Archive for the ‘History’ category

Elders Lead A Healthy Family: Support

August 23rd, 2008

In my lifetime of service to the church, I have played many parts and been blessed financially in different ways. I put aside a profitable career as an Engineer and turned down an offer of a 6 figure salary to honor God’s call to a full time ministry as a pastor. Over the years I have been paid to work full time, part time, and as a church planter I have worked bi-vocationally. I have given my time without financial benefit and in some cases I have been blessed with a simple honorarium. The question becomes, “is any one of these approaches more biblical than the other?”

Based on our discussion so far, we know that an Elder is a servant-leader who is not ruled by the love of money. At the same time, Paul makes clear that Elders have the right to receive financial support from the church.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Word Biblical Commentary explains how this passage fits into Paul’s general rule of churches supporting Elders with teaching responsibilities.

Paul begins the first of his four statements about elders on the same note with which he began and ended the preceding discussion of widows—honor—and in both cases honor involves money. The elders who were following his instructions and doing a good job not only were worthy of the peoples’ respect but should also be paid for their work (“double honor”). He will continue in v 18 with his reason: workers should be paid. This was Paul’s general rule (1 Cor 9:4–6; cf. Rom 13:7) although he himself often chose to earn his own living (cf. 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 11:7–9; 1 Thess 2:9; cf. 2 Thess 3:7–9; Acts 18:3).

William D. Mounce, vol. 46, Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, 306 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002).

So what we have so far is a clear biblical teaching connected with historical examples of men receiving financial blessing for their ministry to the church. Now let’s look a little deeper at the history through the eyes of New Testament scholar and historian Dr. Ben Worthington.

But lets talk for a moment about the issue of paid ministers. Should ministers be paid, or let’s be more specific, do they have a right to be paid, while of course also having the right to refuse a salary or support? Well actually the NT is clear on this– the answer is YES. Let’s deal the principle first, and then we will deal with passages thought to dispute this notion.

The basic principle, first enunciated by Jesus himself, and then reiterated by Paul and others is that “a workman is worthy of his hire”. Let us start with Mt. 10.10 and par. Here Jesus is commissioning the 12, the leaders in training amongst his followers, to go out 2 by 2, and he quite specifically tells them not to take this or that money with them. Why? Because he expects them to rely on the system of standing hospitality and let others provide for them. This is why he says “a workman is worthy of his hire/keep” and also why he tells them NOT to take any copper or gold or silver in a money bag with them. They should not expect to pay their own way. They are those commissioned to spread the kingdom, and they deserve to be paid for their work. Where then does the idea of ‘no-pay’ ministers, or faith based missions where you pay your own way come from? It comes from a rather bad misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 9 and 2 Cor. 11, which texts we need now to consider.

As usual, social context is crucial to understand these texts. But even if we knew nothing about the patronage and clientage system in operation in Corinth and its connection for why Paul particularly chose in Corinth to offer the Gospel free of charge without receiving patronage or fees for speaking, 1 Cor. 9.14 is Paul’s reiteration of the principle of Jesus first enunciated in Mt. 10.10. Here is Paul’s way of putting it “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the Gospel should receive their living from the Gospel, but I have not used any of these rights..”

In fact throughout this passage Paul insists he has a right to such support, a right to be paid, a right to be supported and taken care of. But voluntarily he has chosen not to take advantage of that right. Why? You have to understand the whole social situation, and its difference from our own.

In first century Corinth, there would have been orators, rhetoricians, sophists, teachers for hire. Some were itinerant and would come to an agora, set out their money bag, speak or sing for a while, and then ask for money. Others, more sophisticated would engage in a longer term relationship with a patron. Paul did not do the former for the very good reason that he wanted to do church planting and stay a while. He wanted to establish relationships with those he was evangelizing. He did not want to appear to be a snake oil salesman huckstering some message he was not prepared to defend and explain over the long haul. On the other end of the spectrum he wanted to avoid the entangling alliances that were set up when you accepted patronage. So in Corinth he chose to support himself by tent-making, though he makes perfectly clear in 1 Cor. 9 that if he had wanted to, he had a right to be paid for his ministerial work. This chapter should be compared to what is said in 2 Cor. 11.7ff. Notice that he calls it ‘lowering himself’ making a sacrifice, when he chose to preach in Corinth fee-free. But the next verse is crucial— “I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something…the brothers and sisters from Macedonia supplied what I needed.”

Now what was the difference between Paul’s relationship with the Corinthian church, and the Philippian one– much in every way. Paul had a relationship of ‘giving and receiving’ as he says clearly in Philippians, with that church in Macedonia. He did not have such a relationship with the Corinthian church. Why not? Because the Corinthian Christians were immature, and those who could have supported Paul wanted him to become their client on an ongoing basis. But this would have obligated him in ways that would limit his travel. It is interesting that in Rom. 16 Paul tells us about Phoebe from the nearby church in Cenchreae. She did become his prostatis at least for a time, but she must have understood that Paul was being remunerated in this way, not obligated to an ongoing future service to the patron. In short, if you don’t understand the lingo and the cultural practices, you are not going to understand what Paul says about paid ministers. There was also a further technical phrase we find in several places in the NT, including Romans and the Johannine Epistles “sending me on my way” or “sending him on his way”. This refers to providing traveling money and supplies to get to the next destination. Paul says he was hoping the Roman church would provide this so he could go on to Spain. Let’s look at one more important Pauline text— Gal. 6.6— “those who receive instructions in the Word should share all good things with their instructor.” Here is a reference of course to a teacher, and the obligation of the congregation to provide for the instructor. The English phrase ‘all good things’ is really too general. What is meant here is monetary support PLUS providing room, board, etc (see my Galatians commentary Grace in Galatia on this important verse). Indeed, Paul believed a workman is worthy of his hire, just as Jesus said.

What we see then is a Scriptural corroboration and a consistency of actions over time which support the concept of Elders receiving money from the church. Keeping this in mind, there are a few important things to remember before we apply this to our churches.

First, I have noticed a disturbing trend in the writings of some men on this subject. There is s tendency to emphasize Paul’s example of tent-making while ignoring the other periods of his ministry when he lived on the support of churches alone (Acts 18:1-5).
Second, Paul’s teaching about Elders, based on our previous guidelines, has direct authority for the church over his actions. Paul was an Apostle, not an Elder, and so while his actions provide a model of sacrificial-service that should be respected by all Christians, the church must give priority to his direct teaching on how to financially support Her teaching Elders.
Third, everything examined so far demonstrates that Elders in the early church did receive financial support from the church, and this support was in alignment with God’s design for NT church. But, how does this translate into the modern church paying a salary to an Elder? In point of fact, there is no direct”apples to apples” correlation between the early church “honorarium” and the modern church “salary“.

…while itinerant missionaries (such as the apostles) did receive payment, elders working in their local churches received not a salary but an honorarium “on a person-to-person and day-to-day basis, according to the circumstances, . . . [and] above all it is a free-will offering, the very antithesis to a regular paid salary” (ExpTim 84 [1972–73] 105–8, citing Hanson, [1966] 62)…

(1) it is unlikely that the early church would have had sufficient funds to pay a regular salary; (2) 1 Tim 3:7 suggests that elders retained their jobs in the secular world; (3) τιμή means “honorarium” and never “regular salary”; and (4) “it does not seem likely that Paul would make a regular salary dependent on some sort of efficiency test . . . because of the sure threat of division it would bring” (107).

William D. Mounce, vol. 46, Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, 309 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002).

These are good arguments, with some historical assumptions, and a fair summary of the issue. However, just because these two practices; the NT honorarium vs. modern salary, are unique in form, does not mean the modern salary is unbiblical or pagan. For example, the NT period knew nothing of our modern healthcare system, which is rooted in pagan culture, so the form in which the church might choose to care for the physical needs of her Elder (or of any member of the church for that matter) can be very different in diverse cultures.

Let me offer one last verse that has some bearing on this discussion and then I will make some summary points.

Romans 14:13-23 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

Taking into account the Scriptures, important cultural concerns, and applying the guidelines outlined in the last post, we can make a proper application of the Apostolic teaching to our modern context without doing violence to the church.

To The Churches

  1. Although Elders in the early church most likely did not receive a salary as we know it today, there is no biblical prohibition against it. To the contrary, there is no moral limitation on the generosity of a church toward Her Elders, and no one has the biblical authority impose one.
  2. Elders who receive a full time salary are in line with Scripture; but so too are Elders who receive a part time salary, no salary or only the occasional honorarium. It is at the desecration of each church to decide on how to honor their Elders. It is wrong for others to despise the liberty of the church. The condemnation from Pharisaical-outsiders who pretend to have authority not given by YHWH should find no place among God’s people (note the green text in the above passage from Romans).
  3. A church that withholds all forms of financial support from Her Elders is in violation of the biblical norm and Apostolic expectation (see again 1 Tim 5:.17-18).
So what is the “proper” and “biblical” way to financially compensate an Elder in the church? None! A church in China, is not the same as a church in California. A church in West Virginia is not the same as a church in Mexico. God has given discretion to the church and the Holy Spirit must lead each Family to decide how to give proper honor to their Elders.

To The Elders
  1. Circumstances in a church might change, and there may be seasons when a pastor can better serve the Family by refusing the honorarium. Elders should not let tradition determine how much they accept, but they must do what is right for the church above their own need.
  2. Within certain communities and cultures, even in the West, taking a salary could hinder the proclamation of the Gospel, and each Elder must make a decision to accept or reject a church’s honorarium based on what is best for the Kingdom (note the blue text in the above passage from Romans).
  3. The church’s ability to pay a salary should not determine the calling of an Elder. Elders should not seek to serve the highest bidder or treat the calling of Elder as a job where one works their way up the ladder of corporate success.
Let’s sum up all these points by looking at the example of Paul. Although not an Elder, Paul does provide an example of how times and circumstances can change the Elder’s approach to money.

Acts 18:1-5 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

At times, Paul supported himself as a tent-maker and at other times he relied solely on the financial support of the church. Sometimes Paul struggled and other times he had more than enough. Paul’s course was never determined by his need, but by his mission to serve the Gospel and so it should be with our Elders.

With the issue of pastoral salaries behind us, let’s apply our previous guidelines to the issue of leadership structures for the church.

——- In This Series ——-

  • Share/Bookmark

34 comments »

Posted in Ecclesiology, History, Leadership

Elders Lead A Healthy Family: History

August 3rd, 2008

Leadership, structure and authority have been a part of God’s design from Genesis through Revelation. In every age, God has made a place for Elders to lead among His people. Unfortunately, the Elders in most modern churches do not have the same purpose as ordained by the Spirit in the New Testament. As we seek to rediscover their Spirit-gifted leadership of church, it is helpful to understand the context and culture in which the term Elder grew.

The term “elder” is familiar to most Christians, but it is also misunderstood by many. To some, the elder is the pastor of a church; to others, he is one of many pastors; or to a few, he is one of a board of elders who serve with a pastor. The one constant idea in all these is that he is a leader of the church.

Such a concept, however, is not sufficient. Several factors unfold the meaning of “elder”—lexical definition, historical use of the term, and the context in which it appears. Above all, it is critical to divorce oneself from contemporary concepts of the church and to keep in mind the Jewish context in which the term “elder” was used. Often overlooked, this Jewish heritage gives a significant dimension to the meaning of “elder.” The word has a lexical meaning determined by its cultural and historical setting. Paul’s idea of what an elder was is critical to a proper understanding and function of that office in the church.

Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 144, 144:87 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987; 2002).

The context begins with the nation of Israel. From ancient times, elders were the older men from each family, and later they had a distinct role of leadership alongside Moses.

In the Pentateuch elders are referred to among the Egyptians (Gn. 50:7) and the Moabites and Midianites (Nu. 22:7), as well as among the Israelites. In Ex. 3:16 the Israelites are represented as having had elders from the time of the Egyptian captivity, and it is with them that Moses is commanded to collaborate in his bid for freedom. They were probably the heads of families in the first instance, but Ex. 24:1 gives a fixed number of seventy. It was upon this inner circle of seventy elders that the Lord poured out the spirit in order that they should share the government of the people with Moses (Nu. 11:25).

D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., 305 (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996).

In later times, Elders had very specific roles ordained by God among the nation of Israel.

After the wilderness period every city seems to have had its own ruling body of elders whose duties, according to Deuteronomic legislation, included acting as judges in apprehending murderers (Dt. 19:12), conducting inquests (Dt. 21:2) and settling matrimonial disputes (Dt. 22:15; 25:7). If theirs was a city of refuge they also heard pleas for asylum (Jos. 20:4; but see also Nu. 35:24).

ibid.

Generations later, during the New Covenant period of Acts, we see the Jewish religious Elders in conflict with the Apostles (Acts 4:5). Yet despite these conflicts the young church still valued and embraced the role of Elder in serving the new-covenant-people of God (Acts 11:30, Acts 15:2, Acts 20:17, Acts 21:18).

The Apostle Paul and the prophet Barnabas were commissioned by the church in Antioch to plant churches among the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3). At the end of their very first missionary Journey, Paul and Barnabas made sure to appoint Elders for each young church in the region of Galatia.

Acts 14:21-23 After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

As we move beyond the early church in Acts into the future Kingdom, the Apostle John’s vision from the Lord shows us that Elders will continue to serve even in the throne room of YHWH (Rev 4:4; 19:4).

From start to finish, Elders have been a part of God’s plan for His people. Now, keeping this bit of history in mind, let’s focus in on God’s plan for Elders for the church today.
In stark contrast to the actual history told to us through the Scripture and by Luke in the New Testament, there are some people who paint a picture of church that functions best without Elders. One example is this somewhat misleading statement from the book Pagan Christianity.

The one who plants a first-century-styled church leaves that church without a pastor, elders, a music leader, a Bible facilitator, or a Bible teacher. If that church is planted well, those believers will know how to sense and follow the living, breathing headship of Jesus Christ in a meeting. They will know how to let Him invisibly lead their gatherings.” (pg 234)

This statement is misleading first, because it paints a false portrait of these Spirit-led community. From the very beginning, the churches planted by Paul and his co-workers had many false doctrines, conflicts, and disruptions which required the good leadership gifts of Elders and Apostles (Acts 15:1-41 & Gal 2:1-9). Second, it is an historically and biblically incorrect statement to say that God’s ideal church has no Elders. From the Jerusalem church and beyond, Elders were a part of God’s design for a healthy Family.

The Gentile church soon began to take on the design and order of the Jerusalem church. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every new church (Acts 14:23). As Hort observed,

Paul and Barnabas follow the precedent of Jerusalem by appointing elders in Jewish fashion (elders being indeed an institution of Jewish communities of the Dispersion as well as of Judaea), and with this simple organization they entrusted the young Ecclesiae to the Lord’s care, to pursue an independent life.

In Paul’s letter to the Philippians, he addressed both bishops (ἐπισκόποις) and deacons, showing a structure similar to that in Jerusalem (Phil 1:1). In Acts 20:17, 28 Paul reminded the Ephesian church elders of their responsibilities as spiritual leaders.

Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 144, 144:72 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987; 2002).
From the beginning of the New Covenant faith established on the Cross of our Messiah, Elders were a Divine part of God’s design for the church. The role from Old Covenant to New is unique, but there is nothing in the New Testament, or church tradition, to suggest that the church today should not embrace these Spirit-gifted leaders among the faithful.
In the next post, we will look at some of the key teachings given by the Apostles regarding Elders and their leadership role in the Body of Jesus Christ.


——- In This Series ——-

  • Share/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Ecclesiology, History, Leadership, Reunion Church

Paul’s Idea of Community

July 8th, 2008

Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rev. 1994). 233 pp. 
Introduction
The book by Robert Banks has come up in a lot of recent discussions.  His work is relied upon heavily by many in the house church / organic church movement.  Since there seems to be so much interest, I thought I would post this book review to help folks understand the backdrop for the ongoing discussion of church.

Theme

Although published close to 15 years ago, Banks used the best scholarship of its time, both primary and secondary sources, to paint a picture of the New Testament church and how it lived out Paul’s ideal of community. The context for understanding the New Testament community is better understood when one sees Paul as a social thinker rather than a systematic theologian. This book is written so it is accessible to scholars, pastors, and laymen alike. Bank’s hope is to stimulate the thinking of the contemporary church and help people think through our common practice and theology of community.

Banks incorporates a text-critical approach in that he questions the authenticity and authorship of some of the writings attributed to Paul. Yet despite his concerns over Pauline authenticity, he nonetheless included the book of Ephesians in the discussion. As a concession to tradition, he also included the Pastoral Epistles in his review, but only as a separate section at the end of the book where the reader can decide if their message is compatible with the other writings of Paul.

The book seeks to understand the inner workings of the church and does not address the external responsibilities of the church to those outside the community of faith. Banks offers three primary conclusions. First, the salvific ideal of freedom combined with the practice of home gathering provides the basic framework for understanding Paul’s concept of community. Second, Banks asserts that the community’s praxis was familial, not formal, and his design for ministry was functional, not institutional. Finally, Paul saw the connection between communities was relational as opposed to denominational or legal.

Contents

Banks’ first guiding principle is that in order to understand the Pauline concept of community, one must also understand the culture and ethos of his day. As Paul traveled throughout the Mediterranean, he was impacted by the cultural and legal institutions of his day. Consequently, his writings to the various churches can not be divorced from these external influences. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul demonstrations his policy of adaptation to culture when he asserts that he has become “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22). When he cannot incorporate an idea into his own (Acts 17:22-32), he will demonstrate why his view is superior (Col. 2:8-23). All ideas must give way to the Gospel (1 Cor. 10:14-22), but Paul is always willing to adopt and integrate cultural practices that do not violate the Gospel ethos (8:7-13; 10:23-30). Therefore, to understand Paul’s idea of community, one must understand his writings in their historical milieu.

The book’s second guiding principle for understanding Paul is that Paul’s primary approach is to connect the ideal of community to the message of freedom found in the Gospel. Each chapter of the book provides a look at the same basic theme of freedom from a different aspect of Christian community. The freedom which stands at the core of Paul’s theology applies first to the individual who is born a slave to sin, bound by the restrictions of the Mosaic Law, and hampered by supernatural powers outside their control. Thus freedom in Christ is the ability to transcend these restraining forces and enter into new community. Dependence upon Christ and the Spirit, leads to total interdependence and service to others from both a cosmic and eternal personal perspective.

Based on the two guiding principles outlined above, Banks makes three primary assertions; community is familial not formal, the ministry of community is functional not institutional, and the connection of one church to another is relational not denominational. In support of the first idea that community is familial in nature, Banks asserts that the term ekklesia used to describe the local gathering did not carry with it any religious or cultic meaning (28). Ekklesia is primarily used to describe a Divinely ordained local gathering, not a universal or corporate existence of the saints. The church gathered in local homes, and kept to small gatherings which promoted strong interpersonal relationships. And although some of Paul’s later writings seem to refer to a larger spiritual understanding of the term ekklesia, he never develops this concept further and so it would seem the primary meaning is still referring to the local gathering. There is nowhere in the writings of Paul a description of an organizational structure that bound the separate churches together. While he did encourage voluntary interaction and cooperation between the separate gatherings, focus seems to be one of convenience over organization (42).

The idea that ministry is functional as opposed to institutional is summarized well in the chapter on “Gifts and Ministry.” The call upon each individual Christian is to worship God by giving over the whole of ones life to service in all places and at all times. At all times the Christian is to reach out into the world with grace and compassion. But the distinguishing mission of the church gathered together is the growth and edification of its members (90). Thus the primary purpose for the gathering together of the church was to care for the genuine needs of each member. Paul’s understanding of the Christian gifts is a prime example of the church’s practical nature. The charismata are not temporal, but intended to provide ongoing insight and support to meet the growing and changing needs of the church (92). Ministry in the church, therefore, was not based on the establishment of programs, but upon the shifting needs of the people being met through the dynamic manifestation of the Spirit’s giftings.

The third and final assertion is that each local church is connected to the other by a common relationship and mission rather than a structured organization. Each local church maintained a connection with Paul, but still demonstrated a unique mission (159). Each church established it own people to fulfill the mission of evangelism and development, but they cooperated with other churches when there was a mutual interest or need (163 cf). Each church then decided how they would coordinate and cooperate with other churches to fulfill their mission, but there was no effort to mandate or coordinate this effort from a larger denomination or organization.

Response

Overall, I agree with the general thrust of the book. Banks is right in asserting that Paul’s theology is better understood in its historical context for without this context so much of the meaning behind his practical instruction is lost. Banks’ ideal of church as familial, functional, and relational are three very good insights into what makes the local gathering of the Body of utmost value to God’s Kingdom. Within this large framework, there are some details of this book that are less then compelling.

One of the early problems is Banks’ conclusions about Paul’s unique usage of the term ekklesia.  Assumptions and logical assertions are made in an effort to enforce his conclusion that the term ekklesia only applied to Christians who gathered in a local home (pp. 32-34). I find his reasoning in these areas speculative at best.  If there was a significant Divine ideal that the term church only applies to small groups that met in homes, or that meetings outside of homes did not constitute ekklesia, then it seems that this would have been stated outright by Paul in his always practical instructions. 

The logic at times seems inconsistent and convenient. As stated above, Banks is willing to develop whole concepts based on certain assumptions, but he seems willing to discount other meanings for ekklesia, like church as a heavenly community, based on the fact that Paul does not develop the idea (39). Yet if Banks’ original assertion is true, that Paul’s theology is practical and not systematic, then the fact that he does not fully develop the spiritual concept of ekklesia cannot be a basis to discount its validity as part of the Pauline doctrine.

One specific example of the speculative reasoning employed by Banks is his assertion that Paul’s use of the term ekklesia was a later development (45-46). The impression left to the reader is that this later meaning was somehow a compromise or distraction from the early and primary meaning used by Paul (193). This assertion fails to convince on two counts. First, since biblical revelation is demonstrably progressive, it makes little sense to assume that Paul’s concept of ekklesia could not progress to a fuller and larger understanding over time. Second, there is no biblical reason to assume that a later concept is in any way inferior to an earlier concept. Paul obviously incorporated the spiritual ideal of ekklesia into his teaching because he felt it had instrumental value to the functioning of church, so there is no need to see it as deleterious to the concept of church as a local gathering. Finally, if we take as valid Bank’s method of studying Paul in historical context, then to try and understand Paul’s use of the term ekklesia independent of the other New Testament writers who were inspired by the same Spirit and lived in the same age is somewhat counterintuitive. While Paul does have some unique elements in his use of the term ekklesia, to treat his theology as completely independent from the fuller revelation can lead to some interpretative problems. That being said, there are some very important observations made by Banks regarding which elements make the community life of church unique and which ones cannot be compromised.

One of the most important metaphors for ekklesia used by Paul, and emphasized by Banks (47), is the metaphor of family. Our ability to address God as “Abba” and live and function as His adopted sons (Gal. 4:4-5) is the foundation that unites the members of the community and binds them together as family. The implications for the way we experience modern church are manifold. If we are truly members of one common family, then we must find ways to work for the common good (Gal. 6:10). If the church were to truly live out this family relationship, it would, first and foremost, radically shift the way we structure our leadership. It would demand that we rethink the model of pastor as CEO who heads the church as the sole leader.

Second, to grasp the vision of church as family, means that we must rethink the way we view the role of paid and “lay” ministers. It would not eliminate the role for paid leaders, but we would cease to make any social distinction between those who are staff and those who minister without financial compensation.

Finally, a biblical understanding of Paul’s vision for church to live as a family would impact the way we view both the new Christian and the non-Christian. A family is always looking to grow in numbers because this keeps the family strong and ensures its survival. So too, the church must seek out the lost, not simply because they need salvation from sin, but because we too need to them enter into our family and help our family grow stronger. Those new to the family would be seen not as a liability, but as a weaker sibling that needs our love and wisdom to help them grow into fully functioning household contributors.

  • Share/Bookmark

7 comments »

Posted in Book Reviews, Ecclesiology, Family, History

Hippies, Pimps, and Vulcans

June 29th, 2008

For the past year our church has moved through the New Testamnet using history as our guide. Taking one chapter a week, we have gone through Luke, Most of Acts and Galatians. Next week we begin Thessalonians. I have grown so much in my faith as we have journeyed with Jesus, Paul and the Apostles.

Last week we went through Acts 17. Living in Thessalonica, Paul reasoned with the Jews and God-fearers in the synagogues for 3 weeks. He made his living making tents and was also supported by the church in Phillipi (Act 17:4-10). Some were persuaded to follow Jesus, but when persecution came they sent Paul away to avoid conflict with the Jews and the Roman authorities. Paul worries about these young followers, and later sends Timothy to check in on them. Moving on, Paul visits Berea, where the people showed a greater dedication to discovering Jesus. Every day they searched the Scriptures together to learn about God’s grace. Even those who disagreed, did not drive Paul out, they sat and talked together. Eventually the Jews came down from Thessalonica and drive Paul out so he headed over to Athens.

In Athens, Paul reasoned with three kinds of people; Hippies, Pimps, and Vulcans.

Hippies
Here is a description from the Bible Knowledge Commentary (BKC) of what I call the Hippy crowd.

The city was given over to a “cultured paganism” that was nourished by idolatry, novelty (Acts 17:21), and philosophy… “The Greek religion was a mere deification of human attributes and the powers of nature,” wrote Conybeare and Howson in their classic Life and Epistles of St. Paul. “It was a religion which ministered to art and amusement, and was entirely destitute of moral power” (pp. 280–281)… Their leisure time was spent telling or hearing “some new thing.” Eric Hoffer wrote that “the fear of becoming a ‘has been’ keeps some people from becoming anything.” (BKC)

How does the Hippy mentality live on today in our culture?

Pimps
Pimps are those who use and abuse pleasure as the highest moral value. Pimps are a lot like the Epicurean philosophers.

We today associate the word Epicurean with the pursuit of pleasure and the love of “fine living,” especially fine food. But the Epicurean philosophy involved much more than that. In one sense, the founder Epicurus was an “existentialist” in that he sought truth by means of personal experience and not through reasoning. The Epicureans were materialists and atheists, and their goal in life was pleasure. (BKC)

How does the Pimp philosophy live on in our culture?

Vulcans
All the Star Trek nerds out there will recognize the logic-driven and emotionless Vulcans among the ancient Stoic philosophers.

The Stoics rejected the idolatry of pagan worship and taught that there was one “World God.” They were pantheists, and their emphasis was on personal discipline and self-control. Pleasure was not good and pain was not evil. The most important thing in life was to follow one’s reason and be self-sufficient, unmoved by inner feelings or outward circumstances. Of course, such a philosophy only fanned the flames of pride and taught men that they did not need the help of God. (BKC)

How does the Stoic philosophy exist in our culture?

What I find so interesting, is that all these ancient philosophical ideas are represented in my community today. Every day, I talk with Hippies, Pimps and Vulcans about Jesus. I am glad to know that I am not alone in my struggle to share the Gospel to such a diverse group of people. Who are the Hippies, Pimps, and Vulcans in your neighborhood? How do you bring the Gospel to such a diverse crowd?

  • Share/Bookmark

1 comment »

Posted in Culture, Epistemology, Evangelism, History, Religion