- Equipping a missionary means letting go of those resources, with the understanding that they will be applied to the mission field as the field requires, not as the sending church dictates. By this point in the process, the church should be willing to trust the missionary to make decisions in the field that best reflect the mission of the sending church.
- Terms:
- The missionary should be adaptable in seeking opportunity to connect to their target context.
- Justification:
- Acts 10:24, 27, 33: On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends...As he talked with him, he entered and found many people assembled..."So I sent men to you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear everything that you have been commanded by the Lord."
- Acts 14:1: In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a way that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.
- Acts 16:13: And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were thinking that there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.
- Acts 17:16-17: Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he observed that the city was full of idols. So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present.
- Acts 28:30-31: Now Paul stayed two full years in his own rented lodging and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching things about the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered.
- “The fact is that faithfulness to unchanging biblical truth often requires changing structures as time passes.”8
- Acts 10:24, 27, 33: On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends...As he talked with him, he entered and found many people assembled..."So I sent men to you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear everything that you have been commanded by the Lord."
- Means:
- The missionary should be prepared to be on mission at all times in their context.
- The missionary should seek any opportunities that the Holy Spirit has prepared.
- The missionary should seek places where people may be open to the message.
- The missionary should not limit themselves to one means of accessing the community, or any number of means that the missionary planned in advance.
- The missionary should be free and prepared to adapt methods to changing circumstances, whether that change is initiated by the Holy Spirit or the culture.
- The mission must remain constant as circumstances change.
- Justification:
- The missionary should make disciples and collect them into a unified body.9
- Justification:
- Acts 2:44: And all the believers were together and had all things in common;
- Acts 17:4: And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a significant number of the leading women.
- Acts 17:34: But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
- Acts 2:44: And all the believers were together and had all things in common;
- Means:
- As established above, the missionary is by definition someone working to establish a church. With the understanding that the church is the primary vehicle for fulfillment of the Great Commission, that church should have as its target those who are not yet disciples.
- Therefore, it is necessary that the work of the missionary involve making new disciples, forming them into a church, and establishing that church.
- The closest thing we see in scripture to a churchless Christian is the Ethiopian eunuch, who is saved and then continues on his way to Ethiopia where there is no church at that time. However, the historical record pretty clearly shows that said eunuch went ahead and made some disciples and gathered them into a church.
- Justification:
- The missionary should identify and train leaders for the local church.
- Terms:
- The local church is, for the purposes of this paper, a means of distinguishing from the sending church. The local church here refers to the church that is being established by the missionary.
- Justification:
- Acts 14:23: When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
- Acts 20:28, 32: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood...And now I entrust you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”
- Acts 14:23: When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
- Means:
- Paul consistently established leaders at each church before leaving it, and sent others to continue establishing leaders when necessary,
- The process for ensuring leaders are established is functionally identical to steps 1 and 2 above; with training aimed at work within the local church primarily rather than outside of it.
- According to Paul’s command to Titus, a church cannot be considered fully established until it has suitable leaders.
- Terms:
- The missionary should report to the sending church.
- Justification:
- Acts 11:4, 18: But Peter began and explained at length to them in an orderly sequence...when they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has also granted to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life."
- Acts 14:26-28: From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been entrusted to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished. When they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all the things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. And they spent a long time with the disciples.
- Acts 11:4, 18: But Peter began and explained at length to them in an orderly sequence...when they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has also granted to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life."
- Means:
- Griffiths argues in Missionary that the furlough period of a missionary should be spent primarily with one congregation, preferably the sending church, both to serve the church’s interest in missionary involvement, and to equip and refresh the missionary.
- With the rise of modern technology, even a missionary who is not expecting a furlough can more easily visit the sending church and/or maintain communication to share updates.
- In the situation of a missionary whose work is not long-term, they should be expected to return to their sending church on the completion of their mission and the church should be expected to be attentive to an overview of what was done.
- Regardless of method, this step should be seen as an opportunity for the sending church to have its focus returned to mission, to verify that the missionary is remaining true to the assigned mission, and for the missionary to celebrate successes and receive comfort on difficulties from a body that knows them well and invests in the work.
- Justification:
- The missionary should maintain relationship with the new church.
- Justification:
- The entirety of the Pauline epistles and many of the General epistles.
- Acts 15:36: After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let's return and visit the brothers and sisters in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
- Acts 18:23: And after spending some time there, he left and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.
- Acts 20:2: When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece.
- Means:
- The options available to modern missionaries in maintaining relationship with the churches they have established are as varied as the options available to a missionary maintaining relationship with their sending church.
- There is also the option that the missionary never leaves the local church after it is established.
- Justification:
2 Ibid., 13.
3 Missionary, 19-20. Griffiths is specifically justifying the responsibility of the local church in supporting missionaries through finances and prayer, but it is not a stretch from his point to include responsibility to prepare those same missionaries, especially if the missionary is viewed through the understanding here quoted.
4 Howard Snyder, “The Form of the Church” in The Community Of The King Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977. 159.
5 Ibid., 167-168.
6 Peyton Jones and Ed Stetzer, Church Plantology: The Art And Science Of Planting Churches Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021. 368.
7 Ibid., 369.
8 “Form,” 143.
9 This part almost sounds self-explanatory because you can’t make a church without gathering some disciples but then you run across a handful of church plants that recruit almost entirely from other churches and haven’t baptized anyone and you start to realize it really isn’t that clear to some people and you get so annoyed about it that years later you have to be reminded that this thought would be better served in the footnotes than the body of the paper.
The book of Acts follows a select few missionaries; it largely focuses on the missionary team that included Paul, whether that was with Barnabas and Mark on the first missionary journey or Paul, Silas, Luke, and Timothy by the time the second missionary journey reached Europe. Beyond this, there is a brief aside about the work of Apollos in Acts 18:24-28, and little else. However, that aside does indicate that the means we see Paul utilizing were treated as normative during that period.
Apollos arrives on the scene with skill at speaking, an understanding of scripture (v. 24), established instruction, and a partial grasp on the truth of Christ (v. 25). He is identified by leaders in the church as a potential leader, given further training (v. 26), then commissioned and sent out by a church body (v. 27). When he arrived, he was able to use his gifts and training to help the church that was already active in that area (v. 27-28). We later learn in 1 Corinthians that Apollos goes on to have a significant impact on the early church, to where some misguided believers were grouping themselves by whether they were reached by Paul, Peter, or Apollos (See 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:4, and 3:22).
It is helpful to consider this story, as it is the main example we have in Acts of what missionary preparation and sending looked like when it did not directly include Paul. It is easy enough, if all we talk about is Paul’s work, to put his work in one category and our own in another; the case of Apollos contradicts this tendency. That Apollos follows the same basic missionary path as Paul, despite neither meeting Paul nor being sent out by the same church that sent Paul, indicates that the model we see from Paul was expected to be the model used by others as well. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that it is the model we also are expected to use.
Hesselgrave reaches this same conclusion, and defines the model, when he states that “there is explicit teaching in the Epistles which directs us to carry on the same activities in a similar way—namely, to go where people are, preach the gospel, gain converts, gather them into churches, instruct them in the faith, choose leaders, and commend believers to the grace of God.”1 Priscilla and Aquila are part of the church in Ephesus and have been identified elsewhere in scripture as leaders. These leaders find Apollos, instruct him in the faith, identify him as a leader, then send him where people are to preach the gospel, gain converts, and commend believers to the grace of God. Thus, as Paul is sent out by the church in Antioch, Apollos is sent out by the church in Ephesus. Given this relationship to the church in Ephesus and the description that “he greatly helped those who had believed through grace,” we can conclude that he operated under the authority of at least one established local church in his work (Acts 18:27, NASB).
We get very little information in Acts on what Apollos actually did while he was in the field, aside from refuting arguments against Jesus as the Christ and helping the church in Achaia, but given Paul’s description that “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth,” it appears Paul believed Apollos was participating in the same process of establishing churches that Paul himself was (1 Corinthians 3:6, NASB). Thus, we have Apollos either described as, or hinted at being, someone who was trained by the local church, identified as a leader, and sent out by the local church to establish local churches in a different setting, just as Paul does throughout the lengthy descriptions of his work. That which was displayed by Paul and was handed down to Apollos has also been handed to us. The modern missionary has the same job description and model to follow as Paul and Apollos had, as we serve the same God on the same mission using the same means—the church—as them.
Historically, the primary means by which the local church extends its mission to the global stage has been by sending out individuals who have a working partnership with the local church and operate in a different, frequently overseas, local context. A working partnership is more than simply sending money, however, and requires that the church actually participate in global work on a fairly regular basis. One way local churches have addressed this need in recent years has been short-term mission trips. Short term missions, however, are a fairly new phenomenon in American Christianity. Bob Garrett, then-professor of missions at Dallas Baptist University, wrote in 2008 that “in the 1960s and into the 1970s most denominational mission boards and missionary sending agencies were still sending out exclusively career personnel” and went on to explain that the rise of short term missions was not only unexpected, but actively opposed by some.1 That it is now one of the primary activities of many American churches is a significant shift; and not necessarily one that has been handled well. As Brian Howell noted in an interview,
I am not for the narrative that has typically driven these trips: ‘We are going because there’s this tremendous need out there that we have to meet. And there’s this burden that we have as the wealthy country to go and do something in another place.’ I support transforming this narrative so that it becomes, ‘How can we connect with what God is doing in other parts of the world? How can we learn to be good partners with Christians already in these places? How can we participate in what the church is already doing in these countries in effective ways?2
This is not to say that other work cannot be part of this model. Short-term mission trips, service ministries abroad, and long-distance tools such as radio ministries and websites can all serve the mission of the church if they are carried out with the mission always serving as the focus. Griffiths warns that other approaches and organizations, good as they may be at achieving good purposes, must never cause us to “lose sight of the fact that such organizations are only auxiliary, ancillary, secondary and supplementary to the chief task of missions, which is to plant new churches” (emphasis original).4
This is, after all, the example we see in Acts. The church in Antioch was established by faithful people who came from the church in Jerusalem, with the short-term assistance of leaders sent by Jerusalem and the long-term work of Barnabas. This church then sent Barnabas and Saul out into the field, where they established churches while remaining in contact with, and under the authority of, the church in Antioch.
The role of the local church in missions, then, is to focus its energies and resources toward the establishment of a new local church, using whatever tools are suitable for the context and can be used faithfully, by making and gathering together disciples who will continue to engage in and pass along the church’s mission, under the authority of the local church, in accordance with the Great Commission.
2 Jeff Haanan and Brian M. Howell, “Better Partners: How Can Short-Term Mission Best Advance God's Mission?” Christianity Today, January-February 2013, 79. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A315069366/ PPRP?u=vol_b43nbc&sid=PPRP&xid=b20c0ba8 (Accessed January 12, 2019).
3 David J Hesselgrave, “The Heart of Christian Mission” in Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. 22.
4 Michael Griffiths, “What Do Missionaries Do?” in What On Earth Are You Doing?: Jesus' Call To World Mission InterVarsity Press, 1983. 39.
Acts, then, is a guide. It plays out within a specific context, and we must consider the degree to which that context influences specific actions taken, but doing so can reveal an understanding of what purposes and methods were guiding those decisions. If the apostles were operating under the orders of Christ, then their purposes and methods are Christ’s purposes and methods, and if that is the case, these must also be our purposes and methods. Paul’s exhortation to “be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” rings true for the entire book of Acts; to whatever extent the apostles were imitating Christ, we must also imitate them (1 Corinthians 11:1, NASB). Luke’s concern, that we be confident in what we have been taught, must include what we’ve been taught about the functions and purposes of the church. After all, in Acts he shows us what those functions and purposes are.
Identifying the Principles of Acts
The work of identifying those principles begins with studying the stories of Acts. The narrative of the book shows what these principles look like in action within a specific context, and we cannot draw the principles out of the narrative without studying the narrative for elements that are specific to context, elements that are common across multiple contexts, and a careful analysis of the actual practices and teachings of the apostles within the narrative.
To that end, the narrative of Acts can be broken down into major chunks. This class uses a system that looks for places where Luke appears to be wrapping up one portion of the narrative and beginning another; others may focus on immediate context or the broader life of the church as it develops throughout the book. Regardless, the purpose of breaking the narrative down is to see the principles raised and applied across multiple circumstances. Each of the primary principles, the things that must be in place across all churches across all time, would have to appear in every major chunk of the narrative. Therefore, this paper will operate on the following major chunks:
- 1:1-6:7: Initial practice and growth. This stage of the church’s development relied heavily on...
- The recognition, definition, and establishment of leaders;
- The practice of constant, invested community;
- Submission to teaching;
- Faithfulness in the face of opposition; and
- The work of the Holy Spirit.
- 6:8-9:31: Persecution and expansion beyond Jerusalem. This stage of the church’s development relied heavily on…
- The work of leaders in continuing to guide and expand the church;
- The work of the community in geographic expansion;
- Submission to teaching;
- Faithfulness in the face of opposition; and
- The work of the Holy Spirit.
- 9:32-12:24: Peter and the Gentiles. This stage of the church’s development relied heavily on…
- The work, identification, and establishment of leaders;
- The expansion of the community beyond the Jewish sphere;
- Submission to teaching; and
- The work of the Holy Spirit.
- 12:25-16:5: Spread into Asia Minor. This stage of the church’s development relied heavily on…
- The identification, training, and establishment of leaders;
- The geographic expansion of the church into Gentile territory;
- Submission to teaching;
- Defining terms of the community;
- Faithfulness in the face of opposition; and
- The work of the Holy Spirit.
- 16:6-19:20: The Church in Europe. This stage of the church’s development relied heavily on…
- The identification, training, and establishment of leaders;
- The geographic expansion of the church into Europe;
- Distinguishing the community from the world;
- Submission to teaching;
- Faithfulness in the face of opposition; and
- The work of the Holy Spirit.
- 19:21-28:31: Paul’s path to Rome. This stage of the church’s development relied heavily on…
- The faithfulness and continuity of leadership;
- The support of community;
- Submission to teaching and guidance;
- Faithfulness in the face of opposition; and
- The work of the Holy Spirit.
It is important not to get bogged down on questions we cannot answer. As Getz notes in Sharpening the Focus of the Church, “forms and structures are not absolutes in the Bible;” and as nonabsolutes, they cannot be our focus1. Instead, we must focus on the things that stand out as recurring principles, and the ways their various forms and structures tell us about the nature of those principles.
Leadership
In the first section, leadership is a driving force under the guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit. Jesus establishes this norm when He tells the disciples at the beginning of Acts that “...you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth” (Act 1:8, NASB). These disciples then give the first massive public witness to Christ at Pentecost, assemble the early church, teach in the temple and homes of believers, and answer to the Jewish authorities about the nature of the church and its beliefs. It is also these same disciples who then identify the need for another group of leaders, and it is their guidance that defines the functions of the first deacons and the traits that should be expected of them.
It is one of these identified leaders, Stephen, who is central in the drive of the second section of Acts. Through his faithfulness and boldness in preaching, he draws the attention of the Jewish leaders who go beyond previous questioning and kill him. This initiates a system of persecution carried out against the early church, during which Philip (one of the disciples) works in the Jewish-adjacent contexts of Samaria and a foreign believer in the Law. Meanwhile, the other key leaders remain in Jerusalem and continue to guide the church as it expands in response to persecution.
In the third section of Acts, the gospel reaches Gentiles through the preaching of Peter as initiated and led by the Holy Spirit. As Fee and Stuart note, it is important to recognize that God “did not now use the Hellenists, in which case it would have been suspect, but Peter, the acknowledged leader of the Jewish-Christian mission”2. The other leaders, in response to Peter’s account of the event, welcome the Gentile converts and this opens the door to the work of Antioch in focusing on Gentiles in their context, with the assistance of Barnabas, a leader sent to Antioch by the Jerusalem church, and Paul, identified by Barnabas as a fellow leader.
In the fourth section of Acts, the narrative follows Paul and Barnabas as they are set aside for work by the Holy Spirit and then as they carry out that work. As they carry the gospel through Asia Minor, they also make a point of establishing leaders wherever they see a church come together, even returning to dangerous settings to see that work completed. When Paul and Barnabas finish this work, they return to Antioch where they submit themselves to leadership by reporting all that happened to the church that sent them and its leaders.
The fifth section of Acts continues to follow Paul who, now separated from Barnabas, brings Silas as another leader and identifies Timothy as a man with promise to lead. Again, in every church they establish throughout this part of Acts, they do not stop until they have established leaders to continue working with the church after Paul’s team has left. And in the final section, as Paul makes his way to Jerusalem and, from there, to Rome, he continues to lead and to meet with leaders he has set in place and ensure they are prepared for the work ahead without him.
Through the entire book of Acts, then, the theme of leadership and its responsibility to care for the church and pass that work along to new leaders remains in constant focus. Luke tells us that the initial work of the apostles in leading the church was focused on teaching and prayer, and that in expanding the leadership of the church into a new office the apostles stated, “Instead, brothers and sisters, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word,” establishing a set of expectations for church leadership (Act 6:3-4, NASB). He shows how leaders were confirmed through the existing leadership structures, even when they have been identified by name by the Holy Spirit in the setting aside of Paul and Barnabas. He shows how those leaders did not consider their work finished in establishing a church until there were leaders in place, and though we have very little information on the exact nature of leadership training in the early church, Luke always places leaders in training under the care of, and working alongside, existing leaders within the context of active ministry. These principles, then, should guide us when we make our own plans for selecting, training, and sending out leaders today.
Community
...all the believers were together and had all things in common; and they would sell their property and possessions and share them with all, to the extent that anyone had need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Acts 2:44-47, (NASB)
The nature of the community has its first radical change in the third section of Acts, when gentiles are brought to faith and begin to be welcomed into the community. We get our first picture at this point, expounded in the epistles, that the community is united in Christ apart from any social divisions that would want to separate it. The community in Antioch is in prayer and fasting together when they receive the call to set Barnabas and Paul aside, in the fourth section of Acts, and it is that same community to whom Barnabas and Paul return and deliver a report. As Barnabas and Paul go about this work, they focus on establishing communities of believers, and Paul continues this emphasis when he moves into Europe during the fifth section of Acts. Finally, the community repeatedly comes around Paul to support him on his way to Rome.
The book of Acts consistently puts its work and its leaders in the context of community. This community is deeply invested in one another, sharing every aspect of their lives. It describes the community as being actively engaged in the work of ministry, rather than simply benefiting from it. It presents the community as having a certain authority of its own in mission, in the way it is able to act autonomously when apart from the apostles, in the way Paul submits himself to the church of Antioch in his work, and in the way the assembled church in Jerusalem is tasked with working out the details of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The Christian community, then, is intimate, active, and authoritative.
Teaching
However, it is not the act of offering teaching alone that defines so much of the church through the book of Acts, but the willingness of the people to submit to that teaching. It is this unity under the teaching of the apostles, whether delivered directly by apostles or not, that defines the nature and scope of the community of the church. The birth of the church comes at Pentecost, and its first act is to teach the truth of the gospel. The first burst of conversion happens when about 3,000 people submit to this teaching. Over and over again, as the gospel spreads, it takes root where people submit to the teaching of the apostles and align their lives with this teaching. And when the book is nearing its final section and Paul is on his way to be arrested, he calls together elders who have lived in service to the teaching he imparted to them and hands over the task to continue teaching to those who will continue to submit to that teaching.
Faithfulness
In the first section of Acts, the church begins to face opposition in the form of the Jewish leaders arresting Peter and John and ordering them to stop teaching. They refuse, more than once, and make it clear that “...we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” when facing initial threats from those leaders (Acts 4:20, NASB). This escalates, and in the second portion of Acts, Stephen dies as the first Christian martyr. With Saul actively hunting the church, the believers did not stray from the gospel they had received, but carried it with them into the wider world. Post-conversion Paul is routinely opposed during his missionary journeys, stoned and left for dead on his very first outing, and his story as recorded in Acts ends with him under arrest and awaiting trial for his work of carrying the gospel.
While the opposition to the gospel is not a primary theme of the third section of Acts, it is so prevalent throughout the book and offers so much background to the third section that it warrants inclusion as a constant theme in Acts anyway. The church is constantly running afoul of both religious and civil leaders, and faces threats of punishment—and acts of punishment—with constant and unwavering faithfulness to Christ, the teachings of the apostles, and the community of the church.
Holy Spirit
Throughout Acts, the Holy Spirit moves to bring about all of the key elements of the book. The church is born from teaching delivered only on the arrival of the Holy Spirit. The teaching of the apostles is guided by the Holy Spirit, the unity of the body is unity in the Holy Spirit, the leaders of the body are identified and equipped by the Holy Spirit, and the church endures opposition thanks to the power of the Holy Spirit in securing them.
The Acts narrative frames every major step of the mission as the work of the Spirit first. The apostles do nothing of great importance until the Holy Spirit descends on them. The Holy Spirit kills Ananias and Sapphira in response to the damage they are doing to the unity of the body through their lies. The first deacons are selected on the grounds that they are “full of the Spirit,” and Stephen faces death with certainty of purpose granted through this same “being full of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:3; 7:55, NASB). The Holy Spirit teaches Paul what lays ahead of him and calls Ananias of Damascus to welcome him into the church, stirs Cornelius to hear the gospel and Peter to share it with him, identifies Paul and Barnabas for the task of undertaking the first missionary journey, redirects Paul when it’s time for him to enter Europe, and drives Paul to Jerusalem to face arrest and shipment to Rome. Acts is thus Holy Spirit driven, with Him working on every facet of every key element of the book in every major section of the book.
The ultimate lesson, then, is that the nature of the church is deeper than it looks. Imperfect but convincing community can be attained through human means, leaders can be trained to teach most anything, and people can be stubborn in the face of opposition with little prompting so long as they have reason to do so. What defines the church, and ultimately defines the form these other elements take, is that the Holy Spirit directs and fills every aspect of what the church is and does. This is the core element of the book of Acts: that the church is the vessel through which the Holy Spirit operates in the world, and the church has a responsibility to unite under this charge, to hold leadership accountable to this charge, to submit to the teachings that define this charge, and to hold fast to this charge even when all forces of the world are turned against us.
Our pastor is currently doing a series inspired by Dane Ortlund's book, Gentle & Lowly: The Heart of Christ for Sinners and Sufferers which I would encourage you to check out (it starts with this sermon from February 27). I say 'inspired' on purpose; he isn't preaching the book as though it was scripture, but looking at the concepts being discussed in the book and exploring what the Bible says about them. The initial claim of the book is based on Matthew 11:28-30, which in the NASB reads:
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." |
This past Sunday the pastor was away, and I was given my first opportunity to preach at the Chapel. I was given clearance to choose my own passage and topic, though we did discuss what I'd chosen beforehand. I felt drawn to do a parallel concept to the sermon series, and as such set out to explore what the heart of Christ means for us as Christians. I built it out from Colossians 1:15-23. I preached from the ESV, but due to the legal statements I've chosen to use on this site, I quote it here from the 1995 edition of the New American Standard Bible:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister."
Colossians 1:15-23 (NASB)
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