Category: Devotional

Devotional thoughts for my benefit and yours from here, there, and everywhere

A Rugged Cross, a Glorious Gospel, and the Ted Haggard Scandal

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

The Glory of the Gospel of Jesus ChristI was saddened to hear of the Ted Haggard fall this past week. And I must confess that when it became apparent that he was guilty, for a short while I may have sneered at him. But before long God gave me a prayer that Christ would be exalted in all of this. I believe that prayer is being answered, and Christ’s glory is being seen even in this sad scandal.

I would direct you to go read the letter that Ted wrote his church to confess his guilt. It seems to be a very sincere and true hearted expression of repentance. And then read the short note Ted’s wife read to their church. It is full of a faithful covenant love toward her fallen husband. The letters are both available to read here, compliments of Justin Taylor.

Many who would consider themselves more conservative theologically than Ted Haggard and his church, have had some reactions to all of this which might flow from some unChristian pride of heart. Many have deep-rooted convictions which result in some big methodological and philosophical differences with Haggard’s church. And so they have assumed that such a fall as Ted evidenced is par for the course. They have got what’s coming to them. That won’t happen to us.   Oh really? It has before and it will again, although sometimes theological conservatives can float under the radar, if you will.

And with such an outlook, pessimism would be expected. I admit I was quite pessimistic as to how this all would play out. But wonder of wonders, the Gospel is shining through. And the true unmistakable depth of Christianity is being revealed. Not only has Ted’s church handled the problem in a straightforward and Biblically faithful manner, Ted and his wife are evidencing repentance and forgiveness in their most  unmistakable hues.

This morning, with the above backdrop provided, I urge you to please read Tim Challies’ most recent post on this scandal (HT: Justin Taylor). He has written from the depths of his heart concerning the spiritual lessons for all of us in this mess.   The truth is we are just as messy as Ted Haggard, and but for the grace of God, the darkest sins of our heart would be exposed to and condemned by all as well. And God is the True Judge to fear, and so we should shudder in amazed awe at the wonder of his grace!

I wrote the following in response to Tim’s post. I placed it as a comment on his blog, but thought I would share it here. May these words not be mere talk, but may my heart and yours be raised from the squalor of the sin problems of this fallen world to the sublime grandeur of the Glorious Gospel revealed on that Old Rugged Cross.

Thank God for this post. Truly, it is an answer to prayer. I have prayed that Christ would be exalted even through the blatant ugliness of this whole affair, and I am sure others have as well.

I would like to just add one further level of thought. Yes, Ted is a sinner. Yes, we are too. And oh, we should let it sink in just how horrible we all really are. And yes, too, despite the assurances to the contrary by postmodern and liberal theologians, God’s wrath is suspended over us, and naught but grace stays His Holy Hand. And we are thus beckoned forcefully to thank God unceasingly for that grace.

But let us not forget Christ as the Reason for that grace. Let us be sure to lift Him up. And let us be sure to trumpet the Gospel as the unmistakably jaw-dropping truth that it is. That because of God giving up His only Son Jesus–the most Worthy and Holy Individual there is–He thereby offers to us–the most wicked and despicable, undeserving creatures there are–infinite and priceless grace. He places all of Ted’s black sins, and all the as yet unseen or unappreciated black sins of my own heart, and yours, on His Spotless Son–the Lamb of God–and then provides for people like Ted and you and me infinite Righteousness and Holiness. So that He not only restores us, even as Ted’s wife has been willing to restore her guilty husband, but that He raises us up to an unspeakable level of honor. We become joint heirs with Christ! By means of Jesus’ very blood, we inherit all of Jesus’ wealth!

Let us be shocked anew at the wonder of such an incredible message. Let us be amazed at the wonder of grace, as measured not only by the depths of our own sin but by the heights of the Glory of that Perfect Lamb Who was sacrificed on our behalf!

Worthy, Worthy is the Lamb! Glory be to our Great God and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Reformation Day and Unity

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

Ulrich ZwingliToday  is Reformation Day!   Yes, 489 years ago this day, Martin Luther nailed  his 95 Theses against indulgences on the door of the church in Wittenburg, Germany.   We are still reaping the blessings from the Reformation which followed that action.

One of the key players in the Reformation was Ulrich Zwingli (pictured on the right).   He is not as well known as Luther, his contemporary, or John Calvin, who followed in his footsteps.   Zwingli led the Reformation in Switzerland, where Calvin would later minister in furthering the influence of that Reformation.

Zwingli was more moderate in his approach toward reform, and simply preached on the text of Matthew for several years in his pastorate at Zurich, Switzerland.   After years of preaching he worked toward reform using the existing channels of authority—working with his local Canton authorities and engaging in different debates in different conferences held to look at doctrine.   His patience paid off and many of the unBiblical traditions from the church of Rome were eventually thrown off, as his doctrine become more and more widespread throughout Switzerland.

I must say that I was reminded of Zwingli and his influence through some emails from Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries.   I am on his email list (which you can join by clicking here) and he sent out two articles on Zwingli’s life which were very interesting to read.   They are  available online at EGM’s website: here and here.

Anyway, Storms pointed out something about Zwingli that really got me thinking.   Zwingli was basically Baptist in his views on the Lord’s Supper.   He, along with many a Baptist, viewed the bread and wine as purely symbolic: there was no presence of the Lord Jesus Christ at the Supper.   Most Reformed people agree with Calvin that there is a spiritual presence of Jesus in Communion (see this previous post  of mine defending that view).   Luther, however, strongly disagreed with Zwingli and taught that Christ was present with the elements (although he denied Roman Catholicism’s transubstantiation belief).

Let me here give a quote from Storms’ second email on Zwingli (the information is also available in his second article linked to above) concerning the outcome of a conference held to try to get Luther and Zwingli to come to an agreement on this point.

The dialogue at Marburg initially looked hopeful. Both parties jointly affirmed 14 articles of faith (such as the Trinity and justification by faith alone). But they couldn’t agree on the nature of Christ’s presence in the elements.

The debate proved fruitless. Luther stubbornly insisted on the literal force of the words: “This is my body,” while Zwingli, no less stubbornly, pointed to the words of Jesus: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.” The dialogue was often bitter:

Zwingli: “I remain firm at this text, ‘the flesh profiteth nothing.’ I shall oblige you to return to it. You will have to sing a different tune with me.”

Luther: “You speak in hatred.”

Zwingli: “Then declare at least whether or not you will allow John 6 to stand?”

Luther: “You are trying to overwork it.”

Zwingli: “No, no, it is just that text that will break your neck.”

Luther: “Don’t be too sure of yourself. Our necks don’t break as easily as that.”

One final meeting was arranged. With tears in his eyes, Zwingli approached Luther and held out the hand of brotherhood, but Luther declined it, saying: “Yours is a different spirit from ours.” Zwingli said:

“Let us confess our union in all things in which we agree; and, as for the rest, let us remember that we are brethren. There will never be peace in the churches if we cannot bear differences on secondary points.”

Luther replied:

“I am astonished that you wish to consider me as your brother. It shows clearly that you do not attach much importance to your doctrine.”

The split was final.

I was struck by the desire of Zwingli to have a real unity with Luther in spite of differences over the finer points of Communion.   And I was saddened to see Luther’s harsh reply.

This Reformation Day, I am reminded that a reformation spirit is indeed necessary.   The break from Rome was necessary as the Protestant church returned to the important truths regarding salvation so clearly taught in Scripture.   I think the original fundamentalist movement was an attempt to apply that “reformation spirit” of old to the problems of modernism and liberal theology.   And again I applaud that spirit as necessary for the defense of the important Biblical doctrines (the fundamentals, if you will).

However, we as a church are called to unity (see the verses that are at the end of each of my posts for proof).   And just because the papists of Zwingli’s day, or the ecumenists of our day will often use a call to unity to advance an attack on true Biblical doctrine, this does not negate the importance of unity.   The truly fundamental and essential doctrines are advanced through unity.   And secondary doctrines are just that.  

While it is important for modern day Luthers and Zwinglis to hold to differing doctrines on secondary matters, it is likewise important for them to purpose to maintain a real unity in the most important matters despite those same differences.   Only then, is the cause of Christ advanced in line with His own prayer in John 17. I pray that we as a church will humbly follow Zwingli’s example of prizing unity above our secondary differences.

For more info on Zwingli, see the posts referred to above by Storms, as well as this Wikipedia article on Zwingli (from which I borrowed this picture).   Also see this article by Paul Mizzi, this article and this one all found at Monergism.com.   And for more on Reformation Day, see the long list by Tim Challies, and a shorter one by my friend John Chitty, of blogposts dealing with Reformation Day.

Storms, Sleepers, and Substitutes–Jonah As a Type of Christ

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

I have finally started listening to the sermons from Desiring God’s recent conference (I blogged about that here). Well, toward the end of Tim Keller’s message he mentioned a parallel between Christ and Jonah I had never before considered. I thought it was a great example of the typographical element so often found in OT Scripture. The OT Scriptures are not written in a vacuum, but rather are part of an overarching scheme of a history of Redemption.

Jonah was asleep during a great storm which put the lives of the  ship’s crew in danger of destruction. He had to be awakened, and was rebuked for not caring about the potential  danger to everyone’s lives. Jonah was appointed by God as being the cause of the storm (through the use of lots), and Jonah owned up to his guilt. Jonah then asked to be thrown overboard since this would stop the storm. The sailors tried to make it on their own, but ultimately came to trust in Jonah’s offer as a last result. They threw him overboard and were gloriously saved from their terrible predicament. Destruction was averted.

Jesus, too was asleep in a great storm (Mark 4), during which the lives of the disciples, who were piloting the ship, were in danger of destruction. He had to be awakened, and was rebuked for not caring for his disciples’ plight. Jesus then calmed the storm, and miraculously the danger was averted.

Ah, but the parallel is more than this. Jesus was ultimately sacrificed, just like Jonah, to save the lives of all from complete destruction. And while Jonah was legitimately guilty, Jesus took on himself our guilt. Jesus took our destruction that we might be spared. The words of Psalm 69:1-2 (which  psalm is applied by Jesus to himself and his ministry in the New Testament)  were true of Jesus as he hung on the cross:

Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me.

This picture does much to convey the wonder of the gospel. And I do not think that the parallel to Jonah’s situation from the events in Mark 4 is a stretch. I believe it was intended to point us back to that picture from Jonah’s life. In so doing we see the great terror that Jesus saved us from. We comprehend with great clarity the substitutionary death of Christ on our behalf. And we can see that God’s wrath for our sin was placed on Him. Indeed, Jesus drew the parallel between the duration of time Jonah spent under the water and inside the whale with the time Jesus would spend in the belly of the earth in death’s fast hold.

To make clear to all that this is not a recent innovation by myself leaning on Tim Keller, let me provide a couple quotes from older  commentaries which bring attention to this point.

“Herein Jonah is a type of Messiah, the one man who offered Himself to die, in order to allay the stormy flood of God’s wrath (compare Ps 69:1,2, as to Messiah), which otherwise must have engulfed all other men.”

[Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary on verse 12, online here.]

“The reason he gives is, For I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you. See how ready Jonah is to take all the guilt upon himself, and to look upon all the trouble as theirs: “It is purely for my sake, who have sinned, that this tempest is upon you; therefore cast me forth into the sea; for,” 1. “I deserve it. I have wickedly departed from my God, and it is upon my account that he is angry with you. Surely I am unworthy to breathe in that air which for my sake has been hurried with winds, to live in that ship which for my sake has been thus tossed. Cast me into the sea after the wares which for my sake you have thrown into it. Drowning is too good for me; a single death is punishment too little for such a complicated offence.” 2. “Therefore there is no way of having the sea calm. If it is I that have raised the storm, it is not casting the wares into the sea that will lay it again; no, you must cast me thither.” When conscience is awakened, and a storm raised there, nothing will turn it into a calm but parting with the sin that occasioned the disturbance, and abandoning that. It is not parting with our money that will pacify conscience; no, it is the Jonah that be thrown overboard. Jonah is herein a type of Christ, that he gives his life a ransom for many; but with this material difference, that the storm Jonah gave himself up to still was of his own raising, but that storm which Christ gave himself up to still was of our raising. Yet, as Jonah delivered himself up to be cast into a raging sea that it might be calm, so did our Lord Jesus, when he died that we might live.”

[Matthew Henry’s Commentary on 1:12, online here.]

A Few More Points: I forgot to mention a few other parallels.    First, Jonah did not just jump in, instead he told the sailors a saving “gospel” message: throw me in and you’ll live. Then, the sailors refused to heed the message at first, and tried to save themselves from the storm. This parallels the fact that the lost often try to atone for their own sin or to work their way to heaven. Thirdly, just before the sailors finally sacrifice Jonah, they declare they are innocent of his blood. This parallels Pilate’s declaration that he was innocent of the blood of Jesus, and the Jews’ declaration that they wanted to be guilty of his blood. Pilate and the Jews, however, were guilty of the blood, while the sailors were actually innocent of Jonah’s blood. Fourthly, a parallel could be given in that Jonah did not excuse his sin or offer any defense, and likewise Jesus willingly took our sin, not offering a defense of his own innocence. There are probably more, and for some of these I drew from JFB and Henry and possibly other commentaries.

“Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God” by C.J. Mahaney

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

This post finishes my review of Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God, by C.J. Mahaney, which I started here. I highly recommend this book, with but one caveat.

In Mahaney’s eagerness to use Song of Solomon as a Biblical description and instruction of marital intimacy, he falls prey to a wrong approach to interpreting that book. He pits an allegorical interpretation, which sees Christ and his Church as the key players in that song, against a “literal” interpretation, which sees Solomon talking about the joys of marital love. I am aware that some who used an allegorical interpretative scheme in approaching this book did so in such a way as to negate any application of what the song teaches about marital love. However, Mahaney’s approach, which is widespread and pervasive today, errs to an opposite extreme: in applying what the song says directly about marital love it denies any typographical use of the book. I see a third option, one which affirms that the book clearly praises the joys of marital love yet which also recognizes that Solomon’s Song is written within the framework of a redemptive history that the Bible records for us. And just as other Biblical stories foreshadow and describe the redemption Christ accomplished for His people, thereby enhancing our understanding of and appreciation of the Gospel (for instance Gal. 4:24ff.; 1 Cor. 10:4ff.; Rom. 15:4; Luke 24:27, 44-45ff.; and the obvious typography of the Tabernacle and offerings–whole book of Hebrews; see this category of posts for more information), so too the Song of Solomon may rightly be seen to describe the anti-type of which marriage is only a picture. Indeed all marriages are a picture of the abiding covenant love and joyful relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church (Eph. 5:31-32); and hence it would be proper to see Christ and His Church as ultimately referred to in this beautiful love poem.

Let me not fail to stress here that this really is an absolutely wonderful book on marriage. You need to get it and read it, especially if you are a husband—and even more so if you have already been married for some time. Below I will mention some specific points in the  book which I appreciated, beyond what I have already written. But before I do, I should refer you to a more competent review that what you will see here. Tim Challies has a good review at DiscerningReader.Com; however he may not agree with my caution concerning Mahaney’s interpretational approach to Song of Solomon. Now on to my excerpts and comments on the last four chapters of the book.

More than “The Act”

Most of the book teaches us men how to romance our wives and how to communicate effectively our love to them. Yet it purports to be a book about sex. Mahaney stresses that this is no contradiction: sex is more than just “the act”.

You see, what we express…and how we behave toward our wives in the days and hours before we make love is actually far more important than what we do when the clothes come off…Everything I say to my wife teaches her something about how I value her. Every touch, every kiss on the cheek, every note and gift, every brief phone call—as well as every act of selfish neglect—expresses something about my heart….So, to talk about romantic communication and creativity is not to delay talking about sex. It is to talk about what makes for the best sex.

Communication and sex are inseparable. It’s not as though sex is one thing and communication is something else. Life doesn’t divide into neat little compartments like that, especially when it comes to the oneness of marriage. It’s all one thing. (58-59)

Carefully Composed Words

I found Mahaney’s chapter on “The Language of Romance” to be very interesting. I was challenged to be more intentional in how I communicate with my wife, and to stop neglecting poetry as a means of arousing her love. I used poetry frequently before we were married, I should therefore use it even more, now that we are. Listen to Mahaney on this point:

…[Song of Solomon shows us] a category of communication set apart from the stuff of daily life….It is highly intentional, creative, provocative, erotic language. It’s purpose is to arouse romantic passion—to inflame slowly and intentionally, all the while honoring and delighting one’s spouse….Long before they begin to enjoy one another’s bodies, they excite one another’s minds with tender, creative speech. They model for us what it means to feel sexual passion and to articulate that passion. The language is highly poetic, romantically expressed, and exceptionally creative and imaginative. It is also unmistakably sexual.

The best sex begins with romance, and the best romance begins with the kind of speech we read in the Song of Solomon. It begins with carefully composed words….

Far from scorning carefully composed words, I should accept the lesson of Solomon’s Song and learn how to use them. Poetic language is a gift from God that can help me promote godly romance with my wife!

…How many times in the past week or month have you spoken to your wife in ways that she found to be romantically and perhaps erotically arousing? (60, 69-70)

Does Natural mean Not Spiritual?

Should lovemaking within marriage be considered a fundamentally spiritual activity? I believe the answer is an unqualified yes.

Is there a case to be made from Scripture that lovemaking is any less important to a marriage than praying together, studying the Bible together, or even attending church together? I don’t think so….

…let’s not see sex as merely a permissible part of marriage or something to be tolerated. Sex in marriage is mandatory and something to be celebrated! (See 1 Corinthians 7:35; Ephesians 5:31) Sex was created for marriage, and marriage was created in part for the enjoyment of sex. (74-75)

A Realistic Approach

…I am confident that a consistently God-glorifying approach to marital intimacy can improve any couple’s sex life significantly. But let’s keep in mind that we’re human, with limitations….On the subject of sexual expectations, Douglas Wilson has pointed out that while some meals are steaks, and some are macaroni and cheese, both are enjoyable. That’s wise counsel. So let your expectations be realistic, and enjoy. (87)

The Love Behind the Sex

Mahaney pointed out something about Song of Solomon that I had never considered. He stressed that Song of Solomon, while highly erotic, is a book about marital love. And he draws some important conclusions from that seemingly inconsequential point.

It’s remarkable how Solomon’s language, while obvious in its intent, is never biologically specific in a way that could be considered vulgar or clinical….that fact is itself full of meaning. Although sexual intercourse is certainly an ultimate expression of a married couple’s erotic encounter, it is not the outstanding central feature of this book. What is dominant in the Song is not any particular physical act. The book is not about sexual intercourse. Rather, it is about the remarkable nature of the couple’s overall relationship—in all its romance, yearning, desire, sensuality, passion, and eroticism….they do not desire to be together simply so they can experience sexual gratification. They want to be together because they are in love, albeit a powerful one…. (88-89)

A Word to Wives

I wanted lastly to mention that there is a great “word to wives” section written by C.J’s wife Carolyn. It is for the most part a reproduction of chapter 7 in her book Feminine Appeal. I read that section, too, and was impressed by Carolyn Mahaney’s wisdom. It like the entire book, is not so much a manual on how to make love, as it is an encouragement to have a deep and lasting joyful relationship with your mate which includes a proper valuing and enjoyment of sex.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Crossway.

Programs, Preaching and the Rest of Us (part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Entering the sanctuary, I hear the musical prelude and realize I have made it on time. Soon the music leader starts off with a congregational song and the worship service has officially begun. I pop a mint in my mouth as I listen to the pastor welcome us to the service today before he gives a few announcements and prays. I stand again, as we sing a few more songs, pausing only to read a portion of Scripture together. Several men walk up to the front with baskets, while someone prays and the offering begins. The nice music in the background makes me almost forget that this offering is a part of our worship to God. We sing again, this time as we remain seated. And then a wonderful trio of ladies present us with a special number. Then the pastor steps up and our sermon begins. The message is moving, I must admit, although I wonder about that fellow over there who is practically snoring–oh, and then those people that keep getting up and taking their children out and then returning again. Before I know it the sermon has finished and we are praying. We rise and sing a few verses of a closing hymn and after a brief prayer or benediction we are dismissed.

This is the cycle repeated week in and week out every Sunday morning at numerous churches all over the world. It is carefully planned out and programmed. There is a bulletin with the order of service in it. Everyone who has a part up front has been notified well in advance. The songs have been selected, those praying have thought through what they will say. The pastor has prepared his fine sermon. Everything is in accord with the admonition in 1 Cor. 14:40, “all things should be done decently and in order”.

In some cases this same cycle is repeated at a Sunday night gathering. There may be a bit less formality than the morning worship, and perhaps a different pastor or church leader is speaking, but all in all it is the same. At the mid week service, there may be a time of concerted prayer before or after the service, but the service once again is largely a mirror image of Sunday morning’s routine.

Have you ever wondered if this kind of service was what the New Testament really had in view? Is this formal gathering with one man leading the show and another doing all the talking really what Hebrews has in mind when it exhorts us to not be “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (KJV, 10:25)? Or how about this question: Do we actually see this kind of a meeting in Scripture?

Far too often, I fear, we Christians, and especially we theologically conservative Baptists, resist asking such questions. Much more than we want to admit it, we are creatures of habit and upholders of tradition. Tradition is not all bad, in fact it can be very healthy. But if we find ourselves appalled that someone would even dare to question something as important as a programmed worship service where one man preaches the word to all gathered, perhaps a word of caution is in view. Just maybe, we are more connected to our tradition than to Scripture, and probably tradition is holding too prominent a place in our thinking.

In this article, I argue that an open, participatory style of worship is closer to what we see in Scripture than the modern programmed service. Then I give some descriptive examples as to how this might look, and finally I propose some recommendations (not without a few reservations) on how to implement this in a typical church. I understand this is controversial and radical to say the least. But I hope you hear me out and pause to think through some of the considerations I bring forth. May God bless us all in thinking through these matters together, and help us to live out church life in a way that is honoring to Him.

 

Arguments for Open, Participatory Worship

 

1) Church Services in Scripture

We do not have many examples in Scripture of believers meeting for worship and edification, but those we do have are examples of an open, participatory style of worship. The clearest example of public worship in Scripture, indeed also the most direct teaching on public worship, is found in 1 Cor. 14. The most pertinent section to our study is verses 26-33.

26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (ESV)

Verse 26 specifies that “each one” of the brothers are participating in the service. Two or three are allowed to speak in a tongue while another interprets. And two or three prophets may speak, while the other prophets weigh what is being said. Vs. 30 highlights the spontanaity of the service by stressing that if someone receives a message from the Spirit he may interrupt another’s message (from the same Spirit). Vs. 31 is key: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged”. Today that verse would be rendered, “For one may prophesy so that everyone else can learn from him and be encouraged.”

Now some will argue here about my use of this passage. It seems that many would prefer to not have 1 Cor. 14 in the Bible, so little do they actually listen to what it says. Many will object that prophecy is in view and since prophecy is no longer current in the church today, we do not follow the teaching of the passage. I have actually heard people try to equate NT prophecy and preaching as almost synonymous. If so, the passage should be followed. Many today teach that NT prophecy is similar to sharing something God laid on your heart. Others obviously believe prophecy (albeit of a less authoritative nature than Scripture) is a revelation from God the Spirit for us to hear today. These all should apply the passage, still. And those who think it is referring to a prophecy no longer functioning should realize he is singling out encouragement and edification as the result of prophecy (see v. 3) and any speech today which would encourage or edify–an exhortation, if you will–would fit the bill and fall under the directions of this passage.

Others will point out that Corinth was a confused church and Paul is correcting problems here. Exactly, what you read in vs. 26-33 is Paul’s correction. It applies to us in that this is how Paul says churches should behave. As Steve Atkerson points out, “The inspired correction was for the church to have regulated, orderly interaction, and not a prohibition of it….” [1].

Other glimpses in Scripture at how church services were conducted also show us that the worship was interactive and participatory rather than heavily programmed and conducted as a one man show. Acts 15 shows us a church meeting [while vs. 6 specifies apostles and elders were considering the matter of discussion, vs. 12 and 22 suggest the entire church was together for this discussion] where Peter, Barnabus, Paul, and James all participated. In fact, vs. 7 says “after there had been much debate”. And vs. 12 which follows on the heels of Peter’s appeal, begins “And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabus and Paul…”. This suggests that there had been an open forum of discussion and Peter brought forth an appeal and then Barnabus and Paul spoke up, followed by James after the crowd had finished talking (v. 13). Now I know this was a business meeting more than a worship meeting, but it is instructive that one man didn’t run the show.

But what about Acts 1? It seems that Peter is the only one conducting a business meeting of sorts. Well, actually, vs. 14 specifies that everyone was in one accord together in prayer. And then vs. 15 says “In those days Peter stood up among the brothers…”. In the context of this gathering where many are praying, Peter stands and addresses everyone. Then everyone (or at least the apostles) together chose two men (v. 23) and cast lots over them (v. 26). It again was no one man show, but there was a mutual involvement in leadership.

You may be scratching your head trying to come up with some other example of a church meeting in Scripture. Well, don’t forget Acts 20:7-12. And yes, this seems like a contradiction to all I have said, but upon closer look it is not at all. Here we find Paul meeting with the believers in Troas and talking with them, around a meal which seems to be also an observance of the Lord’s Supper. Now this at first glance might seem to be an argument against the position I am advocating. The ESV says “Paul talked with them…and prolonged his speech until midnight…” (from v. 7). Now I admit that many modern Bible translations are similar here, but I believe the Darby version and the NIV best capture what the Greek is actually saying.

Darby — And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight.

NIV — On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

The greek for “discourse” or “talk” (the KJV has “preach”) is the word “dialogemai“. This is the word from which we get “dialogue”. Vine’s Expository Dictionary says the following here: “…primarily denotes ‘to ponder, resolve in one’s mind’ (dia, ‘through,’ lego, ‘to say’); then, ‘to converse, dispute, discuss, discourse with;’ most frequently, ‘to reason or dispute with.’…The AV translates it ‘preached,’ in Acts 20:7,9; this the RV corrects to ‘discoursed,’ lit., ‘dialogue,’ i.e., not by way of a sermon, but by a ‘discourse’ of a more conversational character.”[2] This understanding of dialogemai fits with what we see later in this passage. Vs. 11 mentions that after Eutychus was raised from the dead, they go back up to the room and eat and “converse” until daybreak. The Greek word for “converse” is homileo. Vine says of this verse: “‘to be in company with, consort with’ (homilos, ‘a throng;’ homilia, ‘a company’), hence, ‘to converse with,’ is rendered ‘to talk with,’ Acts 20:11” [3].

Now the word homileo brings up an interesting point. This word sounds like “homily” another word for a sermon. And the word “discourse” a good translation of dialogemai also can have a formal or religious sense to it. Yet when one looks in the dictionary, the formal sense of discourse is not the first sense for “discourse”, rather the idea of communication, expression, or conversation is primary. [4]

So in Acts 20, we see Paul earnestly desiring fellowship with believers before he likely will never see them again. Paul converses and dialogues, discussing the Word and other things in an edifying way to the believers present for the worship service.

Before I move on form this point about church services in Scripture, we should note two passages which expressly instruct how we are to behave as a body of Christ. Most would view them as directly informing our public worship. Let me quote the verses here.

Col. 3:16 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (ESV)

Eph. 5:19 “Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,” (ESV)

Did you catch the “one another”? We are to be teaching and admonishing, verbally and in song, one another. This seems to be most easily accomplished in a setting where people can bring a hymn or a teaching or exhortation (prophecy) publicly before the gathered body and share it with us all. Just think, how can the believers in the pew really teach, admonish, address, or edify the church as a whole? More on that aspect later.

2) Preaching and Teaching in Scripture

“But what about the emphasis Scripture places on preaching?” I can almost hear someone thinking that right now. Well, let me tell you that most often preaching is tied to the public declaration of the gospel message. And most, if not all, of the examples in Scripture we have of preaching (think Acts) are all in contexts describing an evangelistic message to a group of mostly lost people. Teaching, however is what we see happening in the church. The believers in Acts 2 continued in the Apostle’s teaching. Doctrine is a fancy word for teaching. And teaching is stressed as something which should be a part of church life. When Paul sums up his ministry of one and a half years to the Corinthian believers, he does not say he preached to them all that time, but rather that he was “teaching the word of God among them” (Acts 18:11).

Teaching, it is true, conjures up an image of a less formal structure than that of preaching. But still the idea is that one guy is doing it all. At this point let me provide a somewhat lengthy, but I trust helpful quote from John Zens.

Among the many gifts Christ gives to his people, some are gifted as teachers (Eph. 4:11). James says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Paul says, “if a person’s gift is teaching, let him teach” (Ro. 12:6-7). And in 1 Co. 12:28-29 Paul underscores the fact that Christ never intended for everybody to have the same gifting by asking, “Are all teachers?” On the other hand, the writer to the Hebrews chides all the bretheren for their lack of growth by saying, “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). So while it is clear that only some are gifted as teachers, all of Christ’s people are to be “teachers” in the broad sense of contributing to the overall edification of the body according to their gifting….groups of believers will vary greatly in their giftedness…some assemblies will have several gifted at teaching, some will have one person, and others may feel that they have none. The central thing to keep in mind is that all believers have the Holy Spirit (the “anointing”) and are capable of some level of sharing Christ, of manifesting discernment, of caring for one another, and of understanding the Scriptures…. [5]

A further point could be made about James 3:1, I believe. James does not make being an elder a requirement to becoming a teacher. He seems rather to be resisting the influx of people willing and apparently able to teach. Steve Atkerson says concerning this verse, “James’ warning makes sense in light of the intimate, interactive meetings that characterized the early church.” [6]

Now I do believe that pastors and elders (remember I believe in a plurality of elders, see Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23) have a special responsibility to be pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11) and to equip the saints through teaching (Eph. 4:12). And I will mention later that I believe there still should be public teaching including a lecture style format. More on that later. But for now notice Titus 1:9-11. Pastors must be able to teach so they can silence those who “contradict”. Those in view here are false teachers. They are speaking in these churches due to the open and participatory format. Thus they need to be silenced. Verse 11 is intriguing. The ESV says, “They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.” But the Greek has “whole houses” not families. I think this is a reference to house churches being led astray by the influence of these false teachers “of the circumcision party”. This is similar to what is in view in 2 John 10, where house could be understood as local assembly, most of which met in houses originally.

3) Church Life in Scripture

One last and important line of reasoning which supports a participatory worship style are the many “one another” commands in Scripture. The Bible is replete with exhortations for us to love, encourage, comfort, edify, and exhort one another. In a previous post on this issue (“1 Thessalonians and Churches’ Greatest Need”), I listed 27 passages of Scripture besides almost the entire book of 1 Thessalonians which give “one another” commands. And my list is by no means exhaustive.

Now how exactly are we to obey these commands? Does sitting in a pew provide you the means of exhorting and encouraging fellow believers? Perhaps every third month when you get a chance to pray publicly, but certainly not regularly. Now, I am sure the commands mentioned above are to be followed out as we interact within the community of believers in our local church. But think about how your church is structured. How exactly are these commands being obeyed? While I agree that I and you and we all must be more assertive in looking for ways to practice “one another” ministry, I think, however, that part of the blame for a lack of “one another” ministry should lie at the feet of how we structure church today. With a select few doing all the practical ministry, the rest of us merely veg being the wonderful consumers that we are.

When you look at Scripture, you do certainly see specific qualifications and responsibilites required of the elders. But it is most often the normal church members who are addressed and called to serve and work in the church. Just typing the phrase “normal church member” irritates me. That entire idea stems from the whole Catholic idea of a distinction between the clergy and the laity. The clergy must mediate the spiritual blessings to the laity. I think the whole Protestant view of preaching is tied up in this concept of clergy and laity held over from the Catholic church. When we look at church life in Scripture we see no special prominence given to the church leaders, and we see non leaders actively involved in every facet of ministry and worship within the church.

We have come to the end of part one. I still plan to describe open, participatory worship (giving modern and historical examples) and offer some final recommendations and reservations about this whole discussion. I wanted to go ahead and post what I have so far here. And the rest should follow shortly.

 

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

 

Further Resources

[1] Steve Atkerson, “Interactive Meetings”, an online article (similar to the chapter  3 in Ekklesia—see footnotes).

[2] Beresford Job and Jon Zens, “Paul Preached Unto Them”, an online article (similar to chapter 4 in Ekklesia).

[3] The New Testament Restoration Foundation, a ministry devoted to spreading and teaching about house churches with participatory, open worship.

[4] More to come in part 2.

Footnotes

[1] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life, edited by Steve Atkerson, (Atlanta: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 2003), pg. 37. [For sample of a chapter in this book, click here.]

[2] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “discourse” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[3] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “talk – B-3” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[4] Information gathered from the Dictionary.Com entry for “discourse” as accessed at Dictionary.Com, click here to view the whole entry.

The Dictionary.Com dictionary’s first two definitions for “discourse” are as follows: “1. communication of thought by words; talk; conversation: earnest and intelligent discourse. 2. a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing, as a dissertation, treatise, sermon, etc.” And The American Heritage Dictionary‘s first three definitions for “discourse”, cited at Dictionary.com are as follows: “1. Verbal expression in speech or writing. 2. Verbal exchange; conversation. 3. A formal, lengthy discussion of a subject, either written or spoken.”

[5] John Zens, Ekklesia, pg. 59-60; underlined emphasis is italic in original.

[6] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia, pg. 42.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7