Worldview Church » November 2008

Oh, no, not another Bible! There are myriad manifestations on the market already, including cause-oriented editions like the Green Bible and The Poverty and Justice Bible, Bibles that aim at affinity groups like The Golfer’s Bible and The Orthodox Study Bible, and “author-ized” versions named after MacArthur, Blackaby, Stanley, Ryrie, and Maxwell. There are also several general-audience, translation-based study Bibles that have found a prominent place on bookshelves and desks, including the best-selling NIV Study Bible and the Life Application Study Bible. Is there room on the shelf for another? The ESV Study Bible makes its debut in a market glutted with niche Bibles, but has a long list of enthusiastic endorsements, so it is worth a look.

TEXT AND TOOLS
The ESV Study Bible’s text, of course, is the English Standard Version translation. Published in 2001 by Crossway, “the ESV is the fasting-growing Bible in publication today, with worldwide unit sales having quadrupled over the past three years. A distinguished team of more than 100 Bible scholars and teachers worked for nearly four years to create the ESV Bible. Based on precise comparison with the original language texts and manuscripts, the ESV is a ‘word-for-word’ Bible translation that skillfully combines accuracy and literary beauty” (ESV-SB Blog).

Now the popular ESV text is accompanied by an impressive array of features that will help any Bible student more fully enjoy and engage the text. An informative and attractive website lists some of the ESV-SB’s primary features. I’ll list the features, and then comment on my reaction to each of these as I’ve looked through my own copy.

• 2 million words of Bible text and insightful teaching in 2,752 pages.
  
  The ESV-SB weighs in at over four pounds, but that’s no surprise considering the list of heavyweights the editors have assembled as contributing scholars.
  
  
• 20,000 notes—focusing especially on understanding the Bible text and providing answers to frequently raised issues.
  
  I would describe the excellent notes as clear, concise, and theologically conservative. The layout of the notes is aesthetically pleasing, with color highlights to help offset comments according to their corresponding Scripture sections. The notes include general summaries of chapters of larger passages as well as verse-specific commentary. Occasionally, the footnotes will include helpful charts such as “The Trinity in Romans 8” on page 2171, which highlights verses in Romans 8 that mention each member of the Godhead, or related maps such as the one near 2 Kings 15 that points out the ministry locations of the prophets of Israel and Judah. To see samples, click on these books of the Bible: Esther, Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Luke, Ephesians, Colossians, Revelation, or the whole book of Jonah or 1 John. Finally, I have found the notes especially helpful when I’m praying through the Psalms.
  
  
• Over 50 articles—including articles on the Bible’s authority and reliability; on biblical archaeology, theology, ethics, and personal application.
  
  As a pastor, I’m thrilled to see the wealth of articles the ESV-SB offers on theology and its application to everyday life. If the folks in my church have this Bible in hand or at home, I can point them to articles that help them find answers to their questions or further annotate a point I’ve made in a sermon or lesson. I can envision the ESV-SB and its articles being used as the textbook for lay ministry training class and equipping elders, deacons, teachers, small group leaders and other church leaders. I was particularly pleased with the article explaining “God’s Plan of Salvation” because it first described the big picture of salvation by rehearsing the theatrical drama of Creation, Rebellion, Redemption, and Consummation, and then filled in the theological details by “addressing the questions of God, man, Christ, the response, and the result” (page 2501). This approach helps bring together two approaches to the Bible: those who emphasize the Bible as story and those who focus on its systematic theology.
  
  
• 200-plus charts—offering key insights and in-depth analysis in clear, concise outline form; located throughout the Bible.
  
  These are good to help the reader get a grip on the gobs of information that is sometimes packed into a passage such as: “The Generations of Genesis,” “Chronology of Noah’s Time in the Ark,” “Five Major Offerings,” “Grades of Uncleanness,” “Positions and Duties of the Levites,” “The Parables of Jesus,” “The Humiliation and Exaltation of Christ,” “NT Guidelines for Giving,” “Harmony of the Events of Holy Week,” and so many more. Then there are some great “big picture” charts, including “The ‘Bookends’ of Biblical Theology,” “The Hebrew Calendar Compared to the Modern Calendar,” “The Already and Not Yet of the Last Days,” and others.
  
  
• Over 200 full-color maps—created with the latest digital technology, satellite images, and archaeological research; printed in full color throughout the Bible, plus 40 all-new illustrations—including full-color renderings and architectural diagrams of the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon’s temple, Herod’s temple, the city of Jerusalem in Jesus’ time and throughout the history of Israel, and many more.
  
  The artwork throughout the ESV-SB is beautiful. Nicely done.
  
  
• 80,000 cross-references—to encourage easy location of important words, passages, and biblical themes.
  
  These are particularly handy in the online version, toward which I happily turn our attention.

THE ESV STUDY BIBLE ONLINE
Perhaps my favorite feature of the new ESV-SB is the free online version that is available to everyone who purchases their own hard copy. The hardback version that I have weighs over four pounds and has almost 3000 pages, which even with thin Bible pages is a ton to tote around. But with the online version of the ESV-SB, you get access to everything contained in the print version, plus a few extra features that print can’t provide:

• All of the Bible references (including cross references and those in the notes) are linked. That means you get two features: first, when you hover your cursor over the reference, the verse shows up in a “pop up” window, and then if you want to go to that passage in its context, you can get there with one click.
  
  
• All of the study notes, which in the print version are found at the bottom of the page, are on the right side of the Bible text in their own column. So, if you want notes on a particular verse, you only have to glance to the right instead of hunting for the corresponding note at the bottom of the page.
  
  
• With the click of your mouse you can listen to the audio of the passage you are studying. This may come in handy for folks who have trouble reading or even for English as a Second Language students learning to read.
  
  
• Another noteworthy feature is the “My Notes” column on the left side of the Bible text. You can type in your own commentary and save it for later.
  
  
• You may also enjoy the highlighter feature when allows you to select any amount of text and highlight it with one of five bright colors.
  
  
• All of the articles, maps, and charts are readily available for viewing and also have the Scripture references “hot linked” for quick study.
  
  
• It gives my-big-fat-study-Bible portability. I’m going to leave my hard copy at home for the family to use during family worship and Bible study with the kids. I’ll use the online edition everywhere else.

Once again, the folks at Crossway have made it easy for you to sample these features at their website: “Click here for an overview with screenshots; or feel free to go directly to the Gospel of Matthew and explore for yourself.” And if you have more questions, you can read the Frequently Asked Questions About the Online Version at their blog.

With solid study notes, attractive maps and drawings, informative charts, impressive articles, and the addition of the interactive online version, I’d say there is plenty of room on the shelf for the ESV Study Bible. Within days of its release on October 15 Crossway reported that it had sold all 100,000 copies of its initial printing and was ordering a second and third printing of 50,000 each. I’m sure the ESV Study Bible will become a long-loved resource for professors, pastors, and parishioners alike.

Jimmy Davis is the associate editor of Worldview Church and pastor of Riverside Church in Knoxville, Tenn. He also maintains The Cruciform Life Blog.

Keeping Our Churches Safe From and For Sexual Offenders

Worldview Church » November 2008

Chester, VT

One of the pressing problems facing church leadership today is the challenge of dealing with a known sexual offender in the congregation. Whereas we often would like to chase the miscreant out and eliminate our share of the problem, we know in our hearts that the Lord calls all of us to minister to the least, the lost and the last; including those whose problems frighten us and our communities. We also know in our hearts that these individuals need the comfort and solace that can only come from a community that truly loves them and seeks their well being, but that this cannot come at the cost of hurt and danger to others.

A recent seminar was held at a church in Springfield, Vermont, and drew attendees from a wide radius to listen to the presentations and discuss the impact of sexual offenders’ presence in their churches.

Pastor Pete Fiske of the Church At Prison (CAP) in Jericho, Vermont, and the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC), have developed this seminar to lead pastors and church leaders through an analysis of this problem, helping them develop policies and covenants to insure the safety of all participants. It includes a discussion of the myths and facts about sexual offenders; a presentation on the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Abusers (VTSPA), a program that has received international recognition for its results in reducing recidivism among sexual offenders; a detailed presentation of church impact with examples of possible policies and covenants between the offender and community; and presentations by individuals who have suffered from and faced these issues. This latter group includes victims and/or their representatives, as well as offenders who have been restored by their community through this program.

The experiences shared by church communities at the seminar ranged from those dealing successfully with sexual offenders attending their churches to a church in crisis having just discovered a sexual predator in their midst.

Perhaps your church or a church in your community has had to or will have to walk through a similar scenario. Please feel free to lean on the wisdom and work of others who have already walked this path.

Additional information is available from:

Pastor Pete Fiske
Church At Prison, Inc.
PO Box 1128
St. Albans, VT 05478
(802) 899-1437

John Nunnikhoven is a retired inn-keeper and full-time volunteer in prison and other ministries in Chester, Vt.

Two Variations of One Approach

Worldview Church » November 2008

A fascinating connection between two streams of missional thought about how to engage relativists has taken shape. Rather than wash away the dam of postmodern thinking through evidential refutation, these two streams, each effecting an impressive following, take a different route toward reaching a largely disaffected segment of our culture. More readers of current trends are noticing these two unconventional streams that yet seem to share an over-arching distinctive, a gracious relational apologetic.

THE MISSIONAL CHALLENGE: CASTING OFF A SUPERIOR ATTITUDE
Describing these two streams is helped by asking what relativism is; why, in contrast to the Christian faith, are its implications important; and what shift in apologetic thinking recently has been emphasized? This perspective believes that what is knowable is in the eyes of the beholder. One’s common sense alone is the final arbitrator since no consensus on moral standards or cultural values can or will be reached. Therefore, each person is entitled to be left alone to enjoy his or her own beliefs.

While American culture’s warmth for individualism gives a home for this way of thinking, the Christian faith welcomes another voice of understanding, which is the Bible. Of necessity, its trustworthy words only speak when studied and reflected upon, and they persuade the heart to take heed as meaning is grasped. When compared, the divide between the postmodern, non-Christian relativists and those who adhere to a well-worded faith has effectively inoculated each from considering the other’s point of view. This stalemate is where the struggle has stood, that is until recently, when differing epistemological assumptions, specifically those that effect the degree of certitude in what the Bible instructs, offer two variations of one approach, that of evidencing a humble demeanor.

HUMILITY AND THE STREAM OF LESSER CERTITUDE
To catch a glimpse of how these two streams of thought approach postmodern relativists, a few sweeping statements sketch the geography. The first stream comes to a generous orthodoxy approach by revisioning Western Christianity, in both style and definition. It digs up overlying layers of church tradition hiding the ancient riverbed of a 4,000-year journey of God’s people. Adherents observe that retracing this course reveals a time where the church was defined by a Christo-centric communal life that engaged in face-to-face service to humanity. The biblical concept of the Kingdom of God, with its focus on realizing an ideal in the here and now, once gave a missional topography, but a later era of scholastic discourse buried over its features.

Adherents suggest that some, maybe much, of what describes evangelical Christianity is a product of schematic incursions, specifically propositional statements that submerged its essence. By dwelling on penal righteousness as a boat ticket for a future trip to another world, some adherents assert that the Protestant Reformation era is like the many theological eddies spinning off and away from the main river flow. However, since examples of missional churches seeking an authentic path have arisen from every tributary of Christianity, this feature alone does not make this stream unique. Then what does?

WELCOMING OPENNESS
This stream digs new channels over to those who are decidedly prejudice against “absolutist” thinking. Rather than demonize relativists, they promote a big-tent, quasi-pluralistic approach that opens channels to postmoderns who make diversity of thought the trump card over conformist thinking. Why is this not regarded as a surrender of biblical convictions? Because this stream identifies a greater problem—certitude that fails to acknowledge how little doctrine we can assign a fixed meaning. They reason that if history teaches anything, it teaches that what is biblically knowable often is qualified or even altered by later insights. From this basis of lesser certitude, most theological assertions (confessions, doctrinal statements) are inherently inadequate and leave a legacy of fossilized thinking not suitable to address today’s missional challenges. Therefore, certitude in biblical interpretations for the most part is acceptable when limited to one’s self; that is, what is true “for me” is not necessarily true for anyone else.

Ideologues in this stream, like Emergent spokesperson Brian McLaren, do more than respect postmodern’s educated questions, to occasionally affirming their validity. They would even speak of themselves as being postmodern Christians open to rethinking many long held beliefs and practices. They would assert that since dogmatism promotes division, then anything resembling it must be identified as a hindrance in allowing humility to flourish. This benefit is achieved if the function of the Bible is understood from a different perspective, as a narrative rather than as a source for polemics. The result is that defining what is orthodox, spurious, or even heretical is less important than to discern how to enact the Kingdom mission. This feature of less doctrinal certitude gives this first stream its unique defining feature. This is heady stuff.

LEARNING COMMUNITIES
What do local churches that flow in this first stream look and feel like? Like Mars Hills (Grand Rapids, Mich.), they include many hipster but doctrinally minimalist churches that define the faith more through its overarching biblical stories of redemption. At their main gatherings, one would experience a gracious relational atmosphere where who is or is not converted isn’t emphasized but visually illustrated in baptism. One would hear about cultural engagement on issues such as ecological stewardship and the plight of the poor but not as much about efforts to overturn legalized abortion and counter claims to evolution instruction. Presenters would draw parallels between biblical accounts of defending the powerless with popular values like egalitarianism as applied to gender roles and maybe even other issues of sexuality. In addition, they have set up Web-based learning communities to nurture new principles and methodologies. This way of thinking and living resonates with postmodernists who find relevance in activities that focus on saving this world as well as seeking to meet their own relational needs.

For those who would protest the above description, they are correct to challenge these simplifications for other distinct but not acknowledged streams flow nearby. Some streams intermingle with others as part of the Emergent Church watershed. Scot McKnight’s “Five Streams of the Emerging Church” nuances these streams by their various characteristics. On the one hand, some rivulets fully identify with postmodernity as they have even greater uncertainty about what can be known because, it is asserted, of the inadequacies of language, words being a step or two short of exact correspondence. On the other hand, other channels focus on reaching out to postmoderns through better-reasoned answers to their honest questions. They are part of a separate stream altogether.

HUMILITY AND THE STREAM OF GREATER CERTITUDE
The second stream under consideration brands its approach as humble orthodoxy, a name that contrasts nicely with the generous orthodoxy approach. Its leaders recognize both the same barriers that relativism erects as well as the need to interact with a respectful demeanor to postmodernists, even those identified with the faith. They are well aware that, when confronted with unambiguous statements about “Truth,” adherents experience philosophical angst leading to knee-jerk responses often reciprocated. Rather than hold back proclaiming the faith’s less affirmed tenets, this stream’s corps of engineers identifies places to drive down pylons and erect their Reformed orthodoxy to control its flow. They would acknowledge that Christianity today isn’t the faith of the first century, as does the first stream, and is in need of repair.

Rather than bulldoze doctrine that has little evangelical consensus in order to clear the way to the other side, they push back. Here, a few argue that the Spirit of God is shoring up the Church’s core beliefs in alignment with the apostolic foundation. They reason that, at numerous points in church history, asserting necessary assumptions that effected the Gospel’s contents were a response to rising heresy threatening to submerge the church’s identity. Clarifying position statements on doctrine, ethics, and morality continue to hold back threatening currents of spurious, even harmful, beliefs. This sandbagging approach continues today, but this feature alone does not make this second stream unique. Then what does?

WELCOMING CONFIDENCE
What is eye-popping is that this second stream takes the same approach—humility as a governing ethos to engaging postmodernists—as do the generous orthodoxy folk, but they do so with a twist. They, too, advocate respect for postmodernists’ probing questions arising from what is knowable even apart from the Bible. They acknowledge that arrogance over rightness wrongly alienates hearers. They would sadly agree with the first stream’s criticism that demonstrating either indifference or pride-laced comments reveals corruption of heart. The twist comes, by their greater certitude about how persuasion is accomplished, in how much spiritual truth finite beings can know. They do not cross over to postmodernists’ ambiguities, but rather invite them to come over to their certainties, confident of occasional success. Thus is the implication of the Geneva Reformation’s doctrine of irresistible grace, that it is God alone who enables the postmodernist to traverse over to doctrinal certitude.

Coupled with understanding human nature’s inability to even seek God, why would this highly controversial dogma aid humility? Supported by an apologetical premise that starts with “God is,” the postmodern relativist’s conscience, if it is to be turned at all, shall respond when confronted by righteous standards. They argue that since the ability to repent and believe is a gift, rightly applied, pride is negated, and humility, as an indicator of repentance, is a mark of conversion. Those who have been humbled can speak with convincing humility to the postmodernist. Their demeanor, in tandem with their articulated certitude, can deconstruct the epistemologically challenged postmodernist and be the Spirit’s means of individual awakening. This aspect of pressing for certitude on a narrowly defined Faith gives this second stream its defining feature. This, too, is heady stuff.

AN ENERGIZED NETWORK
What do local churches in this second stream look and feel like? They, too, include many hipster churches, like Sovereign Grace, that have a more robust doctrinal statement. Their version of the Kingdom of God overlaps much of what the first stream embraces and shares optimism for what God may yet bring through those who are “poor in spirit.” They press for more doctrinal specificity as well as for greater humility in engagement of postmoderns, be they Christian or not.

In his new book Young, Restless, and Reformed, Collin Hansen identifies a coalescing leadership forging a “movement” that crosses branches of evangelicalism. This movement includes theologians John Piper and Albert Mohler, who are committed to passionately embracing God’s sovereignty and would be apt to criticize spurious notions that diminish who God is as revealed. C. J. Mahaney, along with Josh Harris, specialize in fostering the movement’s values, even hosting the New Attitude yearly conference to equip attendees in how best to understand and convey the “Calvinized” Gospel with humility. Like cross-cultural missionaries that strive to teach in the context of an alien worldview, mega-church pastors Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill (Seattle) and Tim Keller of Redeemer (New York) fully engage postmodern relativists on their own turf by taking on hot questions about sexuality and biblical reliability.

HUMILITY AND AGREEMENT ON THE CREDIBILITY FACTOR
Why humility above boldness or love, two other virtues associated with New Testament’s effective evangelism? It has to do with authenticity that speaks integrity and in turn is rewarded with trust. Recognized as an essential virtue of a witness to skeptical relativists of today, this humble credibility characterized persecuted Christians in the first century who faced a different sort of rejection. James Sire, in his book A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics, references 1 Peter 3:15 and pleads for apologetic engagement with “gentleness and respect (NIV)”:

. . . it is important to see that a humble holy life (there is no unhumble holy life) is far more significant that one’s ability to fashion and present a verbal apologetic for that life. The holy life of one of God’s redeemed children living alone in a hostile environment is itself a strong apologetic. Even more so is a Christian community intent on living out its faith and actually doing so. If members of such a community are being persecuted and they gently give a reason for the hope that is within them, their apologetic becomes even more powerful.

These two streams seek to recover a vibrant spirituality by removing the pollutants of human pride from their missional waters as Sire emphasizes. Each one’s concept leaders recognize that to coalesce a movement’s philosophy of ministry, their constituents need an effective ethos among themselves, and both movements have rightly embraced humility. Yet interestingly, it is at the point of how the inscripturated Word is viewed that reveals their most glaring difference.

HUMILITY AND DISAGREEMENT ON THE WORD’S FUNCTION
When unbiased postmodern relativists see the messenger’s humility, credibility may be enhanced. Yet they still stumble over the idea of biblical authority, a concept unfamiliar to many. They reason that the Bible, as a historiography, cannot demand certitude without qualifications. As they compare the Bible’s account of the earth’s creation being six, 24-hour days with what they think is knowable, the record fails as a credible source. What about patriarchal polygamy, laws governing slavery, and “contradictions”? they ask. Missional leaders are empathetic about the postmodern’s struggle to grasp the complexities of interpretation knowing that these issues can distract from faith in Christ. Yet these two streams’ proponents take different positions on the function of the Bible. Comparing how they view the Bible’s function will show that the degree of certitude of what we know is the differentiating issue, and humility is promoted by two opposite rationales.

At this point a bit of care needs to be observed in making observations, for biblical authority has been a subject of considerable debate in the last 150 years, leaving evangelicals with suspicions of evil motives. This topic can unleash a torrential flood that does unnecessary damage. Therefore, stated simply, within both streams, the Bible is affirmed as God’s Word, yet there lies between them a divergent understanding of what this implies.

CONTRASTING VIEWS ON HOW THE BIBLE FUNCTIONS
Those in the first stream, including Mars Hill (Grand Rapids, Mich.), cite a first-rate and sometimes controversial biblical scholar by the name of N. T. Wright. In his article “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative,” Wright challenges us to reassess how the Bible is utilized as compared with its intended purpose. He finds fault with what he asserts is a common misapplication of the Bible’s actual function:

My conclusion, then, is this: that the regular views of scripture and its authority which we find not only outside but also inside of evangelicalism fail to do justice to what the Bible actually is—a book, an ancient book, an ancient narrative book. They function by turning that book into something else, and by implying thereby that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book.

How does this perspective affect the Bible’s function as proclamation? Wright goes on to illustrate:

Somehow, the authority which God has invested in this book is an authority that is exercised through the people of God telling and retelling their story as the story of the world, telling the covenant story as the true story of creation.

A reader of the Old Testament perks up to affirm the majestic power of the thematic flow of the historical account of Redemption. It is unrivaled in answering the fundamental questions of why things are the way they are and what God has, is, and will do. Those that employ the Bible in this fashion do captivate the postmodernist who has abandoned seeking a sense of divinely given purpose to world history, much less their own individual lives. The value of the biblical narrative beckons them to reconsider.

From this foundation, Wright argues against inferential theologizing derived from the Bible being the “wrong sort of book.” Instead, he asserts Scripture should be understood in light of its objective, to “liberate” from bondages of all sorts. Further, Scripture exists as a delegated authority from God. He notes that only God Himself has authority, yet as He has in the past, so He continues to delegate the means by which He speaks. As the Old Testament was a record of God’s dictations to Moses and visions to His commissioned prophets (with both adding their commentaries), so God continued speaking through apostles and other recognized New Testament writers.

Wright proposes that this pattern of God employing indirect means of communicating his will continues within a narrative framework. God now invites his people to imagine the next stage of redemptive history, and Wright uses an illustration of a five-act, Shakespearean play where the actors and actresses themselves must write the last act. Since they know the flow of the plot and the players’ characterizations, they can knowingly improvise the drama’s next act. Similarly, the Christian church has been given a narrative of four major movements of sacred history (creation, fall, Israel, Jesus) to complete the final act. Christians, so it seems, have delegated authority to write the narrative for their time, guided by God’s revealed intentions. Therefore, we should ask how to go about liberating today. With such latitude, humility is fostered by forgoing judgmental certitude as it creatively explores new ways of improvising in light of this world’s Kingdom objectives.

The practice of forging various consensuses, in an irenic atmosphere, remains a critical endeavor among evangelicals. They have achieved some notable successes and at other times have missed opportunities. In comparison, the humble orthodoxy stream is an advocacy coalition fostering understanding of the Gospel through a Reformed lens. Among this stream’s proponents are like-minded scholars, who themselves have theological differences in some non-essentials. Still, the Bible’s function is polemic, especially as it pertains to correcting false notions on critical issues like God’s attributes. In regards to God’s actual sovereignty in salvation as mentioned earlier, they believe Scripture is unambiguous. They have set about, in conference style, to foster a populous movement, not necessarily as a reaction to post modernity but rather out of a shared passion.

Parenthetically, many readers realize that the 16th-century Protestant Reformation had several defining themes, including sola scriptura, which spoke of authority to establish dogma as residing in the written word. Even though asserting its foundational importance was necessary in engaging aberrant beliefs that crept into the Western Church, the Bible’s self-witness places it over any other delegated authority. As with much of evangelicalism, Scripture’s function continues as a standard by which essential doctrines and behavioral standards are established, even utilizing inferential reasoning as needed. It critiques cultural values and challenges the bases for civil law. This focus is not to deny its narrative function, but Wright’s position seems to infer that Mosaic case law and the didactic New Testament texts served only for issues of another time and cultural setting alone. Rather, the Bible’s function as the effective agent of God the Spirit’s transforming work continues. Jesus himself said in John 17:17, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” Truth, that is certitude built upon all that God has said, affects humility positively by instilling confidence.

CONFIDENCE, BUT ONLY WITH CARE
The similarities between inferential theologizing and improvising are noticeable and one can agree to the benefits of each approach, yet do so uneasily. Each may take a route to sharply contrasting conclusions. When teachers of the Bible assert application of the biblical text by employing, on the one hand, hermeneutical “ladders of abstraction” to script its biblical principles of a narrative text, or, on the other, “trajectories” to suggest a notion of what Jesus would say and do if He were here today, they may not arrive at similar places.

These contrasting views of the Bible’s function differentiate these two streams. It guides how they speak to postmoderns about what the Christian faith teaches. Recovering the Christian identity as being local communities bound by a God-established covenantal relationship is a message the contemporary evangelical church needs to hear, and the narrative approach is valuable. Yet, post moderns import their own filters of cultural values and philosophical beliefs that affect interpretation. Might we endanger our prophetic role to culture if our generosity becomes pluralism?

HUMILITY, SAYING TOO LITTLE OR TOO MUCH?
These two streams are catching the attention of those who seek to draw next-gen believers who are often steeped in relativist thinking, are savvy to cultural hype, but listen to personal transparency of others’ spiritual journey. They both know that in every human exchange, the Christian’s demeanor whispers in the background either the awe of being a recipient of God’s grace where others may be freely drawn, or that of a pharisaical boldness designed to ensnare and enslave. A God-wrought humility is indispensible if our evangelism to show our hearts.

Each stream’s popularity is on the rise, and like the initial excitement of a fresh approach, they now ride the crest of an advancing tide where each stream claims humility as its distinct value. For the moment, neither stream is far apart on many essential beliefs, but time will tell where each one’s ideas about authority takes them. Even though the South Platt and the Colorado Rivers find their source in the same snow pack atop the Continental Divide, they empty out into different oceans. The question is which direction should you take: Generous orthodoxy or humble orthodoxy? Choose wisely, for as Isaiah 66:2 indicates, the esteem of God is at stake.

Sam Smith is a pastor in the Evangelical Free Church and currently resides in Northern Michigan.

The Cruciform Life in Action

Worldview Church » November 2008

About a year ago, I signed up to participate in a “silence and solitude” retreat with a few other local pastors. I was in the midst of a busy church-planting ministry and longed for some time away in the mountains of North Carolina to rest my head, heart, and hands. Typically, our retreat leader, my friend Buddy, would take us to a quiet place in the Blue Ridge Mountains where we would take a temporary vow of silence and spend thirty-six hours alone with God. Even our meals were shared in complete silence. We fasted from speaking and feasted on the Savior.

But this time Buddy warned the four of us that this trip might look a little different. He made arrangements for us to spend the next day and a half at Young Life’s Windy Gap camp. Nestled in a small “gap” between the mountains and continually caressed with a fresh breeze, Windy Gap’s beauty and well-kept facilities provide a place for one’s soul to open up and say, “Ahhhh.”

School was in session, so I began to imagine having a room of my own and the whole camp to myself. I felt my burdens start to lift with the anticipation of rest and restoration. Buddy burst my beatific bubble when he explained why this retreat would be different: There were going to be about 120 Young Life staff members from Tennessee attending a staff retreat at Windy Gap, and Buddy had signed the five of us up to be the kitchen staff for their meals.

“Now, this might be good news to some of you guys, because I know you feel more comfortable serving people than sitting in silence and solitude,” Buddy said. “But I want you to use this service experience as an opportunity to commune with Christ, so we’re still going to take our thirty-six hour vow of silence. We’ll just serve in silence, and when we’re not working, we’ll seek solitude.” I couldn’t relate to what Buddy said being more comfortable serving than sitting. I came to get away from serving people. I’d much rather be settling into silence and solitude, thank you very much.

Waiting tables is hot and hard work. An hour or so before mealtime we helped the cook staff prepare the meals, and at the appointed time we served the staffers and their families. We were each assigned a section of about four to five tables of folks whose needs we were watching, waiting, and willing to serve. After the feeding frenzy was over and the tables were empty, we cleaned up the mess and prepared the tables for the next meal.

Just as I suspected, serving these people was messy, physically draining, time consuming, and often humbling. I entered this time of service with not a few qualms and questions: I’ve never done this before; will I know what to do? Will I drop something? Will I do a good job? What will people think of me? To top it off, Buddy took away the one weapon I had to defend any incompetency that might get exposed: my words. The vow of silence prevented me from using my words to defend, deflect with humor, excuse mistakes, make sarcastic comments, tell funny stories, or try to sound intelligent.

I was left with nothing to depend on but . . . God. My Lord called me to be with Him in that place at that time, so I had to look and listen to Him for the direction and motivation to serve Him on His terms. That’s the cruciform life in action: serving God by serving others while depending on Christ. Jesus’ disciples are those who fill up on the love of God in Jesus, His Son and Servant, until they overflow with loving service back to God and out to the world around them.

JESUS, THE SON AND SERVANT
Jesus has not called us to live a life that He has not lived Himself. Jesus is the “founder and perfecter” of the cruciform life of faith (Hebrews 12:2). As our trailblazer, He embraced the love and leadership of His Father by faith, and then expressed that faith in love by pouring Himself out for the sake of seeing people and creation reconciled to a right relationship with God and one another. A quick scan through the Gospels reveals two crucial roles by which Jesus identified Himself and out of which He lived.

Jesus lived as the Father’s Son. Jesus lived in constant awareness of and dependence upon His relationship to God as His Father’s beloved. It is significant that prior to the two most important phases of His life on earth Jesus heard these words from His Father: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Jesus heard these words at His baptism, just before He began His public ministry of works and witness (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22). And He heard this affirmation again at His transfiguration on the mountain, just before He began to move toward His Passion Week ministry (Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17). Jesus moved into those intense periods of ministry with His Father’s words “You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” ringing in His ears. We know from the Apostle John’s testimony that Jesus frequently mentioned that He was God’s Son (John 5:17-18,30; 10:24-38, and more) and that He was fully aware of and dependent upon His Father’s love for Him (John 3:35, 5:20, 10:17, 15:9-10, 17:23-26). It is possible that Paul’s reference to Jesus as “the Beloved” and the “Beloved Son” means that this way of identifying Jesus was passed down through the Apostles’ teaching (Ephesians 1:6; Colossians 1:13; John and Peter both taught this: 1 John 1:1-3, 2:22-24, 4:10-15, etc.; 2 John 3; 2 Peter 1:17-18). Perhaps when John referred to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” he was only following Jesus’ example of identifying Himself as the Son whom the Father loves (John 13:23, 20:2, 21:7,20).

Jesus also lived as the Father’s Servant. Jesus lived in constant awareness and practice of His relationship to God as the Father’s bondservant. Jesus made it clear that He “came not to be served, but to serve” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45) and gave the disciples a memorable picture of what that meant when He washed their feet at the Last Supper (a task left to the lowliest of servants) and when He “made Himself nothing, taking the form of a servant” and becoming “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” the very next day (John 13:1-17; Philippians 2:7-8).

Perhaps only after the ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost did they truly understand what their Master meant when He said, “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27). After Pentecost, the Apostles and earliest followers of Jesus identified Him as God’s “Holy servant” both in their preaching and their prayers (Acts 3:13,26; 4:27,30). Both Jesus and His followers believed that He was the “Suffering Servant” that Isaiah prophesied would one day pour out His life for the sake of God’s people (Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:32-35).

And this brings us back to the Father’s announcement that Jesus was His “beloved son, in whom He is well pleased,” for this statement is almost a direct quote referring to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 42:1 which reads, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.” Matthew claimed that Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophecy, and his quotation of it more closely resembles the words that the Father pronounced at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration: “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He will proclaim justice to the Gentiles” (Matthew 12:18). So these words were not only identifying Jesus as the Father’s Son, but also His Servant. Just before the major periods of Jesus earthly ministry, He and those who were with Him were reminded of His two major identities. Jesus lived as both the Son and Servant of God.

HE HAS GIVEN US AN EXAMPLE
John’s gospel tells us that on the night before His crucifixion, Jesus

. . . knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside His outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around His waist. Then He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around Him . . . When He had washed their feet and put on His outer garments and resumed His place, He said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

This is a perfect picture of the cruciform life, a life of service that flows from a loved son. Jesus knew where He had come from and where He was going. He forever belonged to the Father and would forever be with and beside the Father. John makes it clear that from His position and power as Son, Jesus fulfilled His purpose as Servant, obeying His Father by taking up His cross with a heart that says, “not my will, but Yours be done.” Jesus the Son and Suffering Servant poured out His blood from the basin of His perfect life. He took the towel of His flesh and wiped away our sins. The life, death, and resurrected life of Jesus says “at your service” both to the Father and to us. And in that life, death, and resurrected life Jesus has given us an example of the cruciform life in action, a life that says to God and others “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27). Jesus has now handed the ministry of reconciliation over to us, saying “you also should do just as I have done to you” (2 Corinthians 5:17-21; John 13:15).

EQUIPPED TO SERVE
The profile of Jesus’ life described in the gospels fits hand-in-glove with the profile of the cruciform disciple that is prescribed by the Apostles in their letters. When Paul was laying out his God-given plan for building up the church in Ephesians 4, he mentioned that pastors and church leaders were to “equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,” resulting in a unity and maturity that finds its final expression in love. The Greek word translated “ministry” here is related to the word diakonos (dee-AH-ko-nahs), a servant who waited tables at meals (e.g. Luke 10:40, 12:37, 17:8, 22:27; John 12:2). At banquets the diakonos was assigned a certain number of tables over which he or she presided as one who watches, waits, and willingly serves the people who reclined and dined there. This is very similar to how our modern day restaurants assign servers to care for the guests at a particular section of tables.

Each follower of Jesus has been assigned a “section” of “tables,” each of which is full of people who are in need of the ministry (diakonian, service) of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Paul called that section of tables our “area of influence,” the boundaries in which and the limits to which God has placed us to advance His Kingdom through gospel works and witness (2 Corinthians 10:13-18). Our section of tables is what we’ll call our Personal Mission Field (PMF), and each table represents a different circle of influence in which we live (i.e. home, work, neighborhood, school, stores, restaurants, the gym, extended family, clubs, teams, associations, church, etc.). The work of ministry to which each of us is called is “to serve, not to be served,” to live among those in our Personal Mission Fields “as one who serves.”

You need to visualize this, so I’ve provided a drawing that I believe will help you:

The stick person in the middle represents you, the servant; the arrows show that you have a God-and-others-oriented, at-your-service heart; and the circles at the end of the arrows are the various “tables” or circles of influence in which God has placed you and to which He has assigned you to be His servant. Now, take a moment to label each table with a word that will signify the various circles of influence in which you’ve been placed and to which you go on at least a weekly basis. You may want to start at the top table and label it “home.” Then, moving counter-clockwise, continue to label the other tables: neighborhood, work/school, church, etc. Now, around each table write the names of at least three people whom you regularly see and interact with in that circle of influence. Once you’ve done that, you can see the people to whom God has called you to be a servant just as Christ has served you. These are the people among whom you are to make disciples as you are going (Matthew 28:18-20). For a more detailed exercise in mapping your PMF, download T. M. Moore’s Personal Mission Field brochure.

WATCHING, WAITING, WILLING, WELCOME
Once you’ve mapped out your Personal Mission Field, you’ll find yourself in the same position I found myself at the Windy Gap dining hall. I’ve been assigned my section of tables, and I see the people there, but now what? Allow me to suggest three activities and one attitude that you can begin to develop as you are going into your areas of influence on a daily basis.

Watching: Like a seasoned server in a fine restaurant, learn to anticipate the needs of the people around you. Carefully and prayerfully consider the physical and spiritual needs of the people whom God brings across your path each day. Our friend Sara excels at watching for the needs of others. In the last few months our little church has had the opportunity to provide meals and prayers for the family of her daughter’s school friend. The little girl’s dad lost a job and her mom had major surgery in the same week and, being new to town, had no family or friends to care for them. More recently, Sara began to serve her neighbors whose lives were in turmoil and whose young daughter was struggling with it all. Sara was there for them, taking care of the kids, bringing the daughter to our church, getting all of us to pray for them, and we had the opportunity to bless them with a cash gift for food and gas as they recently moved out of state. These people in Sara’s PMF were not believers and as far as I know still aren’t, but because Sara served them, they got a front row seat to the glory of God on display in His church.

When asked whether “reading guests” was “an inborn talent,” the general manager of the Oceana restaurant in New York City replied, “No, I don’t think it is at all. I think you can actively read guests by focusing, and being there and watching them . . . I think being in your station, watching the table, watching people eat, making eye contact to see what the body language is, is how you accurately read a guest . . . You have to be watching. You have to be paying attention. You have to be looking. You have to be reading the table.” Sara knows how to watch tables and read guests.

Waiting: Waiting tables requires a combination of anticipation, availability, and action. The server expects that needs will arise, makes himself ready to meet them, and moves to serve when the time is right. For the serving saint this requires the readiness that only waiting on the Lord in prayer can provide. The biblical worldview teaches us that every man, woman, boy and girl were made in the image of God and for intimacy with God, and that both that image and intimacy have been ruined by their rebellion (Deuteronomy 32:4-6). What they need is a reconciliation to intimacy with God that will restore in them the image of God (2 Corinthians 5:17-20). We know there are needs and that we have been called as servants of that reconciliation, but like the disciples before Pentecost we must wait in prayer on the Spirit to empower our service (Acts 1:4-2:41).

Our friends Ned and Anna are both people of prayer and passionate for people in their Personal Mission Field. When a Chinese couple moved in a few houses down, Ned and Anna introduced themselves and began to pray. It wasn’t long before this couple showed up at our church and we began to pray publicly about their desire to stay in the states and become citizens. After months of prayer, they announced one Sunday that they had received permission to stay in the U.S., and they thanked us for praying and specifically attributed the good news to our prayers. These folks still aren’t professing followers of Christ yet, but they’ve got a table for two with a glorious view of the God who answers prayer.

Willing: It has been said that everyone loves to think of themselves as servants until they are treated like one. Serving the needs of others is tedious, tiring, and often thankless work. Watching and waiting on the people in our PMF will require a willingness to sacrifice. Jesus never said this would be easy, in fact He said that serving others “just as I have done to you” would mean to “deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). For people whose “me-first” hearts are committed to using God, people, and creation to save their own lives, it is painfully impossible to bend our hearts to the cruciform life of losing our lives by using ourselves to serve God, people, and creation. Serving is sacrifice. “Killing me with kindness” will take on a new level of meaning in the life of the cruciform disciple as the old “me-first” heart gives way to the Spirit’s creation of a “you-first” heart that says “at your service” to God and others.

I have a friend who serves as the discipler of middle school girls at a large church here in town. Once while interviewing a young lady for church membership, my friend discerned that this young lady had no desire to pursue Jesus and that her participation in the new members’ process was to appease her parents. After much prayer and conversation with church leadership, my friend suggested to the girl and her parents that she was not ready to take membership vows and should wait until she was ready to do so. My friend offered to meet with the young lady for discipleship and conversation, hopeful that the Lord would eventually grab her heart. The parents were outraged, and my faithful friend endured a profanity-laced tongue lashing on the phone. The family soon left the church in anger never to be heard from again. This wise woman’s loving efforts to protect this young lady from taking vows in vain were met with an abusive attack. I don’t know what’s become of the teenager, who by now is in college, but I do know that through my friend she received a taste of cross-shaped love that is willing to pour itself out for the sake of reconciling a wayward child to a heavenly Father.

Welcome: The three activities we’ve explored must be supported and surrounded by an attitude and atmosphere of hospitality. Drawing from a number of sources, I offer this definition of hospitality: “the reception and care of strangers or guests with kindness and generosity.” Hospitality opens its heart, hands, and home to others and says “Welcome.” We have been served by One who opened His heart, hands, and heavenly home, not to friends but to foes, not to entertain guests, but in order to give His enemies life by giving up His own. Hospitality is grace, and “grace is the face that love wears when it meets imperfection.”

One restaurateur describes the difference between the action of service and the attitude of hospitality: “Service you can teach. Hospitality is in you, and it’s a born, bred thing more than it’s a situation where you can actually train someone to do it.” But therein lies our problem, the welcoming grace of God’s Kingdom is not in us until we are “born from above . . . of the Spirit” (John 3:1-8). This attitude of gracious service is only available to sons of God.

EMBRACED AS SONS, EMPOWERED AND EMPLOYED AS SERVANTS
Jesus calls us to serve like Him, but as we’ve discovered, His service flowed from His sonship. We can’t, and won’t, and don’t want to serve unless and until we are sons. But by nature we are “children of wrath” who have rejected the Father for the pursuit of pleasure or performance, attempting to either escape or earn the righteousness of God (Ephesians 2:1-3; Luke 15:11-32). We cannot live the cross-shaped life of lovingly serving God and others until we have been forgiven and formed by the cross of Christ. The difference between Jesus’ sonship and ours is that He is and always has been God’s Son by the nature of His being, while we become sons (by second birth and adoption) by believing the Gospel (John 1:12-13, 3:1-15; Galatians 4:4-6). [Remember Galatians 3:26-29, where both men and women are said to be “sons of God.” An adopted son in Paul’s day was a full heir while adopted daughters were not. In Christ, both men and women are full heirs, and having received the Spirit of sonship are therefore called “sons.” This does not mean, however, that believing women may not be called daughters of God (2 Corinthians 6:16-18).]

Again, our service to God and others must flow from our sonship. When through the Gospel we have become sons, then through the Gospel we can become servants. There are at least three reasons for this. First, we can freely serve the Lord Jesus and others because we have been forgiven (1 Peter 1:13-23). We no longer owe Him. The ransom price has been paid. He has shown us mercy, now we can share mercy with the people in our Personal Mission Field (Matthew 18:21-35). Second, we have been more than forgiven, we are Jesus’ friends and family and now have been given insight and involvement in the plans of His Kingdom (John 15:12-17; Hebrews 2:10-11; Luke 12:32). Finally, we are being formed into Christ-like servants ever so surely by the Spirit who now lives in us (2 Corinthians 3:18). The very Spirit by whom we cry “Abba, Father” is the One whose name means “helper” or “one who comes alongside” (Romans 8:14-17; John 14:15-17). He knows how to make sons to be servants. This is the Spirit who gives us various gifts in order to serve others with holy hospitality (1 Corinthians 12:4-11; 1 Peter 4:7-11). This Spirit is the One who continues to bear witness to us about Jesus and empowers us to bear witness about Christ to others (John 15:26-27; Acts 1:8). And this Spirit is the One who provided the blood of Christ that cleanses our consciences from dead works and causes us to walk in the good works of love for God and others (Ezekiel 36:22-28; Hebrews 9:14; Titus 3:4-8). We are the forgiven friends and family of Jesus, whose Spirit is forming us to be cruciform servants who love like our crucified Servant.

EXPRESSING THE LAW BY EMBRACING THE GOSPEL

In the diagram above, I’ve tried to show that being a servant by loving God and others is an expression of the Law of God, obedience to which flows from embracing the Gospel as a son. I like the way Sinclair Ferguson has explained the connection between the imperatives of the Law and the indicatives of the Gospel:

The great gospel imperatives to holiness are ever rooted in indicatives of grace that are able to sustain the weight of those imperatives. The Apostles do not make the mistake that’s often made in Christian ministry. [For the Apostles] the indicatives are more powerful than the imperatives in gospel preaching. So often in our preaching our indicatives are not strong enough, great enough, holy enough, or gracious enough to sustain the power of the imperatives. And so our teaching on holiness becomes a whip or a rod to beat our people’s backs because we’ve looked at the New Testament and that’s all we ourselves have seen.

We’ve seen our own failure and we’ve seen the imperatives to holiness and we’ve lost sight of the great indicatives of the gospel that sustain those imperatives. Woven into the warp and woof of the New Testament’s exposition of what it means for us to be holy is the great groundwork that the self-existent, thrice holy, triune God has—in Himself, by Himself and for Himself—committed Himself and all three Persons of His being to bringing about the holiness of His own people. This is the Father’s purpose, the Son’s purchase and the Spirit’s ministry.

We are only able to obey the Law’s imperatives or commands to love God and others as a servant when as sons we are “rooted in” and sustained by the indicatives or completed actions of Christ as He is offered in the Gospel. Only the Son of God, the Suffering Servant, can obey God’s Law fully. In order for us to be able to be Law-Keepers, we must be united by faith to God’s Son (Romans 8:3-4). We must not fall into the Galatian trap of getting the Law cart before the Gospel horse (Galatians 3:1-5). We are not transformed into cruciform servants by buckling down in our own fleshly power to try harder at serving God and others. On the contrary, we pursue a life of serving God and others by faith as we hear and believe the message of the cross that tells us we can count ourselves as sons of God who are dead to our sinful “me-first” hearts and alive to God with a “you-first” heart and an at-your-service life (Romans 6:5-14).

SERVED BY THE KING FOR KINGDOM SERVICE
Serving at Windy Gap served me well. I struggled with my “me-first” heart that first day of waiting on tables. I selfishly wanted to be served with time alone in restful retreat, but my time was taken with serving servants who had come away for retreat themselves. That first afternoon, after I finally had a couple of hours alone with God, I wrote in my journal: “I spent a lot of time today trying to listen to God’s voice, but not sensing He was saying anything in particular . . . perhaps He would have something to say to me tonight at communion with Buddy at 9:30.”

That night I sat alone with my sinful, sulking heart in the corner of the upstairs room where we were celebrating the Lord’s Supper. The room was dark but for the flickering light of the candles Buddy had carefully placed. There was a long, low table in the center of the room on which were a few candles, a cross, the bread, and the cup. Later I recorded the moment in my journal: “As soon as I sat down and looked at the table, tears began to roll down my cheeks, and I had this overwhelming sense that the Father was saying to me, ‘See Jimmy, I love you! You are my son, my beloved. I am well-pleased with you because of Jesus. This cup is the New Covenant sealed for you by the blood of My Son.

Your sins are forgiven—you are clean! You have a new heart that loves Me and wants to obey Me! Haven’t you noticed? You have My Spirit living in you. Think about that! I love you, son. I delight in you. You bring Me joy.’” When Buddy brought me the bread and juice, there were more tears as I tasted the sweetness of my King’s love for me. I had an inkling of what Peter must have been feeling when he refused Jesus’ offer to wash his feet, “You shouldn’t serve me. I should be serving You!”

Afterward, I went outside to walk and enjoyed a perfect evening in a cool breeze. You should see the stars from Windy Gap. I was amazed that the One who made and manages those billions of stars met me in that upper room that night at the table. When the bread was broken, my eyes were opened and I recognized Him. “He was known to them (and to me) in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:30-35). The Lord knew that what this unwilling Kingdom servant needed was a reminder that the King had served him and that His sacrifice continues to serve my transformation. So once again, He served me the Gospel, so that I could become a gospel servant to Him and others. I recognized Him when through the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the cup He said, “At your service.” The people in our Personal Mission Fields will recognize Him, too, when the body of Christ is broken and poured out for the sake of serving others with an at-your-service heart.

Please be sure to visit my blog The Cruciform Life to leave your comments or questions regarding this article. I plan to post further thoughts and observations, and I’d love to have your input as together we pursue the cruciform life.

Coming up next in this series: “The Cruciform Servant: Seeker, Shepherd, Steward, and Sower”

Jimmy Davis is the associate editor of Worldview Church and pastor of Riverside Church in Knoxville, Tenn. He also maintains The Cruciform Life Blog.

Organism or Organization?

Worldview Church » November 2008

I have a good friend who thinks that what we typically refer to as our church is really just a parachurch organization. I tend to agree with him. Here’s what he means:

Generally speaking, what we commonly refer to as the church is an organization with a paid and volunteer leadership who develop and direct programs in which the members of the organization participate in a particular place or building. This definition includes churches of all sizes—the small, rural church with one bi-vocational pastor, the urban or suburban mega-church with a staff of hundreds, and everything in between. But biblically speaking, the church is the body of Christ, the people, the organism that lives and moves and has its being within the structure provided by the organization.

RIGHTLY DEFINING THE CHURCH OF GOD
Think about it. What do you call the place to which you travel for worship on Sundays? Have you ever said something like, “Our church is having VBS this week” or “When is the church going to replace those old choir robes?” or “Have you been tithing to the church?” or “There sure are a lot of churches in this part of town.” True, we might be referring to the group of people who are members of a local expression of the body of Christ, but it seems we tend to think of church in terms of pastors, programs, polity, and place, not people.

When we rightly define the church as the people, then it becomes clear that what we commonly call “the church” is really a parachurch organization. Para- means “alongside,” and parachurch is a term that has been given to groups and organizations who “come alongside” the church to aid her in her mission. We typically think of groups like Young Life, Christian schools and seminaries, and mission boards as parachurch organizations because they consider themselves to be servants of local churches and of the Church at large. Similarly, a local church’s organizational structure, developed in order to organize the life and activity of the organism, is meant to come alongside the church’s people to equip and encourage them to be the body of Christ in their sphere of influence (Ephesians 4:11-16).

Defining the relationship between the church’s organization and organism is important because we church leaders are prone to treat the church’s people as if they exist to serve the church’s pastors, programs, polity, and place. Why do we feel the need to persuade people to give or give more? Because if they don’t give, the organization will not survive and our staff, missionaries, and bills won’t get paid. Why do we so easily become numbers-centered and spend so much time and energy figuring out ways to get more people in the pews? Because if they don’t come, our programs won’t run, our staff will have nothing to do, our people will go to other “churches” whose programs “meet their needs,” and we’ll run out of the physical and fiscal resources needed to maintain the place we call church. Why do so many churches feel the pressure to compete with other churches in town? Because if the conservation and continuation of our organization is our goal, then any other organization that threatens to thwart our progress necessarily becomes the competition—or worse, the enemy.

AN AT-YOUR-SERVICE ATTITUDE
When I was the middle school youth pastor in a large suburban church, I asked a certain couple to join our volunteer team of leaders in the middle school ministry. I wanted them on board because of their love for Jesus and for people. They said no and explained that if they joined our team of volunteers they wouldn’t have time to lead the weekly Bible study at their home with the neighborhood friends of their middle school son. I was asking them to give up their ministry to teenagers in their own Personal Mission Field so that they could serve in my ministry to teenagers. I was asking the organism to serve the organization. I should have served them by asking how we could help equip and resource them for the ministry that God had given them in their own neighborhood. I have much to learn—and unlearn.

Organizations, much like individuals, are prone to have “me-first-hearts” rather than “you-first-hearts.” I am not saying that organization is bad or unnecessary; indeed, it is necessary and good (the first six chapters of Acts describe how the church organized itself as it grew). But the attitude of the church’s pastors, programs, polity, and place toward the church’s people should always be one of “at your service.” As I examine my own experience in the pew and the pastorate I am convinced that though Jesus has called the organization to serve the organism, I and many others have led our churches to have an “organization-first-heart.” Our churches must learn to live the cruciform life of dying to the glory and good of the organization in order to live for the glory of God and the good of people.

How can the organization of our churches do a better job of coming alongside our people to equip them to do the work of their ministry? Are we willing to sacrifice the perpetuation of our organization in order to better serve the people, the church for whom Jesus sacrificed Himself?

Jimmy Davis is the associate editor of Worldview Church and pastor of Riverside Church in Knoxville, Tenn. He also maintains The Cruciform Life Blog.

The Jesus Way, Part 2

Worldview Church » November 2008

CHRISTIANITY BEFORE IT WAS CHRISTIANITY
Before the faith of Jesus came to be known as Christianity, it was simply “The Way” (Acts 24:14). To the Jews it was a sect, a heresy; to the Romans, The Way was a political threat to be eradicated if it could not be controlled. But to those who united with the house church/city church movement that was coming together around the Gospel of the Kingdom, The Way was just that—a new way of thinking, being, relating, and living in the presence of the risen and ascended Lord and King. It was a way so powerful and so pervasive that, in their own day, our forebears in the faith were accused of turning the settled Roman world upside-down. What they were actually doing, of course, was turning an upside-down world right side up in Jesus Christ.

In our last installment we saw how fragmented the way of Jesus has become since then. It’s not likely we’ll ever overcome this, and, indeed, it may not even be necessary to try. As John Frame explains in Evangelical Reunion, “denominational loyalty is not entirely a bad thing. It just needs to be brought into balance. Presbyterians ought to be good Christians first and good Presbyterians second, without neglecting either loyalty. They should be good Presbyterians because their Presbyterian denominations are part of the one, true church. But they should be good Presbyterians second, because a Christian’s first loyalty is always to God and to the one, true church that he founded” (p. 62).

This begs the question of precisely how we may begin to curb our denominational propensities and promote a more “one Church” mindset. How, in other words, can we in our present fragmented circumstances ever hope to regain anything like the dynamic and power Christianity enjoyed when it was everywhere known only as “The Way”?

It seems to me there are five aspects of The Way that we can begin to examine more closely in order to find guidance for bringing more unity to our churches. Our present disunity is definitely a hindrance to our witness (cf. John 17:21). If only for the sake of improving our ability to bring the Gospel of the Kingdom to the lost men and women of our increasingly secular and postmodern age, we should devote considerable attention to the question of how we may begin to recover these five aspects of Christianity as “The Way.” For if we can, we may, hopefully, recover some of the power and impact our first forebears in the faith routinely expressed.

This will no doubt be hard work, but Paul will not excuse us on that account (Ephesians 4:3). There is unity in the Spirit, the Spirit who brought into being, empowered, and sustained The Way, and we need to be willing to take up the hard work of recovering and maintaining that unity.

And the place to begin is in worship.

BEYOND WORSHIP WARS
Why begin discussing the recovery of Christian unity at such a hard place? The worship wars of the past generation have, in many ways, gouged deeper rifts in an already fragmented Church. In many places congregations have been torn apart by this strife, and rancor and suspicion are evident in many quarters. Shouldn’t we start somewhere a little easier, and ramp up to so hard a challenge as this?

The contemporary liturgical environment has witnessed many innovations, many recriminations, and a growing divide between those who cling to “traditional” forms and those who have embraced a more “contemporary” approach. It is sadly ironic that the one activity of the life of faith which is most designed to bring believers together and to express the oneness we have in Christ has, instead, become so divisive an issue in our day. Both sides in this unhappy conflict have developed a kind of smugness that is altogether unbecoming the Body of Christ. Surely we can agree that it’s time to lay down our arms and come together to see if we can’t begin to mend some fences? And, as we do so, it only makes sense that we try to glean what we can from the example of those first followers of The Way.

There’s an old maxim that says, “If you have to swallow a frog, don’t spend too much time looking at it. If you have to swallow a lot of frogs, start with the biggest one.” I’m trying to follow that bit of rustic wisdom by starting our excursion backwards along the ecclesiastical highway to try to recover our identity as The Way, by reaching back to our roots in worship to find some principles on which we might all agree.

WORSHIP AMONG THE FOLLOWERS OF THE WAY
Of course, there’s not a great deal of explicit information in the New Testament about the worship practices of the first Christians. We know, for example, that they took over the synagogue structure for their “Body life” activities. This meant that all the believers in one particular locale identified themselves as part of the Church in, say, Corinth or Ephesus or Antioch. They gathered together on a weekly basis, as was the custom in the synagogue, where, besides bringing their offerings and attending to the ministry of the Word, they were involved in other activities as well, including prayer, “prophesying,” and receiving itinerating missionaries and visiting preachers.

We can believe that the Psalms played a large part in this worship, as we see the people resorting to them readily and freely during their first major crisis in Acts 4. They seem to have taken the Lord’s Supper whenever they gathered, followed by a regular meal shared as a family of believers. Their worship services were orderly but participatory—they did not adhere to constraints of time.

The moving of the Spirit seems to have been the most important guide in their worship. Speaking in tongues was not uncommon, but its practice was strictly circumscribed, and it was not to be a hindrance to the worship of any. There seems to have been almost no consideration given to accommodating their worship to the cultural preferences of outsiders; they were content to let “visitors” enter into their encounter with God, no matter how unclear or indecipherable it may have been, as long as the majesty, unity, and spirituality of the service bore witness to the presence of the Lord.

But early Christian worship—indeed, church life as a whole—was not confined to this “city church” framework. House churches abounded and enjoyed equal status with the city church as true representations of the Body of Christ. They had officers who watched over the flock, seemingly to practice the sacraments and church discipline at the house level, and may well have gathered more frequently than the local body as a whole.

According to Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia early in the second century, the followers of The Way assembled before daylight to worship, which included singing or reciting confessions to Christ as God, making and keeping covenants with one another, and sharing a meal together. Whether this practice was that of the house churches or the city church only is not entirely clear.

Individually the first Christians also maintained an ongoing worship throughout the day, by holding to the “hours of prayer” followed by Old Testament saints. We find the apostles doing this on at least two occasions (Acts 3:1 and 10:9), and it seems quite likely that many members of the local community of believers held to this practice as well (Augustine, late in the fourth century, comments on the way his church members kept the hours of prayer).

Evidence from the second century Church indicates that many of the elements we practice in worship today were there from the beginning: reading and expounding of Scripture, hymns and confessions, prayer, the Supper. So it’s just possible that, if we can part the branches of worship that we have accreted in our separate communions and look together for a common trunk, we may be able to discover more to unite than divide us in our worship of Christ.

SOME PRINCIPLES
With that in view, and keeping in mind that we have only the barest outlines of real data to draw from, I’d like to suggest what seem to me to be five principles of worship that we can glean from the practice of those who followed The Way.

1. Worship is a forum for the faithful, focused on God. The first Christians were concerned to “get it right” before the Lord, so that their worship would be pleasing to Him. Their own “freedom” or other personal preferences were strictly secondary to the kind of decorum and decency that would coax the presence of God into their midst with a clear sense of His glory. Outsiders were welcome, but we see almost no effort to accommodate to their ignorance or preferences (Paul’s comment about being “all things to all people” is addressed not to worship, but to the work of evangelism).

2. Worship employs elements old and new. The Psalms were an important part of their worship, but we also find hints of “new songs” in the New Testament, and we know they wrote or at least learned together new confessions that exalted Jesus as God. They looked for new ways to honor the Lord in worship, but without setting aside the heritage that had gone before. Both seem to have played a crucial role in the worship of those who followed The Way.

3. Worship consisted of an orderly proceeding spiced with spontaneous participation by all. When people came together for worship there seems to have been a kind of uniform order in practice (see especially the comments of Ignatius and Tertullian on the protocols of worship). At the same time, people could pray aloud, offer a word of testimony, and even proclaim some word from the Lord, as the leaders guided the congregation.

4. Worship was a weekly, daily, and moment-by-moment endeavor. The first Christians understood the important role that worship could have in bringing them into the presence of God and His glory. They could not be content with a weekly scripted hour of worship; instead, they made worship a way of life, and gathered as often as was practicable and carried their worship into regular “meetings with God” throughout the day.

5. Worship according to the norms of the New Testament was hard to maintain and tended toward disarray. Thus it was necessary for church leaders to take a strong hand in making sure the worship of God was as it should be. This was not a work to be left to novices or those given to sentiment.

These principles are few and flexible. They provide some outside parameters toward which we can plan our services of worship, and by which we might evaluate them as well. If more of us began to try to practice these guidelines, we might find that there is more that we have in common amid the vicissitudes of worship today than should actually divide us. And if we can start talking with one another about worship, we might find ways of beginning to practice it together more according to the practices of those first followers of The Way—in our daily lives, our homes, our churches, and united as one Body of Christ in each community.

T. M. Moore is editor of Worldview Church, principal of The Fellowship of Ailbe, and dean of the Centurions and the Wilberforce Forum of PFM.