Chuck Baldwin recently had this to say on the subject. A small portion is below:
By definition, apostasy is the condition of those who once (in some degree) embraced the truth, but have now abandoned or forsaken it. Obviously, this applies only to professing Christians. Infidels, agnostics, and unbelievers have no profession from which to apostatize…
That said, I am personally convinced that, by and large, the churches of America (regardless of denomination) are in a state of apostasy. And as such, offer little or no resistance to the men of sin who seek to seduce and deceive our people.
When a professing Christian President can openly acknowledge his belief in universalism and attack the supreme doctrine of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is the Creator-God become flesh, and there is not an uproar of protestation and denunciation from pulpits all over the country, the Church is in a state of apostasy. And that is exactly what has taken place.
So, whether you’ve read the whole article, or just this snippet, let me ask you something. If you’re a Christian, did that offend you, or convict you?
I’ll admit, the full article is rather scathing. But I can’t see where he’s actually wrong. Of course, his point was about the apostasy of someone we’ll just call “W,” how that’s significant of the Church at large, and how we conservative Christians are willingly abetting this situation. To be sure, we – as a group – do tend to fall for anyone who carries a Bible and knows all the Sunday School answers.
The Bill Hybels / Rick Warren ”seeker friendly” movement is a cancer in the modern Church. The necessary outcome of this is that you water down the Word in order to make it more appealing to a broader base of people. The only way to make the offense of the cross palatable to the masses is to remove all meaning from Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf.
And here’s the crux of the matter: a worship service is not the place to reach out to unbelievers.
No, really. The purpose of meeting together regularly is to praise, not to proselytize. It’s supposed to be a time of worship, of renewal, of edification. Not explanation. We have all week to witness, to reach out, to talk to others about the saving blood of Christ. Besides, if you’re stuck at having to feed milk – no, water – to the unchurched, how do you ever get around to giving meat to the faithful?
Have you ever heard of the phrase “priesthood of the believer?” I think that’s part of it. IMO, the mainstream church has become far too enamored of – and dependant upon – professional clergy. There is no Scriptural basis for this. [Nor is there basis for requisite multiple advanced degrees from seminaries… but that's probably fodder for an entirely different discussion.]
The basic problem is that human nature dictates that we will take the path of least resistance: given the opportunity, we will all let someone else figure out for us the things we need to do; we will let someone else interpret Scripture for us. We’ll even let someone else study the Bible for us. [The proof of this is the “prosperity gospel,” and the way so many self-described Christians keep voting for such utter tools solely because someone with a pulpit or some other otherwise respectable ministry says, “he’s our guy."]
So then, this opens the door for the feel-good message of the Osteens of the world. If nobody does their own study, they don’t know that God doesn’t really care if you’re rich or destitute. They don’t know that God expects you to honor Him regardless of your circumstances. But the closest thing to “name it-claim it” I’ve been able to find is salvation itself, and that only by grace, though faith, given to us – individually – by a true act of a loving and merciful God.
In order to appeal to the largest number of people (the Prime Directive of the church growth camp), you have to risk offending the smallest number of people possible. If they feel bad about themselves, they may not buy what you’re selling, so you want them to feel good about themselves. Thus, you give the people a feel-good message, as opposed to a convicting message, and they feel good about themselves.
This means they don’t feel convicted of their own moral turpitude. [And let's not fool ourselves – anyone who thinks people are basically good has never had kids of their own.] If they don’t feel convicted of their degeneracy, why do they need a Savior?
If they don’t need a Savior – why was it they were going to church? (Enter prosperity gospel, stage right)
Possible foundations of this group:
I will give you hidden treasures, riches stashed away in secret places, so you may recognize that I am the LORD, the one who calls you by name, the God of Israel. (Isaiah 45:3)
[This would suggest the prosperity reader misses the fact that these "riches" and "treasures" are in Heaven.]
The rich man’s wealth is his fortress, the ruin of the poor is their poverty. (Proverbs 10:15)
[Which doesn't mean the rich man is more righteous, just that he's safer (in general) from the destructive woes of the indigent – and this would typically also make it easier for the rich man to disregard the broader adverse consequences of his actions; this is a double-edged sword.]
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)
[This one must neglect the fact that the asker/seeker/knocker must have aligned his will with the will of the Father for this to come true – meaning that self-aggrandizing materialistic requests just might not make the cut.]
Am I suggesting that God does not answer prayer? Absolutely not. But I recall the Bible says something about God answering prayer according to His will and His purposes; this might not include a new Jaguar XK in my driveway.
It seems to me that the very existence of the “church growth” and “prosperity gospel” movements is prima facie a denial of faith in God and in His sovereignty. This declaration of faithlessness is the very reason the country is “turning away.” But we do have to “name” it, i.e., we have to ask for forgiveness and confess our faith in Christ Jesus as the only way to salvation.
That may end up upsetting some people… But better to offend my fellow man. The alternative is inconceivably worse.
28 December 2007 at 2 25
Jesus was crucified because of priestcraft and iniquity.
28 December 2007 at 16 23
Some people say the apostaed church has started, and we have time. The apostate is so bad it has started long ago in the US , we are further down the road then people think.I had a women scoff and say to me I dont see the rain of Noah yet we have time.
29 December 2007 at 6 39
Once again, Joel Osteen’s utter failure to uphold Christian truth in an age of apostacy only further supports what is all too clear about his teaching: it is spiritually bankrupt.
Here is a link to articles our ministry has created on Osteen’s heretical compromise that is anointed as “Christianity” today.
http://www.spiritwatch.org/behindsmile.htm
3 January 2008 at 21 14
And you’ve only scratched the surface. This IS the day foretold when people would not put up with sound doctrine but “flock” to the prosperity, feel good, no offense preachers. The hundreds of years of a totally unbiblical church is to blame. Buildings called churches instead of people, clergy and laity lie, one man leader instead of a plurality of elders, congregational rule, church boards, and on and on and on. These things, and so much more, have stunted the maturity of the body to the point of a total lack of discernment. I swear people will believe anything but the truth! The only solution, I believe, is to start over again. Another Reformation. The current “church” will never be changed from within. Only by planting biblically based churches, free from the traditions that nullify the Word Of God and denominationalism which surely came from Hell. will we see the nature, purpose and power of God in His people
9 January 2008 at 18 35
This is supposed to be a forum for discussion and debate, so let me drop this thesis on you and see what happens.
Picking up on the last post about “starting over,” let me first suggest that there are various obstacles to that strategy. Not the least of them is that we ourselves find it difficult to leave behind post apostolic church tradition.
Expansion: Everything that I know of that is post apostolic (including all theological and church writings) indicate in various ways a fundamental departure from the teachings of the apostles. That is, if you don’t find it in the apostolic writings, then it is wrong.
It’s not just “hundreds of years” it’s from the time of the apostles themselves. The basic connection between the action of God and the recognized organized church ended before that wolf Ignatius forbid participation in the Eucharist without the presence of an elder. His nonsense was just a symptom of what was already lost, or more properly what had already been substituted for the true church in the minds of many observers. I believe there were people who had some notion of what the apostles taught, but they weren’t the ones know as “church fathers” who were recording their activities. They were like the righteous lineage of Seth in Genesis 5: They lived and they died, and that’s about all we know. In this case, God didn’t even preserve for us the names.
Corollary: We can’t start over. We must submit to God, and recognize that the church is God’s church. He must make it functional. You can’t plant a church (none of the apostles ever talked about doing so). Reformation is of no use, just look at the results of the first one. Did the apostles teach anything about a reformation for the church? Every “church” claims that it is “biblically based,” but what does that really mean? Do the apostles teach that the basis of a church is the bible?
OK, so let’s see what you do with that.
I think I do have some idea of what it means to experience the church of God, but you’re going to have to scratch a lot deeper than your post suggests to do it. I invite you to go ahead, and I’ll help as I can.
9 January 2008 at 22 17
farmer,
I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said. The very first time the very first self-styled “cleric” took it upon himself to lead congregants absent the polity of elders or the direct involvement in the Scriptures of the congregants themselves, that was the first step on down the road upon which we find ourselves. I think the bureaucracy-laden “church” we have now distances itself by design from the laity (no matter the scale of the “church”) and is diametrically opposed to the fraternity of intimately linked believers exemplified in the NT. I mean, how many intimate friendships does your average joe have? A handful? Two? What kind of brotherhood of believers does that portend in a “church” body numbering 200, much less 2,000?
But size is only a part of the equation. Biblical literacy is nearly nonexistent globally, I’m sure, but definitely in America. Probably the most important thing we can do as believers is to simply encourage others, and hold ourselves accountable, to daily reading of the Bible.
And still, it’s not enough. You’re right in saying that it’s in God’s hands. Ultimately, any fix we attempt under our own steam is futile.
I think your characterization of the Reformation is a little harsh, though. Absent that, we’d all still be beholden to papal dictates, vying for indulgences, and all that the church had become prior to Luther, et al. The thing that upset that effort was the fact that though men began to try to correct course, they were still human, subject to human failings. Ditto the Great Awakening.
So, I guess, while not placing my faith in princes, I’m trying to say that though the human institutions are flawed — some deeply — there are still theological and doctrinal gems to be found among them, if only for illustrative or instructional use.
And I don’t know if you’ve caught on, but my locution of “debate” is rather somewhat less formal than that which you proposed.
14 January 2008 at 13 09
Oh, I didn’t have any particular expectations concerning “debate.” I just take it as it comes. Thanks for the response.
I apologize for being only a “little harsh.” I am inclined to think (and am suggesting to you) that the church spoken of by the apostles, composed of those who believe in Christ to the salvation of their souls (both in this life and in that which is to come) did *not* become the human institution from which papal dictates (and popes) were produced. That organization as well as the one(s) produced in the denominationalism that followed it were not only flawed and flawed deeply, but distinctly flawed so as to preclude their identification with the revelation, or even as the successor to the revelation, of Jesus and his apostles.
They, when one recognizes them for what they are, are disqualified for being recognized as having anything to do with the church of God, though they call themselves that.
So then, when you say absent the Reformation “we’d all still be…” you are restricting yourself to those who are involved with pseudo church organizations. I do not believe that all believers are. I am strongly inclined to believe that the people who are involved in such organizations (unless it be in regard to some enlightened nominal affiliation—though I can’t really say I know any such) are not qualified to be recognized as part of the church. I speak here, of course, of the local church as generally spoken of by the apostles. So please do not respond that “there are believers in the Reformation and Roman and Greatly Awakened churches.” Indeed there may be, and to them applies the description that “God knows them that are his.” We also know, however, that not all those who are elect are qualified to be recognized as such.
If I am correct, those who are qualified were never subject to papal dictates (except it be to die because of one—and I would judge that the subjection of one’s body in such a case is of little consequence) nor were they ever vying for indulgences. Those who are recognizable as believers are free from such things. Today they are free from the denominationalism of the Reformation and from the emotionalism of more current movements as well.
The apostles addressed those who believed as “holy ones.” I do not believe that there is any correspondence between what they had in mind and the current more inclusive euphemism “saints” found in our English translations as a result of usage in the pseudo church. These words meant something, and they still do.
Surely that is harsh enough to precipitate some debate.
If you wish to say that the Reformation had a generally positive effect on the theology of that which calls itself the church and “we” as people generally living on the Earth have benefited, I will not argue. But I cannot call it the church, nor can I say that that is what the church became or has become.
15 January 2008 at 11 21
I would not, as you seem to be doing, toss out the baby with the bathwater, when it comes to the credal …well, “credalism” that has so afflicted the “church” since its foundings (or, if you prefer, the departure thence). Since first Eve told the serpent “nor even touch it,” humans have been “building” on the Word. I’m not defending that, I’m just saying that it is a fact of human nature.
That being said, Paul told the Church in Corinth that “there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine may be recognized.” Is this advocating the modern multi-denominational leviathan the “church” has become? No, I don’t think so, because he first told Corinth they should be united. I think his appeal was that, through the divisions, believers would discern the Truth, leaving the apostates and heretics behind. Of course, I think Jesus said it wouldn’t necessarily work.
The modern problem is that the heretics did not go off and seek some other group to pester, they stayed and called what they were doing “true Christianity,” while denouncing the other versions (i.e., theonomy). And especially now, in this egalitarian, post-modern world devoid of any absolutes, all roads lead to Heaven. Personally, I think this derives from the insinuation of the “church” into the State, as happened so very frequently in the Old World, first notably under Constantine, then in the various European kingdoms and empires, and eventually the Colonies. (I mean that marrying the “church” and state only benefits the state, and only damages the “church”; while the state is self-promoting and has a vested interest in continuing any given establishment, the Church must, pretty much by definition, be free to throw off the detritus of its fallen and craven humanity)
All that to say, I think things like the Reformation have had value, whatever their faults, as human manifestations of the Divine Revelation, in that they have had the effect of recalibrating the human institutions. It’s all good and well to say that we should all be Biblical purists, and reject anything that looks like it might contain the blemish of human depravity; but you’ll be a long time in finding anything that passes muster, once touched by human hands, as far as institutions go, anyway.
Be aware, please, that I’m not advocating wallowing in our humanity, either. I try very hard to be practical, because I’m not a very practical person. My wife laughs at me when I describe myself thus (because I tend to view the world with a jaundiced eye), but I am very much an idealist. When I look at today’s “church”, like when I look at the US government, I see a system that is very broken, through many years of misuse and abuse. (I know, the metaphor is a bad one. Bear with me) And while I’m at a loss as to how to fix either (short of some cataclysmic event: open rebellion in the latter case; Armageddon, perhaps in the former), I think I can see where they are both headed, and it’s the same place — the state, through theocracy (whether theistic or atheistic, doesn’t matter) makes itself a proxy for God, and allows absolutely no dissent from its established creed; in this future tyranny, anyone who stands up for the truth against the god-state (think of the Dominican Inquisitors, or Puritan witch-hunters) will be branded a criminal, a traitor, and a heretic. [Any who think that statement contradicts my claim to idealism, you may want to read Revelation and the other escatological books]
But there is hope. I’m very optimistic about the family-integrated “church” movement, as it holds to the very apostolic framework you mentioned: a small, intimate congregation; an elder-led polity; encouraging members to verify leaders’ teachings against the Word; typically eschews the professional clergy that so burdens the broader church; emphasizing a servant-leader approach to both the ministry of the Church and the families who comprise it; and while many use denominational labels to describe themselves and their doctrine, I think it’s mostly as a shorthand means of communicating the tenets of that doctrine.
Your question as to the identification of the true inheritors of the apostolic legacy is one I find myself ruminating quite often, especially in examining my own shortcomings, or in wondering why so many do not see what even as depraved a one as I can see so plainly. In the end, it’s the very nature of Christianity to be exclusive — or maybe more appropriately, it’s the nature of humanity to exclude Christianity — and this may just be a phenomenon we have to weather, taking care to properly instruct our own — to be the “holy ones” you mentioned, as opposed to the “saints” who attend nearly every mega”church”.
15 January 2008 at 18 44
Hey, that’s pretty slick how you put those little notes in there.
You’ve said many things. Great. Let’s start with the first two paragraphs.
Tossing out the baby. The question is “what is the baby?” If I am correct, I have tossed out nothing (except maybe a dead baby). So your first paragraph just says, you don’t agree. I see I need to dip into your fourth paragraph where you *almost* say that you think the church is a human institution.
What do you think the church is? A human institution (i.e., an organization instituted by humans)?
What is the baby? What is the church? This is a really really really important question.
Please note that I have nowhere said that “anything that *might* contain a blemish of human depravity could not be the church.” I don’t think that at all. Whatever the church is, it is made up of people, and they will have their blemishes. But there is perhaps a big chasm between that and the human institutions which you seem inclined to discuss.
One last comment on this: “Passing muster” according to me means nothing. God is the one who determines what the church is. I can only recognize it at best, and perhaps help you to recognize it. Passing muster according to God, on the other hand, means everything. The question is, are you willing to entertain the possibility that in all your experience you have never perceived God’s criteria and could be totally unaware of what the church is? The answer is perhaps “no.”
Second paragraph. The scriptures, of course, admit many interpretations. On I Cor. 11:19 mine seems to differ from yours. I wouldn’t say that that by itself means much, but let me throw another possibility at you. The word dokimos can mean “genuine” (as in money) but it can also mean “approved” as in “accepted by men as genuine.” You seem to suggest that Paul is saying having heresies is a, more or less, good thing, since then you can “discern the truth,” as you put it. Thus, interpreting “must” as “you gotta have ‘em.” The “must” however, may be dependent on the other behavior of certain persons “shining forth among them as approved.” But one of Paul’s main points in the letter is that it is a really bad thing for certain people to “shine forth as aproved.” He knows that they have a tendency to give credit to men: “I am of Paul,” i.e., I give credit for my spiritual progress to Paul. He says that’s bad. When that sort of thing goes on, you get heresies or sects (people who have their pet teachings and can’t listen to much else); you get divisions (loss of harmony in the body). Paul seems to pick up on this in II Cor. 13:7: I am not saying this so that we should *shine forth as approved*—just consider us as reprobates if you like.
In summary, I think he’s saying: “I hear that you have divisions; I imagine that’s true…at least to some extent. I can see that there must be heresies because those are a means by which those whom you approve shine forth. (You shouldn’t be exhalting people this way; you shouldn’t have heresies; you shouldn’t have divisions.)
OK, OK, he doesn’t say that these people are approved *by them*, and it is a possible interpretation that he means “genuine before God.” But I’m just suggesting that that latter interpretation doesn’t fit too well with the statement at hand nor with the overall thrust of the letter.
Having said all that…Paul never once suggests that they are disqualified as a representation of Christ’s church. He says quite the opposite. See chapter 1:2-9. I will say that my view of the church doesn’t conflict with anything I read in I Corinthians. So, you want blemishes? There, there are some blemishes for you…and some big ones. But the human institutions you keep pushing don’t pass muster.
16 January 2008 at 16 33
Hey, I learned something. It would probably be better if I said “doll” instead of “dead baby.” Thanks. Why does everyone want to keep that soggy doll when you drain out the bath water (and accuse me of throwing out a baby)?
I guess it is the smell that inclines me toward the dead baby response, but “doll” is much better. Thanks again.
While I’m at it, and I have had a night’s sleep to think it over (and I’m picking on your analogies), let me add something about your analogy concerning Eve and her expanded prohibition (which of course we don’t really know is an expansion at all, since there are presumably many things that God communicated to Adam and which Adam communicated to Eve—and maybe also that God communicated to Eve— which are not recorded). The problem with that analogy, however, is that Eve was still in essentially the same situation—the same state. Even if she was adding something to what God said and going astray in doing so, she was still in the Garden and still had access to the direct presence of God (in whatever sense). Let me give you a made-up analogy that I think better fits the situation with the pseudo church of Christianity.
One of the duaghters of Eve was Awn (who was never in the garden but heard about the Garden and the expulsion from her mother). Awn had two sons Abin and Cael, and it came into Awn’s mind to teach her two sons that they were still in the Garden and were still in the same state of direct interaction with God experienced by their grandparents Adam and Eve. There came a day when God spoke to Cael and told him that Awn’s story was a lie. Immediately, Cael could see all the inconsistencies—what with wearing clothes and all the thistles and thorns and people dying and animals being put to death. But Abin wouldn’t listen. He insisted that though there were some inconsistencies, these were just due to human imperfection. The real problem, however, was that he didn’t correctly understand his state. He didn’t understand that the underlying environment had changed. He was, in fact, not in the garden. He, of course, didn’t know what the garden was really like, so his response is perhaps not too surprising.
To make things even more difficult, I don’t know of any historical precedent for something like the pseudo church. (So I have to make up my analogy from scratch.) Of course, once you realize it, there is significant indication that the apostles were expecting something like this. You can pick that out from what they wrote, though also there’s no explicit prediction as far as I can tell. Perhaps they would just shrug; Paul didn’t seem to be too upset about those who preached the gospel out of malice and envy.
In any event, you see where I think your analogy falls short. Eve was yet to leave, but Awn was gone. You seem to assume that people are adding this and that to create the present church from the real one. But this assumes that these people still have some connection with the real church—that they are in that state. This means that either they never have crossed the line at which association with God through the church ends (the garden’s exit) or that there is no such line. If there is no such line, then we might as well call any organization the church; there is no difference between the Masons, the Mouseketeers and the Presbyterians. If there is such a line, then we need to figure out where it is and see where we are with respect to it. When we understand that, then we will really know there is no difference between the Mousketeers and the Presbyterians.
Indeed all the errors of misinterpretation and expansion and addition etc. can go on in the church, and no doubt do. But they can also go on in other contexts—having nothing to do with the church. And that brings us back to the basic question: where is the line; what is the church?
17 January 2008 at 11 30
Glossary to my previous comment(s):
baby: This is a lack of paying attention, and a lack of good editing. I missed your final statement, to wit:
My apologies.
Church: the Spirit-inspired, God-ordained, Christ-centered Bride, as identified in Scripture, by the inspired words of the Apostles.
church: the human institution reflective of the Church, but which, as a human institution, is a necessarily dim reflection.
To remove confusion, I have edited my previous comments to refer to this second in quotes (”church”), and will continue in this way.
I appreciate both your humor, and your attempt at making my analogy more precise (And you make some strong arguments in it). But I have to comment that if there were anything of import, with a direct bearing on the story of the Fall, I think God would have inspired Moses to include it in the narrative; absent any of that, I think it’s safe to assume that Eve was expanding on second-hand information. It’s sort of the “fence” approach to morality: there’s some moral pitfall you can see ahead, so you build a fence around it to keep from falling in; as long as one is able to separate falling into the pit (sin) from jumping the fence (breaking self-imposed barriers), that’s okay — Eve’s problem, I think was that she conflated the barrier (touching the Tree) with the sin (eating its fruit); so when she crossed the barrier and nothing happened, she was ripe for the deception that jumping in the pit would be okay, too.
A modern example might be the SBC prohibition against drinking, the fence built around the sin of drunkenness, or more precisely, the acts one is likely to commit while in one’s cups. Orthodox Southern Baptists, then consider it a sin to use wine in Communion, because we’re not to drink at all, having lost sight of the fact — through a lifetime of dogmatic repetition of “church” teachings, separate from actually study of the Scriptures. (Of course, less orthodox ones are more likely to consider it a sin to be caught drinking, especially by one more orthodox; unorthodox Southern Baptists [like me] are more likely to consider it — if not immoral, then at least unethical — to let a good beer go to waste)
But I digress…
As to your larger point, I agree with your take on I & II Corinthians, and the issue of heresy in general; my understanding is that Paul was of the opinion that, in a fallen world, nothing is gonna be perfect; so if there must be divisions, so be it… but the onus is upon each believer to study the Scriptures and weigh teachers against them, weigh factions against them, and abandon the heretics. I’m not — and I don’t think Paul did — saying that having heresies is a good thing; I’m saying, like you seem to be, that since the Gospel will be distorted, it’s important that people don’t listen to men but to God, through His revealed will in the Scriptures, and as discerned in prayer by the indwelling Spirit.
My overall take on the current “church”, if we’re to have any hope of bringing it back to some respectable resemblence to the Church, is that — as I’d hoped I’d made clear in the original post — each and every believer desperately needs to return to a study of the Scriptures in submission to God, and not rely upon some idolatrous human individual or organization to point the way for them. I think liturgy and doxology (of any stripe) are a bane to this process, and the idea of Sola Scriptura should be the rule of thumb. [That's not to say that the efforts of ~100 generations of believers aren't of value to a greater understanding; "we stand on the shoulders of giants," and all that]
But I think that rigidity of thought is counterproductive at best, and that tends to be the place we all go when we find something that works. The Bible is not a living document, in that God does not change, and neither does his Word, but the Spirit is alive, and increases our understanding through prayerful study and reflection. Intellectual honesty demands that we not give in to this human urge to idolatrous orthodoxy; I think that’s (at least in part) why Paul’s call to renewal is in the Epistles, and not in the Gospels: salvation is a renewal in itself, but believers are in constant danger of becoming mired in their humanity, and not putting first things first.
As for your question, “where is the line? what is the church?”, I think that’s the central issue in a whole host of things. If we throw out denominationalism, including catholicism (both Roman and Greek/Eastern), and the “grace-plus” cults (includes the Osteens of the world, the LDS “church,” and others), and any and all forms of “christian” collectives; what are we then left with? A huge cadre of individuals, along a great continuum of truth and faith, from zero (cults) to 100% (Church)?
I don’t know. I don’t even know for sure where I was going with that last thought.
I think what we have to do, as believers, is to approach everything from the viewpoint of Scripture. This is not easy; I have only recently come to the shocking realization that some of my preconceptions are false: conservative=Christian; political soultions are available — and preferable — for social ills (abortion, drug use, prostitution); America is on God’s side, and vice-versa. Humility has become a full-time job, one I’m ill-suited for; and I’m not all that prideful a person, relatively speaking. And if a Joe Average like me can have so much trouble with this, how does that speak for the less introspective among the “church”?
I say all that to say, as I was wrinting the above, I thought I had an answer, but that only turns the question around. But, perhaps, it shows the way to it: maybe we should pray for such persecution as to truly reveal the sheep and the goats, a crucible to refine our faith
The best we can hope for, short of that, I think, as far as finding a line, is a set of criteria that show some relationship to the Church: deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone. I mean, you are asking for a way to discern where a total falling away has occurred, leaving no essential connection between “church” and the Church, right?
I think I’ll stop now, because I’m really starting to wander afield.
5 February 2008 at 20 41
You there Brian?
I have probably done what I can do for the nacent revolution for the moment, so let me ruturn to more important matters.
At least I hope you’ve had some time to think. What I’m trying to tell you is going to take some concentration, I think, and the farthest thing from “rigidity of thought” (which I pick up from the middle of your post).
Aside from that, I will stick to the first few lines. Again, a plethora of thought is not necessary, but some careful and open minded thought about one thing is probably much more profitable.
Let me first suggest to you that your capitalization is backwards. When the apostles spoke of the church, it was with the meaning of the word as it was generally used. Yes, they gave it a particular “special” meaning, but this is better communicated with the use of the article “the.” And note how much better capitalization fits in with your notion of “a human institution, which you deem a dim reflection of that which God has instituted.” It’s manifestations are all capitalized: Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists,… These are the Church (TM), and should be capitalized. The real thing is the church. So then, you may write as you wish, and I will try to understand, but for me:
Church: Any insitution of men which claims to be the church spoken about by the apostles of Jesus Christ (or a manifestation, or reflection, or to have any relation whatsoever to that church among whom the apostles labored).
As I’ve suggested before, I do not view the claims of the Church as charitably as you. It is no reflection of the church. It stands in opposition to the church, because the church is not an institution of men, and to set up some such organization is to deny the very nature of the (true) church.
Undoubtedly, it is impossible for you to see this now. You will truly have to leave your experience, and rigidity of thought, and understand from God the nature of his church. There is really little I can do to this end, and the best place for you to learn is from the writings of the apostles or perhaps from the church itself. Nevertheless, Jesus himself said to the Jews that the scriptures spoke of him, but it was of no use to them. But let me try to express my (admittedly inferior) understanding.
The church is spoken of by the apostles in two different ways, so that a description of it runs along the following lines.
church: All those who have saving faith in Christ; the elect.
local church: The visible representation of the church in a certain locality.
The second one, of course, requires a great deal more explanation, as I have said it is not an institution of men. Without argument those institutions which I have designated the Church are visible in building and action, and they make the claim, after all, so obviously I need to provide further explanation.
If not an istitution or organization of men, then what? Well, for starters, merely a collection of men. You will find that the apostles always speak of it in this way, and that there is no hint of an institutional or organizational identity; it is always people.
Let me submit to you, further, that it is a collection of people who are qualified to represent those with saving faith locally. There are qualifications involved, and the qualifications are not instituted nor enforced by men; they are instituted by God himself.
This brings me to a third, and important, characteristic of the local church: The direct action (or power) of God may be seen in it. How is it seen? Rather than getting into specifics (which I am willing to do), let me simply say that it is seen in the way that God decides his power will be manifest, and it is up to the individual believer to discern it. Judging from I Cor. 14:25, however, there are certain manifestations which anyone can recognize.
This, in turn, suggests a fourth point: The local church is a group among whom God should be recognized practically as the only one with the authority to make decisions for the group. I say “should” here because there is, it seems, some room for shortcoming in this area as evidenced by the church at Corinth, though, we do not know to what extent this shortcoming was truly manifest. It is my view that there was still in Corinth a core of relatively mature elders who were not participants in much of the bahavior Paul addresses in his letter.
In any event, I have suggested four little steps toward understanding the nature of the local church:
1. It is a collection of people without organizational structure or institutional identity.
2. There are qualifications for these people both individually and collectively.
3. The power of God is shown among these people and in their interactions with each other, in particular.
4. God is recognized as the direct authority over the group. The head of every man is Christ.
These still constitute only a broad outline. They point out, nevertheless, why the Church has nothing to do with the work of Christ and why it is a practical denial of the (true) local church and, hence, the church in general.
Before I attempt a couple points or illustrations under each of the braod headings above, let me pause to consider your definition of Church as “the Spirit-inspired, God-ordained, Christ-centered Bride, as identified in Scripture, by the inspired words of the Apostles.”
I suppose I don’t have any problem with any of what you have there. In a sense, however, I think that maybe most of what you have could just be summed up in saying, “the real thing” or what I would call the (true) church. I have, however, tried to be more specific on the nature of this entity (to distinguish it from (human) organizations and institutions). And I have distinguished two distinct forms:
church: God knows those that are his
local church: Let those that name the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Aside from that, you mention the notion of this entity being identified in scripture (enough with the capitals already). So, we need to think hard about how, specifically, it is identified. Let me try to fill in some of those specifics, and maybe things will become clearer.
1. This collection of people “comes together.” They meet together. I do not believe that any claim of their identity is critical here. (And note that this is the primary centerpiece of gathering together for the Church.) What is important is their gathering together in practical recognition of the identity of Jesus as savior and lord and God the father as protector, provider, director, organizer, etc. These things are brought about by the Spirit of God, but I see no specific recognition of the identity of the Spirit in regard to meeting recorded in scripture (correct me if I am wrong).
They meet together with the express objective of preparing themselves to serve God and to meet Jesus. Making people holy, spiritually aware and conformed to the expectations of God for man is the topic about which the apostles had the most to say; the church’s gathering is directly related to this, and any collection of people who has another activity or objective as central to their meeting has dubious claims to be recognized as a local church, at best.
Note well, that most Churches specifically put forth “worship” as the primary purpose for their gathering. This notion is completely absent from the writings of the apostles. None of them ever met with believers to “worship.” After that, you might find “for preaching,” by which they mean the one-man-show with which we are all so familiar—but not from those scriptures which you suggest “identify” the church
2. Qualifications. In my opinion, the fundamental qualification here is an expression of faith. Of course, this must be discerned, and as far as I can discern, anyone (especially a Church clergyman) who recognizes a human institution in place of the local activity of God in the world through Christ is clearly disqualified.
On the other hand, there are specific references by the apostles to specific expressions of faith that are shared “by all the churches.” And these, while not exhaustive, should certainly be included among the “apostolic identification” you have mentioned and, at the present time, for those with little discernment, give a good indication of where to start. What are some of these things?
Two specific ones are found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:
I Corinthians 11:16 says
If any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
To what is he referring? He is referring to women who profess belief in the local church having their heads covered. The particular verse above, which expresses the universality of this custom in the (true) church, might be easier to parse with the parenthetical phrase (and suggests a different custom) after the word “contentious.”
This is apparently one “tradition,” among others that Paul taught as appropriate for believers. It is interesting to note that it is one concerning which he specifically commended them. So much for the all encompassing carnality of the church at Corinth preached by the hypocrites of the Church.
Also, in chapter 14:
As in all the churches of the holy ones, let your women keep silence among the church, for it is not permitted for them to speak…
There are two qualifications. Does the group you identify as the church agree with what Paul said was true of all (local) churches?
I do not claim that these are in any way exhaustive, but they are simple to understand if approached with faith and quite telling when it comes to discerning how the apostles would view the Church. It may not be fashionable to say it at the moment, but they are also important.
As I say, those are simple. Here are three more which I think are also accurate expressions of God’s qualifications, though it has taken years for me to understand them.
If you put together the Corinthian’s response to Paul’s chastening with his explanation of it in II Cor. 7:10-11, I think you find that one of the qualifications is an openness to the truth and correction and an appropriate response to them. Perhaps this will not be seen in every individual, but if it is not, then it is to be interpreted/discerned as a disqualification. Note that the man disciplined was not considered removed from the church (he was to be saved in the day of Christ) but he needed to be taken away from the only visible manifestation of the church on earth—the local church. Thus, I think there must be at least a nucleus of believers, if not a majority, who respond to the truth of God.
This includes response to teaching about the nature of the church. If what I am saying is correct, then the Church’s clergy has disqualified itself.
And this is a good time for me to mention that it really doesn’t matter what I think are the qualifications. If indeed there are qualifications, then anyone making claims is qualified or disqualified before God. They have no power to participate in the church. One can only do so through the power of God. The fact that I discern disqualification is of little consequence, though maybe helpful for me…and you.
Another qualification, as far as I can see: The existence of some notable level of maturity on the part of at least some viewed as leaders among the people. (This seems to be present in all scriptural examples, and I think it would go a long way for us if we considered it a qualification.)
Another: The practical recognition that one’s words and actions should be directed first and foremost for the help of others in the body (local
church).
It should be noted that at some stage, these become not a list of qualifications as in “rules” by which one can construct a local church, because only God can create a local church, or as I like to say, an expression of local church. But these are a collection of guidelines by which one can discern the existence of an expression of local church that God has created—I think that is the best we can do at the present time. Not that God ever intended to provide a list of rules for the construction of the local church, but designation was appropriate in the presence of the apostles in a way in which it no longer is. Furthermore, an interpretation of the scriptures as a recipe for men to build an institution leads to various forms of Church.
In this direction, I would add one more guideline: Extreme humility. Do not look for a group which claims to be an expression of the church and designates elders and others (as did the apostles). We do not have the apostles with us to make such designations. Look instead for the actions of elders being effective in the body without recognition or designation from men. Do not look for claims of being the church; look for the qualifications.
This has become long, and I have not addressed the expression of God’s power in the church nor the practical acceptance of God’s decision making. But let me leave it at this and see what you say (and if you’re interested to hear more). If you are understanding me at all, this should seem very different from what you’ve heard about the church before. Here is a kind of outline, which may be helpful in composing your comments.
The local church:
1. A collection of people who meet together locally in order to
(a) recognize the action of God the father through his son Jesus Christ, and
(b) help one another become practically righteous (holy) and prepare themselves for service to God.
2. Qualifications.
Evident in scriptures
(a) Mature leaders (in function) who can discern and respond to the truth.
(b) Order between men and women.
(c) Concern for the progress of others above the hollow recognition of individuals.
Not so evident from the scriptures, but appropriate for the present time.
(d) Extreme humility; the absence of claims and designation.
3. Evidence of the direct working of the power of God. (not discussed)
(a) Deep understanding.
(b) Discernment of what is appropriate for the time.
(c) Obedience to Christ.
4. Recognition of God’s direct governance. (not discussed)
(a) Leaders/elders are not directors.
(b) Freedom before men interacts with accountability before God.
It’s not a very well thought out or well organized outline, and I may not present things (or understand things) very well. But I think that when you start to see what the local church is really all about, you will see that (your church) = (my Church) is not even in the ball park. To attempt a sorry anology, it will be like understanding what the constitution is about and what the founders had in mind, and seeing that nothing we are looking at (i.e., the current U.S. Federal Government or the view of it held by all but a negligible portion of U.S. citizens—not to mention politicians) is even in the ball park.
Maybe some simple question for a start:
1. Do you agree that there is one church *and* that there are local churches which are different but related things?
2. Do you agree that there are qualifications for individuals to participate in the local church?
3. Do you agree that there are qualifications for a collection of people to be accounted a local church (by God)?
6 February 2008 at 16 35
It occurs to me that you may not find my designation of a human institution or organization clear, so let me list some specifics by which an organization may be recognized (that one doesn’t find in the church).
1. Treasury. (Notice that believers were instructed to save their contributions “by themselves,” i.e., at home. Had they had a treasury, these instructions would have been different. This, of course, does not mean that there was no giving; it means that there was no organization present to maintain a treasury. That which was given was apparently immediately dispensed.)
2. Buildings.
3. Arbitrary decisions made by people. By arbitrary, I mean administrative decisions that have no relation to revelation from God: who will light the candles, who will cut the grass… (Ignatius gives a good example; also the Amish in prescribing every detail of life independent of revelation from God. Often these kind of decisions are harmless enough, but often they are just silly, and sometimes seriously flawed, as with Ignatius.)
4. Names. Note well, that believers never called themselves “Christians.” They were only called that by people who persecuted them. Sorry, Brian, about the reflection this has your your “becoming a Christian” link. Notice that Paul when confronted with the prospect of Agrippa becoming a “Christian” does not want them to be “both almost and altogether a Christian,” but rather than take that name he wants them to be both almost and altogether as he is. There seems to be a general void in the apostolic writings concerning a name: “that way,” “the brethren,” “those who believed” (all very generic terms). Compare, of course, Baptist, Amish, Lutheran, etc.
5. Auxilliary organizations, committees. Finance committee, elections committee, grounds committee,…
7 February 2008 at 15 51
I’ll accept your capitalization scheme. Allow me to take your comments in (mostly) reverse order.
To your list of extraneous appendages, I would add such things as youth groups and virtually every other program under the umbrella of the modern Church (TM). The megachurches are alomst caricatures in this regard: Second Baptist in Houston has a campus that covers literally acres, including a strip mall with beauty shops and, if memory serves, a bowling alley. (Of course, that’s the macro end of the scale; smaller churches have this blight, too)
As far as names go, I use the “Christian” moniker as a sort of linguistic shorthand, or term that has broad currency; in face-to-face conversation, I prefer to use such (arguably) better terminology as “believer,” as in, for example, “Do you know whether so-and-so is a believer?” I started this when I realized that there are so many of the lost who start looking for horns when they hear the word “christian.”
You’ll have to better explain those arbitrary decisions; I’m familiar with neither Ignatius nor the Amish. But “arbitrary decisions” strikes me as just that — arbitrary, and more than likely, unimportant. If you mean institutionalizing them, it’s a mystery to me how that could ever happen, so I don’t guess I’m a good candidate for that discussion.
Buildings, in my mind, are irrelevant. The services that I have most enjoyed attending were held in the living room of a fellow believer’s home. Certainly, las with anything else, idolatry — pride in, and insistence upon the use of, Church buildings — would be contraindicated.
I never really bought into that polity-as-storehouse claptrap, anyway. For the past year, at least, I have strongly questioned the propriaty of giving a tithe to a group of men, who will use it according — loosely — to the dictates of the body, but who I have no concrete reason to trust to use in accordance with my wishes. That sounds a lot like a “Church tax” to me. Not an indulgence, per se, but indistinguishable from a function of the secular government (of which, by the way, I also question the legitimacy).
I don’t think there is such a gulf between our thoughts on these matters as you seem to believe. In short, I think you may have assigned to me more rigidity than I posess; I can only assume that the blame for that lies at my feet, and that I have not argued my positions well. I will respond later to your previous comment, hopefully more coherently, and perhaps the gulf will be bridged.
Sort of a non sequitur, but maybe not really: I have been struck recently, as will be discussed in a future post, by the profound statement Christ made in Luke 10:41-42, and what, exactly, the implications of that statement must be. I think this may be the crux of the conversation, here. (certainly related to Matthew 6:33 and Deuteronomy 6:5/Matthew 22:37/Mark 12:29-30 and others)
13 February 2008 at 13 34
I’ve been out (i.e., free) for so long, that I had forgotten about “youth groups.”
Arbitrary decisions. Ignatius was worried about the future of his organization in light of persecution and what he viewed as the influence of false teachers. He decided that the best strategy was for all believers to put trust in the (humanly appointed) leaders, and not do much of anything without their presence and approval. He wrote extensively about how important the overseers and pastors were and his idea of proper submission to them. He basically laid the framework for “apostolic succession” which led to the institutionalization of that error in the Catholic and Anglican churches. They still rely heavily on his prescription(s), and if it’s a mystery to you how that came about, then you know less about the Church than I would have guessed. If you want to think of such things as unimportant, then that’s fine. They are unimportant for the church. But recall that I was discussing the differences between the church and the Church—and such things are of huge importance in the Church.
Second example: The Amish leaders decide that cars take people far away from home, which is bad, so…no cars…or they’ll kick you out. They decide that everybody needs to wear blue and brown (or black and blue). If not, you’re out. No buttons, no electricity—worldly. These are what I call arbitrary decisions—ones the leaders make for the sake of maintaining control in their man-made organization, their Church. Indeed they’re not important to the church and not important to Christ, but these organizations make the claim to have something to do with Christ, and one of the signs that their claim is false is the existence of such *arbitrary decisions*. We don’t need to discuss it if you don’t want to, but I hope what I was saying is clearer.
I’m tickled pink that we agree. I could try to pick further at your Churchy lingo, but I’ve said a lot, and you’ve been very amicable (charitable mabye), so let me set it aside for now, and get to something more important. That is let’s see what you have been struck by in the scriptures:
Mary at the feet of Jesus.
Seek first the kingdom of God
Love the Lord your God (x 3)
So, please let me know your view of the crux of the conversation.
13 February 2008 at 14 29
I, too, anticipate your post on Luke 10:41-42…..
13 March 2008 at 6 42
Not to distract attention from your husband’s anticipated post, Georgia, I have (in the mean time) a question for you. You mention on your blog that “All that time spent in urban areas tells me that we do not fit in here.” When I first read that, I interpreted “here” as “urban areas” and that you were happy to be out of the rat race. Having chanced by your blog again (to check out your quilting adventure—quilting being an activity in which I also have an interest), I realized that you might have meant the opposite, namely, that you don’t feel you fit in in a small town. What do you really mean? And I’d be interested to know what “tells” you whatever you are being told about not fitting in.