Religion vs. Relationship

I have seen this meme going around Facebook. Some of the sources credit it to David E. Taylor: “Religion is a guy in church thinking about fishing. Relationship is a guy out fishing thinking about God.”

I think this has a genuine point it is trying to make. What I assume is intended is to highlight the posture of the heart. Yes, you can be bodily in a church service, while the heart is not there. And when you have a relationship with God, it goes with you everywhere you go, at all times, even fishing. Truth.

I probably could just stop there, but on the other hand I see possible deficiencies leading to misunderstanding.

The first two are somewhat minor. The meme stereotypes the word “religion” as negative, while in fact it can be meant either positive, neutral, or negative. And the meme can leave the impression that church is just a building where we go. The church is the people, the congregation. I don’t stop here, because I think the way some people will take this meme is to try to justify going fishing in place of going to church. I have heard many justify it in almost this way!

What one is thinking at these two different times (church vs. fishing) reveals something of the heart. However, the meme contains a logical fallacy (false dilemma) that limits the choices to two. It misses other options (one can fishing and not be thinking about God). It especially misses this much better option – to be at present when the time comes to assemble with our fellow believers AND to be thinking about God! What a blessing!

We don’t want to just go through the motions. We want to truly connect with God. We can do that while gathered at church. We should do that while gathered at church. While first and foremost is our relationship with God, we also have an obligation to our relationship with believers, and to obey the command of God to assemble.

Where the heart is is important (cf. Matthew 6:21). Our connection to and relationship with God certainly is not confined to one location. It is a lifetime of moments, thoughts, and places. Nevertheless, if we do not feel close to God when we gather in church, the solution is not to go fishing, but to examine our hearts. And if we do not feel close to God when we are fishing – or at work or at home – that is cause to examine our hearts as well.

Deuteronomy 6:5 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Deacons

From a liberal magazine, re Deacons. This is not posted as an analysis or endorsement of the following material, but more as a matter of saving it for review.

“Deacons and the go-between God,” Ed Kaneen. The Baptist Ministers’ Journal, October 2012, Volume 316, journal of The Baptist Ministers’ Fellowship (of Wales?), 18-24.

“In a landmark publication in 1990,⁴ John N. Collins surveyed diakonos in ancient sources outside the Bible. He discovered people described by this term doing such varied work as ambassadors, pagan priests, Lotharios, and even contract killers! While the term could also be used to describe servants and those who ‘wait on tables’, these ideas did not form the core semantic field. Rather, Collins proposed such ideas as ‘go-between’, ‘representative’, and ‘agent’, and suggested that this was true of the New Testament also. The significance of this change should not be underestimated: as Collins puts it, ‘a redefinition of the Greek words is inevitably going to work towards a reassessment of the deacon and his office’ (Diakonia: re-interpreting the ancient sources. New York: OUP, 1990, p. 41).” (Page 19)

‘go-between’ is an appropriate gloss for the New Testament ‘deacon’, and can contribute to a theological understanding of the modern diaconate. (Page 23)

Apart from the gospels,⁶ the term diakonos only occurs in the Pauline literature, where we find nine individuals so named.⁷ Only in two passages are deacons referred to in a corporate sense (Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8, 12), where they probably represent distinct groups of church leaders. This has led to a tendency, found also in Fiddes’ work, to draw a distinction between the former examples, where diakonos is a description of the ministry of some New Testament figures, and the latter two examples, where diakonos is probably the title of an ecclesial office. (Page 23)

4. John N. Collins, Diakonia: re-interpreting the ancient sources. New York: OUP, 1990.

6. The gospels occasionally use the term, primarily in one saying (Mark 10:43 and pars), but we do not have space to pursue this here. [Note: “pars” or “pars.” is an abbreviation for “parallel passages” in academic and biblical contexts. rlv]

7. Rulers (Rom 13:4); Christ (Rom 15:8; Gal 2:17); Phoebe (Rom 16:1); Paul (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25); Apollos (1 Cor 3:5); Timothy (2 Cor 3:6, 6:4; 1 Tim 4:6); false apostles (2 Cor 11:15, 23); Tychichus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7); Epaphras (Col 1:7). Note that twice these ‘individuals’ are groups: rulers and false apostles.

This is important for Fiddes, also, who says, ‘They [deacons] gave service in two directions—to the community and also to the episkopos [overseer = elder/minister] whom they assisted’ (A Leading Question: The Structure and Authority of Leadership in the Local Church. Didcot: Baptist Publications. 1983, p. 32). p. 25

The Baptist Ministers’ Journal, October 2012 volume 316, journal of The Baptist Ministers’ Fellowship (of Wales?)

Baptists and Evangelicals

While, as you know, I am not Southern Baptist, I believe this comment below by Malcolm Yarnell is worthwhile for general instruction for all of us who are Baptists. Many Baptists seem to think they are just evangelicals, but there are reasonable reasons to understand that we actually are not.

“...Southern Baptists must never compromise those beliefs which have made us Baptists: specifically, the drive for a regenerate New Testament church membership, founded upon the biblical and historical doctrine of the divine–human covenant, evidenced at first in the ordinance of believers-only baptism by immersion, continually expressed in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, lovingly maintained by the practice of local church discipline, and fervently expanded by the expository proclamation of the Word of God. Southern Baptists will endeavour to speak these and other non-negotiable truths in love, inviting evangelicals inter alia to join us in becoming consistent with Scripture, not only theologically but ecclesiologically.”

“Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals? A Second Decadal Reassessment,” Malcolm Yarnell III, Ecclesiology 2.2 (2005) SAGE Publications, page 212

inter alia: (adverb) among other things.

Maybe they’ll take up an offering

The following story told by a preacher that I heard in a chapel service over forty years ago. I have long since forgotten the name of the preacher who told it, but I well remember the story. It is a good illustration of one of the problems of the so-called “universal invisible church.” 

A member of a singing group contacted this pastor by telephone. The singing group was trying to schedule visits to sing at the various churches in his area. The pastor was not familiar with the group. The man who called explained that were not charging for coming; they only asked that the church take up an offering for them. In the process of the conversation, the pastor asked the singer what church they were members of. The man answered, “Oh, we’re part of the universal invisible church.” The pastor replied, “Well, why don’t you just sing for them, and maybe they will take up an offering for you.”

So ended the conversation.

AI Worship (and Preaching)

“Can a soul-less artist produce a soul-full act of worship?”

I am very concerned about AI in general, and when it invades Christian preaching and singing, so much the worse.[i]

In 1996, I wrote an imaginary “Possible Scenario – Any Church, USA,” lamenting how some churches were projecting music and preaching on screens instead of having real people lead their worship. In the “possible scenario” the church pews became people-empty, but filled with cassette players. The silence was broken only by an occasional electronic “amen.”[ii] Not as good as Orwell’s book 1984, yet my “1996” has become “2026.” Except perhaps the members now won’t even bother with a source for electronic amens. Now here is this.

“How does Ray feel about this sudden success? He doesn’t. Because Ray doesn’t feel anything. His voice, his songs, his music, his appearance and even his ‘Mississippi Soul’ branding are entirely AI-generated. The current No. 1 ‘Christian artist’ is not a person. It is a product.”

The No. 1 “Christian artist” is neither Christian nor an artist. “He” is not even human.

We can complain about it – and rightfully so – but modern Christians have been headed toward this path for years. We just didn’t have all the technology previously (and don’t have all the technology now that we will have).

Disclaimer: I first saw this report at Baptist New Global (BNG), which I have linked to, and have not looked elsewhere for a better source. This link is definitely not a recommendation of BNG or the author of this piece. Nevertheless, we agree on the problematic nature of “AI worship.” “My real concern with AI-generated worship music is not so much that AI songs will ‘infect’ Christian worship, but that Christian worship already has drifted into a thin, commercialized space where emotional accessibility is mistaken for spiritual depth.”

---

[i] We have to wonder how many sermons are now created by AI rather than study, sweat, and prayer – and the Holy Spirit.
[ii] Yes, that was a few years ago! I updated it in 2016 to “CD players, DVRs and such like,” but I think that is mostly out of date now too.

The church, its nature and purpose

Initial questions.

1. What is the church? This question asks of its being, nature, or essence. It is an ontological question.[i] 
2. What does the church do? This question asks of its duty, purpose, or work. It is a functional question.[ii] 

Ontological question.

The church is a specific assembly of people.[iii] The people are born again believers, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, baptized upon the profession of their faith. A church is not an imaginary invisible body that none can see or hear. A church is not a denominational group or organizational hierarchy. The church begins with those who are born again by the Holy Spirit (John 3:7; 1 Peter 1:23),[iv] baptized upon the profession of their faith (Acts 8:37-38), and covenanted together to gather in Jesus’s name (Matthew 18:20). The church is not just an expression of some mystical invisible church, but is made up of baptized believers gathering together (1 Corinthians 11:18; 14:23; Hebrews 10:25), is in the world as an ambassage representing Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), and can be identified locally/geographically as an expression of Christ's kingdom (the church at Corinth, the churches of Galatia, the seven churches of Asia, etc.).

Functional question.

A correct answer to the “functional” question of what the church does will harmonize with the “ontological” question of what the church is. It will do what assemblies of believers do.[v] Too often an answer regarding what church is supposed “to do” does not take in to account what the church “is.” Many answers are simply pragmatic postures of human innovation. Other answers are mystical nonsense. In neither of these do we see something that resembles how the church functions in the New Testament.[vi]

What the church does can be characterized as assembling and dispersing, gathering and going, worship and witness. What the church does, based on biblical faith and practice, includes: preaching/teaching the word of God, administering the ordinances, evangelizing the lost, aiding the poor (including widows and orphans), encouraging the weak, exhorting the doubters, and in general exercising the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of the assembly. These things are seen in the function of the New Testament churches, doing what they are commanded to do, and functioning based on what they are.[vii]

Final thoughts.

If we do not know what a church is, we also will not know what a church is supposed to do. It becomes anything, everything, and nothing. Often we end up with “Frankenchurch,” a monster assembled by quack doctors using various unharmonious bits and pieces. It may transform into something similar to what was described in a recent Facebook post:

“A lot of churches today are cemeteries with air conditioning; the worship teams are entertainers; the pastors avoid truth; and the congregation sleepwalks through the motions; and people call that faithfulness. No, it is spiritual death dressed in Sunday’s best.”[viii]

---

[i] Ontological, adjective. Of or relating to ontology, the study of the nature or essence of existence or being as such.
[ii] Functional, adjective. Of or connected to design or specific use; serving the purpose for which a thing is designed.
[iii] In prospect, it may be viewed as a general assembly of all firstborn, gathered together in Christ, in eternity. Cf.  Hebrew 12:22-23; Revelation 21:1-14. In the present, the church is a covenanted congregation of baptized believers.
[iv] This position is often called “regenerate church membership.”
[v] As seen in the Bible in what they are commanded to do (e.g. Matthew 28:18-20), and in what they are represented as doing. Cf., for example, Matthew 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-47; Acts 8:1; Acts 12:5, 12; Acts 13:1ff.; Acts 14:27; Acts 20:27-28; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 1 Corinthians 11:7-34; 1 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 9:1-7; Colossians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:18; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 3:1-15; 1 Peter 5:1-4, 14; 1 John 1:3; 3 John 1:5-8.
[vi] Which is our rule of faith and practice.
[vii] Both the nature of the church and the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice insist that our congregational gatherings be restricted to those elements that Scripture requires – praying, thanksgiving, praising, singing, Scripture reading, preaching/teaching, giving, observing the ordinances, ordination and sending, testimonies, greetings, reporting the Lord’s work, decision-making, and church discipline. Any element must be understood from a command, approved example, or necessary implication of Scripture.
[viii] This was posted (in a video) on Facebook by a man who goes by the name “Topher.”

A Landmark Southern Baptist Association in Texas

It is curiously intriguing that some modern-day Southern Baptists – particularly Southern Baptists with “anti-Landmark” sentiments – exert energy and effort to rescue their heroes from the charge of being “Landmark Baptist.” (For two quick examples of “rescuing” B. H. Carroll, see the notes below.[i] ) Into this fray steps the Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of Shelby County.

I encountered this intriguing example of “rescue” – or plain old historical ignorance – when trying to ferret out the history of the Shelby-Doches Baptist Association (a local association of Southern Baptist churches in our area). The history of the Nacogdoches Association was clear enough to me. I was already familiar with it. However, I kept running into road blocks, into confusing and contradictory assertions regarding the “Shelby County” Association.[ii] Shelby-Doches Association organized in 1925 as a merger of the Nacogdoches and Sabine River Associations.[iii] So far, however, I have not seen a Texas Baptist historian identify the origin of the Sabine River Association, which obviously existed before it merged with the Nacogdoches Association. I discovered that the Sabine River Association was organized circa 1902-03 as the Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of Shelby County, by a minority of Shelby County Missionary Baptist Association churches that wanted to maintain affiliation and cooperation with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.[iv] The 1909 meeting at Clever Creek was called the 7th Annual Session. After 1911 and by 1914, the name was changed to Sabine River Baptist Association of Shelby County.[v]

I suppose that historians have not deliberately suppressed the fact that the Southern Baptist split from the Shelby County Missionary Association was called “Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of Shelby County.” I suspect it is more likely that it has not crossed many minds that this was a group of churches supporting the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Southern Baptist Convention.[vi]

It is provocative that the Southern Baptist minority – denominational supporters of the Baptist General Convention of Texas – on the same side as B. H. Carroll – took the name “Landmark,” a name which detractors say only identifies those who split from the Convention! They were denominational Landmarkers—whether or not it makes sense. In my opinion, this circumstance should give the naysayers pause when they try to separate “Landmark” from “supporting the Convention.”[vii]

---

[i] “…the only movement that Carroll did support which had Landmark influences was the Whitsitt Controversy; and although that controversy dealt with successionism, it was only a secondary issue for Carroll. Carroll did share some theological and historical views with the Landmarkists, but there were too many areas of disagreement to consider him a true Landmarker.” (Fighting the Good Fight: the Life and Work of Benajah Harvey Carroll, Alan J. Lefever, Austin, TX: Eakin Press, 1994, p. 75)
“If he was a Landmarker, he was a denominational Landmarker—and that doesn’t make sense.” (“B. H. Carroll defies narrow theological labels, historians assert,” The Baptist Standard, November 13, 2014) Alan Lefever is director of the Texas Baptist Historical Collection
“While Carroll agitated for Whitsitt’s removal, he never fully embraced the Landmark understanding of Baptist origins as championed by his younger brother J. M. Carroll.” (The Worst Decision B. H. Carroll Never Made: Southern Seminary, the Whitsitt Controversy & the Quest for Institutional Accountability, Jason K. Allen; President of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Kansas City, Missouri)
[ii] Perhaps exacerbated in part by several associations including the word “Sabine” in their names (Sabine, Sabine River, Sabine-Neches, Sabine Valley – and also some people confusing the words “Saline” and “Sabine.”
[iii] “Texas Associations,” J. D. Brandon, Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume II, Norman W. Cox, editor. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1958, p. 1397. “According to previous agreement messengers of the churches of what had formerly composed the Nacogdoches Baptist Association of Nacogdoches County, Texas and the Sabine River Association of Shelby County, Texas met here at the Baptist Church of this village [Martinsville, Nacogdoches County, Texas] to organize the Shelby-Doches Baptist Association, to cover the territory of the two counties.” (Minutes of the First Annual Session of the Shelby-Doches Missionary Baptist Association, October 8-9, 1925, p. 3)
[iv] “Circa” because I have not found the organizational minutes. 1902-03 is based on the dating of the annual sessions.
[v] See minutes held in the collection at the A. Webb Roberts Library of Southwestern Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
[vi] Thereby never bothering to make the connection.
[vii] It is my understanding that the entire ministry of Landmarker “J. R. Graves” was spent in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Views of Baptist Origins, reprise

Back in 2007, I posted a “Views of Baptist Origins” outline. As I looked around the blog, I did not find that I ever posted the “final” version that I used in the booklet A Better Paradigm for the Study of Baptist History? Here it is, below:

Outline of various views of Baptist origins, presented in a chronologically-oriented format.

                I. Apostolic origins (continuation theories)

a.      Continuation of biblical teachings (spiritual succession)

b.      Succession of Baptist churches

                            i.     Church perpetuity

                            ii.     Chain-link succession

1.      Church succession (succession of church organizations)

2.      Apostolic succession (succession of valid ordinations)

3.      Baptismal succession (succession of valid baptisms)

                II. Post-apostolic origins (restoration or non-continuation theories)

a.      Converging streams/Multiple origins

b.      Spontaneous origination

                             i.     Influence of Anabaptists

                             ii.     Outgrowth of English Separatism

See also: 

• The study of Baptist origins
• Classifications of Baptist Historians
• Spontaneous origination of Baptists
• Restoration views of Baptist origins
• Continuation of Baptist churches or baptistic principles
• Why are Baptists still discussing their origins?
• My opinion on continuation/succession

These thoughts were written almost 20 years ago now. I might change a few things if I were writing them today (hopefully I have learned a little something in 18 years). However, I think they are still substantially accurate and representative of my thoughts.

Church covenants and Church relationships

Churches should have a covenant relationship. Instead, many churches have consumer relationship.

Covenant relationship.

A covenant is a formal agreement or sincere promise between two or more parties to both act and not act in certain ways. Particularly in a church relationship, this also includes agreeing that they believe and not believe certain teachings. A church covenant relationship, then, is based on mutual agreement or sincere promises between the members of the congregation.

A “church covenant” is based on:

• mutual commitment
• interdependence
• brotherly love

A covenant relationship is a relationship with commitment (Romans 15:5-7; Ephesians 5:21), communication (1 Thessalonians 4:18;; 5:11; James 5:16), concern (John 15:12; Hebrews 13:17), devotion (Romans 12:10; 16:16), determination (Hebrews 10:24-25; Ephesians 4:32), and exhortation (Romans 15:14; 1 Timothy 6:2). A covenant cannot and should not be lightly broken. It is entered by the commitment of two parties (the church & the individual). There is a unified commitment to follow Christ as head and each observe his responsibility one toward another.

Consumer relationship.

A consumer is a person who uses a commodity or service; one who purchases goods and services for personal consumption (benefit). A consumer relationship, then, is based on the provision and consumption of services. When satisfactory service is no longer provided, a new provider is sought out.

A scan of the present “church’s desolation” makes it obvious that many members attach themselves to churches as a consumer in a consumer relationship. They attend the church when it provides the services they desire. When those benefits are no longer being provided, they leave and look for another church.

Question.

Will we choose to follow the Bible, or follow the world?

Credobaptism

Introduction.

“Us simple folk” are more likely to refer to “believer’s baptism” or “believer’s immersion” than to credobaptism – but credobaptism is good terminology, and sits well across from the more common or popular term “pedobaptism.”

Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing only those who make a conscious credible profession of faith. Believer’s baptism.

Pedobaptism, or paeodobaptism (from the Greek word paido meaning “child” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or small children (usually on the credit of their parents being believers). Infant baptism.

More important than the right terminology is the right theology. Credobaptism is right biblical orthodoxy (right belief), biblical orthopraxy (right practice), and biblical orthokardy (right heart). Orthodoxy is always essential for Orthopraxy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3:4; James 1:22-25); Orthopraxy is always essential to Orthokardy (Hebrews 8:5; John 14:15); Orthokardy is always essential to Orthodoxy (John 4:24; 13:35; I Corinthians 13:1-3). 

Credobaptism is Biblical.[i]

The biblical theology, orthodoxy. Credobaptism fits the doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology. Salvation is by grace through faith, with a good confession required prior to baptism. The church is a congregation made up of a regenerate (born again, believing) membership. No fuzzy math is needed to fit credobaptism with these theologies.

The biblical example, orthopraxy. Throughout the New Testament there are clear examples of the baptism of adults who responded in belief to the preaching of the gospel. This is indisputable, even by those who practice pedobaptism. Infant baptism is at best inferred – but the inferred passages do not stand up to scrutiny. See “Household Baptisms” and “Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children.”

The biblical unity, orthokardy. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and much of the Protestant tradition, there are multiple baptisms – baptism of unknowing infants and baptism of professing believers; baptism by sprinkling, baptism by pouring, and baptism by immersion. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity.

Biblical theology and practice settle the matter. However, there are two supporting legs that fit properly into the biblical theology and practice.

Credobaptism is Practical.

The believing person submitting to baptism acts in a manner in response to God, answering a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).[ii] That person will understand the purpose of baptism (Acts 8:37), encounter the rite in an experiential way (Acts 8:38), and remember the experience (Acts 8:39). Both the conscience and conscious are involved. There will be no mental void where baptism is concerned. You will not have to be told by someone else that you were baptized. The baptism of believers is meet, fitting, “suited to every sinner’s case.”[iii]

Credobaptism is Historical. 

Credobaptism is the historic New Testament practice – and the historic practice of the early churches before the rite was corrupted. It continued to be historical in churches that practiced it, even when most others had departed from biblical faith and practice. 

In some of the early sources such as the Didache, believer’s baptism can be seen, even though little additions were beginning to creep in.[iv] For example, that the persons being baptized are volitional believers is assumed, in that they are commanded to fast before they were baptized (Didache, 7.4).

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows the build-up of non-biblical practice, while still maintaining a general baptismal base practice that arises from believer’s baptism. The catechumens were asked about their belief in God the Father, their belief in God the Son, and their belief in God the Holy Spirit.[v]

“That the churches of the post-apostolic age did not long remain faithful to apostolic precept and example in all respects [not just baptism, rlv] would be generally admitted.” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609, Albert Henry Newman, page 1)

Conclusion.

“Infant baptism was an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of the magical efficacy of water baptism itself to impart salvation. One countervailing error that slowed its introduction was the idea held and taught by some that ‘mortal sins’ committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Quite a reason to delay baptism to the expected end of life!”[vi]

This is not to say that every denomination that practices pedobaptism believes there is magical efficacy of salvation in the water. However, the origins of it are inexplicably tied to such superstitions, and the maintenance of the practice reveals a deficiency in applying sola scriptura to an extra-biblical, emotional, incremental, and traditional practice.

Credobaptism stands on solid ground. The Bible supports it. It is, unsurprisingly, universally recognized as scriptural by all Christian churches that practice some form of baptism. All other forms are on shifting sand.

---

[i] Most Bible students are forced to admit this – unless they have jettisoned baptism altogether. Baptism of believers is obvious, exampled, and necessary. Baptism of infants has no biblical example, is unnecessary, and must be extrapolated (after a fashion) from the old covenant circumcision.
[ii] The person about to submit to baptism or the person who has just been baptized is called a “baptizand.” That terminology is not in common use among most Baptists, at least in my experience.

[iii] Baptism is delayed until a credible profession of faith (credobaptism vs. pedobaptism) but not delayed after a credible profession of faith.
[iv] However, the additions likely were not in the original document.
[v] The three questions before baptism were: “Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?” “Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, etc.?” “Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost…?” The baptizand was required to answer in the affirmative, “I believe.”
[vi] Source lost, unknown (Or else I wrote this, but I do not remember that I did.)

The Church, the Body

THE CHURCH, THE BODY

The Bible uses many metaphors to refer to the church, the local congregation of baptized believers. Many of them are familiar to us – a bride (John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2), a building (1 Corinthians 3:9; Psalm 127:1), a city/Zion (Matthew 5:14; 1 Peter 2:6-10; Psalm 127:1), a field (1 Corinthians 3:6-9), a flock (Luke 12:32), a house or temple (Ephesians 2:20–22; 1 Timothy 3:15). The church is a bride and Jesus the husband; a building and Jesus the builder, a field and Jesus the owner, a flock and Jesus the shepherd, a temple and Jesus the inhabiter of it.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Here the church metaphor is “body.”

Romans 12:4-8 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

The teaching through the metaphor of “the body” emphasizes unity (one life), diversity (many parts, functions), and headship (one head). It puts us in our place.

It puts us in our place in regard to ourselves. We are not alone (Romans 12:3 “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think”)

• Considering the church as a body jettisons high thoughts of ourselves (“not to think of himself more highly”).
• Considering the church as a body reminds us God is working with others (“God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith”).
• Considering the church as a body exalts the goodness of each having his own important and varying gifts (“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us”).

It puts us in our place in regard to one another. We are the body (1 Corinthians 12:27 “ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular”). 1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

• The church as a body is one in the unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3 “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”). There is organic unity and practical unity.
• The church as a body serves both the head and one another (1 Corinthians 12:4-6 “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all”). 
• The church as a body, through differing gifts of the Spirit, can serve and function effectively and efficiently (1 Corinthians 12:4–7). Every member has an unique function and also depends on the other members (1 Corinthians 12:14–25). 
• The church as a body – the whole body, every member of it – shares one and the same life.  “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” (1 Corinthians 12:26).

It puts us in our place in regard to our Lord. Christ is the head (Colossians 1:18 “And he is the head of the body, the church”). 

• Jesus Christ is head in the sense of authority to whom we submit (Ephesians 5:23–24 “the church is subject unto Christ”). 
• Jesus Christ is head in the sense of influencing and ministering to the body, e.g. for health and growth (Colossians 2:19 “the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together”). 
• Jesus Christ is head in the sense of his exercising power over the body for its good. He is the Saviour of the body (Ephesians 5:23).

We church members need to be put in our place, in at least two senses.

To put someone is his place is to remind someone of his position, to show him he is not better than others, not as important as one thinks he is. Understanding the church as a body performs this function for us. We are part of something bigger than ourselves

To put something is its place is to position or arrange an object correctly, such as installing physical objects in their intended or correct location. A library book has a certain and exact number which identifies its placement in the proper order in relation to the rest of the books on the shelf. Understanding the church as a body teaches us of our proper placement “on the shelf” – under and subject to the head of the body, Jesus Christ.

Universality and unity

I found the following comments saved on my computer. I did not write down the source. I have searched and not found a source. I might have written this, or might have copied and pasted it from somewhere. So I do not want to take credit for it. Nevertheless, I believe it is worth posting.

Jesus is gathering a people for himself from every tribe, tongue, and nation through his new covenant. This people is therefore a racially, linguistically, and geographically diverse people – expressed in local congregations. This doctrine indicates a congregation should recognize other gospel-preaching congregations of like faith and practice as true churches. This additionally implies that a congregation recognizes the members of those other churches as true Christians.

On the one hand, congregations of baptized believers are partners in labor together with God and with one another. On the other hand, the Bible does not prescribe any formal institutional connections or structures between local congregations. The unity is biblical and spiritual rather than organizational.

Catholicity and Separation

I just read an article in which a conservative Calvinistic Southern Baptist trashed separatism and promoted catholicity. He reserved special attention for the “fundamentalist” brand of separatism. The author is not someone who moved from Fundamentalism to Liberalism, but rather someone who has moved from Fundamentalism to a Reformed position.

He makes some good points. Fundamentalism can exalt carnality, pride, and an “us four, no more” attitude. Their gospel is not broad enough or deep enough to save and sanctify anyone who does not dot their i’s and cross their t’s. Division over extremely exacting eschatological theories becomes the norm.

There is a right sort of “catholicity”[i] that chronologically sees across time and generations, knowing we belong to the same church institution as and adhere to the same gospel preached by the apostles.  It geographically reaches across continents, nations, and communities.[ii] It linguistically embraces different tongues and peoples. “…I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

Unfortunately, this sort of “catholicity” often embraces “Catholicism” as representative of the “true church” up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. It flies in the face of a New Testament Christianity that separated itself from infidelity, heresy, and immorality (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:17; Titus 3:10; Ephesians 5:1-4). It distinguishes itself from and denies the poor and afflicted faithful martyrs of Jesus (e.g., Revelation 2:10, 13; 17:6). It recognizes the unorthodox majority and rejects the orthodox remnant.[iii] 

There is a right sort of “fundamentalism” that loves, seeks for, and adheres to the fundamental principles of the Bible, and the Christian religion based on it. It rejects compromise of those principles, while enthusiastically and evangelistically sowing those principles in the field of the world.

Unfortunately, strains of fundamentalism promote individuality to the detriment of the corporate nature of gathered believers (Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), as well as the fellowship of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17; 14:33). It minimizes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:5-6).[iv] It elevates private interpretations as the norm to determine orthodoxy, fellowship, and separation (Mark 7:9; 2 Peter 1:20). It becomes a haven for little dictators.[v] 

Where does the middle way begin? Perhaps: The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Autonomous churches that are guided by this belief about the Bible. A gospel that is to be preached to every creature. And strong doses of humility.

Both “Big F” Fundamentalism and “Big C” Catholicism miss the mark, in different directions. Let us take up our Bibles and learn the Bible way of the unity of the faith and separation unto the gospel of God.

---

[i] Recognizing that the words “catholic” and “catholicity” have a broader more generic meaning, I nevertheless generally avoid them as more likely to help rather than hurt the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.

[ii] Human beings and local churches are limited by geography, but connect with other congregations across the globe through fellowship of the word and Spirit.
[iii] I am unable to read the Bible, see the New Testament church there, research church history, and then pretend that the only church that existed for 15 centuries was Roman Catholic! I have sadly heard too many Reformed brethren say so. Away with such.

[iv] “A keen awareness of where the church has always stood” is needed, if we also have the biblical insight to understand what the church is, biblically.
[v] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy (and at least some species of Reformed churches) are havens for big dictators!

Not forsaking the assembling

“...a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” Ecclesiastes 4:12

As long as I have been in the ministry (and even before that, I suppose), I have known people who claimed to be Christians who also claimed they did not need to go to church. Such folks fall into different categories. Some are nominal Christians who have zero interest in church. Some have been hurt or offended at some church and have dropped out and stay home. Some have figured out they can “do church” by listening to the radio, watching TV – or perhaps “attend” their own church’s live online service. Some are so radical that they cannot tolerate any who do not agree with them, and apparently cannot go to church until they find the perfect church (i.e., that agree with them on all points). There are doubtless other categories, but these are the four that come to mind first for me.

A few weeks ago, someone I know had some work done at his house. The man doing the work professes to be a Christian but says he does not need to go to church. My friend talked to him a bit, especially pointing him to the Hebrews 10:25 passage about “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” He did not make any headway. He later asked me about, especially concerning what Scripture might be used to convince folks that they should go to church. The Bible does teach the gathering of baptized believers. Rather clearly. Sometimes the problem is not so much showing someone what the Bible says. The actual problem is that the non-church-going Christian will not accept the authority of the Bible as their sole rule of faith and practice in this matter and submit to it.

Another related problem might be a common American/Western idea of “going to church.” It is just somewhere you go and something you do on a regular or semi-regular basis, rather than a commitment to the Lord and his people. Related to this is a consumer mentality, in that one “goes to church” for what he or she can get out of it, rather than considering there might be something to put into it. Taken together, with this mentality, when church going no longer seems pleasing or beneficial, the church-goer just stops going and does something else that is pleasing and beneficial.

The best scriptural case for “going to church” is made with the “threefold cord” of command, precept, and example.

Command.

Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

The Bible teaches Christians to gather. In the context of commands to draw near God (v. 22), to hold fast the profession of our faith (v. 23), and to consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works (v. 24), the writer to the Hebrews commands the Lord’s people to assemble (stated as a command to not forsake the assembling they are presently fulfilling in conjunction with the other commands given).

Assembling with fellow believers “because God said so” really ought to be good enough for the servant of God. Nevertheless, assembling is not merely for the sake of assembling. Assembling integrates with other commands to the Christian. We fulfill them as we gather together: we combine in corporate worship (1 Corinthians 14:25; John 4:24), hear the preaching of the word (2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:3), edify/build up one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11), baptize (Acts 2:41), eat the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), exercise church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4-5), sing to God & one another (Colossians 3:16), and pray together (James 5:16; Acts 4:31).

Other New Testament admonitions made in relation to “One Anothering” indicate near presence, the expectation of gathering together (bear one another’s burdens, exhort one another, greet one another, give an holy kiss, wash one another’s feet, the right hand of fellowship, the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, anointing with oil, admonish one another, comfort one another). Heath Woolman, Pastor of Fruit Cove Baptist Church in St. Johns, Florida, wrote, “Scripture also commands us to take part in the reciprocal imperatives of the Christian life (1 Cor. 12:25, Gal. 6:2, Col. 3:13, et.al.).” Writing in the context of technology driven “online church,” he observes that these imperatives “cannot be adequately expressed or obeyed through technology-mediation, ‘online churches,’ or ‘online church membership.’” I would add they cannot be fulfilled through the church of the fishing boat, becoming one with nature, or simply staying at home doing nothing. Christians obey their Lord.

Precept.

The New Testament concept and doctrine of the church is an assembly. The church is an ekklesia, a called-out assembly, a congregation of baptized believers. The very thing church means assembly and exudes the idea of gathering. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20).

The church of Corinth was an assembly, a local body of believers in the city of Corinth. Notice 1 Corinthians 12:25, “that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” They came together with psalms, teachings, tongues, etc. See 1 Corinthians 14:26, “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” Paul warned that they must bring it all into an orderly fashion, in consistency with the God of order. There were local bodies of believers assembling in the cities of Asia (Revelation 2:1-3:22), in Galatia (Galatians 1:2), in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:1), in Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1), and so on. Assembly is found within the very nature of these bodies.

One modern foe of assembling is the ascendancy of the idea of the “universal invisible church.” Many emphasize that they are members of that church, with little or no need to acknowledge the visible nature of the church. However, New Testament churches were local and visible, gathered assemblies that met together at certain times and in certain places. The ascendancy of the “invisible” church dethrones “the true church” (i.e., local visible churches). The church is an assembly; if she does not assemble, she is not a church. May we labor to recover this church truth, and in doing so realize again the importance of assembling ourselves together.

Example.

The New Testament is replete with examples of the baptized disciples gathering together. They were intricately involved in one another’s lives, joys, sufferings, ministry, and goals. Each time the Bible describes a church gathering, assembling, coming together, etc., it has provided an example of the believers practicing the command of God taught in the precepts of God. Notice a few examples from the book of Acts:

• Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
• Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
• Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
• Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
• Acts 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

Conclusion.

The disciples who “were called Christians first” were an assembling body of believers in Antioch Syria. They represent the New Testament “norm.” The “Lone Ranger” who does his own thing apart from the churches of Christ is not a New Testament type of Christian. He is not submitting to the authority of the word of God. Command, precept, and example combine to teach us believers should assemble together in local churches. This should be what some might flippantly call “a no-brainer.” God commands assembly. Obey. With joy.

May we with the sweet psalmist David once again excitedly say, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord” (Psalm 122:1).