This multi-part expository study was preached at Flagstaff Christian Fellowship in 2017. Audio and manuscripts are available for each lesson.
For permission to reproduce/distribute these resources from Steve Cole (including the Word document and audio files found on the individual lesson pages below) please see Bible.org's ministry friendly copyright and permissions page. Likewise, to reproduce/distribute PDF/audio versions of his messages which may be found on Flagstaff Christian Fellowship's website see their permission statement.
April 2, 2017
Since I plan to spend the next few weeks preaching on what the Bible says about the church, it’s important that we begin by making sure we’re all on the same page regarding the question: What is the church? The answer is not as simple as you may think!
If you were to ask people on the street, “What is the church?” you’d probably hear, “It’s that building on the corner of Beaver and Benton Streets.” Sometimes we use the word in that way: “I go to the old stone church that is next to NiMarco’s Pizza on South Beaver Street.” But we all know (or should know) that the church is not a building, but rather the people who meet in that building. The building may look like a typical church, with a steeple and a cross on top. Or, it may be an industrial building remodeled into an auditorium and classrooms. In many countries, churches meet in houses, as the early church did. So buildings are not the church. Rather, it’s the people who are the church.
But, even if we all agree that the church is the people, we still need to clarify what the church really is, or at least, what it’s supposed to be. Some might think that the church is the place where you go to meet other nice people. Hopefully, the church generally has a crowd that’s a notch above the local bar! So the church meets a social need.
Others might go to church in the hopes that if they attend church, God will help their lives go better. He will help their businesses. He will bless their families. Some guys go to church because it makes their wives happier. As long as his buddies aren’t doing something more interesting, he’ll tag along to please his wife.
Among those who claim to be born again, the prevailing American view is that you attend church to worship God and get spiritual nourishment. It’s a lot like going to the theater, but with a spiritual focus. When you go to the theater, you sit and watch the show that the film makers and actors have put together for your enjoyment. You may see a few of your friends in the lobby before or after the show and stop to chat. But that’s about the extent of your involvement. You’re a religious consumer and the church provides religious goods. So you attend the church that provides what best meets your and your family’s needs.
Over thirty years ago, I wrote an article titled, “The Best Show in Town?” (You can read it on our church website.) I critiqued the way that many pastors cater to this consumer mindset by trying to put on “the best show in town” every Sunday. The goal is to attract more and more people to attend your “show” so that the offerings increase and you can hire more staff to make the show even more attractive to potential customers. So pastors and their staff members rack their brains and comb through ministry magazines for new ideas on how to get more people to come to your “show.” The church with the most people wins.
The result of this approach is mega-churches with parking lot attendants, a coffee bar that rivals Starbucks, professional “worship” teams that perform with concert level quality, short sermons that speak to the felt needs of the “customers,” and facilities offering midweek exercise programs, along with free babysitting.
But even with all these amenities, many millennial Christians would rather just stay home in their pajamas, sip gourmet coffee, and maybe catch their favorite preacher online. They think, “Why do I need the church? The church is out of touch with where I’m at. It’s full of judgmental old people who are obviously uncomfortable with my tattoos and body piercings. I’d rather just stay home and surf the web for spiritual input or meet with my friends and talk about subjects that concern us.” They don’t see any point in being committed to a local church.
One of my aims in this series is to change your understanding of the church from the prevalent consumer mindset to a biblical view so that you will commit yourself to a local church that, although imperfect, is seeking to be what the Bible prescribes. In this message, my main point is that …
To be committed properly to the local church, you must understand biblically what the church is.
I’ll offer biblical definitions of the local and universal church and then cover a few of the biblical metaphors used of the church.
There are simpler definitions, but in my opinion, they either are not comprehensive enough or they miss the mark in other ways. For example, Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology [Zondervan], p. 853, italics his) gives a succinct definition: “The church is the community of all true believers for all time.” While that definition recognizes that the Greek word, ecclesia (literally, “assembly,” but usually translated “church”) is used of God’s people in the Old Testament, it fails to recognize the distinct nature of the church as beginning on the Day of Pentecost, consisting of all who are under the headship of Jesus Christ, having been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23).
While I agree that God has always had a community of true believers, we need to understand that there is a distinct difference between the Old Testament people of God and the New Testament church, which is the body of Christ. James Boice (God and History [IVP], p. 63) points out:
… the church has characteristics that cannot rightly be applied to the Old Testament assembly and which therefore set it off as something new. The church (1) is founded on the Lord Jesus Christ, (2) is called into being by the Holy Spirit, and (3) is to contain people of all races who thereby become one new people in the sight of God.
Mack Stiles is on target when he writes (9 Marks online article, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Parachurch Ministry”),
The church is the God-ordained local assembly of believers who have committed themselves to each other. They gather regularly, they teach the Word, celebrate communion and baptism, discipline their members, establish a biblical structure of leadership, they pray and give together. Certainly the church may do more, but it is not less than this.
Going back to my definition, note first that the local church is a gathering of those who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. This means that the church consists of those who meet together because they believe the gospel. Each member believes: I am a sinner who deserves God’s righteous judgment. He sent His eternal Son, Jesus Christ, who is God in human flesh, to pay the penalty of death that I deserve. He promises that all who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was raised from the dead receive forgiveness of all their sins and eternal life as a free gift. Genuine saving faith includes turning from my sins and growing in obedience to the commandments given by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament. This belief in the gospel is at the core of true local churches.
Also, those who have believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord are committed to meet regularly for worship, teaching, fellowship, and prayer. Acts 2:42 reports of the early church, “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Elsewhere, Paul instructs the church (Col. 3:16), “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” These and other similar texts spell out the essential activities of the church when we gather each Lord’s Day.
Also, from my definition: The local church is a gathering of those … who help make disciples of all people. This is the Great Commission that the Lord gave us (Matt. 28:19-20a): “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” This command was not just for the apostles or for missionaries who are called to go to foreign cultures. Every Christian should be involved in the process of making disciples (obedient followers of Jesus), whether locally or globally. This includes sharing the gospel with those outside of Christ, helping other believers grow in Christ, and being informed and committed to the cause of Christ worldwide.
Also, it’s important to note that the Bible never uses the word “church” to refer to the building where God’s people met, but almost always to the cities where they met: The church in Jerusalem, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, etc. In many cases, there were probably too many believers to gather in one location each Sunday, so they met in numerous houses throughout the city. Probably each house church had at least one pastor or elder who was responsible for shepherding, oversight, and teaching that flock.
But the church in a city was viewed as one local church, governed by a plurality of elders. Watchman Nee put it (The Normal Christian Church Life [International Students Press], p. 59), “A local church is a church which comprises all the children of God in a given locality.” To be honest, with all of the many Protestant denominations in every city, I don’t know how to recover this as a reality. But the overall point is, the local church is a gathering of believers in Jesus Christ, under His lordship, and committed to one another to help fulfill His saving purposes.
After describing God’s people at Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:18-21), the author of Hebrews (12:22-24) draws this contrast:
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
The author was trying to impress on these Jewish believers in Christ, who were tempted to return to Judaism, the superiority of the church over the Old Covenant people of God. We are a part of this great company of all people everywhere who have believed in Jesus and His shed blood. While in one sense that includes Old Testament believers, who looked forward to Christ, in another sense there is a contrast between them and us, in that we are actually members of His worldwide body, the church.
You have no doubt had the same experience that I have had, where you have met someone from another country who is very different culturally than you are. They may only speak broken English. But when you discover that he or she is a believer in Jesus Christ, there is an instant bond of fellowship. Although you both normally meet with believers in very different places around the globe and your church meetings may look very different, you both are members of the one universal body of Christ.
To further help understand what the church is, let’s look at a few biblical metaphors for the church. There are dozens in the New Testament, but I pared it down to seven. Even at that, I can only comment very briefly:
This is perhaps the most familiar description of the church. Paul uses it extensively in 1 Corinthians 12 to make the point that all believers are members of the one body of Christ. He states (1 Cor. 12:13): “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” He doesn’t mention in that chapter that Christ is the head of the body because his aim is to emphasize both the unity and diversity of the church. Just as in a human body there are many members but each has a different function, so in the body of Christ. Each member has a spiritual gift to be used for the overall good of the body. We’re different, yet we’re one body.
Going along with the point that the church is Christ’s body is the truth that Christ and the church make up the “one new man.” Adam, the first man, fell into sin. But what Adam (“the old man”) lost, Christ (“the new man”), recovered. While most modern translations convey an individual sense to the “new man” (NASB, ESV, NIV = “new self”), Paul’s point is that the new man is corporate: Christ and the church (Col. 3:9-11):
Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self [man] with its evil practices, and have put on the new self [man] who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him—a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.
Paul also states that Christ is the head of His body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23): “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Among many practical applications is that each member of Christ’s body must be in submission to Him as the head and in a complementary relationship with other members of the body.
Also, the most important characteristic of bodies is that they are living. While bodies are highly organized, the organization is useless if there is no life. The church is the organic, living body of Christ. Its members must be alive spiritually through the new birth.
Paul presents this image in his discussion of the respective roles of husbands and wives (Eph. 5:22-33). Lest we think that he is limiting his discussion to marriage, he states (Eph. 5:32): “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.” The apostle John presents the same imagery (Rev. 19:7-8; 21:2, 9; & 22:17): the church is the bride, the wife of the Lamb. The main application is that we are to relate to Christ in love, as a bride relates to her husband, and that we are to thrive in the knowledge that He loves us and chose us to be His bride.
In Ephesians 2:19, Paul states, “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.” (See, also, Gal. 6:10; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 4:17). The family imagery is also seen in the many places where God is called our Father and we are called brothers and sisters in the Lord. We are God’s children through the new birth (John 1:12-13; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; 1 John 3:1-2) and also through adoption (Rom. 8:15, 23; Eph. 1:5).
In addition to assuring us of God’s fatherly love and care for us, this truth affects our mindset toward the church. If the church is a Sunday program that you attend, then you go for what you can get out of it. But if the church is the family of God, then you’re a member with your brothers and sisters. Families gather for fundamentally different reasons than audiences do. Families get together for relationships because of the common family bond. Family members don’t threaten to go join another family if there are conflicts or if the family gatherings aren’t meeting their needs. The family bond keeps them together so that they work out their differences in love. Or at least that’s what should happen in Christian families and in the family of God!
Referring to the church, Paul writes (Eph. 2:21-22): “in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” In one sense, a believer’s body is individually a temple of God, but in another sense, the entire church is God’s temple (1 Cor. 6:19; 3: 16-17). This means that He dwells in our midst and thus we must be holy in all our behavior.
Paul challenges the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28): “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Peter commands the elders (1 Pet. 5:2), “shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness.” This means that the church belongs to the Lord, not to any pastor or elder, and that church leaders are shepherds, responsible to the Lord to care for His flock.
1 Tim. 3:15: “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” Paul mentions the metaphor of the church as the household of the living God, but then adds that the church upholds and supports the truth. In this day of widespread departure from the truth of God’s word, the church must stand firm in proclaiming and practicing the truth. A main task of elders is that they must hold “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).
The relationship between the church and God’s kingdom is complicated, and many books have been written on it (George Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom [Eerdmans], is helpful). In Colossians 1:13-14, Paul writes, “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” In 1 Thessalonians 2:12, Paul states his aim, “so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.” (See, also, Acts 8:12; 19:8; 28:23; 1 Cor. 4:20; Rom. 14:17). God’s kingdom has broken into the world through the church, but it awaits a completed form when Christ returns and rules over all the earth (What is the Mission of the Church? Kevin DeYoung & Greg Gilbert [Crossway], p. 117).
The practical application for us is that in the church we live under the rule of Jesus Christ, our King. We serve His purposes. We proclaim His rightful lordship to others, seeking to bring them into submission to His rule. We do not make up our own ideas about what the church should be, but rather submit to the teaching that he has given us in His word.
The main thing that I want you to see in this message is that the church is not a place you attend for spiritual input two or three times a month if you don’t have anything better to do. We’re not here to provide the best show in town for your spiritual enjoyment. If you’ve trusted in Christ, you’re organically joined to other members, so that you’re one body with them under the Head. You’re a member of the family of God, related to other family members, with a God-given ministry to fulfill.
The idea that a Christian could live his or her independent spiritual life separate from the life of a local church is foreign to the New Testament. God wants every part of the body to work together, causing “the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:16).
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
April 9, 2017
I grew up in a home where we were at church every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening. I have a pin that I was awarded for seven years of perfect Sunday school attendance. I think I actually racked up eight or nine years but just didn’t get the award. Going to church every Sunday used to be what almost all Christians did. But nowadays for many Christians, the church is not very important.
I’ve read that many who claim to be born again Christians think that they’re really committed if they attend church two or three Sundays a month. Many other Christians want nothing to do with the church. They find it irrelevant and boring. Going to church messes up a much-needed weekend off. They can get what they need spiritually online. And many have been wounded by the church more than once, so they want to avoid more pain. They think, “Who needs the church?”
For others, the church is a nice slice of life, but it’s not essential. It’s not at the center. Self-fulfillment and happiness are at the center. To the extent that the church helps them feel fulfilled and happy, they attend. But if the church doesn’t deliver what they want, they either shop around for a new one or join those who have dropped out.
Many years ago in California I was having breakfast with one of our elders, who held a top administrative position with a worldwide evangelistic organization. I drew a circle on a napkin with a smaller circle in the middle and divided the rest of the circle into pie-shaped pieces. I explained to him that many Christians view the church as one piece of the pie that makes for a “full pie,” but it’s not in the center or hub.
But based on Matthew 6:33, where Jesus tells us to seek first God’s kingdom and righteousness, I said that Christ and His church (His kingdom) should be at the center of that circle. Everything else should be governed by that center. Even though this elder had been through many hours of biblical training from top Bible teachers in the country, he looked at my drawing and said, “I’ve never heard anything like this before!”
In this message, I’m arguing that Christ and His body, the church, is essential, not just nice. Christ and His church should be at the center of every Christian’s life. It’s not a slice of the pie that helps round out a full life. It’s the core or center that should govern everything else. The late Anglican preacher, John Stott, put it like this (The Message of Ephesian: God’s New Society [IVP], p. 129; cited by Josh Harris, Dug Down Deep [Multnomah], p. 202):
If the church is central to God’s purpose, as seen in both history and the gospel, it must surely also be central to our lives. How can we take lightly what God takes so seriously? How dare we push to the circumference what God has placed at the centre?”
Let’s look at three reasons why the church is of utmost importance, and thus why you need it:
The church is important because Christ promised to build it, He loves His church and gave His life for her, and His church reveals Him to the lost world.
The first two reasons personally impacted me when I was in my twenties. I couldn’t shake them. I thought, “If Christ promised to build His church, then it will be built. I want to be a part of helping build His church. And, if Christ loved the church enough to die for her, and I love Christ, then I’ve got to love His church, warts and all.” The Lord’s impressing those two truths on me were what caused me to commit myself to serve the local church.
Jesus asked His disciples (Matt. 16:13), “Who do people say that the son of Man is?” They replied (Matt. 16:14), “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” Then Jesus asked the most crucial question for every person to answer (Matt. 16:15): “But who do you say that I am?” Your eternal destiny hinges on getting that question right! Peter gave his well-known answer (Matt. 16:16): “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied (Matt. 16:17-19):
“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Jesus here reveals four reasons why the church is important:
Jesus calls it, “My church.” This means that it isn’t my church or your church. No pastor can claim that any church is his church. It’s Christ’s church. He bought it with His blood (Acts 20:28). It belongs exclusively to Him. No one—no matter how influential or how much money he has donated or how long his ancestors have been members of a church—can rightly claim, “This is my church!” No, it’s not! Jesus Christ owns it. He only allows us to serve in it for His kingdom purposes.
Peter, under direct revelation from God the Father, correctly proclaims of Jesus (Matt. 16:16), “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ means that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah or Anointed One, prophesied about in over 300 Old Testament prophecies. For example, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 predict the Messiah’s suffering on the cross as a sacrifice for sinners. Psalm 2 and Daniel 7 proclaim Him as the future ruler over all the kingdoms on earth. Psalm 110 reveals Him both as David’s son and David’s Lord (cf. Matt. 22:41-46).
In Zechariah 12:10 the Lord proclaims, “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.” That verse proclaims the deity (“Me”), death, resurrection, and future coming in glory of Messiah, resulting in a widespread conversion of the Jewish people. There are dozens more astounding prophecies that Jesus either has fulfilled or yet will fulfill.
Peter’s pronouncement that Jesus is “the Son of the living God” may have been a parallel way of saying that Jesus is the Messiah. But it also reveals Jesus to be the eternal second person of the trinity. The only way that David’s son could at the same time be David’s Lord is that He is the Lord God. When Jesus walked on the water and then stilled the storm, the disciples worshiped Him, saying (Matt. 14:33), “You are certainly God’s Son!” Jesus did not rebuke them for worshiping Him, which any reverent Jew would have done (Acts 10:25-26). Rather, as always, Jesus accepted the highest worship and praise offered to Him (John 5:23; 20:28-29). He is God in human flesh (John 1:14).
But as you probably know, these verses raise three controversial issues: Who or what is “the rock”? What are “the gates of hell”? And, what does Jesus mean by the “keys of the kingdom” and “binding and loosing”?
There are three main interpretations of Jesus’ words about Peter and the rock (I’m following James Boice, The Gospel of Matthew [Baker], 1:305-308): (1) Peter is the rock. This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church, which views Peter as the first pope and claims a direct line of succession from Peter to every pope. Even some reputable Protestant scholars identify Peter as the rock, in the sense that he was the first to make this confession and, along with the other apostles and prophets, became the foundation for the church (Eph. 2:20). But these scholars also make it clear that there is no mention here of Peter’s supreme authority or his successors.
(2) Peter’s confession is the rock. This is the main view among Protestant scholars, but also even among many early Catholic fathers. Chrysostom, for example, said (cited in Boice, 306), “He did not say upon Peter, for it was not upon the man, but upon his faith.” This is my preference. But the third view is quite similar:
(3) Christ is the rock. These scholars hold that Jesus was making a pun on Peter’s name, which means, “rock,” or “stone.” The noun which Jesus used for rock can mean, “bedrock,” or “foundation rock.” In favor of Jesus being the rock is that in Matthew 7:25, Jesus alluded to Himself as the rock on which every person should build his or her life. And in Matthew 21:42 He refers to Himself as the stone which the builders rejected, which became the chief cornerstone. Also, neither the New Testament nor Peter ever hints that he is the supreme apostle or that he is the stone on which the church is built. Rather, Peter says (1 Pet. 2:4-8) that Jesus is the living stone to whom we are to come and be built upon as a spiritual house for the Lord (Boice, 306). Certainly this is true.
This means that it is of utmost importance for the church to preserve and proclaim sound doctrine about the person of Jesus Christ. The cults and liberal Protestant churches deny His deity. But as Bishop Moule stated (preface to Robert Anderson, The Lord from Heaven), “A Savior not quite God is a bridge broken at the farther end.” There is no salvation for those who deny Jesus’ deity.
But what did Jesus mean by giving Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” with the authority to bind and loose?
The Roman Catholic Church interprets this to mean that Peter and his successors (the popes and priests under them) have the authority to forgive or retain people’s sins (John 20:23). But since only God can see what is in human hearts (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Cor. 2:11), no pope or priest can know enough to pronounce authoritatively that someone is forgiven or not forgiven.
Rather, Jesus meant that Peter, representing the apostles, had the authority to proclaim the gospel of forgiveness of sins to all who repent and believe in Jesus, or judgment to those who refuse to believe. In fact, we see Peter doing this with the Jews on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), with the Samaritans (Acts 8), and with the Gentiles (Acts 10). And we have the apostolic testimony to God’s way of salvation in the New Testament. As members of the church, Christ has entrusted to us the most important message in the world: whoever believes in Jesus will not perish, but have eternal life as God’s free gift (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9); but those who do not believe are condemned.
Jesus said (Matt. 16:18), “I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” But what did He mean? Some argue that since “gates” do not represent an aggressive force, they symbolize death. Thus even the power of death cannot stop Jesus’ church from final victory. But this fails to recognize that in the ancient world, the city gates were the place where the government transacted official business. So it was a figure of speech for government authority, much as if we said, “The White House said ….” We mean, the governing authorities have declared something. So I think that Jesus meant that all the powers of hell cannot stop His church from ultimately triumphing over the powers of darkness.
In spite of the church’s many shortcomings and failures, eventually it will reign with Christ in glory. Evil rulers have sought to destroy the church through persecution. Atheistic communism sought to eradicate Christianity. Islam spread over North Africa, effectively wiping out the church for centuries. Hinduism dominates India. Buddhism prevails in Southeast Asia. And yet, Jesus prophesied (Matt. 24:14), “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” This present evil world will perish under God’s judgment (2 Pet. 3:10-12). Then (Rev. 11:15), “The kingdom of the world [will] become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”
Thus the church is important because Christ promised to build it and His promise will not fail. When we commit ourselves to His church, we’re committed to the only cause that will triumph.
Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” Paul goes on to state (Eph. 5:28-30), “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.” The church is the bride of Christ, which He loves, and the body of Christ, which He tenderly nourishes, cherishes, and cares for.
If Christ loved the church enough to die for her, then if I love Christ, I must love His church sacrificially. John Calvin (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by John T. McNeill [Westminster Press], 4:1:10) wrote, “Separation from the church is the denial of God and Christ.” Then, referring to Ephesians 5:23-32, he adds, “Nor can any more atrocious crime be conceived than for us by sacrilegious disloyalty to violate the marriage that the only-begotten Son of God deigned to contract with us.”
Loving Christ’s church in the abstract is easy. You may know the ditty, “To dwell above with the saints we love, O that will be glory. But to dwell below with the saints we know, well, that’s a different story!” But if the church is Christ’s bride, one flesh with Him, and we love Christ, we must love and commit ourselves to a local church and learn to work through our differences and offenses in a biblical way. We must love “the saints we know”!
Ephesians 3:8-11: “To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul scrapes the heavens here, but I can only touch on it briefly (see my sermon, 12/9/07, “God’s Eternal Purpose and You,”). The church is God’s means of accomplishing His eternal purpose for creation: to exalt Christ above all (Eph. 1:9-12; Col. 1:20). The church is His temple, where He dwells and wants His glory to be manifested (Eph. 2:21). We not only reveal Christ’s glory to this lost world, but also to the rulers and authorities in heavenly places! Two thoughts:
As I pointed out last week, the church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:14-16). God’s word is abundantly clear that there is a clearly defined body of spiritual and moral truth, which also means that there is such a thing as spiritual and moral error or falsehood. Satan is the father of lies, but Jesus spoke the truth and is the truth (John 8:44-45; 14:6). He prayed for His disciples (John 17:17), “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” As the church, we are charged with upholding and proclaiming God’s truth as revealed in His word, especially with regard to the gospel and God’s moral standards.
The gospel is always under attack from different angles, because everything rides on whether or not a person has believed in the true gospel. The gospel is not about how to have a happy life or a better marriage or to raise happy kids, although it may result in those things. Rather, the gospel is about how sinners can be reconciled to a holy God through faith in the crucified and risen Savior.
But believing the gospel always results in holy living. A recent Barna survey shows that only 60% of practicing Christians believe in absolute moral truth. A recent article by the Pew Research Center stated that 51% of evangelical Protestants in the millennial generation and 36% of all evangelical Protestants believe that homosexuality should be approved by society. When the church goes along with the culture in departing from biblical truth, we no longer reveal Christ and His glory to this lost world.
After stating that Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, Paul continues (Eph. 5:26-27), “so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” To reveal Christ to this lost world, we as His church must be growing in Christlikeness (summed up by the fruit of the Spirit), both in our character and in our relationships.
The laboratory for developing Christlike character and relationships is the home, which should be permeated with the love and grace of Christ. Husbands are to sacrificially love their wives. Wives are to respect and love their husbands. Parents should love their children and bring them up to know and love Jesus. And, a second laboratory for both developing and displaying the love of Christ is the church. As Jesus said (John 13:34-35), “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
You need the church because it is of vital importance: Christ promised to build it; He loves it and gave Himself for it; and, His church is His means of revealing Himself to this lost world.
When Apple Computer fell on difficult times some years ago, their young chairman, Steven Jobs, went to New York to try to convince Pepsico’s John Sculley to move west and run the struggling computer company.
As they sat in Sculley’s penthouse office overlooking the Manhattan skyline, Sculley started to decline the offer. He said that Apple would have to offer him an astronomical salary and benefit package. Flabbergasted, Jobs gulped and agreed—if Sculley would move to California. But Sculley would only commit to being a consultant from New York.
Then a frustrated Jobs confronted Sculley: “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want to change the world?” It knocked the wind out of Sculley. He hadn’t thought of it that way. He accepted the offer and moved west. (From, Leadership, Spring, 1991, p. 44.)
Many Christians don’t put the local church at the center of their lives because they’re too focused on themselves and they don’t understand why the church is important. We have a far greater purpose than making and marketing computers, I-phones, and I-pads. The church is at the center of God’s eternal plan for this world. I urge you to commit yourself to the church to help it become all that God wants it to be.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
April 23, 2017
A grocery store owner in England decided that he had to ban customers from coming into his store. He said that he was forced to take such drastic action because of people’s bad manners. First, he banned smoking, then crude language, baby strollers, pets, and finally, customers themselves. Shoppers must now look through the window, spot the items they want, and then ring a bell to be served through a small hatch in the door. The owner admitted, “I have lost business, but I cannot say how much. But I am a man of principles, and I stand by my decision!” (FlagLive [June 4-10, 1998.) That storekeeper had lost sight of his mission!
While that story is ridiculous, it’s easy as a church to lose sight of our mission. If they’re not careful, churches begin to accumulate various programs, many of which were legitimate when they started. But over time, those running the programs forget the church’s mission and drift off course. Pretty soon, the church becomes cluttered with cherished programs that keep everyone busy, but don’t help work toward to the church’s mission (see Simple Church [Broadman & Holman], by Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger.) We’re doing many good things, but we’ve forgotten the main thing. So it’s important to answer and then keep coming back to the question, “What is the church’s mission?” In a nutshell:
The church’s mission is to glorify God by proclaiming the gospel to the lost and making Christlike disciples who make Christlike disciples.
There are other ways to say it. J. I. Packer (Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs [Tyndale], p. 194, cited by Joshua Harris, Dug Down Deep [Multnomah], p. 207) wrote: “The task of the church is to make the invisible kingdom visible through faithful Christian living and witness-bearing.” Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert (What is the Mission of the Church? [Crossway], pp. 62, 241) argue that the mission of the church is the Great Commission. They elaborate (italics theirs), “The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship and obey Jesus Christ now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father.”
Our church’s vision statement (see fcfonline.org) is built around the two great commandments and the Great Commission: “At Flagstaff Christian Fellowship we aim to build a community of joyful believers in Jesus Christ who love God and His Word, love one another, and love those without Christ by bringing them the good news of salvation.” Our mission statement is briefer: “We want to exalt God by helping each person fervently love God and others; and to help make disciples of all people groups.” Thus we have an upward focus: glorify and love God; an inward focus: love one another; and an outward focus: proclaim the gospel. And, the process isn’t complete until the disciples we produce are making other disciples.
To glorify God is to exalt Him or make Him look good as He truly is. The gospel (“good news”) is at the heart of glorifying God because God’s sending His own Son to pay the penalty for sinners so that He can offer forgiveness of sins and eternal life as a free gift to all who believe exalts God’s love, grace, holiness, and justice as nothing else can.
So Jesus’ ministry was centered on proclaiming the gospel. Mark 1:14-15 reports, “Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” And at the very end of His ministry, just before He ascended, the risen Lord Jesus entrusted His followers with the Great Commission. The four Gospels plus the Book of Acts have different versions of this commission, showing that Jesus repeated it for emphasis in various forms:
Matt. 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Mark 16:15 (in the textually disputed longer ending): “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”
Luke 24:46-48: “And He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.’”
John 20:21: “So Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.’”
Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
The gospel was also the foundation of Paul’s ministry. Hoping to visit the church in Rome, he wrote (Rom. 1:15-16): “So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” He reminded the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1-4):
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures ….
Also, Paul emphasized the centrality of the gospel in founding the church in Thessalonica:
1 Thess. 2:2: “but after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition.”
1 Thess. 2:8: “Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.”
1 Thess. 2:9: “For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.”
In this message, I can only make three observations about our mission of proclaiming the gospel:
In a somewhat surprising prayer request, given toward the end of Paul’s ministry, he wrote (Col. 4:3-4): “… praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak.” In Ephesians (6:19-20), written around the same time, he asks for prayer that he would be bold in making the gospel known. I wouldn’t have thought that Paul needed prayer for gospel clarity or boldness, but he felt that he did! And if Paul needed clarity and boldness, how much more do we!
Satan, the master deceiver, has always tried to muddy the water when it comes to the gospel. In Galatia, the Judaizers believed that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, but they tacked on a “small” addition: you also must be circumcised and keep the Jewish ceremonial laws. But Paul strongly labeled this a different gospel which is not a gospel at all and called down God’s condemnation on these false teachers (Gal. 1:6-9)! All through the New Testament, right up to the churches in Revelation 2 & 3, we see that many forms of false teaching had already infected the early church. The infection has continued down through church history.
In our day, there are multiple errors concerning the gospel. Many who profess to follow Christ, as well as most of the cults, muddy the gospel as the Judaizers did by adding human merits or good works to faith in Christ as the requirement for salvation. The “prosperity gospel” appeals to greed and selfishness by falsely promising a life of health and wealth if you believe in Jesus. Others sell the gospel as a spiritual form of self-help: “Would you like a happy life, a happy family, and personal success? Come to Jesus!” Another movement falsely tells people that you can receive Jesus as Savior and be assured of heaven even if you continue to live in your sins with no repentance. And, the church has always been plagued by various forms of legalism, which make salvation contingent on keeping certain rules that the Bible does not command.
So we must be clear on the gospel and make that vital message clear to those whom Satan has blinded. The gospel is the message of salvation from God’s eternal judgment: We all have sinned and deserve His judgment (John 3:18, 36; Rom. 3:23). Jesus Christ, who is God in human flesh, died in the place of sinners, bearing the penalty we deserve (John 1:29; 3:14-17; Rom. 3:24-26; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24). God justifies (“declares righteous”) and freely gives eternal life to every sinner who repents and believes in Jesus (John 3:16; Acts 11:18; Rom. 3:24; 4:4-5; Gal. 3:7-9).
The Great Commission extends to the whole world because Jesus is the Savior of the whole world (John 1:29; 3:16; 4:42). Jesus purchased for God with His blood those “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). They will glorify God before His throne forever and ever (Rev. 7:9-12)! So the church should be committed to the cause of world missions. John Piper (Let the Nations Be Glad [Baker Academic], p. 9), cites John Stott, who says that the highest motive for missions is not obedience to the Great Commission nor even love for sinners. Rather, it is passionate zeal for the glory of God. Thus Piper (p. 17) adds, “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.”
This is to say that our Christlike lives are the foundation for our verbal witness. Jesus said that people will know that we are His disciples if we love one another even as He loved us (John 13:34-35). Paul reminded the Thessalonians that he imparted to them not only the gospel, but also his own life. He goes on to remind them of his godly behavior that backed up his gospel witness (1 Thess. 2:8-11). The enemy has repeatedly used the hypocrisy of those who profess to be Christians, but live just as the world lives, to undermine the gospel message.
When we talk about love for people, the question comes up, “What about social ministries? Isn’t the church called to help meet the physical needs of the poor?” (DeYoung and Gilbert deal extensively with this in What is the Mission of the Church? See especially chapters 6-8.) While obviously we would not be loving our neighbor to proclaim the gospel to him and leave him starving, at the same time, it would not be loving to feed him without proclaiming the gospel. In other words, meeting social needs may be a means to evangelism, but meeting social needs alone is not evangelism (Mark Dever, The Church: the Gospel Made Visible [Broadman & Holman], p. 82). Evangelism is telling people the good news about Jesus Christ and the free gift of salvation that He alone offers.
DeYoung and Gilbert (p. 242) explain why we must focus on the gospel: “In the end, the Great Commission must be the mission of the church for two very basic reasons: there is something worse than death, and there is something better than human flourishing.” The “something worse than death” is to spend eternity in hell (Luke 12:4-5). The “something better than human flourishing” is to spend eternity in the presence of God, enjoying His eternal pleasures and the riches of His grace (Ps. 16:11; Eph. 2:8).
But, there is more to our mission than just getting people “in the door” of salvation:
The Great Commission task is not just to make converts, but to make disciples—obedient followers of Christ (Matt. 28:19-20). Their baptism is an initial act of obedience to Him that signifies being identified with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4). It pictures death to our old life and being raised up to walk in newness of life. Also, we are to teach them to obey all that Jesus commanded. This is a lifelong process of learning and growth, of course. But if a person professes to know Jesus as Savior, but he is not seeking to grow in obedience to Jesus’ commands, his profession is shaky, at best.
But perhaps you wonder, “What are Jesus’ commands?” There are dozens of commands in the Bible. Where do you start? When can you say, “I’m now a disciple because I obey Jesus’ commands?” Jesus summed up all of the 613 commandments of the Law into two, which He said were the greatest (Matt. 22:37-40):
“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
This is a lifelong process that is never perfect in this life. But when we trust in Jesus as Savior and Lord, we begin to love Him and love the Father who sent Him for our salvation. We seek to please Him as His beloved children (Eph. 5:1-2). This growing love for God also involves hating the sin that put our Savior on the cross (Eph. 5:3-14). As Psalm 97:10a exhorts, “Hate evil, you who love the Lord.” Jesus even said that His disciples must hate their own families and their own lives in comparison to their love for Him (Luke 14:26-27). Love for God must be first. Again, this is our growing direction, not a matter of perfection.
Love for God also includes worshiping Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Anglican archbishop William Temple gave this eloquent definition of worship: “To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, and to devote the will to the purpose of God.” John MacArthur defines worship (The Ultimate Priority [Moody Press], p. 127): “Worship is our innermost being responding with praise for all that God is, through our attitudes, actions, thoughts, and words, based on the truth of God as He has revealed Himself.” Or, more briefly, MacArthur says (ibid. p. 147): “Worship is all that we are, reacting rightly to all that He is.”
Of course we must be worshiping God individually in private if our corporate gatherings are to be truly worshipful. We aren’t worshiping God “in truth” unless we’re growing both in understanding and applying God’s word of truth.
Christlike love for one another is the primary mark of His true disciples (John 13:34-35). As Paul explained (1 Cor. 13), you can have all gifts and all knowledge and great faith, but if you lack love, you are nothing. The first fruit of the Spirit is love (Gal. 5:22-23). Like love for God, we must grow in love for one another. This means working through relational conflicts and misunderstandings, whether in our homes or at church, with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with and forgiving one another (Col. 3:12-13).
Paul explains how the church is to exercise our God-given gifts to build up one another in love (Eph. 4:11-16):
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
So my aim as a pastor-teacher is to equip you for service so that as you grow up in Christ, you can exercise your gifts one to another, resulting in the growth of the church in love. But, if we’re a loving church, but we’re just inwardly focused, we aren’t becoming Christlike disciples. Jesus summed up His own mission (Luke 19:10): “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Thus …
If we aren’t making disciples who make disciples, we’re only talking to ourselves. We’d be like doctors who only see patients who are well. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32). Those repentant sinners go and make disciples of others who repent and believe the gospel. As those repentant sinners become disciples, they make other disciples. In other words, it’s a process of multiplication, where disciples make disciples who make more disciples. Each of us is a product of that process.
Paul put it this way to his disciple Timothy (2 Tim. 2:2): “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” There are four generations of disciples in that verse: Paul, Timothy, the faithful men whom Timothy taught, and those whom these faithful men would teach. So if you came to faith, but you aren’t making other disciples, you’re short-circuiting the process. You’re not functioning as a true disciple unless you’re seeking to make other disciples who will make still other disciples.
This requires getting to know others and imparting to them what you’ve learned and practice in your walk with Christ. And it isn’t a one-way street. When Paul hoped to go to Rome, he said that he wanted to impart some spiritual gift to them, so that they would be established in their faith. But then he quickly added (Rom. 1:12), “that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.” So the veteran apostle acknowledged that he would grow through being with them, as well as they would grow through him.
I read (No matter How Thin You Slice it, It’s Still Baloney [Quill], ed. by Jean Arbeiter, p. 31) about a British bus company that received complaints that their drivers were speeding past lines of up to thirty people waiting for the bus. The company defended its drivers, stating, “It is impossible for the drivers to keep their timetable if they have to stop for passengers.” The company also commented, “Get rid of the people and the system runs fine.”
We could say the same thing about the church! But let’s not lose sight of our purpose as a church: “to glorify God by proclaiming the gospel and making Christlike disciples who make Christlike disciples.” To focus on anything else is to get off course.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
April 30, 2017
The unity of the church is one of the most important subjects in the New Testament, but it’s also one of the most difficult to apply in a biblically faithful manner. It is frequently misapplied when people say, “They will know that we are Christians by our love, not by our doctrinal agreement. Let’s focus on where we agree and set aside the areas where we disagree.” So sound doctrine gets jettisoned in favor of everyone joining hands and singing, “We are One in the Spirit.” But the resulting “unity” is not true biblical unity.
On the other side of the spectrum, in an attempt to preserve the purity of the church, some Christians divide from everyone who does not agree with them on even minor issues. For example, some will fellowship only with those who use the 1611 King James Bible. Others require that you agree with their views of prophecy, abstaining from all use of alcohol and tobacco, women not using makeup or wearing pants, or other debatable matters.
While the statistics vary widely, there are thousands of Protestant denominations in the world, plus many groups of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Among the Baptists alone, there are dozens of different groups, including the Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Calvinistic Baptists, Free Will Baptists, General Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Old Time Missionary Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, and Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists! Thankfully, in 2002 there were only about five congregations of the latter group left (wickipedia.org). I say “thankfully,” because they teach that everyone is predestined to be either good seed or bad seed and therefore mission activity is both unbiblical and useless! May their tribe decrease!
In the New Testament, the local church was primarily defined by the city: the church in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, or wherever. All who believed in Jesus were a part of the church in the city where they lived. Probably in larger cities, these churches gathered in numerous house churches, since churches did not construct buildings for worship until the fourth century. But today there are often dozens of churches in every city in North America. In Flagstaff where we have about 70,000 people, we have somewhere over 50 Protestant churches, plus Catholic and Orthodox churches. Due to significant differences in doctrine and practice, I cannot see any way that we could ever come together as one church in Flagstaff.
The subject of unity is further complicated by the fact that there are different levels of unity. On an individual level, every true believer is one with every other true believer due to shared life in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Thus a believer can enjoy fellowship with any other believer, even if they go to different churches.
Also, churches that hold to the truth of the gospel, but hold to different secondary doctrinal distinctives, may join together for various common causes: evangelism, helping the poor, or prayer for community concerns. On an even wider level, churches may join together even with non-Christian groups to work for laws protecting the unborn, laws supporting the traditional family, anti-drug laws, etc. But we need to be careful that our common association does not imply to the public that we agree on spiritual matters.
While far more could be said (I have at least three messages on the unity of the church on the church website), in this message I will address three questions: (1) Why is Christian unity important? (2) What is biblical Christian unity? (3) How do we apply Christian unity in a way that is a witness to the world? The main idea is:
Because Christian unity is so important, we need to think biblically about what it means and how to apply it.
Why is Christian unity so important?
In Ephesians 2:13-16 Paul writes,
But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
It took the cross to break down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles and to reconcile these two formerly alienated groups into one body in the church. To use the familiar phrase from Christian weddings, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” Since Christ died for the unity of the church, it is an extremely important subject that we must labor to preserve and display.
In Paul’s day, the divide between Jews and Gentiles was huge. If the church could display to the world the unity between these groups that Christ secured on the cross, it would be a powerful witness. Jesus said the same thing in His high priestly prayer the night before He was crucified (John 17:20-23):
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”
While as I will point out next, the unity that Jesus secured at the cross is primarily spiritual and not visible, at the same time there must be a visible expression of it for the world to take notice. The unbelieving world should look at the church and realize that there is something unnatural happening here. Our visible unity should cause unbelievers to want to be a part of the church.
What is biblical Christian unity?
It is important to understand that there are two types of unity in the Bible. In Ephesians 4:3, Paul says that we are to be “diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” The unity of the Spirit is already a fact for believers, but we must be diligent to preserve it. This is the unity Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 12:13: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Christ accomplished this unity on the cross (Eph. 2:13-16). We could call this “positional unity.”
But also, in Ephesians 4:13, after talking about the ministry of pastors and teachers who equip the saints for the work of ministry, Paul adds, “… until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” This unity of the faith is not yet a reality; we attain to as we grow to maturity in Christ. (See, also, Eph. 2:14-22.) We could call this “practical unity.” It’s a work in progress. Under this second point, I’m looking at positional unity. I’ll look at practical unity under point three.
As a spiritual reality, note three things unity is not:
Organizations such as the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches promote organizational or external unity among various denominations. The idea is to set aside the areas we differ and come together on common ground. But both councils are notoriously theologically and politically liberal and they include denominations that deny or compromise the gospel. Christ was not praying for a one-world church organized under one governing body.
Being one body in Christ does not mean that we all must look alike, talk alike, and enjoy the same kinds of activities. Back in the early 1970’s, I knew many “hippie” young people who got swept up in the “Local Church” movement under the Chinese leader, Witness Lee. Suddenly, they cut off their long hair and beards and started wearing white shirts with narrow black ties, just as Witness Lee did. They even gestured and sounded like him when they talked. It was kind of eerie, but it had nothing to do with true Christian unity! The very analogy of being members of Christ’s body implies that all the members do not look the same or serve the same function. The beauty of the body is that it functions as one body although it consists of many different members.
We need to think carefully here! There are three broad levels of Bible doctrines:
(a) Essential truths, necessary for salvation. To deny any of these would be heresy and a denial of the faith. These include: The inspiration and authority of the Bible; the trinity; the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ; His substitutionary death on the cross; His bodily resurrection and second coming; and, salvation by grace through faith alone, apart from works.
(b) Important, but non-saving, truth. These truths affect how we live as Christians, the way we understand God, man, salvation, the Christian life, etc. But genuine believers differ on these matters. Some examples: God’s sovereignty versus human free will in our salvation; views of baptism; church government; biblical prophecy; old earth or young earth creation; charismatic gifts; roles of men and women in the church and home; Christians and psychology; and, divorce and remarriage. Some of these issues border on essential doctrines; but we need to recognize that those who differ from us on these matters are still true believers in Jesus Christ.
(c) Interesting, but not essential or important matters. These issues won’t affect how you live your Christian life. They include minor interpretive issues on difficult texts; some methods that are not mandated by Scripture; and other issues. For example: Who were the sons of God in Genesis 6? When does the battle in Ezekiel 38 take place? Did Christ descend into hell (1 Pet. 3:19-20)?
The Father answered Jesus’ prayer for His people to be one through the ministry of the Holy Spirit who baptizes every believer into the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). This is the unity of the Spirit which Paul exhorts us to preserve (Eph. 4:3). He goes on to enumerate seven elements of Christian unity, arranged around each member of the trinity (Eph. 4:4-6): “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”
I cannot comment on these seven elements here (see my sermon, “The Basis for Christian Unity,” 2/3/08, on this text). Ironically, some of these seven items (the Holy Spirit; prophecy [“one hope”]; and baptism) have created significant divisions in the church! But, as Martyn Lloyd-Jones points out (Christian Unity [Baker], p. 49), Paul probably structured this section in this way to show “that the unity of the Church is a manifestation of the perfection of the Godhead.”
Lloyd-Jones also observes (Knowing the Times [Banner of Truth], p. 134) that the unity Paul is describing “is not just a question of friendliness or fellowship.” Rather, “It is something … which lifts us up into the realm of the blessed Holy Trinity…!” So true Christian unity isn’t discussing football scores over a cup of coffee! Rather, it’s bound up with our common relationship with the Triune God. It’s centered on our common salvation. We don’t need to work to establish it, but rather to preserve and perfect it in practice. This leads to the final question:
How do we apply Christian unity in a way that is a witness to the world?
As I said, the unity of the Spirit is a fact through His baptizing all believers into the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). We are exhorted to preserve this positional unity (Eph. 4:3). But Paul goes on to say (Eph. 4:11-12) that as gifted leaders equip the body for the work of service, the goal is that (Eph. 4:13), “we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” This is practical unity that comes about as we grow to maturity by coming to know Jesus Christ in a deeper way. It is in large part doctrinal unity, shared by those who understand on an experiential level what the Bible reveals about who Jesus is.
So the practical question is, “How do we preserve the unity of the Spirit and perfect the unity of the faith?” I’m suggesting seven (the perfect number!) practical ways we can preserve and perfect true Christian unity:
As Paul exhorts (Eph. 4:1-2), we are “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which [we] have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” After talking about the unity of the body in Colossians (3:11), Paul adds (Col. 3:12-14),
So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.
Harmonious relationships, whether in our homes or in the church, do not happen automatically or effortlessly. They take continuous hard work!
We attain to the unity of the faith by coming to (Eph. 4:13) “the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” Our unity deepens as we grow to know Christ as revealed in His word.
Paul makes this point in Galatians 3:28 (see, also, Eph. 2:11-22; Col. 3:10-11): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” He sought to demonstrate the unity between Jews and Gentiles in Christ by raising a large financial gift from the Gentile churches and delivering it to the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.
I’m going to step on some toes here, but I think that it’s wrong to divide the church along ethnic or cultural lines, unless language is a factor. There should not be Jewish churches, Gentile churches, Black churches or Native American churches. The church should be as racially and culturally diverse as the community. In 2010, Flagstaff was approximately 64 percent white, 2 percent Black, 12 percent Native American, 18 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent Asian. The church should reflect those percentages.
Writing to the factious Corinthian church, Paul devotes the bulk of 1 Corinthians 12 to the analogy of the church as the one body of Christ, made up of many diverse but essential members. No member can rightly say to another member, “I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12:21). Though we all have different personalities, backgrounds, preferences, and spiritual gifts, we need to accept and appreciate the differences.
We should welcome into church membership all whom Christ has saved as long as those with differing views on secondary matters agree not to cause factions over those differences. While we may hold differing views on baptism, charismatic gifts, prophecy, etc. these should not keep us from being one body in Christ. For this reason, we allow those who do not share our Baptist views on baptism to join this church as long as they don’t promote or teach their different views here. And, we restrict the office of elder to those who hold to our Baptist views. The same is true of those who hold to the validity of the charismatic gifts for today. We are skeptically cautious regarding most modern expressions of the gifts of tongues, interpretation of tongues, healing, miracles, and prophecy. Those who hold a different view are free to join us as long as they do not promote their views and cause division.
We need to get rid of the spirit of competition among Bible-believing churches where the gospel is preached and Christ is exalted. If they have more people attending than we do, praise God! We’re all on the same team. Maybe we need to learn from them how we can be more effective. We may disagree on some secondary matters, but we should not put them down out of a spirit of jealousy or competition.
It is right to strive for deeper doctrinal understanding and purity, but we always need to be on guard against spiritual pride. It’s easy to get puffed up about being right on every point of doctrine. John Calvin (Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], on 1 Cor. 4:6, p. 158), who was not soft on sound doctrine, wisely observed “that pride or haughtiness is the cause and commencement of all contentions.” If God has graciously granted us more light than another church, remember Paul’s warning (1 Cor. 4:7), “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” We should always be humble, gracious and patient with others who may not yet understand everything that we understand. Growth is a slow process. If God uses us to impart a deeper knowledge of the truth to another believer, it will come through our kindness and love, not through spiritual pride.
I’m not under the illusion that these seven practical applications will solve the difficult problem of true Christian unity! I honestly don’t know how to overcome some of the divisions in the church at large. We seek to grow in the unity of the faith and to hold our convictions with humility, but we can’t do that by compromising what the Lord has taught us. Perhaps this word of wisdom from the godly 19th century Anglican bishop, J. C. Ryle, is a fitting way to conclude (Light from Old Times [Evangelical Press], p. 455), “Controversy and religious strife, no doubt, are odious things; but there are times when they are a positive necessity. Unity and peace are very delightful; but they are bought too dear if they are bought at the expense of truth…. Controversy, in fact, is one of the conditions under which truth in every age has to be defended and maintained, and it is nonsense to ignore it.”
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
May 7, 2017
You may remember the story of a man who was marooned on a deserted island. When a ship came to his rescue, the captain learned that the man had lived alone on this island for five years. There were three huts, so he asked about them. The man said that he lived in the first one. “Then what’s that second hut?” the captain asked. The man said, “That’s where I go to church.” “What about that third hut?” the captain asked. The man replied, “Oh, that’s where I used to go to church.” I think he was a Baptist!
While that story is funny, actual church splits are not so funny. When churches divide, people get hurt. Some get so disgusted that they drop out of church altogether. Some may be so disillusioned that they leave the faith. Many, if not most, of you have been through church splits. We’ve had a couple of them at FCF during the 25 years I’ve served here. In the New Testament, the churches in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, and Colossae were all in danger of divisions.
As we saw last week, unity among believers is very important to our Lord. He died to secure it (Eph. 2:12-14) and it’s a major part of our witness to the world (John 13:34-35; 17:20-23). So we must be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and to grow to maturity in Christ, so that we may attain to the unity of the faith (Eph. 4:3, 13).
But how do we preserve the unity of the Spirit and attain to the unity of the faith? Obviously, it doesn’t happen automatically! There are at least four kinds of differences, or combinations thereof, which threaten church unity: (1) doctrinal differences; (2) personal differences (caused by personal wrongs); (3) personality differences; and, (4) methodological differences (over how to do the Lord’s work). In this message, I’m focusing on resolving doctrinal differences. I’ll address the other areas in future messages. The main idea here is:
Resolving doctrinal differences in a biblical way is crucial for the sake of the gospel.
You may be inclined to think that doctrine is not important or that theological controversies are for theologians to argue about, but they don’t affect you. But I would remind you that this year is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, which centered on several important doctrinal disputes that the Roman Catholic Church refused to correct. And although some now are calling for an end to the division that happened then, the doctrinal division between the Catholic Church and the Reformers was and still is primarily over the gospel. Thus …
Think about this: What is the difference between a Jehovah’s Witness, who is trying to work his way into heaven but is actually on his way to hell, and you, a believer in Jesus Christ, bound for heaven? The main difference is theological. You may object, “No, the difference is that I believe in Jesus Christ, but he doesn’t.” But every Jehovah’s Witness I’ve talked to claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The problem is, the “Jesus” he believes in is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jehovah’s Witness “Jesus” is a created being, not the eternal Son of God.
Perhaps someone would still object, “Isn’t doctrine divisive? Isn’t love the most important thing?” But, what if someone you love was about to drink a glass of water containing deadly poison, because he believed it was pure water? But, you knew that if he drank that contaminated water, he would die. Love would not ignore the truth that that drink would kill him. Even if he sincerely believed that that poisoned water was good for him, it still would kill him. Faith is only as good as its object. Faith in a contaminated glass of water is deadly. Faith in a contaminated gospel is eternally deadly! Spiritual truth is not relative to every person’s opinion of God or the gospel! To be saved, our faith must be in God’s only revealed way of salvation: the eternal Son of God, crucified for our sins and risen for our justification.
In the early church, a doctrinal controversy arose as the gospel spread from its Jewish origins to the Gentiles. In Jerusalem, the early church consisted mostly of Jews who had come to faith in Jesus as their crucified and risen Messiah. But when the gospel spread north to Antioch and then beyond (through the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas), many Gentiles came to faith in Christ (Acts 11:20-21). After Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, some Jews called Judaizers, who professed to believe in Jesus, began going to the largely Gentile churches that Paul and Barnabas had established, teaching that in addition to believing in Christ for salvation, the Gentiles must also be circumcised and follow the Jewish ceremonial laws. Paul wrote the Letter to the Galatians to refute their spiritually deadly error.
Eventually, the Judaizers came to Antioch and were teaching (Acts 15:1), “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” After Paul and Barnabas had great dissension with them, the church sent them and a delegation to Jerusalem to get this matter cleared up with the apostles and elders there. The Jerusalem Council affirmed the same gospel that Paul preached, but asked the Gentile converts to abstain from some things that would needlessly alienate unbelieving Jews.
The point is that Paul didn’t see this as an unimportant doctrinal dispute that should be overlooked in love. He saw it as poisoned water that threatened the truth of the gospel itself. Doctrinal differences are crucial when the truth of the gospel is at stake. Even though the Judaizers were probably sincere and only wanted to preserve the Law of Moses, they were sincerely wrong! Paul didn’t just shrug it off, saying, “Unity must prevail! Let’s set aside our differences and come together where we agree!” Rather, he fought vigorously for the truth of the gospel, pronouncing eternal judgment on these false teachers (Gal. 1:6-9)! He saw that people’s eternal destinies were at stake. Correct doctrine can make an eternal difference!
While unity is extremely important, it cannot trump the truth of the gospel, because if the gospel is compromised, the resulting “unity” is not the unity of the Spirit. It would be a superficial “unity” of some who believe in Jesus and some who did not. Jesus prayed for the love and unity of His disciples, but it was love and unity based on the truth (John 17:17). Jesus claimed to speak the truth (John 8:45) and to be the truth (John 14:6). He told Pilate (John 18:37), “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” He promised that He would send to His disciples “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 15:26). So to argue that Jesus set love above truth is false. He knew that tolerating a false gospel is not love, because it would lead the person believing it to damnation, not to eternal life.
The apostle Paul also knew that to preserve peace while compromising the truth of the gospel was not true love and unity. He risked disunity with Peter and Barnabas over a situation that occurred in Antioch (I think before the Jerusalem Council, although scholars debate the timing of this incident). Peter visited the church there and ate with the Gentiles, something strict Jews would never do. He realized that the Gentiles who believed were true brothers and sisters in Christ (Acts 10:28).
But when the Judaizers visited Antioch, Peter and even Barnabas feared their disapproval and withdrew from eating with the Gentiles. But Paul boldly confronted these men in front of the entire church (Gal. 2:11-14). He knew that to preserve unity while compromising the gospel would have been spiritually fatal.
All of this is directly relevant to our day when many influential Christian leaders are calling for Protestants to be unified with the Roman Catholic Church. They argue that we should come together because of the many beliefs we share in common and agree to disagree over the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Catholic Church teaches that we must not only believe in Jesus, but also add our good works and merit to be saved. It’s the same error the Galatian Judaizers were teaching: Believe in Jesus plus add your good works. Rome still affirms the canons of the Councils of Trent that condemn those who believe that we are justified by faith alone.
Even the famous evangelist Billy Graham for many years played down any differences between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. He said, “I have no quarrel with the Catholic Church.” Speaking of the difference between evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism, he said, “I don’t think the differences are important as far as personal salvation is concerned” (both quotes in Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided [Banner of Truth], p. 68). He also often said (ibid. p. 33), “The one badge of Christian discipleship is not orthodoxy, but love.”
Because of the powerful influence of Graham and of other well-known Christian leaders advocating reconciliation with the Catholic Church, there is immense pressure on pastors today to drop all doctrinal differences and join together with all who call themselves “Christian.” Evangelical author Ron Sider dogmatically stated, “It is sin to refuse to join in ecumenical dialogue and processes with other Christians who confess Jesus Christ as God and Savior. It is a sin to send our missionaries to other lands with long Christian traditions without first consulting with the churches already there.” In the context, he was referring to countries where Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church are strong (World Vision [April/May, 1994], p. 9). Here in Flagstaff we are currently being urged to join with Roman Catholics in prayer for our city.
I readily admit that there have been many shameful divisions among Christians over petty issues, which is sin. But the Bible shows that there are times when it is sin not to divide over doctrine. When the doctrine concerns how a person gets saved, there can be no compromise. So then, how should we attempt to resolve doctrinal differences in a biblical manner, while trying to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?
As I mentioned last week, most doctrinal differences may be divided into three broad categories: (1) Essential truth that is necessary for the gospel. To deny these truths would be heresy and a denial of the Christian faith. These truths include:
The inspiration and authority of the Bible: If someone denies this, there is no basis for determining what is spiritually true and false. If the Bible is in error over whether abortion or homosexuality are sin or whether Paul was wrong on the roles of men and women, then maybe it’s also wrong about whether faith in Jesus is the only way to God. The Bible must be our foundation for truth (John 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)!
The trinity: God is one God who exists eternally as three co-equal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each of whom is fully God. To deny the trinity is to deny the truthfulness of Jesus and the apostles, who clearly taught it (Matt. 28:19; John 14:9, 16, 26; 2 Cor. 13:14).
The full deity and full humanity of Jesus: If Jesus is not fully human, He could not atone for human sins. If He is not fully God, His death for sinners would not satisfy the holy justice of God. Many Scriptures affirm both His humanity (through the virgin birth) and His deity (Luke 1:30-38; John 1:1, 14; 10:30).
The substitutionary death of Jesus that satisfied God’s wrath as the payment for our sins: Jesus didn’t die only as an example of love; rather, He bore God’s wrath on behalf of all sinners who put their trust in Him (Rom. 3:26; 2 Cor. 5:21). Included here is the truth that all people are sinners who need Jesus to save them (Rom. 3:23).
Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead and bodily second coming in power and glory: If Jesus was not raised bodily, our faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). If He is not coming back bodily, He lied and we can’t believe anything else He said (Matt. 26:64; Acts 1:11).
Salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone: We are justified (declared righteous by God) as a gift by His grace through faith, not by works (Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).
(2) Important, but not saving truths. These issues affect how we live as Christians, the way we understand God, man, salvation, the Christian life, etc. So some of them are very important, but genuine Christians differ. Some of these matters fall into a gray zone between the essential and important categories. For example, the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell is very close to an essential truth necessary for salvation; but some, such as the late John Stott, denied it, and I can’t question his salvation. I think, though, that his denial of that truth was a very serious error.
Some other examples of important, but non-saving issues: God’s sovereignty versus human free will in our salvation; views of baptism; church government; biblical prophecy; old earth versus young earth creation; charismatic gifts; roles of men and women in the church and home; Christians and psychology; and, divorce and remarriage.
(3) Interesting, but not essential or important issues. Often it’s difficult to determine exactly what the Bible teaches about these matters. But one way or the other, they don’t affect how you live your Christian life. These include things like, who are the sons of God in Genesis 6? When does the battle of Ezekiel 38 take place? Did Christ descend into hell?
Once you determine the magnitude of a doctrinal issue …
Due to our propensity toward pride, it’s easy to defend the truth in the wrong way. Granted, both Jesus (Matt. 23:1-33) and Paul (Acts 13:6-12; Gal. 1:6-9) strongly confronted those in error, so sometimes this may be necessary. But we need to heed two Scriptures that guide us in how to correct those in error. In Galatians 6:1, Paul writes, “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.” The “trespass” may be a doctrinal error. Our goal should be restoration, not to prove that we’re right and they’re wrong. And, we should act with gentleness and humility.
In 2 Timothy 2:24-26, Paul states, “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” We will not win a person in error to the truth by being quarrelsome, impatient, or harsh. Rather, we must gently, lovingly offer correction, while praying that God will grant repentance. Our motive must never be to prove that we’re right and the other person is wrong. Rather, our desire should be to glorify God through the other person’s embracing God’s truth.
The apostles and elders in Jerusalem heard the Judaizers, then Peter, Paul and Barnabas, and James, all stated their case (Acts 15:5, 7-12). We need to make sure that we understand what the other person is saying before we pass judgment (James 1:19).
Does he really understand the gospel? Is he a new believer who lacks teaching? Or, is he a knowledgeable man who is actively promoting false doctrine by preying on younger believers who don’t know as much as he does? We should be gentle with an unbeliever or untaught believer. But someone who is deliberately teaching false doctrine needs a stronger rebuke.
Paul and Barnabas brought this crucial issue back to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Sometimes I’ve faced difficult issues where I’ve sought the wisdom of other pastors or church leaders.
James supports the testimonies of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas by appealing to the prophet Amos (Acts 15:15-18). In verse 28, they concluded, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us ….” The mind of the Spirit is not determined by our subjective feelings, but by what the Spirit-inspired prophets and apostles wrote in God’s word. If your interpretation of a major doctrine goes against the consensus of Spirit-filled, godly men, look out!
In order not to offend the Jews, Gentile converts were asked to abstain from three things that violated the ceremonial law (things contaminated by idols, what is strangled, and blood). It’s difficult to know why abstaining from fornication is in this list, since it’s an absolute moral issue. The Gentile culture accepted temple prostitution and men having a mistress as common practice. Perhaps many new Gentile converts did not yet understand God’s moral standards on marital fidelity. If Gentile converts continued with these pagan practices, it would hinder reaching Jews with the gospel. So the Gentiles were asked not to offend the Jews on these matters; but the truth of the gospel was not compromised.
The goal is always to bring the person in error to the knowledge of the truth. But sometimes, to protect the church and uphold sound doctrine, a person who stubbornly holds to false doctrine must be removed from the church (Matt. 18:15-17; Titus 3:10-11).
Our church has a position on baptism, the sign gifts, the role of women in the church and home, and other issues. We recognize that other Bible-believing churches differ from us, but we need to answer to the Lord for the light He has given us on these things.
On a couple of occasions I have been asked to pastor churches that had women elders. I declined because I could not submit to that view and if I had insisted that the church change the policy before I went there, or I went there and changed the church’s policy, it would have caused serious conflict a church split. The elders need to agree on important issues. Disunity among leaders will translate into disharmony among the flock.
Here, unity and love trump individual preferences. Many issues are not worth fighting over. We are to stand “firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:29). But on minor issues, we should (Phil. 2:3), “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves.”
Sometimes a cantankerous person will “major on the minors.” He’s convinced that he is right about some minor point of doctrine and he’s on a crusade to convince everyone else that he’s right. At some point, this type gently but firmly needs to be told to back off. Often, there is a deeper issue going on that the person needs to deal with. If you can help him deal with that root issue, he will stop majoring on some minor issue.
I concluded last week with a quote from J. C. Ryle; here is another wise word from him (Warnings to the Churches [Banner of Truth Trust], pp. 110-111):
Controversy in religion is a hateful thing. It is hard enough to fight the devil, the world and the flesh, without private differences in our own camp. But there is one thing which is even worse than controversy, and that is false doctrine tolerated, allowed, and permitted without protest or molestation…. Three things there are which men never ought to trifle with—a little poison, a little false doctrine, and a little sin.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
May 21, 2017
I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I can predict with absolute certainty that if you are involved in a local church, you will have a conflict with another person. That person may wrong you unintentionally or intentionally. Most likely, it will not involve a violation of our civil laws, but it might. Or, you will wrong another believer. Or, someone will wrong one of your family members or a friend, who will tell you about what has happened.
I’m not overstating the case when I say that if you do not learn to deal biblically with personal conflict, you will not do well as a Christian. After all, the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:39). It’s really important for you to obey that commandment. But such obedience does not happen automatically. It requires biblical understanding and constant effort.
Every relational conflict or misunderstanding is an opportunity to learn more of Christ. Did someone treat me in an offensive manner? People treated Jesus offensively, but He still loved them. Did they run roughshod over my feelings? Jesus knew that kind of treatment. Did I show kindness to someone, only to have him go behind my back and spread lies about me? Jesus knew that experience. Did my friends desert me at my time of need? The disciples deserted Jesus at His trial and crucifixion. Did a close associate betray me? Judas betrayed Jesus. Maybe you feel mistreated, unloved, or betrayed by a family member or fellow Christian. Use that situation to draw near to Jesus, who loved you, even though your sin put Him on the cross.
How you deal with conflict, whether in your family, with other believers, or for that matter, with those in the world, will either advance or hinder God’s kingdom. Others will either see Christ in you and be drawn to Him, or they will see sinful selfishness in one who claims to be a Christian and be repelled. Thus:
Resolving conflict in a biblical way is crucial for the sake of the gospel.
I’m going to spend most of this message on what you should do if another believer wrongs you. I will also deal briefly about what you should do if you wrong someone else and what to do when someone you know has been wronged. In addition to this message, I have several messages on the church website on resolving conflicts and having harmonious relationships. Also, there is a one-page summary, “Some Biblical Principles for Communication,” on the church website. Also, I would recommend Ken Sande and Kevin Johnson’s Resolving Everyday Conflict [Baker] and Stuart Scott’s Communication and Conflict Resolution and From Pride to Humility [both Focus Publishing].
Suppose someone in the church deliberately wronged you. It could be anything from gossip or telling half-truths about you to something extremely serious, such as committing adultery with your spouse or molesting one of your children. First we’ll look at how to deal with a non-legal wrong and then at how to deal with it if someone has violated a civil or criminal law.
Non-legal does not mean that the wrong was not serious (e.g. adultery), but only that the government has no concern in the matter. Also, it is not always easy to determine whether a wrong against you was intentional or unintentional. Maybe the person is spiritually or emotionally immature or oblivious to others’ feelings. I’ll talk about this later. But if you’re pretty sure it was an intentional wrong:
That may sound obvious, but when you’ve been wronged, it’s anything but obvious. The most natural thing to do is to react emotionally. Ken Sande and Kevin Johnson (ibid. p. 35) point out that in any conflict, there are three possible responses: escape; attack; or make peace. If you react in the flesh, you will either escape or attack, but you will not resolve the conflict and you will not grow in Christ. If you look to the Lord, you can take steps to make peace.
(1) Look to the glory of Christ as your aim in resolving the conflict. By looking to the Lord, I mean that you should stop and ask Him to help you glorify and please Him in your thoughts, words, and deeds in dealing with the wrong you have suffered. That should be your aim in every relational conflict.
(2) Look to the cross of Christ as the basis for forgiveness and reconciliation. Ephesians 2:14 states, “For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups [Jew and Gentile] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.” In that day, the Jews and Gentiles were hostile and derisive towards one another. But as Paul goes on to say (Eph. 2:15-17), through the cross Christ reconciled these formerly hostile groups in one body (the church) to God.
Also, as Jesus taught (Matt. 18:21-35) in the parable of the servant whose master forgave him $5 billion, only to have that servant go and demand payment from a fellow servant who owed him $5,000, the cross reminds us that God has forgiven our $5 billion debt. Now He wants me to forgive others just as I’ve been forgiven (Eph. 4:32). However badly the other person wronged me, it wasn’t as badly as I wronged the Lord. The cross is the basis for forgiveness and reconciliation with the one who wronged me.
(3) Look to the body of Christ as the basis for preserving unity. As Paul taught (1 Cor. 12:12-30), all believers are one body in Christ. If the person who hurt me is a Christian and I retaliate by hurting him, I’m hurting myself, because we’re members of the same body. Even worse, I’m hurting Christ, because He is the head of the body. So your purpose is not to get even or to tear the other person apart so that you can prove that you were right. Rather, it is to build him or her up in Christ.
(4) Look to the love of Christ as the example of how you should respond to the one who wronged you. Jesus loved us and sacrificed Himself for us while we were yet sinners (Eph. 5:2; Rom. 5:8). This does not mean that you must endure all wrongs against you without confronting the one who wronged you. Love seeks the highest good of the one loved, which sometimes means correcting the person or pointing out a blind spot that was the cause of the wrong. But your aim toward the one who wronged you should be to build him in Christ by showing him the love of Christ.
(5) Look to the sovereignty of Christ, who brought this trial into your life for His glory and your good, and also for the good of the one who wronged you. The Lord is never responsible for sin, but in ways that we cannot understand, He uses other people’s sins for His glory and our good when we respond rightly. Out of hatred, Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. Then Potiphar’s wife falsely accused him and he spent the better part of his twenties in an Egyptian dungeon. But through all these wrongs, Joseph trusted in the sovereign goodness of God. Years later, he said to his brothers (Gen. 50:20), “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” So when you’ve been wronged, first stop and get a godly perspective by looking to the Lord.
(1) Check for hidden causes for the offense on your part. Perhaps you offended the person in the past, but never made it right. Or, perhaps you came across in an arrogant, abrasive, or self-serving manner. James 4:1-2 states, “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel.” If you previously offended the one who now has wronged you, it doesn’t excuse his sin, but it does alter the equation a bit. You can’t be reconciled to him until you ask forgiveness for your own wrongs.
(2) Check for a root of bitterness on your part. Hebrews 12:15 warns, “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled.” When you’ve been wronged, it’s easy to become bitter. Bitterness is a root. As you know, it’s easier to pull out a new plant than it is to dig out one that has deep roots that have grown over the years. And, your root of bitterness will defile others, especially those who are closest to you. You don’t want to defile your kids by your bitterness.
(3) Check for any gossip on your part. When you’ve been wronged, it’s easy to go to others and build your case by making yourself look like an innocent victim and making the wrongdoer look like an evil villain. Granted, you may need to go to a trusted, mature believer and get counsel on how to deal with the person who wronged you. But you should not talk to a lot of people to build your case.
(4) Check for a spirit of gentleness and a desire for reconciliation on your part. To correct those who are in sin, you need to be gentle, seeking to bring restoration, reconciliation, and healing (Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). Proverbs 12:18 says, “There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” You can use your tongue to hack someone to bits, or you can use it like a surgeon uses a scalpel, to bring healing.
(5) Check to see what character qualities God may want to teach you through this conflict. There is always room to grow in the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23): Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. We all need to grow in humility! We all need to depend on God more in prayer. Every conflict provides opportunities for growth in godliness.
So, first look to the Lord; then look to yourself. Then …
In Romans 14:18, Paul says, “So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.” Many scholars prefer the reading, “Let us pursue.” Either way, the idea is that no matter “who started it,” if you’re aware of a relational strain, you’re responsible to pursue peace and reconciliation.
Before you go, pray for the right timing and setting. Pray for yourself, so that you will be gracious, gentle, and kind. Pray for the other person to be open to whatever the Lord wants to teach him or her in this situation. When you meet with the offender, begin by asking questions to make sure that you understand his or her perspective and feelings. Remember, you’re not there to win an argument or prove that you were right and the offender was wrong. You’re there to glorify and please God and to help your brother or sister grow in Christ. Give the person the opportunity to repent and change without putting him down or backing him into a corner where he gets defensive. Let him know that you’re a fellow sinner, not a saint who never sins.
Speak the truth, but always in love (Eph. 4:15). There are two ways to err here: If you exaggerate to win your point (“you always,” or “you never”), you’re not being truthful. If you say that you’re fine when you’re not, you’re not being truthful. If you deny that you feel hurt when you were hurt, or minimize the other person’s serious sin, you’re not being truthful. Joseph didn’t minimize his brothers’ sin against him. Even though he had forgiven them, he said truthfully (Gen. 50:20), “you meant evil against me.”
The other way to err is to speak the truth, but not in love. To blast the other person angrily because “that’s just the way I feel,” may be truthful, but it’s not loving. Love has regard for the other person’s feelings. Love does not use abusive speech that puts down the other person. Love does not back the other person into a corner where he becomes defensive. Love seeks to build up the other person. If the offender verbally attacks, criticizes, or blames you, love does not return insult for insult, but gives a blessing instead (1 Pet. 3:9). It’s a good idea to read 1 Corinthians 13 before you go to the offending person to remind yourself of what love looks like.
Depending on the magnitude of the offense against you, if the offender does not repent, you may need to take another brother or sister with you (Matt. 18:16). If the offense is serious and there is still no repentance, at some point, the elders may need to “tell it to the church” and expel the offender from the church (Matt. 18:17). But throughout the process, your aim is never to win or prove that you were right, but rather to restore and be reconciled to the sinning person for the glory of God and the good of the other person.
Paul rebukes the bickering Corinthian church (1 Cor. 6:1-8) because they were taking one another to court before unbelievers. He asks rhetorically (1 Cor. 6:7), “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” If you’re considering suing another believer, ask, “Will going to court against a fellow believer glorify God? Will it help or hinder the furtherance of the gospel? Will it help or hinder being reconciled with my brother or sister in Christ?”
If you can’t resolve the dispute privately, then you may need to take it to the church elders or to Christian arbitrators. Sometimes, the offending person goes to another church where the leaders will not get involved and will not exercise church discipline. What should you do then? Not all would agree with me on this point, but if all avenues for Christian mediation have been pursued, there are times when it is permissible for a believer to take legal action against the other person who claims to be a believer, but who is denying his claim by his life.
For example, if a businessman needs to be paid what he is owed so that he can keep his business going, he may need to sue one who has defrauded him. Or if a man needs financial recompense so that he can provide for his family (1 Tim. 5:8), he may need to use the courts. Or if he sees a pattern of greed and dishonesty on the part of the one who wronged him and thinks that to let the offender off would allow him to go on hurting others and not face his sin; then, it may be right to take him to court. But, in such cases, you need to make sure that you’re not being greedy or seeking revenge. (See John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:20:17-21.)
God provides civil government to uphold the law for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of evildoers (Rom. 13:1-7). If someone molests a child, to protect other children, he needs to be brought to justice. If a Christian has embezzled money, he needs to make full restitution to those he has wronged. If a husband physically abuses his wife or children, he needs to face the penalties of the law. If a man rapes a woman, for the protection of other women, he needs to go to prison. Forgiving and loving a criminal does not mean that you should not report his crime to civil authorities.
As with an intentional wrong, first look to the Lord with the desire to glorify and please Him. Then, look to yourself: Are you being overly sensitive or critical? Could you mistakenly be assuming a wrong motive on the part of the one who offended you? If it was a relatively minor offense, ask, “Was this a deliberate sin against me or was it just spiritual immaturity or human imperfection on this person’s part?” Maybe the other person was insensitive to your feelings or responded sarcastically in a way that made you feel put down. Okay, you were wronged. But do you just need to absorb it?
I asked a man who left our church in California why he left. He said, “Your elders are unfriendly!” I asked, “Which elder was unfriendly to you?” He named a man who was probably our most gregarious elder. He said, “He walked right past me at church and didn’t even say hello!” I tried to explain that this elder probably saw someone across the room he needed to talk to and was making a beeline for that person and that I was sure that this elder did not mean to slight him. But, I said, if it really bothered him, he should talk to this elder and then let me know how it went. But he refused to do that and left the church.
If an unintentional offense is hindering your relationship with the person or you think it represents a pattern or habitual behavior that is hurting others and not glorifying God, or it’s a blind spot that he needs to face so that he doesn’t offend others, then the loving thing to do is to talk to him to try to help him grow in Christ.
Think through and try to specify exactly what you did wrong. Don’t blame or attack the other person, even if you think that he or she is mostly at fault. As Sande and Johnson say (p. 62), “Even if I’m only 2 percent responsible for a conflict, I’m 100 percent responsible for my 2 percent.”
It’s important to use the right wording when you ask someone to forgive you. Don’t belittle your sin by saying, “If I was wrong, please forgive me.” Don’t say, “I’m sorry I yelled at you, but it makes me angry when you treat me that way!” You’re blaming, not taking responsibility for your sin. Rather, say, “God has convicted me of my sin when I spoke to you as I did. I know I wronged you in this. I’ve asked God’s forgiveness and I’ve come to ask, ‘Will you forgive me?’” Assure the one you offended that you will work on not repeating the offense. And ask for his or her prayers.
When your loved one or friend tells you how another person wronged him, don’t rush to his defense without first hearing the other side. As Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.” Ask the one who tells you that he was wronged: “Have you gone directly to the one who wronged you and sought reconciliation? Have you talked to others besides me about this offense?” If so, you need to tell him not to talk to anyone else, which would be gossip. Explain the steps I’ve covered in this message to resolve the conflict in a godly manner and tell him to report back to you after he has gone to the offending party.
What if none of the above brings resolution? Well, we live in a fallen world and sometimes reconciliation isn’t possible. Paul says (Rom. 12:18), “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” Sometimes, peace isn’t possible. In those situations, pray for the offender, don’t badmouth him to everyone else, and move on with growing in Christ and serving Him. But for the sake of the gospel, do all you can to resolve personal conflict in a way that honors the Lord and restores damaged relationships. After all, it is the second greatest commandment!
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
May 28, 2017
I haven’t read Leslie Flynn’s book, Great Church Fights, but the title makes me want to read it. I did read a story that he tells of two porcupines in the freezing north woods that huddled together to keep warm. But when they got close, their quills stabbed each other, so they had to move apart. They needed each other for the warmth, but they needled each other with their quills!
Church members often are like those porcupines: we need each other, but we needle each other! As Vance Havner observed, there are many “porcupine” Christians—they have their good points, but you can’t get near them!
If you’ve been in the church for any length of time, you’ve no doubt been around someone whose personality grated on yours. Even though you’re supposed to love them, if you were honest, you’d admit that you don’t like them. Or, if you’ve served the Lord in some ministry, you’ve probably tried to work with someone who wanted to do things in a way that seemed wrong to you. You could see that his way wouldn’t work and you knew that your way was the right way! I wish that I were only describing hypothetical situations, but from my many years of pastoral experience, I know that I’m describing reality. I hope I’m not describing anyone’s marriage, but I probably am!
It’s important that you learn to deal with such situations for several reasons. First, the command to love one another is not a minor one! It’s the second greatest commandment and it is linked with the greatest commandment, to love God. If we do not love our brother whom we have seen, we cannot love God whom we have not seen (1 John 4:20). Also, Christian unity is not a minor matter. Jesus prayed just before His death that we would be perfected in unity so that the world would know that the Father had sent Him (John 17:23). We can’t just shrug it off!
Also, I’ve seen Christians become discouraged and quit serving the Lord because of a clash with another believer. Sometimes they even grow disillusioned or cynical about the Christian life because of a clash that they either observed or experienced in the church. They got hurt and wrongly concluded, “Christians are just hypocrites. Christianity doesn’t work.” And they fell away from the Lord. So it’s important to learn what the Bible teaches about resolving personality and methodology differences.
In Acts 15:36-41, Luke reports a clash that occurred between two great men of God, Paul and Barnabas. Frankly, it’s not a pretty picture. I wish that he reported that they both talked things through and calmly agreed to work in different spheres. But the clash led to an unpleasant rupture in the close working relationship between these two godly men. Both Paul and Barnabas must have grieved over this in the years afterward. The lesson for us is that …
Christians must be diligent to maintain unity and continue serving the Lord in spite of personality and methodology differences.
I will make four observations about our text:
We often naïvely think that if we all were spiritually mature, we would never clash with one another. I agree that our clashes should be less frequent and less severe as we grow in the Lord. And, the more mature we are, the more calmly and amicably we should be able to handle our differences. But until we are perfectly sanctified in heaven, we will have differences with other believers. Sometimes they will be severe, especially when two strong leaders clash. Note four things about such personality and methodology differences:
Paul and Barnabas had just come away from the Jerusalem Council, where the core issue of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone had been affirmed. Both men firmly agreed about this. They had worked together for over a year teaching the church in Antioch (Acts 11:26), where I’m sure they had to agree on the core doctrines of the Christian faith. But now their personalities clashed over a practical matter of ministry: whether to take Mark along on the second missionary journey.
Paul and Barnabas were not new believers. Both men had walked with God for years. Acts 11:24 describes Barnabas as, “a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith,” whom the Lord used to bring “considerable numbers” to saving faith. Paul is described as being filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:9). They were both fully committed to doing the will of God, and had risked their lives for the sake of Christ (Acts 15:26). And yet they clashed.
Paul and Barnabas had a long history of serving together. It was Barnabas who had gone to Paul and listened to his testimony when the Christians in Jerusalem were afraid to accept him (Acts 9:26-27). Barnabas also went to Tarsus to look for Paul and brought him back to labor with him in the ministry at Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). The Holy Spirit directed that the two men be commissioned together to go out on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-3). They had served together in the spiritual battle.
This clash erupted out of godly concern on Paul’s part to revisit the churches that they had seen God establish on that first journey, to see how they were doing in the Lord. Both men had a heart for the wellbeing of the churches. And yet these two teammates, who had labored and suffered together for many years in the cause of Christ, clashed. Serving together for years does not erase personality differences that can lead to strong clashes.
There is no record in Acts 15 that Paul and Barnabas sought the help of the other leaders in Antioch to try to help resolve this conflict. But later, when two women in the church in Philippi were having a conflict, Paul wrote (Phil. 4:2-3),
I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord. Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Paul doesn’t confront these women for being in sin, so their conflict must have been due to personality or methodology differences. But for the unity of the church (Phil. 1:27), it was important for this unnamed “companion” (Epaphroditus?) to help these two faithful women to work through their conflict.
Such a mediator needs to be a mature, committed Christian (Gal. 6:1, “you who are spiritual”) who can apply biblical principles to the conflict. He should be objective, listening to both sides before making any judgment as to who is at fault (Prov. 18:17). He should be open, direct, and truthful. Paul didn’t beat around the bush, hinting that there may be a problem. Rather, he directly named the two women in a letter that would be read to the entire church (and be read by Christians for two millennia!). And, a mediator needs to be affirming and positive wherever possible. Paul affirmed these women for sharing his struggle in the gospel and assured them that their names are written in the book of life. He didn’t doubt their salvation.
So if you get in a conflict with another believer whose personality grates on yours, or who wants to do things differently, don’t escalate the conflict by questioning his salvation. Don’t attack his motives as being sinister. Rather, recognize that personality and methodology differences may exist, even among mature believers.
I say, “try” because it isn’t always easy to sort things out. Try to disengage your emotions and think objectively about five questions:
(1) Is the conflict due to a theological difference, a personal wrong, spiritual immaturity, different personalities, or different methodologies? We need to be careful here, because it sounds more “spiritual” to say that I’m defending the truth against theological error, or to say that the other person sinned against me, than to say, “His personality grates on mine!” It’s easy, too, to label the other person as spiritually immature, rather than to admit my own shortcomings and faults. In this case, as we’ve seen, both Paul and Barnabas were spiritually mature men. Both were totally committed to the Great Commission. As far as we’re told, this conflict didn’t erupt because one of them sinned against the other (although, as I’m going to suggest, they did sin in the way they dealt with this conflict). Usually, a conflict is due to a mixed bag of reasons.
(2) Is there a biblical principle at stake? Again, be careful here! Is there more than one principle that applies? Paul could have quoted Jesus: “‘No one after putting his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.’ Mark shouldn’t go!” And, Barnabas countered, “Yes, but God is the gracious God of the second chance. Look at Jonah. Look at Peter. We need to give Mark another chance.” Both men had Scripture to back up their opposing views! Sometimes, because of personality differences, one man emphasizes one biblical principle, while the other man emphasizes a different biblical principle. Sometimes in such cases, if the principle is basic to one’s approach to ministry, it may be better to agree to work separately.
You may be wondering, “What if you can’t separate from the person that you clash with because you’re married to him (or her)?” That leads to the third question you need to ask:
(3) Is God trying to develop godly character qualities in me through this conflict? Sometimes God in His grace (and humor) throws us together with people who grate on us in order to sandpaper our rough edges. Let’s face it, I don’t need patience, forbearance, gentleness, and kindness when the other person sees everything my way! I don’t need to learn to deny myself when the other person thinks that I’m wonderful. But when there is a clash, God often confronts me with my selfishness and stubbornness. If I submit to Him and don’t bail out of the difficult relationship, He will use it to develop those Christlike qualities in me.
(4) Is this a preference issue, a sin issue, a conscience issue, or a wisdom issue? (This list is from Stuart Scott, The Exemplary Husband [Focus Publishing], p. 256.) If it’s a preference issue, why not yield to the other person’s preference (Phil. 2:3-4)? If it’s a clear sin issue, you need gently to help the other person see it as sin and come to repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26). If it’s a conscience issue, you need to explain to the other person that you’re not judging him for his behavior, but you can’t in good conscience before the Lord do whatever it is. And, don’t force him to act against his conscience. If it’s a wisdom issue, study the Word together and seek the counsel of godly leaders. If you still can’t come to agreement, you may have to decide not to work together. Then, resist the temptation to say, “I told you so!” if the other person’s method doesn’t work well!
(5) Is God trying to teach me the beauty of the body of Christ? I once heard church consultant Carl George explain that many church conflicts stem from a lack of understanding the God-given differences between spiritual gifts. He told about a church he visited as a consultant. Cars were lined up to get into the parking lot. Young families filled the auditorium and Sunday school classes. He learned that many of them were new believers, excited about the church. They liked the fellowship, the worship, and the pastor’s warm and friendly messages.
But the pastor was discouraged and ready to resign because some of the most mature saints in the church, who taught large adult Sunday school classes, were highly critical of his ministry. “Weak teaching,” they complained. “Nobody can grow on this kind of pabulum,” they griped.
Dr. George helped these critics to see that it was those with the gift of teaching who were critical of the pastor. He wasn’t a strong teacher, but he was gifted more in evangelism and encouragement. Rather than criticizing him, those gifted in teaching needed to see that he was bringing in hundreds of young families who needed the teaching that these gifted teachers could offer. Without the pastor, they wouldn’t have anyone to teach! The same thing could happen in a church where the pastor was a gifted teacher, but not an evangelist. Those gifted in evangelism could gripe that nobody was being won to Christ through the pulpit ministry.
Dr. George points out that you can often tell what a person’s spiritual gift is by what he criticizes. The woman who complains that the church is uncaring probably has the gift of mercy. The guy who gripes about the lack of organization in the church probably has the gift of administration. So if you’re having a personality or methodology clash with a person, listen to what he’s criticizing and you may discover his gift. Affirm that gift and you may be able to divide up the work according to your differing gifts and work together harmoniously.
Thus, to maintain unity, recognize that even mature, godly believers may have personality and methodology conflicts. Try to identify the real nature of the difficulty.
The question comes up, “Who was right in this clash?” Since Luke, who was obviously close to Paul, did not blame Barnabas or Paul, we need to be careful. The slight nod goes to Paul as being right, since it is stated that the brethren commended Silas and Paul to the grace of God, but nothing is said about Barnabas and Mark, except that they sailed away to Cyprus. But in light of the rest of Scripture, I think we can say that both men were right but, also, both men were wrong. Paul was right in that he was a rugged pioneer, venturing into enemy strongholds, and he needed teammates who wouldn’t run when the battle was hard. Mark had not proven himself to be such a man. He should not have gone with Paul.
Barnabas was right in that he saw the undeveloped potential in Mark, and he wanted to extend God’s grace to this young man in spite of his earlier mistake in deserting the cause. History proved him right, in that Paul himself later told the Colossian church to welcome Mark (Col. 4:10); and, in his final imprisonment, Paul told Timothy to bring Mark with him, because he was useful to Paul for ministry (2 Tim. 4:11). So Barnabas’ efforts to reclaim Mark for the cause paid off. Both men were right.
But, also, I think that both men were wrong. I believe they fell into sinful anger in the way they dealt with this disagreement. They both stubbornly dug in their heels and refused to affirm the other man’s point of view. Probably they both would have said that they were standing on a matter of biblical principle. But they could have graciously agreed to disagree and prayed for one another as they parted ways in a spirit of mutual respect. Instead, they had a “sharp disagreement,” which means, they were very provoked with one another (1 Cor. 13:5, Greek text). Neither man was following Paul’s later directive (Col. 3:12), to put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience toward one another. It may have been God’s will for the two men to separate, but it was not His will for them to separate through a heated quarrel.
Two practical observations here:
First, a person’s greatest strengths are often the area of his greatest weaknesses. Paul’s strength was his resolute commitment to follow Christ no matter what the cost, and to stand firm in his convictions. You could beat Paul, throw him in prison, stone him, or shipwreck him, but you couldn’t stop him from proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul’s weakness was that his resolute commitment hindered him from accepting and working with a weaker man, like Mark, who had potential, but needed patient nurture.
Barnabas’ greatest strength was his ability to encourage the fainthearted. He was the champion of the outsider and fringe person. He knew how to show grace to those who had failed. But he erred on the side of showing grace to those who needed to be confronted. As Paul mentions in Galatians 2:13, even Barnabas was carried away with the hypocrisy of Peter and the other Jews who withdrew from eating with the Gentile Christians out of fear of offending the Judaizers.
So the lesson is, know yourself. Where, by God’s grace, are you strong and gifted? Exercise that strength for His glory. But also, be careful, because your strength may lead you into sin if you’re not on guard.
Second, since God always uses imperfect earthen vessels in His service, we should not put too much trust in men, but in God, who alone is perfect. You cannot find two more dedicated, godly servants of Jesus Christ than Paul and Barnabas, and yet here they are, clashing with one another. Throughout the Bible, you see that every great man of God had his weaknesses and failures. While there is a proper place for trusting the leaders that God puts over us, we shouldn’t put them on a pedestal. If we’re trusting in men rather than in the Lord Himself, we’ll be shaken when those men disappoint us. Also, the fact that God uses imperfect men and women in His service should encourage all of us to get involved in serving Him. As long as we are not tolerating known sin in our lives, He can and will use us in His purpose in spite of our imperfections.
Unity does not mean that we all must work closely with one another. While we need to try to work through our differences, there are times when two workers need to recognize that God is calling them to serve the Lord in different spheres. Any parting of ways should be done with mutual respect and without bitterness or acrimony. While I wish that there was some word here about Paul and Barnabas patching things up before they parted ways, at least later Paul did speak in a supportive way of both Barnabas and Mark (1 Cor. 9:6; 2 Tim. 4:11).
Unity does not mean that we all have to agree on every secondary doctrinal or practical matter. As I mentioned several weeks ago, there are some core truths that every Christian must hold to or he is denying the faith. But there are many issues where godly Christians, committed to the Scriptures, disagree. We must be charitable toward one another on these matters.
And, there are many differences over the methods we use to do the Lord’s work. We should seek to follow biblical methods, not worldly methods. Some methods are so unbiblical that they deserve criticism. But as with doctrine, godly men disagree over some methods. We must be charitable toward those whose methods we don’t agree with, even though we can’t work closely with them.
The British admiral, Lord Nelson, once came on deck and found two of his officers quarreling. He whirled them around, pointed to the enemy ships nearby, and exclaimed, “Gentlemen, there are your enemies!”
When we face personality and methodology differences in the church, we need to remember that the enemy is out there! We’re on the same team, members of the same body, committed to furthering the same gospel (Phil. 1:27). If possible, we need to work together in spite of our personality and methodology differences. If not, we can agree to serve the Lord separately, while still affirming one another’s gifts and contributions to the cause of Jesus Christ.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
June 4, 2017
Why would I want to preach a sermon on “looking for a good church?” Maybe some will hear it and decide, “I’m out of here!” Maybe it will expose a lot of problem areas with our church, leading to grumbling and discontent.
I’m preaching on this topic for several reasons. First, maybe someone here is in the process of looking for a good church, and you need to know what to look for. People pick churches for a lot of reasons, not all of them based on Scripture. Some like the “vibes” or feeling that they get when they go to a church. Or, they feel welcomed and loved. Some pick a church based on what their kids like. For others, it’s the music or they like the building. As we saw in the humorous video spoof about “Church Hunters,” some like a church because the pastor wears his shirt untucked! So we need to understand the biblical criteria for a good church.
Second, you may have friends who are looking for a good church, and you can offer them some specific help. Although it should be the first place to look, it may not occur to them to check out what the Bible says about what constitutes a good church.
And, third, I think we should use these qualities of a good church to evaluate ourselves so that we can try to improve where we need to. Also, before we look at these marks of a good church, we need to keep in mind that there are no perfect churches because churches are made up of imperfect people. As the old joke goes, “If you find a perfect church, don’t join it because you’d ruin it!” But, even though perfect churches don’t exist, there are good, solid, churches. We can strive to be one of those, for God’s glory.
I don’t recall ever preaching a sermon with ten points, so this may be a first. I don’t expect you to remember all ten without referring later to the printed notes, but I hope you will remember the first three or four, which are essential. I can only skim over these points in this message, but I will devote some of the remaining messages in this series to some of these points.
A good church is comprised of at least these ten qualities:
You may be thinking, “Well, of course, Steve would pick biblical preaching and teaching as first because that’s what he does!” But I argue that this must be foundational for everything else. If a church does not have solid teaching and preaching of God’s Word as the foundation, then it will drift into false teaching. It will conform to the culture. Many sad examples of this abound today.
But let’s allow the Bible to talk for itself. Here are a few Scriptures that emphasize the centrality of God’s Word in the church:
Acts 2:42 (speaking of the early church): “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”
Acts 20:20 (Paul reminding the Ephesian elders of his ministry there): “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house.”
Acts 20:27 (Paul, to the same Ephesian elders): “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.”
1 Timothy 3:15: “But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” There is such a thing as spiritual truth and error. The church is the pillar and support of God’s Word of truth.
1 Timothy 5:17 (Paul, speaking of the need to support elders who preach and teach): “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”
2 Timothy 2:15 (Paul exhorts Timothy): “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Paul, reminding Timothy of the importance and power of the Scriptures): “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
2 Timothy 4:1-5: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” My first sermon here 25 years ago was on this text, titled, “My Major Task and Yours.” My major task is to preach the Word. Your major task is to hear the word with a heart to obey.
Ephesians 4:11-12: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” He goes on to say that this equipping ministry of pastors and teachers will keep the church from being tossed here and there by various false doctrines.
My main aim each week is that you will be able to look at the biblical text and understand what it says in its context and how it applies to your life.
Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Since the gospel is necessary for salvation (rescuing people from God’s eternal judgment), Satan has worked overtime to promote false “gospels” that do not save. Usually, as with the Judaizers in Galatia, false gospels include some form of adding human works to Christ’s work on the cross. Or, false gospels divert attention away from human sinfulness and the need for God to save us. In this form, they promise that Jesus will give you a happy life (marriage, family, career, etc.) apart from repentance from your sin and faith in Jesus and His shed blood.
The true gospel is: We all have sinned and deserve God’s righteous judgment. No amount of good works can pay the penalty of our sins, which is eternal separation from God. God in love sent His eternal Son Jesus to take on human flesh and die in the place of sinners. He offers eternal life and forgiveness of all sins to everyone who turns from sin and trusts in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Salvation is not a reward for human works, but is God’s free gift to all who truly believe in Jesus (Mark 1:15; Luke 24:47; John 3:16; Acts 11:18; 20:21; 26:18; Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).
Jesus summarized all of God’s commandments with two (Matt. 22:37-39): “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Also, Jesus told the woman at the well (John 4:23-24), “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Healthy churches major on the majors: Loving God, loving one another, and worshiping God in spirit and truth. Love for God is not just a feeling, but includes obedience to His commandments (John 14:21, 23-24). Love for one another means seeking the other person’s highest good, which includes helping each other to grow in holiness. And, true worship is a matter of our hearts before God (“in spirit”), but also must be based on the truth of who God is as revealed in His Word (“in truth”).
Legalism—adding manmade rules over petty issues and judging others based on whether they keep those rules—is a plague on many churches. Jesus clashed with the Pharisees who had added hundreds of rules to the Old Testament, especially regarding the Sabbath. They prided themselves on outward conformity to their rules, but their hearts were far from God (Matt. 15:7-9).
But, sometimes when Christians throw off legalism, they swing to the other extreme of disregarding the need to obey God’s commandments. The Great Commission, which Jesus entrusted to us, is (Matt. 28:19-20), “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Disciples are followers of Jesus who keep His commandments. But they don’t do it outwardly to impress others, as the Pharisees did. They obey from the heart in response to God’s grace, walking in the power of His indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:11-14; Gal. 5:16; Col. 2:16-23). Paul puts it beautifully in Titus 2:11-14: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.”
As we saw (Acts 2:42), the early church not only devoted themselves to the apostles teaching, but also to “the fellowship.” A few verses later (Acts 2:46), Luke reports, “Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart.” Or, as Paul describes the healthy church (Eph. 4:15-16), “but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” We also could put all of the “one anothers” in the New Testament under this heading (Rom. 12:5, 10; 15:5, 7, 14; Gal. 5:13; etc.).
John Calvin (The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Westminster Press], ed. by John McNeill, 4:1:9) listed the preaching of the Word and the proper administration of the sacraments as the marks of a true church. Other Reformers added a third mark, church discipline (ibid., p. 1023, footnote 18). Jesus mentioned baptism in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). In Acts 2:42, “the breaking of bread” referred to the observance of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-32).
Although many Christians (including Calvin) believe that baptism should be administered to infants as a sign of the covenant, I believe that Scripture is overwhelmingly clear that it should be administered to believers upon a credible confession of their faith in Christ for salvation. There is no commandment as to how often we should observe the Lord’s Supper, although it is likely that the early church observed it each Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7). I plan to devote a future message in this series to these ordinances.
As we saw (Acts 2:42), the early church devoted itself not only to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, and the breaking of bread, but also to prayer. Paul commanded (Rom. 12:12) us to be “devoted to prayer.” He repeated (Col. 4:2), “Devote yourselves to prayer.” He gave the seemingly impossible command (1 Thess. 5:17), “Pray without ceasing.” He did not mean, “Pray every waking second,” or even, “Always be in a spirit of prayer,” but rather, “Pray often and repeatedly.” The word was used of a hacking cough and of repeated military assaults. Both individual believers and the entire church should pray often and repeatedly about everything we’re doing. Prayer acknowledges that we’re dependent on God for His blessing, not on ourselves, our efforts, or our organization and planning.
Over forty years ago, I read a sermon from Watchman Nee, the Chinese church leader, that has greatly impacted my life and ministry. It’s called, “Expecting the Lord’s Blessing” (Twelve Baskets Full [Hong Kong Church Bookroom], 2:48-64). Based mainly on Jesus miracle of the feeding of the 5,000, Nee makes the point (p. 48), “Everything in our service for the Lord is dependent on His blessing…. The meeting of the need is not dependent on the supply in hand, but on the blessing of the Lord resting on the supply.”
He points out how the five loaves and two fish were woefully inadequate to feed the 5,000 men, plus women and children. Even the hypothetical 200 denarii which Philip thought might buy enough bread would have been insufficient. But when Jesus blessed that meager supply, everyone was satisfied and they picked up twelve baskets full afterward. He says (p. 59) that God’s blessing “is trusting Him to work out of all correspondence to what we might reasonably expect,” based on our abilities and efforts. So my prayer has repeatedly been that God’s blessing would rest on His church and on my woefully inadequate efforts to help build it.
The Great Commission is to “make disciples of all the nations,” or, “people groups.” We are to begin in our city, but extend the good news to the ends of the earth. In Luke 24:47, Jesus directed “that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Just before His ascension, Jesus told His disciples, “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” The apostle Paul made the astounding claim (1 Cor. 9:23), “I do all things for the sake of the gospel.”
While we have a strong emphasis on world missions, I feel that we are weak when it comes to evangelism in our city. We see very few coming to Christ in our “Jerusalem.” For decades I’ve been painfully aware of and have prayed about my own inadequacy in personal evangelism. I’ve read many books on how to do a better job, but I still struggle. But I keep praying and working at it, and I encourage you to do the same. Just this week, in view of where I sit to have my morning time with the Lord, my neighbor strung up some Buddhist prayer flags. I took it as a reminder to pray for their salvation! Let’s seek God for a harvest of souls in Flagstaff!
I plan to devote a message in this series to church leadership. But for now, I’ll mention that a church cannot be healthy without godly leaders. In both places where Paul lists the qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), the emphasis is on godly character, not impressive spiritual gifts. It is summed up as being “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6), especially as seen in an exemplary home life. The only spiritual gift listed is, “able to teach.” The spiritual requirements for deacons (and deaconesses) also focuses on godliness (1 Tim. 3:8-13).
Apart from preaching and teaching God’s Word, the main job of elders is to shepherd God’s flock, the church. In Paul’s final charge to the Ephesian elders, he said (Acts 20:28), “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” In like manner, Peter exhorted the elders (1 Pet. 5:2-3), “Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.” Hebrews 13:17 exhorts the church, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”
Church discipline is not practiced very often in our day, but it is essential if a church wants to be holy and have a valid witness in the community. I plan to devote a message later in this series to this topic, also. Jesus taught it in Matthew 18:15-17, where He directs us first to go privately to a brother in sin, then with one or two others, and finally, if he is not repentant, to tell it to the church. The final step if there is still no repentance, is to treat the person as a Gentile and tax-gatherer, in other words, as an unbeliever. Paul directed the church in Corinth to expel a man who was openly immoral with his father’s wife, so that his sin would not infect the entire church (1 Cor. 5:1-13).
Two short, helpful books on finding a good church are Mark Dever, What is a Healthy Church? [Crossway] and Josh Harris, Stop Dating the Church [Multnomah], both of which have lists of what to look for in a good church. Dever also has a helpful, one-page summary (p. 57) of what to do if you’re thinking about leaving a church. Regarding “How to find a good church,” he lists some diagnostic questions to ask yourself (p. 79):
He also advises (ibid.), “If you’re moving to a new area, try to locate a good church home before you buy a house.”
To recap: A good church is one …
While we’re far from perfect in these ten qualities, I’m not aware of any where we’re totally deficient. So I hope that none of you hear this message and say, “I’m out of here!” Rather, let’s commit ourselves to grow in every area for the glory of our Lord!
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
June 11, 2017
We live in a culture that’s often afraid of commitments. Many couples today think, “Why get married? Why not just live together for a while to see if it works out?” In a similar way, many Christians think, “Why join a church? Why not just attend and check it out? What’s the point of joining?” Some churches, such as the Calvary Chapel churches, don’t even have formal membership. The pastor and the elders make all the decisions. There are no congregational meetings. If you attend, you’re a “member.” But attending those churches doesn’t require any commitment to doctrine or discipline.
Besides, many have been burned by a church. They got involved in serving, only to have someone attack them or spread false rumors about them. Or, they were involved in a church where they trusted the pastor, only to find out that he was having an affair. It resulted in a lot of unpleasant conflict in the church. To avoid that kind of painful situation, they don’t want to commit to any church. They have a personal relationship with Jesus, but they’re leery of getting too involved with the church. Besides, they want to keep their weekends open, in case something comes up. They don’t want to be tied down.
All of these factors feed the current trend, especially among millennials, to have “church” in the home. They want authentic community with a few other believers. But they don’t like pouring money into buildings or paying a church staff. They despise the mega-churches, with their huge parking lots, canned programs, and professional, concert-like worship services. They don’t like the idea of a pastor telling them how to live their Christian lives. He’s probably a hypocrite, just like most of those he preaches to every week. On the rare occasions when they may want a sermon, they can find one online. So they meet with a few friends in their homes once in a while and call it, “church.”
In this message, I’m going to argue that …
To be an obedient Christian, you must go beyond church attendance to being a committed, serving member of a local church.
I will answer four questions: (1) Is church membership a biblical concept? (2) Why should you join a local church? (3) Whom should the church accept into membership? (4) What does church membership entail?
In the first message in this series (4/2/17, “What is the Church?”) I offered this definition: The local church is a gathering of those who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, who are committed to meet regularly for worship, teaching, fellowship, and prayer, and who help make disciples of all people. A key word in that definition is “committed.” The picture of a Christian being committed to a local gathering of believers in Christ, where he or she serves the Lord and is actively involved with the other believers, is a New Testament concept. This commitment is the key idea in church membership.
Paul paints this picture (Eph. 4:15-16), “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Just as there is no passive, useless part in your human body (even your appendix serves a function), so in the body of Christ. Every member has an important function and is to work for the overall growth, health, and strength of the body.
But you may wonder, “Then why don’t we find church membership mentioned specifically in the New Testament?” My answer is that membership is implied all through the New Testament, but it didn’t need to be formalized in the way we need it today because there was only one church per city. If you were a Christian, you didn’t have options as to where to go. If you lived in Ephesus, you were a member of the church in Ephesus. Today, in North America there are usually dozens of evangelical churches in our cities. To float between several churches is to lack the key ingredient of commitment to particular people and submission to a particular group of elders who will give an account for your soul (Heb. 13:17).
In California, I was in a meeting of Christians from several churches in our community. We were going around introducing ourselves and stating which church we represented. One woman, who was on the staff of a large evangelical ministry, said, “I’m Linda Jones [not her real name] and I’m a Christian at large.” I had never heard anyone say such a thing! I thought, “That means that you’re accountable to no one!”
Many New Testament texts infer or state that local churches knew exactly who their members were. In Matthew 18:17, explaining the process of church discipline, Jesus said, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” It’s obvious that the person trying to confront a sinning believer knew who the people in the church were. In a similar context of church discipline, Paul commanded the Corinthians to expel a sinning member (1 Cor. 5:12-13): “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (See, also, Titus 3:10.) The apostle John states (1 John 2:19), “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” It’s obvious that everyone knew who “us” was!
In the context of giving instructions about the Lord’s Supper, Paul wrote (1 Cor. 11:18), “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.” That statement implies that there was a defined group that came together as a church, although at the same time there were ungodly divisions among them. In Acts 11:26, Paul and Barnabas “met with the church and taught considerable numbers.” In Acts 12:1, Herod “laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them.” In Acts 12:5, after Herod arrested Peter with the intent of executing him, “prayer for him was being made fervently by the church.” In Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in every church” which they had founded on their first missionary journey. These elders were responsible to give oversight to their particular churches. So obviously, they knew who their members were.
After the first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “gathered the church together” (Acts 14:27) to report how the Lord had used them on that endeavor. In Ephesians 2:19-22, Paul paints a picture of the church as a holy temple (Eph. 2:22) “being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” Temples aren’t built of disconnected, independent bricks and timbers floating around wherever they may feel like going that week! They’re built from definite materials committed to being a part of that particular structure. In Ephesians 4:25, Paul commands us to speak truth with one another, because “we are members of one another.” That is true for all Christians everywhere, but it especially applies to those who are in a local church, who are being built together in the Lord.
Also, the elders in local churches are commanded to shepherd the church of God (Acts 20:28). You can only shepherd a definite group or flock of people, not an undefined mass. Peter implies a particular, defined group of people when he tells the elders (1 Pet. 5:2-3) to shepherd the flock of God “allotted to your charge.” In line with this, Hebrews 13:17 exhorts the church, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”
So to fulfill the responsibilities of both elders and members requires a well-defined group of committed believers who are identified as members of each local church. They meet regularly for teaching, worship, fellowship, and prayer. They are formally committed to the Lord and to one another to help further His cause.
In my second message in this series, I cited the late Anglican pastor, John Stott, who wrote (The Message of Ephesian: God’s New Society [IVP], p. 129; cited by Joshua Harris, Dug Down Deep [Multnomah], p. 202):
If the church is central to God’s purpose, as seen in both history and the gospel, it must surely also be central to our lives. How can we take lightly what God takes so seriously? How dare we push to the circumference what God has placed at the centre?”
That centrality of the church to God’s purpose should be reason enough for you to be committed to a local church. But here are five specific reasons you should join a local church:
In Ephesians 5:25, Paul commands, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” He then talks about how Christ’s aim is to sanctify the church so that He might present her to Himself in all her glory, as beautiful as she possibly can be. Then he tells husbands tenderly to nourish and cherish their wives, just as Christ also does the church. Throughout this passage, you’d think that Paul was talking about Christian marriage. But then he adds this surprising statement (Eph. 5:32): “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.” He’s saying that Christian marriage is designed to be an earthly picture of the relationship between the divine Bridegroom and His bride, the church (cf. also, Rev. 19:7-8).
I’ve told you before that a main reason I am a pastor is that many years ago, the Lord impressed Ephesians 5:25 on me. I thought, “If Christ loves His church and gave Himself for her, and I love Christ, then I’ve got to love His church and give myself for her. I want to try to make His church the beautiful bride that He intends for her to be.” Of course, not everyone should apply that verse by deciding that you’re called to be a pastor! But God has given every believer at least one spiritual gift (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; 1 Pet. 4:10-11), which he or she is to use to build up Christ’s church. If Christ loved His church enough to die for her, then every believer who loves Christ should love His church and be committed to her well-being.
You can’t be a “Christian at large” any more than you can be “married at large.” I love all my sisters in Christ in the church worldwide, but there is only one to whom I’m committed as my wife. I’m not suggesting that we are to marry a local church with the same lifelong commitment that we vow in our marriages. But we do need a strong enough commitment to help us work through personal conflicts and difficulties that inevitably arise in the church so that we all grow in love for one another. Commitment is the glue that holds relationships together and enables you to grow in love when there are conflicts. That’s why living together outside of a committed marriage relationship is bound to fail: there’s no lasting commitment. If you casually date the church or even if you move in and live together with a church for a while without the commitment of membership, you’ll bail out as soon as you encounter difficulties, as you surely will.
Take the other analogy that the church is the body of Christ. What would happen if your hand decided, “I don’t like being joined to this arm”? “It’s too restrictive! When the arm says that we’re going somewhere, I don’t have any choice in the matter. I’ve got to go along. I’m going to cut myself off from this stupid arm so that I can have a little independence in life!” We all know that our hand would be absolutely useless if it were cut off from our arm!
And Christians who are not committed to other Christians will not be able effectively to serve the Lord. They won’t learn to grow in love for others. As 1 John 4:20 pointedly states, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.” Being committed to a local church is where you learn practically to love God and love others.
Jonathan Leeman (Church Membership [Crossway], pp. 25-26) argues that we need a paradigm shift regarding the local church. He says (p. 22) that it isn’t a club or voluntary organization where membership is optional if the club provides what you’re looking for. It’s not a group of people who like to get together and talk about religious ideas. It’s not “a service provided, where the customer has all authority.” Rather, he argues (p. 30), because Jesus is the Sovereign King over His church, “Christians don’t join churches; they submit to them.”
As we’ve seen (Heb. 13:17), Scripture commands Christians to submit to their spiritual leaders as those who will give an account for their souls. That doesn’t absolve individual Christians from being responsible to grow in holiness. Nor does it imply blind submission to leaders who may ignore or violate Scripture by lording it over the flock (1 Pet. 5:3). But, as Leeman so rightly notes, joining a church is much different than joining a service club or voluntary organization. It is submitting to the shepherds of that church, assuming that they are seeking to obey God’s word.
While parachurch and missions organizations are helpful in the cause, they agree that the local church is God’s ordained means of fulfilling His Great Commission, to make disciples of all the nations. They’re committed to planting local churches and training the leaders to preach the Word and to make disciples. As Paul told the Philippian church (Phil. 1:27), “Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” That’s the church’s job!
The idea of just attending a local church to get spiritual food, much as you would go to a restaurant for a meal, is foreign to the New Testament. God has given you a spiritual gift, which you are to use in serving Him (1 Pet. 4:10): “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” Stewardship means that each believer will give an account to the Master who entrusted the stewardship to him or her. In the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30), it was the servant who was given only one talent (a sum of money) who buried it and gave it back to the master without any gain. The master castigated him in the harshest of terms. The danger for the one-talent person is, if you think, “I can’t do much for the Lord because I’m not a pastor or evangelist,” you’ll bury your talent. You need to figure out how God wants you to serve and do it for Him in a particular local church where you’re committed!
Briefly, the church should accept all whom Christ has accepted through salvation. We should accept all who give a credible testimony of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Many churches are much narrower than this, in that they will only accept into membership those who agree with the church on some secondary doctrines. We have sought to make a way in our constitution so that those who differ with us on some secondary matters, such as baptism, prophecy, or charismatic gifts, may join this church. To preserve our distinctives as a Baptist church, we only require that for the sake of unity and harmony in this body, members who hold to different views not teach those views or seek to gather a faction in the church built around their views. And, those who serve as elders must hold to our Baptist distinctives.
Jonathan Leeman (ibid. p. 64, italics his) offers what he calls a clunky definition of church membership: Church membership is a formal relationship between a church and a Christian characterized by the church’s affirmation and oversight of a Christian’s discipleship and the Christian’s submission to living out his or her discipleship in the care of the church. I could list many responsibilities of church membership (cf. Mark Dever, The Church [B&H Academic, pp. 40-45). But here I can only briefly list six:
You may be a member here, but have forgotten that in our constitution there is a church covenant that you agreed to seek to live in accordance with. I suggest that you read it over from time to time! None of us comply perfectly, but it should be our aim.
Hebrews 10:25 exhorts, “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” Sunday morning is our main time to gather for teaching and worship. Fellowship also happens there, but also should take place in smaller settings during the week, as well as at church-wide socials.
In some areas, where godly believers differ, we allow for differing viewpoints. But we all must agree on, grow in understanding, and uphold the essential teachings and practices of the faith.
The church will only be healthy to the extent that every member is committed to using his or her gifts to reach the lost and disciple the saved (Rom. 12:3-21; Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Pet. 4:10-11).
Again, this isn’t blind submission to abusive leaders. Rather, it is willing submission to imperfect men, but they are men who are seeking the Lord and seeking to be faithful shepherds of His flock (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2-3).
Last year, a self-appointed street preacher told me via email that I’m going to hell because I receive financial support for my ministry! But Paul wrote (1 Cor. 9:14), “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.” Churches are to support elders who work hard in preaching and teaching (1 Tim. 5:17-18) and support missionaries (3 John 5-8). I plan to do a message in this series on the church and finances.
So, to use Joshua Harris’ analogy (Stop Dating the Church [Multnomah Publishers]), are you just dating the church or have you fallen in love and married it? To be an obedient Christian, you must go beyond just attending church and become a committed, serving member. Since Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, if we love Christ and want to be like Him, we must do the same.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
June 18, 2017
One of the sad ironies of church history is that a subject that should unite all believers has divided us. Paul said (Eph. 4:5) that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” But sincere, godly believers differ over many aspects of that one baptism! Lutherans, Episcopalians, the Orthodox Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church, believe that baptism effects the new birth. Since they all administer baptism to infants, they believe that when they sprinkle water on a baby, that child is regenerated.
While not all who identify with these churches understand or embrace their church’s official teaching, the view that baptism automatically confers regeneration is heretical. It contradicts the gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 1:16-17; 3:22; 4:4-5; etc.). No ritual administered to anyone can confer eternal life or forgiveness of sins.
Most Reformed churches also baptize infants, but they deny that baptism confers regeneration on those baptized. But you have to read their statements of faith very carefully to conclude that! The Westminster Confession of Faith states (XXVIII, I): “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” They teach that the sign and seal are only confirmed when the baptized infant later comes to faith in Christ.
While (as I will explain) I think the biblical support for infant baptism is extremely flimsy and the practice of it is potentially detrimental, many of my favorite theologians endorse infant baptism. They were (and are) men whose scholarship and godliness far exceed my own. So we must differ graciously with those who hold that view, as long as they believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.
The Baptist Confession of 1689 adapts the language of the Westminster Confession (A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of 1689 Rewritten in Modern English [Carey Publications], 29:1):
Baptism … is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself “in newness of life.”
But, rather than baptizing infants, it adds (29:2), “The only persons who can rightly submit themselves to this ordinance are those who actually profess repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, being willing to yield obedience to Him.” I believe that this position is in line with Scripture:
Only believers in Jesus Christ should be baptized as a confession of faith in obedience to Christ’s command.
Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology [Zondervan], 978) notes that we need to ask, “What does baptism do? … What does it actually accomplish? What benefit does it bring?” As I already noted, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Orthodox Churches, and Roman Catholics believe that baptism confers the new birth. Most Reformed Christians believe that baptism symbolizes future regeneration, when the baptized infant is old enough to come to saving faith. But, since not all baptized infants actually come to saving faith, they must say that it points to “probable future regeneration” (Grudem, 979).
But Baptists believe that baptism pictures actual, accomplished salvation. The person being baptized is outwardly confessing that God has brought him to genuine saving faith in Jesus Christ. Note five things:
The act of baptism does not save anyone. It never has; it never will. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that salvation is by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9). Both Romans and Galatians, in large part, deal with the theme that we are justified (declared righteous by God) through faith in Jesus Christ, not by any ritual or good works (see Gal. 3:7-9; Titus 3:4-7).
Those who argue that baptism confers salvation usually camp on Acts 2:38, where Peter says, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; . . .” If this were the only verse in the Bible which dealt with this subject, we might conclude that baptism confers forgiveness of sins. But there are many other verses that say nothing of baptism as a requirement for forgiveness.
For example, in the next chapter (Acts 3:19), Peter exhorts his hearers, “Therefore repent and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” He does not mention baptism. In Acts 10:43, he tells the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house, “Of Him [Christ] all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Again he makes no mention of baptism as a requirement for forgiveness.
So how do we explain Acts 2:38? (See my sermon, “How to Receive God’s Forgiveness,” 11/12/00, for more detail.) We have to harmonize it with the many Scriptures that clearly teach that salvation comes through faith alone. I think that we must understand Acts 2:38 in light of the close connection in the minds of the apostles between belief and baptism. The idea of an unbaptized Christian is foreign to the New Testament. Saving faith is obedient faith. But, Scripture is clear that baptism always follows the faith which saves. So Peter added baptism as the naturally understood consequence of believing. But it is not baptism, but repentance and faith, which bring forgiveness. Baptism is the outward sign of inward belief. It is a symbol of salvation, not the means of it.
Here are a few verses that show that baptism always follows saving faith. There is not a single example of baptism preceding faith:
Acts 2:41: “So then, those who had received his word were baptized ….”
Acts 8:12: “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.”
Acts 10:44, 46b-48a: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.… Then Peter answered, ‘Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?’ And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Acts 16:30-34: [The Philippian jailer asks Paul and Silas], “‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” These verses are often used to support infant baptism. But it does not say that Paul baptized any infants. Rather, it implies that since Paul proclaimed the gospel to the whole household, they all believed and were baptized.
Acts 18:8: “Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.”
Never once does the New Testament report, “They were baptized and later believed,” or, “They baptized their infants, who later believed.” In every instance, it was believers who were baptized as a confession of their new faith in Jesus Christ.
No ritual, even in the Old Testament, confers forgiveness of sins apart from the faith and repentance of the one doing the ritual (Ps. 51:16-18). The water of baptism pictures cleansing from sin. But immersing someone in water cannot cleanse the heart. Only the blood of Christ, applied to a person’s heart through faith, can do that. When Peter was explaining to the Jerusalem Council how God saved the Gentiles through believing the gospel (Acts 15:7), he added (Acts 15:9), “He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.” As we saw from Acts, they believed and then they were baptized. The water pictures the cleansing from sin that took place the moment they believed in Christ.
“Baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek word, baptisma, and some related words which mean to dip or immerse. Even John Calvin, who believed in sprinkling infants, said (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by John T. McNeill [Westminster Press], 4:15:19], “Yet the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.” Since the object dipped or immersed became totally identified with the substance in which it was dipped, the idea of identification is central to the meaning of the words. Water baptism by immersion symbolizes the fact that when we believed, we were totally identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.
In Romans 6:3-4, Paul states, “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” At the instant we believed, we were placed “in Christ.” Our old life ended and a new life, lived unto God in the resurrection power of Christ, began. Water baptism pictures this change.
Paul states (1 Cor. 12:13), “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” The primary reference here, as in Romans 6, is to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, when He places a believer into Christ at the moment of salvation. But we not only are placed into Christ; we also become members of His body, the church. Water baptism symbolizes our identification with the church which took place spiritually when we believed.
In the act of baptism, a believer publicly identifies himself with other Christians. He’s saying, “Now I’m one of them.” In our culture, since Christian baptism is fairly common, this isn’t a big deal. But in countries where Christians are persecuted, baptism separates the true believers from the superficial. I once heard Stuart Briscoe tell of sitting in a hut in Pakistan with several believing men as they discussed the probability that they would be martyred if they went ahead with baptism. Would you be baptized if it meant that you would be cut off from your family and targeted for death? While we’re not yet there in our country, baptism should hold that level of commitment for those who are baptized.
Since baptism symbolizes our salvation, cleansing from sin, identification with Jesus Christ, and identification with His church, it must be restricted to those who give a credible testimony that they have trusted in Christ for salvation. To administer baptism to infants is confusing at best and detrimental at worst. While I love Calvin’s Institutes for his exposition and application of Scripture in so many areas, when you get to his section on baptism, he abandons both Scripture and logic and argues emotionally. In my opinion, while he did so much to counter his Roman Catholic upbringing, he couldn’t separate himself emotionally from the Catholic practice of infant baptism. Here are just a few quotes that show how confusing his view is. He states (4:15:3),
But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life. Therefore, as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins.
Thus if we were baptized as infants, Calvin seems to be saying that we were washed and purged of our sins at that time. How we are supposed to recall the memory of it is beyond me! Later (4:15:5), he says that “those who receive baptism with right faith truly feel the effective working of Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh, together with the working of his resurrection in the vivification of the Spirit.” How can an infant “receive baptism with right faith” and feel the effective working of God?
Later (4:15:14), after explaining the meaning of the symbolism of baptism (on which I largely agree with him), he says, “These things, I say, he performs for our soul within as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water.” That sure sounds like believer’s baptism by immersion, not infant baptism by sprinkling!
But beyond being confusing, I argue that infant baptism is potentially detrimental. If a person mistakenly assumes, when he grows up (as many brought up under this teaching do assume), that because he was baptized as an infant, he is saved and is a member of Christ’s church, then he is sadly deceived. There is no grace imparted in the physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized. To count upon one’s infant baptism as the ground upon which one will stand before God is to trust in a false hope. Only personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior will avail in that day.
So, why do sincere, godly believers argue for infant baptism? I have an entire sermon where I give the arguments for it and why we do not practice it (“Why We Do Not Baptize Infants,” 9/8/96). Here I must be brief. The main support for infant baptism is the correlation between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. Colossians 2:11-12 states, “And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”
While there are some obvious parallels between circumcision and baptism, there are also many differences. The sign of circumcision was administered to the male, physical descendants of Abraham under the old covenant. But there is no command or example in the New Testament of administering baptism to the physical descendants of Christians, male or female. If baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, then just as circumcision was administered to the physical descendants of Abraham in the age of type, so baptism ought to be administered to the spiritual descendants of Abraham in the age of fulfillment, namely, to believers, who are the true seed of Abraham (Rom. 4:16; 9:8; Gal. 3:7). In refuting the Judaizers, Paul never hints that circumcision had been replaced by baptism. And Jesus made it clear that the sign of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Supper, not baptism (1 Cor. 11:25).
Also, in Colossians 2 Paul is talking about believer’s baptism. Infant baptism could not have removed “the body of the flesh.” He specifically states that baptism pictures being raised up from spiritual death through faith in the working of God. The parallel between baptism and circumcision concerns the picture of dying to the old life so that we can live holy lives in Christ. Paul is taking the spiritual meaning of circumcision and applying it spiritually to believers, not physically to the baptism of believers’ children. Baptism is for those who have undergone circumcision of the heart through saving faith, not for infants who cannot believe.
It is also argued that the household baptisms in the New Testament support infant baptism. For example, Peter states (Acts 2:39), “For the promise is for you and your children.” But the verse continues, “and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Three verses later specifically states (Acts 2:41), “Those who received his word were baptized,” not, “those who received his word and all their infants were baptized.” The support for infant baptism is so scant that, although I’ve read their arguments, I can’t find any biblical support for it.
Thus baptism is an outward symbol and confession of an inward reality, namely, saving faith in Jesus Christ. Also,
There is no automatic blessing imparted through the mere act of baptism, apart from faith. But, saying that baptism is a symbol does not mean that there are no spiritual benefits obtained from doing it. God always blesses obedience. In the Great Commission Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:19-20), “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” If a person has truly believed in Christ, obedience to His commands will follow (James 2:14-26; Eph. 2:8-10).
But this raises three questions: (1) How long after one has believed should he wait to be baptized? In the New Testament, baptism seems to have taken place as soon as possible after the person believed. It was one of the first evidences of saving faith. Walking the aisle or raising your hand to confess your faith in Christ publicly was unknown. In our day of “easy-believism” and superficial faith, it makes sense to see some evidence of genuine conversion before baptism. But it should not be put off for years.
(2) How old should believing children be before they are baptized? It depends on the maturity of the child. He (or she) should understand the gospel and give some observable evidence of being truly born again. While full understanding of the meaning of baptism is not necessary (what adult can say that he fully understands it?), a child should have some comprehension of the meaning and significance of baptism. Parents should not push the child, but rather let it be his decision in response to his understanding of the matter, based on the biblical teaching of his parents and the church.
(3) Should a person who was baptized as an infant or before he truly believed be re-baptized? There is no indication in the Bible that anyone who had believed in Christ and had been baptized was re-baptized after a lapse of faith or when the person came to a deeper understanding of salvation. The way of restoration for a person who has fallen away from the Lord is confession of sin (1 John 1:9).
However, there is an instance of re-baptism in the New Testament. In Acts 19:1-5, Paul encountered some men who had been baptized by John the Baptist. But they had not heard about the Holy Spirit or Jesus. When Paul told them about Christ, they believed and were re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 5). This suggests that a person who was baptized before he came to personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (whether as an infant or older) should be re-baptized as a confession of faith in Christ. What if he isn’t sure whether he was truly born again at the time? If as far as he knew then, he was born again and was being baptized to confess his faith in Christ, then he should not be re-baptized. We all grow in our understanding of what saving faith means.
If you’ve trusted Christ as Savior but have not confessed your faith publicly through baptism, I urge you to be baptized as soon as possible! If you’ve never trusted in Christ as Savior, do not think that because you were baptized or that if you will get baptized, it will get you into heaven. Eternal life is the free gift that God offers based upon Christ’s death for your sins. You can only receive it by faith in Jesus Christ. Then to confess your faith in obedience to Christ’s command, be baptized!
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
June 25, 2017
Come with me to a typical church. We’re going to look at a few of the members, both as they look from the outside and also as they are on the inside, as seen by the Lord.
Here comes Mary Smith. She seems happy as she smiles at various friends as she enters the church. But you may have missed that icy glance that she cast toward Linda Brown. The two women aren’t talking to one another since that falling out they had a couple of months ago. “To think that she calls herself a Christian!” Mary thinks to herself as she goes down the aisle toward her seat. As Linda notices Mary smiling at everybody, she thinks, “That hypocrite! What a phony!”
And over there is Jerry Jones. He serves on the deacon board, is active with the men’s fellowship, and teaches a fourth grade boys Sunday school class. He’s there every time the church doors are open. Jerry is a real servant—if you need anything done around the church, just call Jerry. He helped out every Saturday and a lot of evenings the year they were putting up the new social hall! The pastor calls Jerry, “old faithful.” He’s the kind of church member every pastor is looking for!
Or is he? If you could look beneath the frenzy of activities, you would find a man who is trying to work off a load of guilt. There are some things in Jerry’s past that nobody here at First Church would ever guess. Not even his wife knows about some of the terrible things he did when he was in the Navy. Maybe if he can just do enough serving the Lord, he can forget about all those things and tip the scale so that he can forgive himself. Besides, he and his wife don’t get along well, and it’s just easier at home if he keeps himself busy with church work.
Oh, and there is James, a single young man who is fighting a losing battle with pornography. He’s not alone—he’s only one of many single and married men who are defeated by this plague. These are just fictional people that I made up. I’m sure that there aren’t real people like these in evangelical churches, are there?
There were in the church at Corinth. There were various factions in the church, vying for predominance. Some were involved in sexual immorality. Some had drinking problems! While the church should have had an influence on their pagan city, the reality was that the city had quite an influence on the church.
The early church had no church buildings, and Sunday was not a day off. It was their custom to gather on Sunday evenings in the homes of the wealthier members to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Their worship time was preceded by a pot-luck supper called the Agape, or Love Feast (Jude 12). The problem in Corinth was that the wealthy members got there first with their sumptuous dinners and gorged themselves. When the slaves and other poor people arrived, the food was gone. Even worse, a few of the wealthy filled their wine glasses a bit too often, so that they were getting drunk. As a result, they completely missed the significance and purpose of the Lord’s Supper. Some of the members were suffering severe discipline from the Lord for their irreverence.
That’s the background for our text. Paul writes to correct these problems and to show how to come to the Lord’s Supper:
Come to the Lord’s Supper often with love for others, remembrance of the Lord, and examination of yourself.
The Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), along with baptism, is one of two ordinances or sacraments that Jesus commanded His church to observe. It is probably also called, “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11). We get the name “communion” from 1 Corinthians 10:16 (“sharing” is the Greek word, koinonea, which means “fellowship” or “communion”). It’s also called “the table of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:21) and the Eucharist, from the Greek word for “thanksgiving” (Mark 14:23).
The original Lord’s Supper was a Passover meal, where Jesus adapted and applied the meaning of that Jewish feast to Himself. The idea is that just as Israel was delivered from the death of their firstborn and from slavery to Pharaoh through the blood of the Passover lamb, so you are spared from God’s judgment and slavery to sin by the death of the Lamb of God (see The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [Zondervan], 3:380-381). In our text, Paul gives four ways that we should come to the Lord’s Supper:
Paul cites Jesus’ words (1 Cor. 11:25), “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” He adds (v. 26), “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” If “the breaking of bread” in Acts refers to the Lord’s Supper, then at first in the early church, they seemed to have celebrated the Lord’s Supper daily (Acts 2:46). Later (Acts 20:7), it became a weekly occurrence that took place on “the first day of the week” (our Saturday night). Many churches today observe it every Sunday. Some do it once a month. A few churches are less frequent. There is no command as to how frequently we are to observe it, but it should be often.
We had a visitor last year who came up to me after the service very upset because we did not observe the Lord’s Supper that Sunday. I tried to explain why, but she informed me that she would not be back. If we had only one service with no need to get the first service over by a certain time, I’d prefer having the Lord’s Supper weekly. But the need to fit in announcements and missions reports only allows us to celebrate it every other week.
However often you come to the Lord’s Supper, the complaint often arises that it just becomes an empty ritual. How should we deal with that problem? Anything that you do often can become an empty ritual. Reading your Bible every morning can become something that you just check off your “to do” list. Or, you can truly seek the Lord through His Word, asking Him to apply it to your heart. Prayer can become an empty ritual, where you just run through your prayer list. Or, you can really make contact with the Lord. Singing during worship can be a mindless ritual. Or, you can think about the words and worship God in spirit and in truth. I tell my wife that I love her and kiss her goodbye every morning. Even that could become a perfunctory ritual. But I try to make it memorable and meaningful! So, come to the Lord’s Supper often, communing with the Lord in a meaningful way.
Before and after Paul gave instructions about how to come to the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:23-32), he confronted the problem of divisions and strife in the church. He has already dealt extensively with this problem in this letter, but he’s still shocked at their display of factionalism at such a sacred occasion as the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10:17, he wrote, “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” Apparently, they passed around a common loaf of bread and each person broke off a part as they observed the Lord’s Supper. That one loaf pictures the fact that we are one body in Christ. But the divisions among the Corinthians contradicted the reality of the one body of Christ. Thus he writes (1 Cor. 11:18-19):
For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
Verse 19 is difficult to understand. Most commentators understand Paul to be saying that God works good even out of a bad situation. He permits the factions in a church to reveal who the truly spiritually mature ones are. But even though I’m going against the majority of scholars, I side here with The New Living Translation and J. B. Phillips’ paraphrase, both of which understand Paul to be using sarcasm. The NLT [Tyndale] puts it, “But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized!” I would paraphrase, “Of course you must have your factions, so that your favorite leaders can be in the spotlight!” Paul says that it would be better not to come together as a church at all than to come together with this sort of rivalry (1 Cor. 11:17).
Then (1 Cor. 11:20-22) Paul confronts the selfishness and gluttony of those who were stuffing themselves and even getting drunk at the common meal before coming to the Lord’s Supper. They were not considerate of the slaves and other poor who were a part of the church. When he says (1 Cor. 11:20), “when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” he means that their selfish approach nullified the very meaning of the remembrance of the self-sacrifice of our Savior. Their selfish gluttony and drunkenness despised the church of God and shamed the poor (1 Cor. 11:22). Paul was shocked by their selfish behavior!
Paul says it in a negative way, but stated positively the point is that we are to come to the Lord’s Supper with genuine love for one another. The Lord’s Supper is one spiritual activity that you do not practice alone. You can and should pray and read the Bible by yourself. Much of the spiritual life is hidden. But the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated with the Lord’s people. So to come to it rightly, you have to deal with damaged relationships as best as you can. Our common participation in the symbols of the body and blood of our Lord should demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the one who gave Himself up to die on our behalf.
I realize that some relational conflicts take time to resolve and some are never fully resolved. As Paul says (Rom. 12:18), ‘If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” But to the best of our ability, we should seek to be right with others before we come to the Lord’s Supper. As Jesus taught in a Jewish context (Matt. 5:23-24), “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.” God wants us to be reconciled with one another before we worship Him. Otherwise, we become religious hypocrites.
For example, in my opening story, “Mary” and “Linda” who weren’t talking to each other need to meet privately. Each one needs to ask the other’s forgiveness for however she wronged the other one. Each one needs to grant forgiveness and affirm the other as a sister in Christ. Then each one can participate in the Lord’s Supper with a clean conscience.
Husbands and wives who have angrily fought during the week need to realize on Saturday that they will be coming to the table of the Lord the next day. They need to ask forgiveness of one another and affirm their love for one another before they take communion on Sunday. Parents who were angry with their children need to say, “I was wrong when I yelled at you yesterday. I’ve asked God to forgive me. Will you forgive me, too?” If you don’t do that, your kids watch you go to church and partake of communion and think, “What a phony! His Christianity is worthless!” The Lord’s Supper should display the truth that we are one body in Christ. Before we partake, we should clear up all relational conflicts to the best of our ability. Coming often to the Table means that we need to deal often with relational issues.
Since Paul wrote 1 Corinthians before Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written, we have here the earliest recorded words of Jesus and the earliest account of the first Lord’s Supper. Scholars differ over whether Paul means (v. 23) that he received this as a direct revelation from Christ or whether he received it from the Lord through the other apostles. I think that the Lord directly revealed this account of the first Lord’s Supper to Paul (see Gal. 1:11-12). Remember four things:
Maybe you’re thinking, “Wait a minute! I’m a Christian! How could I forget the Lord?” But the reality is, we get busy with all sorts of things, even with serving the Lord, and we easily forget the Lord Himself.
In my office I have several photographs of my family. If you were to ask, “Are those pictures there because you can’t remember your family?” I would answer, “No, those pictures are not there to jog my memory. They are there to touch my heart.” When I look at those pictures during the day, they remind me of my loved ones from whom I am temporarily separated. I think about what each of them means to me. I recall good times we’ve had together. I thank God for giving them to me and to pray for His ongoing protection and grace in their lives. I look forward to seeing them again, to feel their hugs, and to enjoy their company. The value of a picture is emotional. It touches our hearts.
In the Lord’s Supper, Jesus left us a picture of Himself for us to remember Him by. We should pause and look at it often. When we do, it should remind us of His great love for us as shown supremely on the cross. It should fill our hearts with the desire to see Him when He comes again. It should make us look to ourselves to ask, “Is there anything in my life that needs to be dealt with before I meet my Bridegroom face to face?” It should touch our hearts and make us say, “Thank God for what He has given us in Christ!” The Lord’s Supper is a time to remember our beloved Savior.
Jesus took the bread, broke it, gave thanks, and said (1 Cor. 11:24), “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” This fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53 that Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God, would die for our sins. Our guilt was placed on Him. The guilt-ridden deacon in my opening story should realize when he comes to the Lord’s Supper that Jesus died in his place and bore all his guilt. Now, by faith in Christ, he can live guilt-free.
Christians have been divided over the meaning of Jesus’ words, “This is My body.” Without going through all the different views, I understand that Jesus was speaking symbolically: the elements picture Jesus’ body and blood, which was shed for us. Is He spiritually present with us when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Yes, but not in some mystical sense any more than He is spiritually present when we worship or hear His Word preached. Partaking of the elements does not automatically confer grace on anyone unless they partake in faith.
So when you come to the Lord’s Supper, by faith remember Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross for you. As 1 Peter 2:24 puts it, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” Never forget that!
The old covenant sacrifices could not take away sins permanently (Heb. 10:11). But Jesus said (1 Cor. 11:25), “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” The “new covenant” refers to the Lord’s promise (Jer. 31:34; cf. Heb. 8:12; 10:16-17), “For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” We should remember that the Lord forgets! Of course, He is omniscient, so He doesn’t forget our sins as we forget things. Rather, He means that He will not bring our sins up for judgment against us if our faith is in Jesus and His death for us on the cross. If you’ve never come to Christ and put your trust in Him, that is your greatest need. If you have done that, never forget that His death reconciled you to God forever!
1 Cor. 11:26: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” The Greek verb translated “proclaim” is used elsewhere of proclaiming the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14). The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of Jesus’ death and resurrection, because He couldn’t come again if He were not raised from the dead. Each time we partake of the Lord’s Supper could be the last. The trumpet may sound, the dead in Christ will rise, and we shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-17)! The Lord’s Supper reminds us to be ready for that day! But, Paul goes on to give a sober warning:
I don’t have time to explain this section in detail. In summary, Paul says that many of the Corinthians were suffering sickness and even death because they were coming to the Lord’s Supper in the relationally unloving, irreverent, self-centered manner that he has described. He clarifies (1 Cor. 11:32) that this judgment does not mean eternal condemnation, but rather divine discipline. To avoid such discipline, he gives the prerequisite for coming to the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:28): “But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” By judging the body rightly (v. 29), I understand Paul to be referring to the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27). He means that we should not partake of communion flippantly or irreverently, but worshipfully and thankfully.
By examining ourselves, Paul means that we should do a private, mental inventory of our relationship with Christ (2 Cor. 13:5). Am I truly trusting in Him alone for salvation? Am I sinfully at odds with anyone else? Is there any sin that I have not confessed and turned from? The Lord’s Supper is not for the sinless, but for those who are dealing with their sin on the heart level as they are walking with Christ.
It’s encouraging to remember that at the first Lord’s Supper, the disciples were arguing about which of them was the greatest. Jesus predicted Peter’s threefold denial of Him that very night. A short time later, the disciples couldn’t stay awake to watch and pray with Jesus in the Garden. So the Lord’s Supper is not for perfect saints, but rather for those who struggle with the shortcomings and sins that are common to us all. But, we should not shrug off any known sin or excuse it by saying, “It’s just my weakness.” As Paul rhetorically asks (Rom. 6:1-2), “Are we to continue in sin that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” The Lord’s Supper gives us a frequent reminder that we need to deal with our sins on the heart level before God.
John Duncan was a prominent Scottish theologian. Once as communion was being held in a Church of Scotland, when the elements came to a 16-year-old girl, she suddenly turned her head aside and motioned for the elder to take the cup away; she couldn’t drink it. Professor Duncan reached his arm over, touched her shoulder, and said tenderly, “Take it, lassie, it’s for sinners.” (In Billy Graham, How to be Born Again [Word], p. 137.)
John Stott once forcefully stated (cited by David Watson, I Believe in Evangelism [Eerdmans], p. 71), “If the cross is not central in our thinking, it is safe to say that our faith, whatever it be, is not the Christian faith, and our creed, whatever it be, is not the Apostles’ Creed.” The Lord’s Supper reminds us to keep the cross of Jesus Christ central. Come often with love for others, remembrance of the Lord, and examination of yourself.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
July 2, 2017
If you were to ask, “Who’s in charge of the church?” most American Christians would answer, “The pastor is.” Perhaps due to our democratic form of government, almost without thinking we impose that model of government on the church. We assume that the pastor is kind of like the President, the elder board is like Congress, and the members are the voting public. If the guys running the church do a reasonably good job, they can stay in office. But if the voters don’t like their performance, they can vote them out! Even the great American revivalist pastor and profound thinker, Jonathan Edwards, got voted out as pastor of his church! It’s the American way!
There are different views among Christians when it comes to church government, each with some biblical support. The episcopal model is hierarchical: There is one leader at the top. In the Roman Catholic Church, it’s the pope, whom they claim is in the line of direct succession from the apostles. In Orthodox Churches it is the metropolitan. In Anglican Churches, it is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Under this leader are tiers of leaders (cardinals, archbishops, bishops, etc.) who have charge over large regions and cities. Priests have charge over local congregations. This form of church government seems to have emerged by the middle of the second century (The New Dictionary of Theology [IVP], ed. by Sinclair Ferguson and David Wright, p. 143).
The Presbyterian form of government is not quite so hierarchical, although there are tiers of authority. The local church is governed by presbyters or elders, called the session, led by the pastor, who is chosen and called by the congregation. The churches are part of the synod or presbytery, a regional group of elders from different congregations. Above that is the General Assembly that has broader jurisdiction over the entire denomination.
The independent system views each church as autonomous and not subject to any outside authority. Some independent churches, like the Southern Baptists, join together in larger associations or conventions. Churches must adhere to the doctrines and practices of the larger organization. Some independent churches are congregationally governed, while others are under elder rule.
Our church is independent from outside authority, but led by elders who are appointed by the church. Since before I came here 25 years ago, the church has been affiliated with the Conservative Baptist Association, a cooperative association of Baptist churches, but they do not have authority over us. To sum up my understanding of biblical church government:
Christ exercises headship over His church through church-recognized spiritually mature elders who shepherd His flock.
I’ll break this down into three points:
All of the different systems of church government recognize Christ as the head over His church. The differences emerge when it comes to how He exercises that headship. But we need to think carefully about the practical ramifications of the headship or authority of Jesus Christ over His church. This means that this church is not my church! I know that it’s easy to say, for example (I have said it myself), “Did you attend John MacArthur’s church when you were in California?” It’s easy to call a church by the pastor’s name. But it’s really not right. Pastors don’t own their churches; Christ does! They’re under His headship.
By the same token, this church is not your church. If you’re a member here, I’m glad to hear that. If you’ve been a member here for a long time, I’m glad to hear that, too. If you give generously to support the ministries here, I’m glad to hear that (although I have no idea how much anyone gives). If you’ve served faithfully here over the years, I’m happy about that, too. But even so, it’s not your church in the sense of ownership. It’s Christ’s church! He is the head of His organic body. He purchased the church with His own blood. I hope that we’re all committed to this church and that we all serve in it and give to support it. But even if we do, it doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to Jesus Christ. He is the head of His body. He is the king over His people.
This means that the main function of church government is to allow Christ to exercise His headship over His church. This means that the church is not a pure democracy, where every member has a vote. I don’t like the word “vote” when it comes to church government, because it smacks of American politics. Americans go to the polls to vote their minds or express their opinions via the ballot box. That’s fine for American government, but that’s not the way the church should operate. The key question on any issue in the church is not, “What is the mind of the members?” but rather, “What is the mind of the Lord of the church?” The mind of Christ is given to us in His Word. We may differ over how to interpret or apply the Word to particular situations. But we all must place ourselves under Jesus Christ as our supreme authority.
Allowing Christ to exercise His headship over His church results in an entirely different way of conducting church business. If you view the church as a democratic organization where every member has a vote, you’re into church politics. Shortly after I came here, I had lunch with a denominational executive who advised me, “You’ve got to build your power base as a new pastor in a church.” I didn’t reply, but I thought to myself, “I’m sorry, but I’m not into building a power base.” If you operate that way, you’re trying to manage and manipulate a bunch of self-willed people expressing their wishes through majority rule.
But if the members are living daily in submission to the Lord of the church and seeking to obey His Word, then when they come together to take care of church business, they deny self and reverently seek what the Lord is saying to His church corporately. That’s an entirely different thing than church politics!
Note four things in this regard:
In the first churches founded by the apostle Paul and Barnabas, after they had been functioning for a while we read (Acts 14:23), “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.” Later, Paul wrote to both Timothy and Titus, his apostolic representatives, specifying the qualifications that they should look for in appointing elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-13), who were engaged in serving the churches. We no longer have apostles or apostolic delegates to appoint elders, but we can follow the Spirit-inspired guidelines set down in those two pastoral letters.
Note that I said, “Recognize spiritually mature elders,” not “vote for elders.” There is a key difference! You might vote for an elder because you like him personally or because his thinking represents your thinking and you want him to try to implement your views in the church. Voting (at least in the American political scene) is often a matter of personal preference. But the issue in church government is not whom you like, but rather, “Does this man possess the qualifications set down in Scripture to function in this office?” Of course, no man possesses all of the qualifications perfectly. But a man should not glaringly violate any of the qualifications and he should generally match them.
Next week I’ll talk about how to spot an elder, explaining those qualifications. But at our church business meetings, rather than voting for your preferences, you should be affirming, “As far as I know, this man embodies the biblical qualifications for elder.” Maybe you live next door to him and you know that he treats his family in a godly manner. Or perhaps you work with him or for him, and you can attest that he demonstrates integrity in the workplace. Or, you’ve seen him deal with people and you know that he has a shepherd’s heart. He takes the initiative to help people grow in the Lord. So at the business meeting, you affirm, “Yes, that man is an elder. He meets the biblical qualifications.”
The members of the church are also charged with holding elders accountable, both morally and doctrinally. This is especially important on essentials truths related to the gospel: the total inspiration and authority of the Bible; the trinitarian nature of God; the full deity and perfect humanity of Jesus Christ; His substitutionary atonement; His resurrection from the dead; His bodily ascension and second coming. We cannot deviate from essential truth!
If an elder is acting in ways morally contrary to Scripture or is teaching things contrary to Scripture, church members need to talk to him, first privately, then with one or two others. If there is still no resolution, they should go to the other elders (as the leaders of the church). If there is still no repentance, it needs to go to the whole church (Matt. 18:15-17).
This implies that church members are responsible to know the Bible well so that they can spot any deviation from its truth, whether morally or doctrinally. Members should not be unconcerned if moral laxity or doctrinal errors seep into the church. If they’re following the Lord, elders should be obeyed (Heb. 13:17). But they do not have autocratic authority to lord it over the church. Rather, they are to be examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3).
There are no examples in the New Testament of women elders. Egalitarian advocates argue that this was merely cultural, so that the early church did not offend the male-dominated society of that time. But in the context of the church, Paul wrote (1 Cor. 11:3), “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” He goes on to base this teaching on the order of creation, where the man and woman were to reflect God’s image. The hierarchy of authority in the Godhead is the pattern for the hierarchy of authority in the church and in marriage (Eph. 5:22-33). To be the head does not in any way imply or tolerate abusive authority or the superiority of men over women. Rather, the church and the home should reflect the image of the Godhead: Although Christ is completely equal to God, He willingly submitted to the Father to carry out the divine plan and He will be subject to the Father throughout eternity (1 Cor. 15:28).
In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul instructed, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” Again, modern evangelical feminists argue that this was culturally conditioned. But Paul goes on to base his instruction on the order of creation and the fact that the woman was deceived in the fall. Those are historical reasons, not culturally relative reasons.
Also, the qualifications listed for elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7) assume that elders will be men. Paul uses masculine pronouns. Elders must be “the husband of one wife” and manage their own households well. Women may serve on the staff of a local church as pastors and teachers of other women (Titus 2:2), but not over men.
This is indicated both by the qualifications and by the terms used to describe this office. “Elder” looks at the maturity of the man, not necessarily in years, but in spiritual qualifications. The Bible does not give any age requirement for becoming an elder and the age may vary depending on the makeup of the congregation. A relatively young congregation may have younger elders, whereas an older congregation may require older elders. When Paul told Timothy not to let anyone look down on his youthfulness (1 Tim. 4:12), Timothy was probably in his mid-thirties. Paul goes on to exhort Timothy to be an example to the church “in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity.” He was to be spiritually mature.
“Overseers” (sometimes translated as “bishops”) is used interchangeably with “elders” (Titus 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28). It refers to the nature of the work: they superintend, watch over, or guard the local church. An overseer must be spiritually mature enough to discern spiritual dangers and to guard and guide the flock into spiritual growth.
A third word, “pastor” (= “shepherd”) is used in noun form only once for church leaders (Eph. 4:11). The verb is used of church leaders in several places (John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). It looks at the work from the analogy of a shepherd and his sheep. Jesus is called the Shepherd (= Pastor) and Guardian (= Overseer) of our souls (1 Pet. 2:24). He is the “Chief Shepherd”; human pastors serve under Him as “under-shepherds” of His flock, who will give an account to Him (1 Pet. 5:4; Heb. 13:17).
A fourth term (Greek, prohistemi, to stand before or first) means “to lead or have charge over” (1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4, 5, 12; 5:17; Rom. 12:8). A fifth word (Greek, hegeomai, we get “hegemony” from it) means to lead or rule (Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; Luke 22:26). While it involves authority (Heb. 13:17), it also requires servanthood (Luke 22:26). All of these terms imply a level of spiritual maturity, spelled out in the qualifications for the office.
The term is always used in the plural with regard to a single local church (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5). It may be that one elder had oversight of a single house church. It also may be that one elder, especially the one supported to preach (1 Tim. 5:17-18) will be looked to as the leader among the elders, as Peter was among the apostles and as James was among the elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-21; 21:18; Gal. 2:9). But the church in a city was viewed as a unit over which there were several elders.
There is wisdom in many counselors (Prov. 11:14) and there is wisdom in sharing the responsibility and authority in the church, so that no single person will dominate without accountability. The only one-man ruler in the New Testament is Diotrephes, whom the Apostle John castigates because “he loves to be first” and he exercised one-man, heavy-handed authority (3 John 9-10). Usually, the elders should seek to reach a consensus in major decisions. The more divided they are, the more they need to wait on the Lord and seek His mind through His Word before proceeding.
There are no directions in the New Testament as to the number of elders per church. That should be determined by the number of qualified men and the need for shepherding in the church. The larger the church, the more elders will be needed.
Although there is no concept in the New Testament of elders serving a “term” of office, it’s not a bad idea to have a fixed term so that an elder can be reviewed by the congregation and so that he can determine whether to continue serving or to take some time off. It’s a demanding ministry, and men who work in an outside job can’t always continue to serve as elders year in and year out. Also, family pressures change with the ages of a man’s children, and so it seems wise to allow him to limit his commitment or renew it as his personal circumstances dictate. Our church constitution stipulates one-year, renewable terms for both elders and deacons.
Thus the basic principle of church government is that Christ is the Head of His church. He exercises His headship through church-recognized, spiritually mature elders. What are those elders supposed to do?
There are three aspects to this:
1 Peter 5:1-3: “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.”
Elders have charge over the flock (“allotted to your charge”) and are to exercise oversight, but not by lording it over the flock, but rather by being examples of Christlike servanthood. Jesus supremely modeled this when on the night He was betrayed, He washed the disciples’ feet, and instructed them that the leader among them should be as the servant (John 13:1-17; Luke 22:24-27). As leaders, our lives should demonstrate the godly servant leadership of our Great Shepherd.
The only non-character qualification for elders is that they be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). This does not necessarily require that an elder be able to preach a sermon or teach a large group. But he should be able to sit down with a younger believer and explain the things of God from Scripture. Titus 1:9 stipulates that an elder must hold “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” Some elders should be supported by the church so that they can “work hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17; cf. Acts 6:4). This assumes that the Word of God is our only standard for faith and practice.
The job of oversight requires some administration and some oversight of the church’s finances. But the main job of elders is to shepherd God’s flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2.) (The word “shepherd” is the same as “pastor.”) It is impossible for one man to pastor a large church adequately, so the elders share that work. The ministry of pastoring involves doing what a shepherd does for his sheep: He knows them; he leads them; he feeds them and guides them into the rich pastures of God’s Word (Psalm 23; John 10:3-4, 9, 14; 1 Thess. 5:12; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; Titus 1:9; Heb. 13:7); he guards them from wolves (John 10:12; Acts 20:29-30); he seeks the straying sheep and helps heal their wounds by helping restore them to the Lord (John 10:16; Ezek. 34:4-5); he corrects the erring or rebellious (2 Tim. 4:2); and, he equips the flock for ministry so that they can serve the Lord as He has gifted them (Eph. 4:11-16).
“Who’s in charge of the church?” Jesus Christ is! He exercises His headship over His church through church-recognized, spiritually mature elders, who through example and servanthood shepherd His flock.
Note one final thing: In 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul says, “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.” “Aspire” means to reach after. This is not ambition for power and status, but reaching toward spiritual maturity so that you can serve the Chief Shepherd by helping to shepherd His flock. Some of you younger men should have this God-given desire to become elders.
To get there, you should be growing in godliness (the qualities in 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7) by daily time in His Word and in prayer. You should be shepherding your own family, setting an example of servant leadership in your own home. You should be serving God’s people by building caring relationships with other men with the goal of seeing them become mature in the faith.
In other words, the church should not put a man into the office of elder so that he can serve. Rather, it should recognize as elders the men who are already godly examples who are doing the work. We need men who desire the fine work of oversight in this flock. We cannot grow without it. I pray that some of you will aspire to the office of overseer or elder.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
July 9, 2017
As I was looking through my files for an appropriate illustration on the integrity required for church leaders, I paused to read an email that had just arrived. It was from a man I don’t know informing me that his former pastor is plagiarizing both John MacArthur’s and my sermons in his sermons.
Interestingly, it was about the fourth email that I’ve received in recent months reporting similar situations. In one, a broken and repentant pastor emailed to ask my forgiveness. He subsequently resigned from his church. In another, the pastor of a fairly large church was battling some critics who were calling for his resignation because they discovered that he was using my sermons without credit. I don’t know the outcome there. And in still another, a pastor who was plagiarizing my sermons apologized and sent a check to our church to express his repentance!
The question I want to look at in this message is, “What qualifications must an elder possess?” As we saw last time, Christ exercises headship over His church through church-recognized spiritually mature elders who are to shepherd His flock. Originally the apostles appointed elders in the churches that they had founded (Acts 14:23). Later, Paul gave his two apostolic delegates, Timothy and Titus, lists detailing the qualities to look for in men whom they could appoint as elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Since we no longer have apostles or apostolic delegates, we should seek to appoint as elders men who meet the qualifications in these lists.
The two lists are very similar. I don’t know why they are not identical. The lists are probably not meant to be exhaustive. Five items in 1 Timothy are lacking in Titus, whereas the list in Titus adds five items lacking in 1 Timothy. The significant thing about both lists is that except for the ability to teach God’s Word, both lists focus on godly character, not on spiritual gifts or other abilities. As Alexander Strauch writes (Biblical Eldership [Lewis & Roth], p. 168), “What God prizes among the leaders of His people is not education, wealth, social status, success, or even great spiritual gifts. Rather, He values personal moral and spiritual character ….”
Of course, no man is perfectly sanctified in this life, so no one can meet these qualifications perfectly. The process of growing to spiritual maturity is never over in this lifetime. But church leaders should not be in glaring violation of any of these qualities. And they should be growing in them, even as all believers should be growing in the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).
Almost all of the qualities prescribed for elders are commanded elsewhere in the Bible for every Christian, including women. So we all should seek to be growing in these areas. But especially, younger men who desire to be elders (1 Tim. 3:1) should work at growing in these qualities. And as I mentioned last week, churches should not vote men into leadership so that they will get involved in serving. Rather, churches should recognize the men who are already functioning as elders and give them formal recognition.
I’m mainly following the list in Titus 1, with occasional reference to the list in 1 Timothy 3. To sum up:
An elder must be a spiritually mature man of integrity as seen in his home life, his personal character, and his firm adherence to Scripture.
Two observations:
Both lists begin with “above reproach.” In Titus 1, Paul states it in verse 6 to sum up a man’s home life and again in verse 7 to sum up his personal character. The Greek word in Titus is different than the word in 1 Timothy 3:2, although the meaning is essentially the same. It means that there is nothing in the man’s life for which a charge or accusation could be brought against him (R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament [Eerdmans], p. 381). He is a man of integrity. He’s not living a double life, with secret sins that others don’t know about. He judges his sins on the heart level, where God looks, not just the outward sins others see. If he sins (and we all do), he is quick to confess it and ask forgiveness. He doesn’t live one way at church and another way at home. His wife and children would affirm that he models the fruit of the Spirit at home.
In our culture, we tend to be suckers for quick fixes to problems that take time, effort, and discipline to solve. People need to lose weight, so they buy the latest supplement that promises to take off pounds effortlessly, while they sit on the couch drinking sodas and eating potato chips. Christians are the same way spiritually. Spiritual hucksters promise that if you’ll read their book or attend their conference or get slain in the Spirit or speak in tongues, you’ll have instant, permanent victory over sin.
But it’s not so easy! There are no short cuts or miraculous experiences that lift a person to spiritual maturity. Paul told Timothy (1 Tim. 4:7), “…discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness.” It’s an athletic metaphor, picturing a man in training for a race. There are no shortcuts. Every day he has to watch what he eats and spend time working out so that he will be in top shape for his event. There are days when he doesn’t feel like it, but he thinks about the goal and goes against his feelings. The goal for the Christian is a godly life that glorifies the Lord who loved and saved him.
All Christians should aim for spiritual maturity. But especially if a young man desires the office of overseer in the future, he needs to discipline himself for godliness now. He should aim at being above reproach in school, at work, at home, and in all his relationships. Godly integrity takes time, effort, and discipline.
After the general description of being above reproach, in both lists Paul mentions a man’s home life first, showing its importance. As he explains (1 Tim. 3:5), “(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)” If a man has a poor track record at home, don’t promote him to lead the church! I’m afraid that many pastors would be out of a job if churches followed this requirement. In the lists, Paul refers to two aspects of home life:
There are different interpretations of what this means. Some say that it’s a prohibition against polygamy. While that is assumed, polygamy wasn’t common in Paul’s day. Some of the early church fathers interpreted it to mean that if a widower remarried he was barred from being an elder. But that view stems more from false asceticism than from the Bible. Others have argued that a divorced man cannot be an elder. Most who hold this view limit it to divorce that occurred after salvation, but some apply it even to divorce that occurred before salvation.
But Paul is focusing on a man’s present spiritual maturity, not on sins that he may have committed years ago. For example, what if a man used to be self-willed, quick-tempered, or addicted to alcohol? Do these past evidences of spiritual immaturity prohibit him from ever becoming an elder? If so, then who could qualify? In other words, Paul is more concerned with present godly character than with past immature behavior.
The term is literally, “a one-woman man,” which looks at his character: He is devoted to his wife alone. He is not a womanizer. His thought life is under the control of God’s Spirit, so that he is not enslaved to lust. He doesn’t look at pornography. An elder should have a track record of being above reproach in mental and moral purity.
This means that a man who has been married for 50 years and has never been divorced, but who has a lustful thought life, should be disqualified from being an elder. He is not a one-woman man. Or, a man who went through a divorce as a young man may have matured. He has dealt with the sins that led to his divorce. He has been married faithfully to his current wife for many years. He is mentally and physically faithful to her alone. He would be qualified on this requirement. Also, this requirement does not bar a single man from being an elder, as long as he is morally pure, including his thought life (see 1 Cor. 7:1-9).
Titus 1:6: “… having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.” In 1 Timothy 3:4, the requirement is, “keeping his children under control with all dignity.” This does not mean that an elder must have children, but if he does, they must be under his control. But, this qualification has spawned a lot of debate. Does the Greek word mean “believing” (NASB, ESV, NIV) or “faithful” (NKJV, HCSB)? Does it refer to children who are still under the father’s roof, or does it also apply to adult children?
John MacArthur (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Titus [E 4 Group CD]) argues that whether still in the home or as an adult, if even one of a man’s children is not a believer, the man should not be an elder (or pastor). But that would put the responsibility for a child’s conversion on the father, rather than on the sovereign working of God. Some conscientious, godly fathers have children who rebel against the Lord in spite of the father’s prayers, example, and exhortation.
I understand Paul to require that we should look carefully at a man’s relationship with his children. Is he often angry with them or does he model love and kindness in his home? Does he conscientiously train his children in the ways of the Lord? Does he pray and read the Bible with his family? If so, normally most (if not all) of his children will come to saving faith in Christ. If all or most of his children grow up and reject Christ, there may be something wrong in that home. We should hesitate to recognize him as an elder. On the other hand, if most of his children follow Christ, but one goes astray, in my judgment it does not necessarily disqualify the man as an elder. Each situation must be considered prayerfully.
Having one’s children “under control with all dignity” (1 Tim. 3:4) does not mean that an elder’s children will always be perfect examples of obedience! Kids are kids! Kids from the godliest homes often disobey their parents and throw temper tantrums. A spiritually mature man corrects and trains them to obey and respect authority. Also, when Paul says that an elder must “manage his own household well” (1 Tim. 3:4), it includes all aspects of home life, including finances. He should work to provide for his family (1 Tim. 5:8). He should be a faithful steward of the money that God has entrusted to him. He should not be in out of control debt.
Paul’s overall point is clear: an elder must be a godly husband and father. If his home life is not in order, don’t expand his responsibilities over the family of God. A man who is not devoted to his wife and whose children are rebellious should not be put into office as a steward (Titus 1:7) of God’s household.
Paul lists five character flaws that an elder must not have, followed by six qualities that he must have. I must be brief.
This refers to a man who obstinately maintains his own opinion or asserts his own rights and doesn’t care about the rights, feelings, and interests of others (Trench, Synonyms, p. 349). The self-willed man often takes the contrary view because he loves to assert himself and wield power over others. He never admits that he was wrong. He’s not a team player.
A quick-tempered man uses anger to intimidate or control others to get his own way. James 1:19-20 commands, “But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” Patience, kindness, and self-control are fruits of the Spirit that should characterize a spiritually mature man.
“Wine” includes all alcoholic beverages. The Bible does not prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages, but it does warn about the dangers of alcohol, especially for leaders (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-35; 31:4-5). Drunkenness and addiction to alcohol are always sinful (Eph. 5:18; Rom. 13:13; 1 Pet. 4:3; 1 Cor. 6:12). Church leaders must be especially careful so that they do not cause younger believers to stumble. If a younger believer, who formerly had an alcohol problem, sees me drinking, and my example causes him to fall back into his former ways, I am to some extent responsible. Thus if an elder chooses to drink at all, he must be careful and keep in mind that he is an example to the flock.
“Pugnacious” means physically hitting others. But it may also refer to a man who is verbally combative. Obviously, an elder should never strike anyone in anger, including his wife or children. If he must spank his child, he exercises control and never is abusive. The point is, an elder should not be a man who explodes in anger by hitting others or being an aggressive bully verbally.
In 1 Timothy 3:3, Paul states that he “must be free from the love of money.” Money itself is not evil, but it is dangerous. It’s like a loaded gun—it can be very useful if you use it properly, but it can hurt others or yourself if you use it carelessly. A greedy man is not qualified to be an elder, because greedy men are idolaters (Col. 3:5). They will be tempted to take advantage of people financially or to embezzle church funds.
Again, this is a quality that every Christian should pursue (Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9), but it’s especially incumbent on elders. If elders are not friendly and warm towards others, the entire church will reflect their indifference and coldness. Hospitality means taking a genuine interest in others and making them feel welcome and at ease. It should be begin here on Sundays. If you’re talking with someone you know and see a visitor all alone, unless it’s a really important conversation, don’t keep talking to each other. Go to the visitor and make him feel welcome!
Negatively, he doesn’t fill his mind with all of the violent, sensual filth that’s on TV, movies, and online. Positively, he sets his mind on (Phil. 4:8), “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”
For some unknown reason, the NASB translates the same Greek word as prudent (in 1 Tim. 3:2). It means to be of sound mind, especially in the sense of not being impulsive. The sensible man is not swayed to extremes by his fluctuating emotions. He doesn’t give in to impulses that would be sinful or harmful. He is level-headed. He lives in light of his priorities and commitments.
This word sometimes means righteous, but in this context, it probably refers to a man who is fair and equitable in his dealings with others. He is not partial to the wealthy and he doesn’t ignore or belittle the poor. He is able to weigh the facts of a matter and make impartial decisions based on the evidence.
This refers to being separate from sin and evil behavior. It does not mean being separate from sinners, because the Lord Jesus was the friend of sinners. But the devout man does not carouse with sinners in their sin. Rather, he seeks to lead them to repentance. The devout man takes God and His Word seriously, living in obedience to it.
Paul uses this word (1 Cor. 9:25) to refer to an athlete who exercises self-control in all things so that he may win the prize. He doesn’t do anything that would hinder him from his goal. An elder must have control over harmful desires or habits that would interfere with knowing Christ more deeply or with being an effective shepherd of God’s flock. He is disciplined to spend time alone with God in the Word and prayer. Self control is the last of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23), which grows in us as we walk daily by means of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16). (See my message, “Learning to Control Yourself,” 12/31/06.)
So an elder must be a spiritually mature man of integrity as seen in his home life and personal character. Finally,
I have an entire sermon on Titus 1:9 (3/4/07), so here I can only summarize. Paul says three things:
To “hold fast to the faithful word,” means to be devoted to God’s Word. To do this, you must understand it, which means you also must study it. It’s a lifelong endeavor. “Holding fast” also implies having biblical convictions. An elder holds firmly to the gospel and the essential truths related to the gospel. He doesn’t change his views based on the latest trends. His standards of morality come from the Bible, not from our godless culture. He does not love controversy, but neither does he avoid it when necessary.
False doctrine damages people. So out of love and with kindness, an elder exhorts in sound (= spiritually healthy) doctrine. In our day, many Christians view doctrine either as divisive or irrelevant to life. But Paul’s normal pattern in his letters was to lay out the doctrine first before moving on to the practical aspects of it. And he wasn’t writing to seminary students or theologians, but to common people, many of whom were slaves. “Exhort” may mean either to urge to obedience and change, or to encourage or comfort, according to the need.
It’s not enough to be positive all the time. The enemy has always infiltrated the church with false teaching and so elders must be bold to confront errors. We must not be needlessly offensive, but neither should we be so nice and polite that we water down or compromise the truth.
Sadly, when I was growing up, two pastors of churches where we were members were not men of godly integrity. One was a self-willed, quick-tempered man who ended up leaving his wife and five children to run off with a counselee. He later became an alcoholic. Another was carrying on with several women in the church, including the wife of one of his staff pastors. He left the church, but rather than removing him from ministry, the denomination moved him to a large church in another state! Neither man was biblically qualified to be in church leadership.
Those churches did not have elders, but my dad often served in those churches as a deacon. By way of contrast with those unqualified pastors, my dad was a man of integrity. He worked as a painter most of his life, and I worked for him many years. He never acted one way on the job and at church and another way at home. He gave us children the gift of his integrity.
Men who lead as elders in the church must be spiritually mature as reflected in their home life, personal character, and firm adherence to Scripture. If we see men like that, as a church we should recognize them as elders.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
July 16, 2017
An Episcopal Church in Santa Fe, New Mexico, has a hand-lettered sign over the only door into the sanctuary that reads, “Servants’ Entrance.” You can’t enter or leave that church except through the “servants’ door” (Christianity Today [9/16/91], p. 42). That sign states an important truth: If you know Christ as Savior, you’re His servant. It’s not optional; it’s mandatory.
How we serve Christ will vary according to the spiritual gifts that He has given us and the opportunities that come our way. But every Christian should have the mindset, “I am a servant (or a slave) of Jesus Christ.” There’s a difference between those terms, and yet Jesus used them interchangeably when He told His disciples (Mark 10:42-45):
“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Serving Christ is not volunteering, where you give a few hours now and then to help out. It’s a 24-7 calling. Whatever you’re doing or wherever you’re at, you’re a servant of the Lord who rescued you from eternal judgment. He saved you to serve Him always.
But in the structure of the local church, some are called to be “official servants,” or “deacons.” “Deacon” is a transliteration of a Greek word meaning, “servant.” In more than 100 New Testament uses of that word and its cognates, almost all refer either to Christ or to His followers. Only a few refer to the office of deacon in the church (J. Stam, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [Zondervan], ed. by Merrill C. Tenney, 2:48-49). So in our study of the church, we need to understand the role of all Christians as servants, but also what it means to be an official servant, or deacon.
All Christians are servants of Christ; some should be “official servants.”
There are no exceptions. If a person is a follower of Jesus Christ, he or she is Christ’s servant. That’s so because ...
As we just saw (Mark 10:45), Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” It’s amazing that when God took on human flesh and came to this earth, He came as He did! God could have chosen for His Son to be born in Herod’s palace, where He would have had the best of every worldly comfort. Instead He chose a poor carpenter and his wife! The Son of God grew up in a modest home where He learned the trade of His earthly father. His hands were not the soft hands of royalty, but the rough, callused hands of a carpenter.
It took the disciples a while to understand that Jesus the Messiah did not come at first to conquer all His enemies and establish His throne, with each of them sharing His power and glory. So throughout the Gospels, we see them jockeying for power. James and John used their mother to ask Jesus that in His kingdom they might sit one on His right hand and one on His left. This caused the other disciples to grow indignant (Matt. 20:20, 24).
Even at the Last Supper, as Jesus was burdened about His approaching death, the disciples were still arguing about which of them was the greatest (Luke 22:23-24). We don’t know whether the argument erupted before or after Jesus took the basin and washed their feet (probably before), but Jesus repeated the lesson about the greatest being the servant and then added (Luke 22:27), “For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.”
You would think that after Jesus comes in His glory and everyone is subject to His rule, He would shed the servant’s role and demand that everyone serve Him. But when Jesus comes again, He says that He will have His followers recline at the table and He will wait on them (Luke 12:37)! So throughout eternity, Jesus is our supreme example of servanthood! Thus,
After washing the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper, Jesus said (John 13:14-17):
“If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.”
We all know that Christlikeness means being a servant, but the question is, do you do it? Do you wash dirty feet? Do you do the unpleasant servant jobs? The word “servant” originally referred to those who served tables (John 2:5, 9; Acts 6:2). In that culture, such lowly tasks were thought to be undignified (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [Baker], ed. by Walter Elwell, p. 296; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans], ed. by Gerhard Kittel, 2:83). But Jesus set the counter-cultural example and calls us to follow Him.
It’s important that you serve the Lord for the right motives. Sometimes people serve because they like the praise that they get for doing it. Or, it makes them feel important or even superior to meet others’ needs. But the right reason to serve is to please the Lord who saved you when you were His enemy and deserved His judgment. A businessman once asked Lorne Sanny, President of the Navigators, how he could know when he had a servant attitude. Sanny replied, “By how you act when you are treated like one.” If you know Christ and you want to be like Him, you have to serve Him by serving others. But …
Paul mentions the spiritual gift of “helps” (1 Cor. 12:28) or “service” (Rom. 12:7). Peter says that we are to use whatever gifts we have “in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10). While all Christians must serve in various ways, God specially gifts some for service in supportive, practical, and often behind-the-scenes ways. Those with the gift of service are like the linemen on a football team. They don’t usually share the limelight with the quarterback, but without their hard work, the quarterback couldn’t begin to do his job.
But whether service is your gift or not, all Christians are the Lord’s servants. That means helping with jobs that need to be done. Do you see trash on the floor at church? Pick it up and throw it away. Does the trash can need to be emptied? Carry it to the dumpster and put in a clean bag. Did someone dirty the rest room sink? Grab a paper towel and wipe it clean. Are they shorthanded at cleaning up after a church social? Pitch in and help. At home, does your wife need help? Get up and help her! But beyond the service that we all are to render …
As the New Testament church developed, the office of “deacon” (= “servant”) became official. Note four things:
Most scholars agree that the office of “deacon” finds its roots in Acts 6:1-6. The church in Jerusalem had grown considerably. Apparently, many who had visited Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost and were converted stayed on to grow in their new faith in Christ. This created many material needs and led to the temporary arrangement of pooling resources to meet the needs (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35). Many widows in the church without sufficient income were served daily meals.
But a problem arose when the Greek-speaking Jews felt that their widows were being neglected in favor of the native Hebrews. The apostles didn’t want to get distracted dealing with the situation, so they told the church to select seven faithful men whom they could put in charge of the task. We don’t know why they stipulated seven men. Perhaps they decided that seven men could take care of the job. Although the word “deacon” is not used in Acts 6, it is usually agreed that these seven were the prototype deacons. They were officially recognized and ordained for the job (Acts 6:6). They assisted the apostles by serving in the practical matter of distributing the food fairly so that the apostles could focus on prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:4).
Later, when Paul wrote to the Philippian church, he addressed his letter to the overseers and deacons (Phil. 1:1). He probably mentioned the deacons because of their help with the financial gift that the church had sent to Paul. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul also mentions the offices of elders and deacons. In his letter to Titus, he mentions elders, but not deacons, perhaps indicating that the office of deacon is not mandatory for every church, but rather should emerge as the need arises. As a church grows, the elders will need help with administration and other matters so that they can concentrate on shepherding the flock. At that point, deacons can be officially recognized. So, how do we choose deacons?
We sometimes get the erroneous notion that the qualifications for deacons are not as high as those for elders. But in Acts 6:3, the men had to be “of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” Except for being able to teach, the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3 are comparable to those for elders. They must be spiritually mature men and women.
In 1 Timothy 3, Paul lists six character qualifications: First, a deacon must be a man of dignity. The word is the opposite of being a goof-off. A deacon should have a seriousness of purpose about him, so that those he serves sense that he is concerned for them, so that they trust and respect him.
Second, a deacon must not be double-tongued. He cannot tell one person one thing, but another person the opposite in an attempt to please everyone. Since the deacon was involved in handling church finances, he had to be a man of his word.
Third, a deacon must not be addicted to much wine. Since wine was commonly served as a gesture of hospitality, it was important for a deacon, making his rounds from house to house, to exercise control or else he could become a drunkard.
Fourth a deacon must not be fond of sordid gain. The ESV translates, “not greedy for dishonest gain.” This is also a qualification for elders (Titus 1:7). Since a deacon’s duties often involved the distribution of money and gifts to the needy, there was always the temptation for embezzlement. A deacon could not be a man who would pursue dishonest gain.
Fifth, a deacon must hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. The NIV’s “deep truths of the faith” is misleading. The “mystery of the faith” is Paul’s term for Christian truth, especially the gospel. Mystery refers to that which once was hidden, but now has been revealed in Christ. A deacon must be a man of conviction regarding the central truths of the Christian faith. Paul’s reference to “a clear conscience” probably is in contrast to the false teachers in Ephesus, who had not kept a good conscience and thus had suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith (1 Tim. 1:19).
Sixth, a deacon must first be tested and found to be above reproach. “Above reproach” is used in Titus 1:6, 7 as a qualification for elders (the Greek word in 1 Tim. 3:2 is a close synonym). It means, literally, “not called to account.” No legitimate charges could be brought against him. This is to be determined by “testing,” which does not refer to a period of probation after he becomes a deacon. Rather, it means that a man has an observed track record before he is put into office. You don’t put a man into office and then test him to see if he’s trustworthy. Test him first and then recognize him.
Then Paul lists two ways male deacons must be above reproach in their home life. First, (1 Tim. 3:12): “Deacons must be husbands of only one wife ….” This is the same as the requirement for elders, literally, “a one-woman man” (1 Tim. 3:2; I don’t know why the NASB translators added “only” here). As we saw in the case of elders, the term refers to a man of moral purity. A deacon often ministers to widows and single women, and so it’s especially important for him to be a man who is pure in thought and deed.
Second (1 Tim. 3:12): “Deacons must be … good managers of their children and their own households.” This is also the same as the requirement for elders (1 Tim. 3:4). The principle is the same: if a man can’t manage matters in his home, don’t promote him to manage matters in the church.
In the middle of his discussion about deacons, Paul inserts a verse about “women” (1 Tim.3:11). Then he returns to his discussion about deacons. The question is, does this refer to deacons’ wives (NIV, ESV, HCSB) or to women deacons (or deaconesses)? In favor of the view that he is referring to the wives of deacons is the fact that the reference is sandwiched between the qualifications for deacon. It would seem that he would finish with one group before moving on to the next. But against that view is the fact that Paul doesn’t mention any qualifications for elders’ wives. Why would he do this only for deacons’ wives?
In favor of the view that Paul is referring to women deacons is the word “likewise” (parallel to 1 Tim. 3:8, pointing to a third group after elders and deacons). Also, in Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a deacon (“servant”) of the church. Women deacons could have been married to men deacons, or to elders or to any men, assuming that they had time to serve. Or they could have been widows or single women devoted to serving the Lord (1 Tim. 5:3-16). They probably assisted the deacons in their duties, especially in ministering to women in the church (Titus 2:2-5).
Paul mentions four qualifications: First, they must be dignified. This is the same word used for male deacons (1 Tim. 3:8). They couldn’t be goof-offs.
Second, they cannot be malicious gossips. If they went from house to house with juicy tidbits of private information, they could quickly ruin a church. They must be able to control their tongues.
Third, they must be temperate (the same as for elders in 1 Tim. 3:2). The word means, able to make sound judgments. It refers to someone who does not live by emotions, but by obedience to God’s Word. If a woman is swayed by her emotions, she will not be able to point needy women to God’s truth, which is the only source of true healing for their problems. A woman needs to be able to discern truth from error if she is to serve effectively.
Fourth, they must be “faithful in all things.” They must follow through on assigned tasks. If an elder knows of a family that needs care of some kind, and assigns it to a deaconess, he needs to be able to trust her to follow through.
What do deacons do in the church?
Paul never specifically mentions what deacons were supposed to do. But assuming that the seven men in Acts 6 were prototype deacons, we can see some ways that they served. Their main job was to free up the apostles from administrating the distribution of food to the Hellenistic widows so that the apostles could devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. So a main function of deacons is to take care of administrative or other tasks to free up the elders for prayer, teaching, and shepherding the flock.
A second task of the deacons in Acts 6 was to care for the physical needs of the poor and needy in the church. Probably they assessed whether the needs were legitimate or not. They made sure that the help given was equitable.
Currently at FCF, we have deacons of women’s ministries, youth, missions, outreach, technology, and facilities. Our deacons also serve with our elders on the nominating committee when we need to call a new pastor. There are others who serve in various ways who probably should be recognized officially as deacons. And there are plenty of other ministry needs that could use help. So if the Lord is putting it on your heart to serve, talk to one of the elders. We want to see each person serving the Lord in line with his or her spiritual gifts, whether unofficially or officially as deacons.
After listing the qualifications for those who serve in an official capacity, Paul lists the rewards (1 Tim. 3:13): “For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”
“A high standing” probably refers to respect in the church along with good standing in God’s sight. Jesus humbled Himself by becoming a servant, and God highly exalted Him (Phil. 2:5-11). The Lord promised that all who serve Him will be rewarded, both in this life and in eternity (Matt. 10:42; 19:27-30). He said (Matt. 23:12), “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.” The Lord will reward the person who humbles himself and serves faithfully as a deacon. Even if the church doesn’t notice, God does.
“Great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” could refer both to confidence before God and before people. A faithful servant can go boldly before the Lord in prayer, knowing that he has a clear conscience and is doing God’s will. Also, such a person can have a quiet confidence in dealing with people, knowing firsthand the reality of the Christian faith.
But be forewarned: A lot of people have gotten involved serving the Lord only to get hurt! Maybe someone criticized them or, people didn’t appreciate what they were doing. So, they quit serving the Lord. In some cases, they dropped out of church altogether.
I’ve shared this story with you before, but it’s one I’ve never forgotten. At a pastors’ conference, Bill Mills told about a time when he was speaking to some missionaries in South America. On the last evening, he had dinner with the director and his wife. They shared how they had spent twenty years translating the Bible into a tribal language. During the process, they were teaching the Scriptures and a new church emerged among the tribe. But as they came toward the end of the translation project, the tribal people had become more and more involved in selling their crops for the drug trade and less and less interested in the Scriptures. When they finally finished the translation of the New Testament and held a dedication service, not even one person came!
The missionary wife was angry and bitter. She had given twenty years of her life so that these people could have the Scriptures, but they didn’t even care! But through Bill’s ministry that week, she had begun to see things from God’s perspective. She realized that she hadn’t spent all those years primarily serving those people, but rather, serving the Lord. She came to see, “We did it for the Lord!” All of our service should be first and foremost for the Lord.
If the Lord has saved you, then you’re His servant (= deacon), either unofficially or officially. If people appreciate your service, that’s gratifying! But even if they don’t, keep serving. You’re not doing it ultimately for them, but for the Lord who came to serve and give His life as a ransom for you.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
August 6, 2017
One of the most common complaints of non-churchgoers against the church is that the church is always after their money. The complaint is often justified. In many churches, every Sunday the pastor pressures people to give more. Every fall, many churches launch a “stewardship” campaign, where members are asked to pledge how much they will give in the coming year. I received an email recently from a man who was kicked out of his church because he did not tithe! And, as we know, many TV preachers openly flaunt their lavish lifestyles and promise people that if they will give to their ministries, God will repay them abundantly.
But, putting all of the abuses aside, churches do need money to function. And so in this series on the church, we need to consider what the Bible says about the church and money. If I were to pick two key words that should govern the church’s use of money, they would be integrity and stewardship. To sum it up:
The church should model godly financial integrity as good stewards of God’s resources.
By integrity, I mean honesty and uprightness before God in the way funds are handled. When the apostle Paul was collecting a large gift from the churches in Macedonia and Greece to help the poor believers in Jerusalem, he said (2 Cor. 8:20-21), “taking precaution so that no one will discredit us in our administration of this generous gift; for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.” That’s integrity!
By stewardship, I’m referring to the fact that all of our resources, both personally and as a church, do not belong to us, but to the Lord. We will give an account to Him of how we used the resources He entrusted to us, both personally and as a church. The topic of money is not a minor one in the Bible. The Book of Proverbs has much to say about it. Jesus spoke about money and possessions in 16 of his 38 recorded parables. In the Gospels, no less than one out of ten verses (288 in all) deal directly with money. The Bible offers 500 verses on prayer, less than 500 verses on faith, but more than 2,000 verses on money and possessions (Howard L. Dayton, Leadership Journal [Spring, 1981], p. 62). So I can only skim the surface in this message.
Basically, there are three areas to consider about money: How you get it; how you spend it; and how you save it for future anticipated needs. Let’s look at how these pertain to the church:
There are four positive considerations and one negative:
Sadly, many Christians base their handling of money more on how the world does it than on what the Bible teaches. They spend more than they earn, going further and further in debt to support a lifestyle that is shaped by advertising, the media, and how they see their neighbors living. While many evangelicals are very generous in giving to the Lord’s work, the statistics I’ve read show that overall American evangelicals give about 2-3 percent of their income to Christian causes. Some give ten percent under the mistaken notion that if they do that, they have met the biblical requirement (more on that in a moment). A major part of the problem is that if you’re in debt, you can’t afford to give generously.
In 1993, I preached five messages on “God, Money, and You” (they’re on the church website). In the first one, I argued that God wants us to be free from bondage to greed and debt. The two go together: Greed tells us that we need more to be happy and we need it now. So we borrow to get what we think we need now to be happy, but end up enslaved to the lender. Debt often creates strife in our marriages, sometimes leading to divorce. And, debt prevents us from giving generously to the Lord’s work.
Here’s a simple principle: If you don’t borrow money, you won’t get into debt! A related principle is, if you’re in a hole and want to get out, stop digging. In other words, stop spending money that you don’t have to support a lifestyle that you can’t afford. If you want some practical and often entertaining (although sometimes painfully pointed) counsel on how to manage the funds that God entrusts to you and, especially, how to get out of debt, I recommend Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University, which Pastor Dan Barton leads here. The next class begins September 20th.
Also, biblical financial management requires that you develop and maintain the mindset that your money is not your own. Rather, you manage what God has entrusted to you in line with His kingdom purposes because you will give an account to Him someday. This includes working hard to provide adequately for your family (1 Tim. 5:8). It also requires that you don’t spend impulsively, but follow an orderly plan. For most people, this means following a budget; keeping good records; having a will; budgeting savings for future needs; and disciplined, planned giving off the top, not just giving what’s left over at the end of the month.
One of the messages I preached in the 1993 series was, “Why You Should Not Tithe.” I still get many emails from people who read that message. My main point is that you should not tithe because God wants us to give generously and tithing is the bare minimum for generous giving. Also, Christians fallaciously think if they give ten percent, the rest is theirs to spend as they please. But that denies the biblical principle of stewardship, which is that everything belongs to the Lord; we only manage it for His kingdom purposes.
The New Testament epistles never mention tithing, although much is said about giving. Rather, regarding the collection for the poor saints in Judea, Paul instructed (1 Cor. 16:2), “On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.” The amount is, “as he may prosper.” Paul also wrote (1 Tim. 6:17-19),
Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.
Before you think, “Whew! That doesn’t apply to me because I’m not rich!” you need to realize that if you live in America, you are rich by worldly standards. Paul states that God “richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.” We don’t need to feel guilty about enjoying the material comforts that He provides. But there is also the principle that we should “be rich in good works” and “be generous and ready to share.”
In his folksy manner, the late J. Vernon McGee used to say, “If you eat in a restaurant, you should pay for your meal. And if you get fed by a ministry, you should give to that ministry.” And so those who are committed to a local church should help support the ministries of that church through generous grace giving.
One of the main points I argued in my master’s thesis (available on the church website) is that there is no example in the New Testament of a Christian worker making his financial needs known to prospective donors. It’s largely an argument from silence, but it is a significant silence in light of the importance of the subject. Paul informed churches of others’ needs, but he never appealed for funds for his own needs. I don’t view it as a biblical command, but rather as an example to follow. Only once in 40 years of ministry, have I told the elders that if I did not get a raise, I would need to seek part time outside employment to meet our family’s needs. I had gone several years without a pay increase, and inflation was then running in double digits, which meant that my pay was decreasing significantly each year. A pastor friend of mine used to tell me that I needed to negotiate for a higher salary, but I was never comfortable doing that. God has graciously met all our needs.
But I see a difference when it comes to the local church. The church is the family of God. Families ought to communicate openly about where they’re at financially. If things are tight, they should not spend money on non-essentials. If they’re struggling to meet their monthly expenses, families need to sit down and work out a plan for how to meet their obligations. And the family of God should communicate openly about how things are going financially.
Right now, due to a generous recent gift (by the way, I do not know who gives or how much anyone gives to this church), we are slightly ahead of our annual budget. But without that gift, we would already be just under $24,000 behind in giving towards our budget just two months into our fiscal year. If that trend continues, we will need to cut either staff salaries or missions giving. We put the current budgeted need, actual giving, and expenses in our weekly bulletin so that you can be informed.
In the context of urging the Corinthians to give to the needs of the poor saints in Judea, Paul wrote (2 Cor. 9:8), “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed.” The way God supplies our needs so that we can have an abundance to give is through our asking Him in prayer. Jesus instructed us to pray (Matt. 6:11): “Give us this day our daily bread.” He added (Matt. 7:7), “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” Those verses apply both individually and to us as the church.
As I mentioned, many churches do annual pledge drives where they ask each member to promise to give a certain amount in the coming year. Others teach what they call “storehouse giving,” based on a faulty application of Malachi 3:10, urging members to give 10 percent to the church with the promise that if they do, God will abundantly meet their needs. This often appeals to greed: “Give more and you’ll get more!” And, churches often use worldly, high-pressure fundraising methods. Sometimes churches hire professional fundraisers, who promise to raise large donations for a percentage of the take. But in my opinion, all of these methods are based on worldly techniques, not on the biblical principles which I just mentioned. Godly financial integrity means that churches should raise money in a biblical way.
How should a church spend the funds it receives? I’m going to give three ways churches should spend money and one way that is permissible (but not mandatory) to spend money.
Paul wrote (1 Tim. 5:17), “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” While scholars differ over the meaning of “double honor,” the context and Paul’s other writings on the subject support the view that the term includes both respect and financial remuneration (see my thesis, p. 41). In Galatians 6:6 Paul wrote, “The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him.” “All good things” includes financial support. And, although Paul denied himself the right of receiving financial support from churches that he was currently ministering to, he argued that workers are worthy of support (1 Cor. 9:1-18). In that discussion, he stated (1 Cor. 9:14), “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.”
In addition to the verse which we just read, Paul’s letter to the Philippians makes it clear that he received support from that church while he was ministering in Corinth (Phil. 1:5; 4:15-18; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Acts 18:3-5). Also, the apostle John states (3 John 5-8):
Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.
Of course the needs of missions and missionaries are enormous, so it’s difficult to determine how to allocate limited funds. We have a missions policy that gives some guidance in this process, but it’s not always easy to apply the policy. Generally, though, we try to support those who are focused on reaching people groups that have yet to hear the gospel. And we put a priority on those from our own congregation who go out to serve in missions.
According to Bob Deffinbaugh (bible.org/seriespage/7-new-testament-church-its-finances), 90 percent of the references to giving in the New Testament are related to helping poor believers. In his usual blunt style, the apostle John asks rhetorically (1 John 3:17), “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” He was reflecting the words of Jesus, who said that to the extent that we help even the least of His brothers, we do it to Him (Matt. 25:34-40).
As far as helping poor unbelievers, the church’s main job is to preach the gospel. But often ministry to the poor can open doors for evangelism. Practicing the Golden Rule means acting with wise compassion toward the needy. Galatians 6:10 commands, “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”
But giving to those in need is not as easy as just doling out money to anyone who asks. We need to be careful to give genuine help and not enable the person to continue with irresponsible behavior or to create dependency. R. C. Sproul (Christianity Today [3/5/82], p. 94) points out that there are different categories of poor in the Bible, each requiring different responses: (1) The poor because of laziness or disobedience. This group receives God’s judgment. (2) The poor because of disease, famine, or other catastrophe. This group receives the compassion of God and His people. (3) The poor because of exploitation. This group receives the protection of God through justice. (4) The poor for righteousness’ sake. This group endures voluntary poverty owing to their decision to choose less affluent endeavors or vocations.
So we must be discerning when we give to help the poor. The question is, do people truly want help to become financially responsible and independent or are they just looking for an enabler? Two helpful books on this subject are, When Helping Hurts [Moody Publishers], by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert; and, Giving Wisely [Last Chapter Publishing], by Jonathan Martin. Our church has an “SOS” fund (“Serving Others Sharing”) that is not part of our budget. You may give to it by designating your donation to that fund. By IRS regulations, the elders have the final authority on how to distribute those funds.
So, churches are required to support those who labor in preaching and teaching; help support those who take the gospel to other places; and help the poor and needy, both locally and around the world. The final point is optional:
In the Old Testament, we have the example of the tabernacle and the temple as places for worship, but there are no New Testament verses to support church buildings. As you may know, there were no church buildings until the fourth century, when Constantine lifted persecution against the church. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church often has erected costly, magnificent cathedrals. We visited one in Brno, Czech Republic, that had large, costly gemstones set in the walls. Since the Reformation, Protestant churches have been simpler and less ornate. In the U. S. many churches meet in storefronts or remodeled industrial buildings.
But there is also a movement, especially among those who are turned off by spending millions of dollars on buildings, to meet in house churches. How should we evaluate this trend? Positively, house churches avoid the costs of leasing, purchasing, or maintaining facilities and usually of supporting staff pastors. Also, members experience more intimate fellowship and community with one another. Potentially, there can be closer shepherding of members. And, house churches do better under persecution.
But there are downsides: By not supporting those who preach and teach the Word, house churches may be subject to inferior biblical instruction. If they multiply without adequately trained leadership, they will be weak and prone to heresy. For example, I’ve heard that the Chinese house church movement is rife with false teaching. House churches are also prone to become ingrown and too homogeneous (all one age group or all of the same social group). House churches are not able to provide ministries for children or teens and they will not be as capable of supporting mission endeavors as larger churches are.
Obviously, we have a facility here that requires maintenance and upkeep. And we could use more room for offices and classrooms, as well as parking. That leads to the final point:
With regard to personal finances, it is wise to save in advance for foreseen future needs (Prov. 6:6-11; 2 Cor. 12:14; 1 Tim. 5:8). The same applies to the church. Whenever possible, a church should prudently save in advance for foreseen needs. That’s why we have built into our budget planned savings toward purchasing the parking lot across the street (which we currently rent) if it should come on the market. And we have budgeted savings toward replacing our roof, which is now over 25 years old. It’s not in our budget, but we need new carpet in the Fireside Room and some other maintenance needs.
That brings up the question, “Should a church avoid all debt?” As with personal finances, incurring debt is risky and should be avoided if possible. But, few of us could own a home if we did not take out a mortgage. And, owning a home can be a wise investment. And there are situations where taking on reasonable debt for an emergency or legitimate need is necessary. For example, if the parking lot came on the market this month, in my opinion we would be unwise to let someone else buy it if we did not have the cash on hand. Saving in advance for such a need is preferable, but taking on reasonable debt to secure that property for our use would be better than letting a business buy it.
When people were asked in a national survey to rank professions for honesty and integrity, they placed TV evangelists near the bottom of 73 occupations, right between prostitutes and organized crime bosses (cited by Lee Stroebel, Inside the Mind of the Unchurched Harry & Mary [Zondervan], p. 201). The local church should not be that way! Rather, we should be a model of godly financial integrity as good stewards of God’s resources.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
August 13, 2017
For some of you who may not have much background in the Bible, the topic of church discipline may sound as if we’re trying to revive the Salem witch trials or the Inquisition. It calls to mind Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, The Scarlet Letter, where the Puritans made Hester Prynne, who committed adultery with her pastor, wear a red “A” on her chest to shame her.
The secular philosopher Allan Bloom argued in his 1987 best-seller, The Closing of the American Mind [Simon and Schuster], that tolerance, built on the assumption of moral relativism, not truth, has become the chief “virtue” in America. To judge any behavior or philosophy as evil is unthinkable. Bloom found that many of his students were hesitant to label even Hitler as evil (p. 67)!
That prevailing cultural “virtue” of tolerance has infiltrated the evangelical church. Even if you’ve been in the church for years, chances are that you’ve never seen a church discipline a sinning member. We think that to judge any behavior as sin is to “throw the first stone.” It’s perceived as unloving. And so churches either accept or overlook gross violations of biblical standards, sometimes even when pastors fall into serious sin.
I admit that practicing church discipline is neither easy nor pleasant. But the Bible, not our culture, must be our standard for faith and practice and it clearly teaches the importance of church discipline. Some of the Reformers viewed church discipline as the third mark of a true church, the other two being sound preaching of the Word and proper administration of the sacraments. So in this message, I want to give a brief overview of biblical church discipline. The main point is:
The church must practice biblical church discipline toward professing Christians who persist in known sin.
Perhaps no verse is so taken out of context and misapplied as Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” If you keep reading, in verse 6 Jesus says, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine….” In verse 15 He adds, “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” To obey those verses, you must make some careful judgments! You must judge that a person is a dog or a swine or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 5:12, Paul tells the church that they are responsible to judge those within the church. Practicing biblical church discipline does not violate Jesus’ command, “Judge not.”
We will consider the purposes of church discipline, the problems that require discipline, and the procedure for church discipline.
We may consider these purposes in four directions:
God’s holiness is a dominant theme in the Bible. It means that He is totally apart from and opposed to all sin. In the Old Testament, God told His people (Lev. 19:2), “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” The New Testament repeats that command (1 Pet. 1:15-16). Peter refers to the church as a holy priesthood and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:5, 9).
This assumes that the church consists of people who have experienced the new birth by believing the gospel. It is only when we believe the Bible’s testimony that we are sinners and that Christ died for our sins and that He gives eternal life to all who believe in Him that we become a people distinct from the world. We still live in the world, but we are no longer of the world (John 17:15-19). As new creatures in Christ, the church now represents Him to the world. Thus it’s essential that we deal with sin in our midst.
Because God’s name is bound up with His church, when His people sin, He will disassociate Himself from them and take them through severe discipline if they do not repent and deal with the sin in their midst. For example, in the messages to the churches in Revelation 2 & 3, the Lord repeatedly warns that if they do not deal with their sins, He will set Himself against the church and even remove that church’s lampstand. God would rather have no testimony in a city than to have His name mingled with sin!
In 1 Corinthians 5:7, Paul commands, “Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened.” Leaven (yeast) is a type of sin. If you put a small amount of yeast in flour, it spreads through the entire lump. Paul is saying symbolically what he also states plainly (1 Cor. 5:2, 13), that the church needed to remove the sinning man so that the purity of the church would be restored and the sin would not spread any further.
You can see this principle in a family. If the parents do not discipline a defiant child, very soon the other children learn that there are no consequences if they disobey their parents. The sin of the first child spreads to the others. The same thing happens in a culture. If the government does not enforce the laws, the whole country soon devolves into anarchy.
In the local church, God has given authority to the elders (Heb. 13:17). Part of their responsibility is to uphold God’s standards of holiness and do all that they can to keep the church doctrinally and morally pure. For example, take a single Christian woman who knowingly disobeys Scripture by marrying an unbeliever. If the elders do not deal with her sin, other single women in the church, who have been waiting on the Lord for a Christian husband, will be tempted to date and marry unbelievers. The biblical standard that believers should only marry believers would be diluted and sin would spread through the church.
If we don’t uphold God’s standards of holiness, it doesn’t take long for the church to become just like the world. Although the city of Corinth was infamous for sexual promiscuity, this sin went beyond what the pagans practiced (1 Cor. 5:1)! But, it didn’t shock the Corinthian church! They were actually boasting about their acceptance and love toward this man who was intimate with his stepmother (1 Cor. 5:2)! The woman was probably not a believer, or Paul would have told the church to remove her as well. But he says that they should have mourned and removed this man from their midst. Sin in other professing Christians should cause us to mourn, not to be tolerant. God would rather that a local church be pure and small than that it be big, but tolerant of sin in its midst.
To attempt to attract worldly people into the church, today’s church seems bent on showing them, “We’re normal folks. We sin just as much as you do. We don’t judge sin of any kind, because Jesus told us not to judge. We’re tolerant people, just like you are. So come and join us and you can feel safe with your sin!”
But Scripture is clear that the church is to be distinct from the world by being separated unto our God, who is holy. First John 2:15 puts it, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” I’m not talking about adding legalistic rules for things that are not in the Bible, but rather about being a people who love God so that we willingly distance ourselves from this corrupt world.
Toward God, church discipline vindicates publicly His honor and holiness. Toward the church itself, church discipline restores purity and deters others from sinning. Toward the world, church discipline displays God’s standards of holiness and draws a line between the church and the world.
Some wrongly think that love is opposed to discipline. But the Bible is clear that because God loves us, He disciplines us so that we may share His holiness (Heb. 12:6, 10). Sin always destroys people and relationships. So to be indifferent toward a sinning brother or sister is to hate, not love, that person.
Also, as we’ve seen, sin is like yeast that spreads throughout the whole lump of dough. It’s like a contagious disease. If it isn’t checked, it will infect others. That’s why James 5:19-20 says, “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” Love seeks to turn a sinner from his sin.
The goal in church discipline is never vindictive. We are not trying to punish people or to throw them out of the church. Our aim is to restore the offender. In Galatians 6:1, Paul writes, “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.” “Looking to yourself” implies that you, too, could fall into sin. So, don’t be self-righteous or condescending. “Gentleness” does not mean weakness, but strength under the control of God's Spirit. Whether we sharply rebuke (Gal. 2:11-14; Matt. 16:23; Titus 1:13) or gently appeal should be determined by what we think will be the most effective in restoring the sinner to obedient fellowship with God.
Some will ask, “But what if it doesn’t work?” The answer is, we need to be obedient to God and leave the results to Him. There is no biblical guarantee that it will work every time. Jesus said (Matt. 18:15b), “if he listens to you, you have won your brother.”
First, I will give the principle and then comment briefly: We should deal with any professing believer who associates with this church and is knowingly and rebelliously disobeying the clear commandments of Scripture.
Paul had written a now lost letter in which he told the church not to associate with immoral people (1 Cor. 5:9). Now he clarifies that he did not mean unbelievers, but rather a “so-called brother” who is immoral or covetous or an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or a swindler (1 Cor. 5:11). He states (v. 12) that it is God’s business to judge those outside of the church, but it is the church’s responsibility to judge those within the church. Our first step should be to make sure that the sinning person understands the gospel. Sometimes the problem is that the person is not truly born again.
Our church constitution and by-laws spell out that by joining this church, you are submitting to the process of church discipline. But, also, if someone attends this church regularly and especially if he is involved in any church ministry, we must practice church discipline. The testimony of this church is at stake, and the world doesn’t check to see if the person is an official member.
We shouldn’t publicly discipline a person for spiritual immaturity. We all need to grow in humility, love, patience, kindness, etc. Paul writes (1 Thess. 5:14), “And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” This calls for discernment. We should not encourage the unruly, but admonish him. We should not admonish the fainthearted or weak, but encourage and help them. Sometimes, a newer believer is in sin due to ignorance of God’s Word. He is weak. But, if he continues defiantly in the sin after you show him what the Word says, he then becomes unruly.
The analogy of child rearing is helpful here. If my three-year-old was acting like a three-year-old, I didn’t discipline him for being three, but I tried to help him learn how to behave in a more mature manner. But when your three-year-old is defiant, you must deal with his rebellion. If a believer is overcome by a sin, but is repentant and wants help, you help him. But if he says, “I have a right to do as I please,” then he’s defiant and needs stronger confrontation.
You don’t discipline someone for areas on which the Bible has no clear commandments. Drinking alcoholic beverages is not grounds for discipline; drunkenness is. Watching movies is not grounds for discipline; watching pornographic movies is. Scripture contains many lists of sins (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:25-5:6; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 3:2-5; etc.). We may summarize these as:
How do we deal with those who persist in such sins?
The Scriptures give the following steps:
Matt. 18:15: “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.” Usually it is better to go in person, unless you’re concerned for physical safety or for moral propriety. Don’t put yourself in a potentially compromising situation with the opposite sex!
Your objective is not to “set him straight” or to “get things off your chest” by telling him how wrong he is. Your aim is to get him to listen so as to win him back to the Lord. The Greek word translated “show him his fault” is a legal term that means to convince in a court of law. The best way of convincing someone of his sin is to take him to Scripture. Your opinion really doesn’t matter. God’s Word is the authority.
Jesus says that if you have knowledge of your brother’s sin, then you (not the pastor) are the one to go to him. While you should pray before you go, you should not call 15 people to have them pray. That just spreads gossip. You may need to seek confidential godly counsel, but limit it to one or two at the most.
Also, check your own heart first, to make sure that you’ve taken any logs out of your own eye (Matt. 7:3-5). You are not exempt from temptation and sin, so look to yourself (Gal. 6:1).
Check your motives. If you are going to try to prove that he’s wrong and you’re right, you’re going for the wrong reason. You should go in obedience to God, with the aim of restoring your brother to God and to those he has wronged.
Make sure that you get the facts. If someone tells you about someone else’s sin, tell the informant to go directly to the sinning person in line with these guidelines. Do not go to anyone on the basis of hearsay or gossip, unless you’re going to find out the facts. Go in gentleness and wisdom. Sometimes, there is a need for sharp rebuke (Titus 1:13; 2:15), but usually the best course is a brotherly, heartfelt appeal (Phil. 4:2; 1 Tim. 5:1-2). If the sinning person knows that you genuinely care for him, he will be more likely to listen and respond positively.
How many times should you go to the person before going to the next level? Scripture does not say. If the person repents, the discipline process stops there. You have won your brother. The exception to this would be a situation where the person’s sin is publicly known. For example, if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, she and the man (if he is in the church) need to make a public confession, so that the church can openly forgive them and support them in having the child. Or if a Christian man is convicted of a crime that is made public, even if he repents, he needs to ask the church to forgive him for dishonoring the name of Christ.
If the person does not listen to you, Jesus says to take two or three witnesses (Matt. 18:16). These may be others who know of the problem or it may include church leaders. The point is to strengthen the reproof and to cause the offender to realize the seriousness of the situation. Your goal is to bring the sinner to repentance and restoration.
Although Christ does not specify, other Scriptures indicate that this step should be administered through the church leaders, who have authority over the church (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:3). Before an announcement is made to the church, the leaders should make an effort to contact the offender and warn him that his sin will become public knowledge on a particular date if he does not repent before that time.
If the sin has to be made public, the church should be instructed in how to relate to the sinning person. Church members should no longer fellowship with the person as if there is no problem. Paul says not even to eat with such a one (1 Cor. 5:11). He tells the Thessalonians not to associate with such a one, but then adds (2 Thess. 3:15), “Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” In other words, all contact is not forbidden, but we aren’t to relate on a normal, buddy-buddy level that ignores the person’s sin. Any contact must communicate, “We love you and we want you back in the fellowship of the church, but we can’t condone what you’re doing and we can’t enjoy fellowship together until you genuinely repent.”
The Lord says that the final step is (Matt. 18:17), “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.” Paul says (1 Cor. 5:13), “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” Paul seems to bypass the earlier steps that Jesus outlines. There are differing explanations of this, but it seems to me that out of his concern over the Corinthians’ complacency about this sin and the danger to the church, Paul was exercising his apostolic authority to remove the man from the church immediately. If someone’s openly known sin is destroying the testimony of a church, he needs to be removed from the church quickly.
Sadly, some love their sin more than they love Christ and they will not repent. Others do not repent and find another church that accepts them in spite of their sin. That’s sad! Churches should not welcome those who are under the discipline of another church. But some will repent, which involves godly sorrow over their sin (2 Cor. 7:8-10) and restitution where appropriate (Philemon 18-19). A person’s deeds should reflect repentance (Acts 26:20).
If the person expresses genuine repentance, then the church should be informed and the person should be forgiven and accepted back into the fellowship (2 Cor. 2:8). Of course, there should be a time of testing before a repentant person is put into positions of ministry or leadership. Also, the restoration process should include discipling to help the person grow and avoid the sin in the future.
The church is not a fellowship of sinless people. We are a fellowship of forgiven sinners who, by God’s grace, are pursuing a life of holiness and obedience to our Lord. We dare not fall into spiritual pride by thinking that we are better than a member who has fallen into sin. Paul says that our response to sin in a church member should be to mourn (1 Cor. 5:2).
But if we do not deal with those who refuse to repent of sin as the Lord commands, His church will soon blend in with the world and the salt will lose its savor. The Lord warns that He will come and remove our lampstand (Rev. 2:5). So we must practice biblical church discipline toward professing Christians who persist in sin.
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation
August 20, 2017
If you or I had lived in colonial America, we all would have spent time in jail, or at least have paid heavy fines. Why? Because we all have traveled and done things for recreation on Sunday. It was called “Sabbath breaking,” and it was against the law.
In fact, if we had lived in California in the mid-1800’s, we’d all be lawbreakers. An 1855 law banned all “noisy amusements” on Sunday. An 1858 law banned almost all Sunday business transactions. Courts prosecuted those who indulged in minstrel shows, horseracing, dancing, and other “barbarous” diversions on that day of rest (Santa Fe Russell, “Fedco Reporter,” 9/90). While these so-called “Blue Laws” were repealed in California in 1883, when I began seminary in Dallas in 1968, drug stores still put tarps over things that you could not buy on Sundays.
The popular 19th century Plymouth Brethren devotional writer, C. H. Mackintosh, expressed his alarm over Christians who disregard the Lord’s day (Miscellaneous Writings, “A Scriptural Inquiry as to the Sabbath, the Law, and Christian Ministry” [Loizeaux Brothers], 3:6-7, 9):
The idea of any one, calling himself a Christian, making the Lord’s day a season of what is popularly called recreation, unnecessary traveling, personal convenience, or profit in temporal things, is perfectly shocking. We are of [the] opinion that such acting could not be too severely censured. We can safely assert that we never yet came in contact with a godly, intelligent, right-minded Christian person who did not love and reverence the Lord’s day; nor could we have any sympathy with any one [sic] who could deliberately desecrate that holy and happy day.… We feel persuaded that any who in any wise profane or treat with lightness the Lord’s day act in direct opposition to the Word and Spirit of God.
You may think that Mackintosh is “way out there,” but he’s in line with many other Christians who hold that Sunday is now the Christian Sabbath. For example, “The Westminster Shorter Catechism” (answer to Q. 60) states, “The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the publick [sic] and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.” A popular study on that catechism states that television, reading newspapers and magazines, and engaging in sports and excursions are not proper activities on the Sabbath (G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.], p. 173). Some Sabbath-keeping Christians believe that it’s wrong even to talk about anything other than spiritual matters on Sundays.
While I don’t agree with these views, I want you to understand that we’re out of sync with many Christians both from the past and in the present. Most American evangelicals never think twice about watching football games, mowing their lawns, or doing other things on Sundays that would send C. H. Mackintosh into cardiac arrest! So at the risk of alienating those who advocate Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and those who think that Sunday is no different than any other day, I’m going to offer my view of how you should spend the Lord’s day:
We should usually spend the Lord’s day meeting with the saints for worship, instruction, fellowship, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer, and resting from our normal duties.
I say “usually” because we are not under the Law of Moses, with its strict penalties for even minor disobedience. Under the Law, there were no exceptions for breaking the Sabbath. For example, God said that a man who was gathering wood on the Sabbath was to be stoned to death (Num. 15:32-36)! If Sunday is now the Christian Sabbath, then the church should discipline those who do anything to violate that holy day because they have broken the fourth commandment.
But, I don’t agree with those who advocate Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. The apostle Paul did not teach the necessity of observing Sunday as the Christian Sabbath to new Gentile believers in Christ. Rather, he expressed his concern because the Galatians observed “days and months and seasons and years” (Gal. 4:10). He told the Romans (14:5-6) that the matter of observing one day above another or every day alike was up to each person’s conscience. He told the Colossians (2:16), “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day.” It’s hard to conceive how Paul could have written these things to new Gentile believers if he believed that Sunday is now the Christian Sabbath. Also, the Jerusalem Council gave stipulations for Gentile believers to observe so that they would not needlessly offend the Jews, but they never mentioned keeping Sunday as holy to the Lord. Thus …
It’s not a command, but it should be our normal practice. There are no New Testament commands about keeping Sundays holy as the Christian Sabbath. The only command regarding “church attendance” states (Heb. 10:24-25): “Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” Our habit should be to meet with the saints. We have some examples that the early church met on Sundays, not Saturdays (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2), but no commandments. Thus I do not believe that it’s a sin to miss church, as long as that’s not your habit.
For example, next Sunday, Lord willing, we will be hiking out of a crater on Maui on the third day of a backpack trip. If we usually spent our Sundays like that, we would have a spiritual problem! But if that is how we spend an occasional vacation day, I don’t think we should be candidates for church discipline! But let’s look at why Christians normally gather for worship on Sundays:
In Revelation 1:10, the apostle John writes, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day ….” Almost all scholars agree that by “the Lord’s day,” John meant Sunday. The change of Christian worship from Saturday to Sunday was the result of a long process that coincided with the spread of the faith to the Gentiles (H. Waterman, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [Zondervan], ed. by Merrill C. Tenney, 3:961). Sunday became the Christian day of worship because Jesus arose from the dead on that day (ibid. 3:963).
Thus when Paul and his traveling companions met with the church in Troas, Luke reports (Acts 20:7), “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them ….” Apparently they met on Sunday evening, because Paul extended his message until midnight. (I hope he didn’t start in the morning!) They met in the evening because Sundays were not a normal day off. Christian slaves could not meet on Sunday mornings.
Tertullian (early 3rd century) was the first Christian writer to urge the cessation of labor on Sundays, but he didn’t do it based on the Sabbath command, but rather on the need to preserve Sunday as a day of worship (ibid. 966). Constantine (4th century) was the first to prescribe Sunday as a day of rest (ibid., 3:967). There is no indication that the early church viewed Sunday as a Christian carryover from the Jewish Sabbath. And there are no New Testament commands or examples of what believers may or may not do on Sundays. John called it, “the Lord’s day,” which would indicate that it belongs especially to the Lord. And, we have the example of the early church gathering on Sunday for the Lord’s Supper and instruction from the apostle Paul (Acts 20:7). Also, the example of the early Jerusalem church shows that …
Acts 2:42: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” And, Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
I am using “worship” as a summary of all of the activities mentioned in Acts 2:42 and Colossians 3:16. We tend to think of “worship” exclusively as singing, but worship should take place through singing, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, and the preaching of the Word. John MacArthur states (on gty.org, “Messiah: The Living Water,” part 2): “Worship, by the way, is not music. Worship is loving God. Worship is honoring God. Worship is knowing God for who He is, adoring Him, obeying Him, proclaiming Him as a way of life. Music is one way we express that adoration.”
I like MacArthur’s simple definition (The Ultimate Priority [Moody Press], p. 147): “Worship is all that we are, reacting rightly to all that He is.” William Temple gave a more thorough and eloquent definition: “To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, and to devote the will to the purpose of God” (ibid., p. 147). Worship happens when we realize how great God is and at the same time, how small we are. So we should meet regularly with the saints on the Lord’s day to worship Him.
Wouldn’t it have been great to meet with those early Jerusalem Christians to hear Peter, James, John, and the other apostles explain and expound on the things about Christ from all the Scriptures! Or, assuming that you didn’t fall asleep and fall out of the third story window (Acts 20:9), to have been in Troas to hear Paul preach through the night! The Puritans, whose normal sermons lasted an hour or sometimes two hours, believed, “The first and principal duty of a pastor is to feed the flock by diligent preaching of the Word” (John Owen, cited by J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness [Crossway], p. 283).
I’ve read articles that argue that preaching is outdated and is a poor way to communicate with the younger generation today. But I would agree with Packer, who explains (ibid.), “To the Puritan, faithful preaching was the basic ingredient in faithful pastoring.” I think that the number one criterion for finding a good church should be that it treasures and teaches God’s Word of truth accurately and practically to equip the saints for the work of service (see my earlier message in this series, “Looking for a Good Church?”).
Maybe you’re thinking, “Ah, fellowship! Yes, I love pastries and coffee!” But when we read that the early church was devoted (literally) to “the fellowship,” it wasn’t referring to donuts and coffee! True fellowship refers to sharing together in the things of Christ and the gospel. It includes loving one another (Rom. 12:10; 1 Thess. 4:9), serving one another (Gal. 5:13), building up one another (Eph. 4:16), and all of the other relational commands in the Bible, all centered on Jesus Christ. Being a part of the church is more than just attending a worship service. It includes getting to know some of your fellow believers well and letting them get to know you, so that you can help each other grow in Christ.
“The breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7) may refer to a communal meal, but also included the Lord’s Supper. While there is no command to celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly, it seems that that was the practice of the early church and it is worth imitating. The Lord’s Supper proclaims and pictures the gospel: Christ died for our sins, He was raised from the dead, and He is coming again. His shed blood covers all our sins when we believe in Him.
The Lord’s Supper also holds us accountable to deal with our sins each week. Have you had an angry exchange with your spouse or children this week? You need to confess that to the Lord and resolve to ask forgiveness as soon as you can get alone with them. Are you at odds with another believer in this church? You need to commit yourself to do all you can to make it right. As you think back over your week, did you sin in thought, word, or deed? You need to clear that up before your partake of the elements. Do you need assurance that you are God’s child? The Lord’s Supper reminds us that we stand forgiven before God not based on our performance, but rather because we trust in Christ’s death for us.
Literally, the Acts 2:42 reads, “they were continually devoting themselves to … the prayers.” It refers to set times of corporate prayer. Whenever and wherever the church meets, whether in a large meeting on Sundays or from house to house, prayer should be woven into the fabric of church life. I love it when I see our church praying with one another before or after our services. Our singing can and should be directed to God in prayer. At our elders’ meetings, we pray through our church directory. We often stop to commit a difficult matter to the Lord in prayer. In your personal and family life, prayer ought to be a normal, frequent response when personal problems arise or when you talk about someone who is facing a problem. Prayer acknowledges our total dependence on the Lord.
If you want to enhance your time with the Lord’s people on Sundays, prepare your heart the night before. I’m forced to do this because I could not preach on Sunday if I had not spent time with the Lord on Saturday night. That’s why I don’t come to any social events on Saturday nights, unless I can be home by 7 p.m. I need to go over and pray through my sermon, and to make sure that my heart is right before the Lord. Sometimes I play my guitar and sing to the Lord. If many of us would spend just thirty minutes on Saturday evenings alone with the Lord, our Sunday gatherings would reflect the difference. Puritan George Swinnock advised that if you light the fire of your heart in worship on Saturday night, like the embers in your fireplace, it is sooner kindled anew on Sunday morning (Packer, Quest for Godliness, p. 257).
By the way, our church usually meets also on Sunday evenings. I know that we’re all busy, but may I suggest that meeting with the saints for whatever happens on Sunday evenings is far better than sitting home watching TV or surfing the web? If you want to grow in Christ, make Sunday the Lord’s day, not your day. Ask, “How can I use the Lord’s day for the most spiritual profit?” You will benefit spiritually if your habit is normally to spend the Lord’s day meeting with the saints for worship, instruction, fellowship, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer.
Now I’m going to offer a suggestion (not a command) that I believe would also profit you spiritually as well as physically, emotionally, and relationally:
I’m drawing this point from the principle of the Sabbath in the Old Testament and from Jesus’ words (Mark 2:27), “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Exodus 31:17 says that God “ceased from labor, and was refreshed.” Obviously, God was not tired and didn’t need a break! Rather, He set an example for His covenant people, Israel. While we’re not under the Law of Moses, Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath, and there are no New Testament commands to observe Sunday as a day of worship and rest, the principle of setting aside one day each week for that purpose still benefits us spiritually, physically, emotionally, and relationally. As much as is possible, we should cease from the work of the other days and be refreshed in body and soul as we spend time worshiping our Creator and fellowshipping with His people.
I realize that life is busy. And, some of you are required to work on some Sundays. If that’s your situation, try at least to take some time on another day to listen to a sermon, put on some praise music, read your Bible and pray longer than your usual routine. You need some weekly time to recharge your spiritual batteries.
Often we’re so busy during the week that time with the Lord gets squeezed out or hurried. We don’t take time to read God’s Word, to pray, to read good Christian books, or to reflect on whether our lives are pleasing to Him. Taking time to spend with someone is a way of saying, “I love you, you’re important to me.” If you don’t work on Sundays, take some extra time to spend with the Lord, to say to Him, “Lord, I love you and want to get to know You better because You’re first in my life.” It can also be a day to spend time with family or with other believers. Perhaps you can use some of the time to instruct your children in the faith. Rest from your normal work if you can. But the main thing is to make sure that your family gathers regularly with other believers to worship the Lord.
But a warning: Christians always face the danger of falling into legalism, where we make extra-biblical rules, pride ourselves in keeping them, and judge those who don’t keep them. That was how the Pharisees wrongly applied the Sabbath laws in Jesus’ day. Even the Puritans, as biblical as they were in many respects, went way overboard on “Sabbath-keeping.” Leland Ryken relates (Worldly Saints [Academie Books, Zondervan], p. 191):
In New England, two young lovers were tried for “sitting together on the Lord’s Day under an apple tree in Goodman Chapman’s orchard.” Someone else was publicly reproved “for writing a note about common business on the Lord’s Day, at least in the evening somewhat too soon” [Ryken’s italics]. Elizabeth Eddy of Plymouth was fined “for wringing and hanging out clothes,” and a New England soldier for “wetting a piece of an old hat to put in his shoe” to protect his foot.
We’re a long ways from that sort of legalism, but we still need to guard against the danger. We are not under the Law. There are no New Testament commands about what you can or cannot do on Sundays, except for the command not to forsake assembling together with other believers.
But I think that you would further your own and your family’s growth in the Lord if your normal habit is to spend the Lord’s day meeting with God’s people for worship, instruction, fellowship, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer, and resting from your normal duties. The Jewish film critic, Michael Medved, who is not a Christian, made an interesting comment some years ago about the Jewish Sabbath. He said (“Rebirth of the synagogue by the sea,” American Enterprise, Nov/Dec 1995, cited in “Current Thoughts & Trends, 1/96, p. 33), “However urgent the phone calls and faxes and demands of career may be, the Sabbath reminds us [that] the voices of children, the company of friends, and the giving of thanks to God are far more important.”
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation