The Pioneers’ New Testament

This is the message delivered at our small fellowship this morning.  I think it is relevant for a great many groups of the Lord’s followers.

“Why are you here?”

Readings:  Ephesians 4:9-16 and I Corinthians 12

This message grows out of a recent conversation in which a member of our group replied to the question, “When are you going to preach?” by responding that he was not sure he had anything much to say.  I took issue with that:  because I firmly believe that every one of us was put here on purpose.  Every one of you has been brought here for a reason:  because either you are, you know, you have, you understand, or you can do, learn  teach, or become something that the rest of us NEED, in order to function as the Lord intends that we should.

If we seriously call ourselves God’s people, we have work to do.  There is a hurting world to heal and comfort, a Kingdom to be built, realized, and shared, and this can only happen if “every part is working with the strength that God supplies.” 

One of the most common references to the church in the New Testament is “the Body of Christ.”  In addition to the passages already read, Paul wrote to the Colossian church that with Jesus as the Head, “all the Body, supplied through its joints and ligaments, and knit together, grows with a growth that comes from God.”  (Col.2:19). As you know, I do a lot of knitting.  And I know all too well what a mess I have if one stitch is dropped!  The whole thing is ruined!  With Jesus no longer physically present, this is the ONLY way he can be seen by the rest of the world.

The contribution of every part is essential to the growth and function of a body.  By far the most extensive treatment of this topic is found in I Cor.12, which should be the subject of a careful study of its own.  Our human bodies are intricately and carefully designed by their Creator.  Each part has a necessary role to play in order that the whole may function properly.  “You all, then, are the Body of Christ, and individually, you are parts of it.” (v.27). In fact, the choice to be joined to the Body of Christ should be the last individual act of a person’s life.  From then on, he is no longer a separate individual, but a part of a larger whole: the Body of Christ.  Alone, a hand, a foot, an eye, an ear, cannot survive long.  Neither can it fulfill its proper function without the contribution of the rest of the Body.    An individual part can’t even be in a proper relationship with the Head without the necessary connecting parts!  A finger is of no use unless it is attached to a hand, which itself must be attached to an arm, which is utterly dependent upon a shoulder – Were each individual part to be attached directly to the head, the result would not be a Body, but a monstrosity!  “Just Jesus and me” simply does not work.  Only together can God’s people become his presence in the world.

Some of the most detailed instructions in this regard occur in Ephesians 4.  Paul speaks of various functional persons having been given by God to the church:  apostles, prophets, teachers, etc.    He maintains that all of these exist for a single purpose:   “for work of service, and for building the Body of Christ.”  They are neither officials empowered to rule over the rest, nor employees hired to do all the “work of the church.”  They are simply members of the Body, entrusted with the responsibility to lead and facilitate the work of all the others!

Paul also illustrated the indispensability and mutual dependence of every part of the human body in I Cor.12, stressing that no part can claim greater value than another, nor divorce itself from its need for all the rest.   The members of the Body are intended to support, build up, and serve each other. The leadership functions are intended to help them learn to do that.  Notice that these leadership functions are “gifts” given to the church, not to individuals.

The grammatical structure makes this abundantly clear.  Different individuals are “given” to the Body, in order that it may perform necessary functions.  A careful perusal of the end of the I Cor.12 passage makes it obvious that the list Paul provided does NOT represent a hierarchy as some groups assume, but most likely the chronological order of the supply of those functions.  Apostles, for example, were usually the ones who introduced Jesus and his Kingdom to a group.  Prophets then explained and expanded the message, and often suggested practical applications of it (the offering for famine relief, for example) , teachers guided and guarded the flock,  and equipped them for service in the many ways listed – not only to the group, but also to any people in need.

In neither the Ephesians nor the Corinthians passage are “gifts” represented as the possession of the persons exercising them.  Nowhere are they said to have become the “property” of the individuals concerned.  Contrary to popular assumptions, you do not “have” a “gift.” Nobody does.  You ARE a gift to the portion of Jesus’ Body with which you are associated!

There have, on numerous occasions in the history of “churches” and “Christian teaching,” been campaigns in which people are urged/encouraged to identify “their gift” and put it to use in some vague category of “service.”  “Which item on this list are you good at?” can be a very threatening – and exclusionary! — question.   It is usually an attempt to fill some sort of empty “slots” in a predetermined hierarchical structure, and to exclude anything and anyone not already on the agenda.  This is not a New Testament activity.  “Gifts” are elevated or disparaged according to the biases of the “leadership”.  Hapless souls are urged to choose among items on a codified list which is their “gift” as if it were a merit badge of some sort!   Such exercises miss the point completely.  The Biblical message is simply, that in a healthy Body, when a need arises, the Lord has a member of that Body available and empowered to minister to that need.  These are not status symbols, or permanent assignments: they are simply the wherewithal to get a job done!  If the Lord assigns a job outside the Body, He likewise provides one or more members with the ability to accomplish the task.  These empowerments should never be viewed as status symbols or diplomas!!  They are simply a delivery system to bring the power of God to bear upon the human situation!  None of the “gifts” suggest any outstanding merit on the part of the person entrusted to deliver them, any more than the postman is responsible for what you get in the mail!  The “gift” is from the Lord.  The one who receives the “gift” is the person who needed it!  Perhaps the person who delivered it is the “pony express”! Or maybe Fed-X or UPS.

Different individuals may serve different functions at different times.  There is a very good reason why all this discussion leads directly into Paul’s better-known dissertation about “love.”  That’s the only way it works!

The lists of “gifts” in the New Testament differ slightly, and none pretend to be exhaustive.  None of them have anything whatever to do with natural talents nor learned abilities.  They are no more and no less than the supernatural provision of God for the needs of his people.

“The manifestation of the Spirit is given to/through each one for everyone’s benefit.”

We are each set in the Body for a particular purpose in the plan of God, for the good of all the members. The Spirit hands out the assignments.  We need only to be available.

Sadly, such usefulness is foreign to the experience of many, if not most, of the Lord’s people, who assume that a single individual needs to be “in charge.”  As in our human bodies, parts that are immobilized or unused eventually become unusable.  Weakness, disease, and even paralysis may result when a member gets no exercise in its intended work.  There are many members in the Body of Christ in dire need of intensive “physical therapy” if they are ever to function as their Lord intends.

There were no bench-warming spectators in the New Testament church.  “Church” was never intended to be a “spectator sport” where the vast majority are not participants but are reduced to being mere observers of a performance by a handful of professionals.  A congregation is NOT an audience! In fact, in the functioning Corinthian church, everyone had so much to contribute that some regulation was necessary, in order that that their contributions could be shared in an orderly manner.  The latter part of I Cor.14 provides a scenario for how this can work.

When the assembly comes together, EVERYONE is expected to bring “a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, an interpretation” (v.26).  Instructions are very specific, making provision that everyone’s contribution may be heard. And do not forget (v.29), the admonition that those listening must “judge” what has been said!  Whenever a contribution of any kind is offered!

“For you can all prophesy, one at a time, in order that all may learn and all may be encouraged” (v.31).  Is there any one among us so mature, so complete, that he no longer needs to learn or to be encouraged?  And who is wise enough to predict from which brother or sister the needed lesson or encouragement might proceed?  The emphasis is on the Body’s need for the ministry of EVERY brother and sister!

Perhaps we should set aside an extended time to discern together what each of us has been placed here for!  In the New Testament church, responsibilities were assigned in many different ways.  Here is a quick overview of some of them.

Jesus, of course, personally chose twelve of his disciples, and later 70 more, to whom he delegated the responsibility to “preach the Kingdom” ahead of his own arrival (Lk.10:1).  After Pentecost, his methods were more varied.
Sometimes, as with the early (Ac.3 and 4) accounts of Peter and John, their assignment was simply a case of acting faithfully, when an opportunity arose, on the instructions they had been given years earlier (Lk.9:2, 10:9).

In Ac.6:1-6, the congregation perceived a need, and was instructed to suggest godly individuals to take care of it, who were then “appointed” by the apostles.  Interestingly, at least two of these quickly “outgrew” their original assignment, with Stephen (ch.7) becoming a powerful advocate for “the Way”, and subsequently being martyred, and Philip (ch.8) becoming an itinerant evangelist.
Philip’s case is interesting.  His trip to Samaria may (or may not) have been on his own initiative, but after his successful mission there (8:26), a messenger instructed him to head for the Gaza road, and (v.29) the Spirit directed him to the Ethiopian’s chariot, and then (39-40) even “carried him off” after the assignment was completed!  Perhaps in order to receive a “specific assignment” we need to be busy at the tasks we already perceive!

Ananias, on the other hand, (Ac.9:10-19) is introduced simply as “a certain disciple” – just one of the folks in Damascus.  But the Lord spoke to him directly, in a vision.  And although at first he argued about it, his obedience gifted all the rest of us, down through the centuries, with the ministry of Paul!  We never hear of Ananias again.  He just happened to be listening when the Lord needed to recruit someone.
Peter also was busy (Ac.10) when the Lord directed Cornelius (by means of a “messenger”) to send for him. (A very simple investigation reveals that “messenger” and “angel” are totally random translations of the same word).  Knowing that the assignment would give Peter cultural problems, the Spirit designed an object lesson, as well as explicit directions to respond to the summons.  Wisely, Peter included other brethren as witnesses, who aided in responsibly reporting to challengers, later.
Barnabas (Ac.11:22-26) was sent by the apostles to Antioch, to check out the gathering there.  He had already established a reputation for gracious faithfulness (4:36, 9:27).  He seems to have recruited Saul on his own initiative (v.25).
We are not told how Agabus (Ac.11:28, 21:10) became known as a prophet, but his word was taken seriously by the group at Antioch, who immediately organized famine relief.  Paul later refused his counsel, but his prophecy proved to be correct.

Then of course, there is Saul/Paul.  It is important to note that not all of his instructions were as dramatic as his Damascus Road encounter with Jesus (Ac.9).  I don’t know why so many folks seem to think that is the one that should be normative.  After he was committed to the Lord, it did not require such drastic measures to get his attention!  The congregation at Damascus (9:24-45) sheltered, accepted, and nurtured Saul, and helped him escape the city.  Barnabas enabled his acceptance by the other apostles (v.27). The Holy Spirit spoke to the prayer meeting in Antioch (Ac.13), to commission their first journey, and they were sent out by both the group (v.3) and the Spirit (v.4).  During the trips, however, the “leading” seems to have been more a matter of necessity!  When they were run out of one town, they went on to the next!  The account of the second journey is interesting.  The second trip was undertaken at Paul’s own initiative (Ac.15:36-41), and the Lord is neither blamed nor credited for the argument with Barnabas that resulted in their separation.
Wouldn’t you like to know how they were “forbidden by the Holy Spirit” to preach in Asia, and how “the spirit of Jesus would not allow” their next attempt, to Bithynia?  It was only after these frustrations, that Paul “saw a vision” and his group “concluded that God had called” them to Macedonia.  Interestingly, we are told that it was simply Paul’s annoyance (16:18) that precipitated the healing of the fortune-teller.  Later, another vision reassured him of the Lord’s protection in Corinth.

Honesty requires the conclusion that there are more questions than answers in the latest Acts account. After two years in Ephesus (19:21), Paul “set out in the Spirit” to go through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem.  Both of those are in the opposite direction from Jerusalem.    He was warned of trouble by many brethren (20:22, 21:4, 21:10), but consistently rejected their counsel.  Yet later he took the advice (21:18-26) of the elders in Jerusalem, which resulted in his arrest and imprisonment.  Please note that in no case are any of these decisions attributed to “God’s will”!  It is presented simply as narrative.   Those who claim to explain it as “God’s plan” cannot draw any direct evidence from the New Testament.  It is clear, however, that the power of God was entirely adequate to use what may have been mistakes, or even just stubbornness on the part of his devoted servant Paul, for his good purposes. This should be an encouragement to us all!

Other disciples did allow themselves to be “led” by the counsel of brethren.  Paul recruited both Timothy (Ac.16:3), who was highly recommended by his home congregation, as an assistant and apprentice, and Silas, (Ac.15:40) who shared his second journey.
Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders” (Ac.14:3) in every new congregation, and urged Titus (Tit.1:5) to do likewise.
From Corinth, where he had met and worked with Aquila  and Priscilla (Ac.18:1-3), Paul took them along to Ephesus, (18:18), where they in turn corrected the teaching of Apollos, preparing him for more responsible service, to which the Ephesian brethren subsequently recommended him.

I know this is just a fly-by survey:  the point is, we are all in this game together!  And the Lord graciously manages to make use of our sometimes – or maybe often – bumbling efforts to be faithful.
So we must continually be asking, asking ourselves, and one another, “Why are you/we here?”

What do I need to learn from you or you from me?

What can we do or be together that none of us can do or be alone?

Let’s help each other, both to ask, and to answer, such questions in faithfulness!

This was a message prepared for a small group of the Lord’s people whose insightful and careful leader is being lost to retirement and other volunteer work.  The group is seeking direction.  There is denominational pressure toward “standard” patterns, but some are concerned that the New Testament- style we have been choosing could be lost in such a situation.  Perhaps it will be helpful to others who are in a similar dilemma.

Leadership in the Church

Many, if not most of us have chosen to be at GMF precisely because it is NOT like other “church” groups that we have encountered. We need to keep this in mind as we discuss and attempt to discern “What now?” as Jim and Ruth have felt led to move on. Who we are, and who we choose to become, will both affect and be affected by that decision.

It is fairly easy, for example, to observe whether the primary loyalty of a group is to a “kingdom of this world” or the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus, if, as soon as you walk in the door, you observe that an idolatrous national symbol adorns their “center of worship.”
It is similarly easy to discern a group’s “definition of church” by the titles and the deference accorded to their “leadership”. When well-meaning people responded to the news that we were “looking for a church” with an enthusiastic “Oh, you should come listen to our preacher (or minister, or pastor, or bishop, or choir, or worship team)”, we knew immediately that we would NOT find the fellowship we were seeking there. An “audience” at a “performance” is not our definition of “church.”

When, years after a couple of earlier abortive visits, we visited GMF again, we saw something quite different, and very rare. We saw a group trying to function as a brotherhood. And for better or worse, here we are.

More than 60 years ago, I had been attracted to a small group at college who were trying to become a brotherhood informed by and copied after the New Testament. It has been a long and often futile effort. I have never understood why folks who say they follow Jesus pay so little attention to the only source of reliable information about his instructions! Seems like that should be a no-brainer! It is only in the New Testament that we can find any reliable record of the transformation of a wildly diverse assortment of people into the “Body of Christ” – the Kingdom of God!

These folks knew they had become involved in a drastically different new life. Teaching was crucial, in order to learn how this new life was to operate. Fellowship, the sharing of their lives, provided the context for practical experience in Kingdom living. “Wonders and signs” accompanied the message, but the greatest wonder of all was the transformation of those thousands of individuals into a cohesive brotherhood.

Recently, Jim has done a beautiful job of describing some of the challenges of becoming the Body that the Lord intends for his people. In fact, the decision to be joined to the Body of Christ should be the last individual decision of a person’s life! From then on, he is no longer a single individual, but a part of a larger whole, a member of the Body. Alone, a hand, a foot, an eye, an ear, can neither survive, nor fulfill its intended purpose. It can’t even be properly related to the Head, without the necessary connecting parts! A finger is of no use unless it is connected to a hand, which is utterly dependent upon an arm, and thence to a shoulder — were each individual part connected directly to the head, the result would not be a body, but a monstrosity! “Just Jesus and me” does not work! Only together can his people become an extension of his presence in the world. Stanley Hauerwas posed a crucial question: “Can we so order our life together that the world might look at us and know that God has been busily at work?”

Probably the most detailed instructions in this regard are in Paul’s letter to Ephesus. He speaks of various functional persons being given to the church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers — PLEASE NOTICE THAT THESE ARE ALL PLURAL!!! – for the purpose of “equipping the saints (that’s everybody, folks!) for works of service!!!” THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALS who do all the work or give orders to the others. They are ENABLERS, who teach and create opportunities for the rest, properly to represent their Lord in the world! (Jim has accepted this responsibility as skillfully as anyone I have ever seen! But there is only one of him. The church needs many, many more.)

This is the context in which the various “spiritual gifts” are found, and in which they are intended to function. That is another subject that we should study carefully, but there is not time today. For our present purpose, the message is simply that in a healthy Body, whenever a need arises, the Lord has a member of that Body available and empowered to minister to that need. If the Lord assigns a job outside the Body, he likewise provides one or more members with the ability to accomplish that task. These empowerments are not diplomas, titles, or status symbols, and certainly not hired positions; they are simply the wherewithal to get a job done. They constitute a delivery system, bringing the power of God to bear upon the human situation.

The life of the Lord Jesus will not flow through a Body whose fragments are all rushing off in different directions, taking their cues from some flamboyant “leader” other than the Head. His life will not flow through a body whose parts are atrophied from disuse. The Body will grow, mature, and become what the Lord intends only when all its parts are working TOGETHER, sharing with one another all that he has entrusted or revealed to each of them. EVERYONE IS INDISPENSABLE, if we learn rightly to “discern the Body.”

Is it necessary to assume, then, with all the Biblical emphasis on the contribution of every member, that no leadership in the conventional sense is needed, required or welcome in the Body of Christ? By no means! Leadership has not been eliminated: it has simply been redefined. True, there are no positions of dominance, prestige or power in a faithful Body. But there are many needs for leadership on the part of those who see their task as simply fulfilling one of many functions and not as a position of status or domination.

This orientation of the Kingdom, of course, was as diametrically opposed to the prevailing cultures of the first century as it is those of our own.

The Jewish and pagan religious systems had a surprising amount of common ground. In both, the ordinary person was denied the privilege to approach his god directly. The office of a priest-intermediary was required. After all, one had to be frightfully careful: a mistake could offend the deity, and result in disaster. People were familiar with the Old Testament stories of death and disaster coming upon those who dared to come too close. Pagan priests also held a tight rein on their constituencies. They ruled by dint of their esoteric knowledge and trickery shared only with their own initiates.

The gods had to be appeased, and only the priests knew how to mollify them. We saw in an earlier study how in the Jewish temple, a heavy veil was used to exclude ordinary folks from the presence of God, and how that veil of separation was utterly destroyed at the moment of Jesus’ death. For citizens of Jesus’ Kingdom, THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY once and forever!

Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus has chosen to speak TO and THROUGH ALL of his people!

In practical terms, this means that ALL of the secrecy and exclusion common in the surrounding religions is totally out of order for the people of God – even – or especially – when it is enshrined in “official” structures like denominations or conferences! The New Testament, by contrast, is replete with examples of people who, entrusted with roles of leadership, went to great pains to be certain that everything was done with the utmost integrity. From every congregation that contributed to the relief offering for Judea, Paul took along a representative to ensure its safe delivery. Peter, even tho called and specifically instructed by the Holy Spirit, took along brethren from Joppa as witnesses when he visited Cornelius. After each missionary journey, Paul and his co-workers reported back to their sending congregation at Antioch. Free-lancing was not and is not the mark of faithful leadership.

Neither is taking personal credit for what the Lord does. Very early, Peter and John had opportunity for a “glory trip” after the healing of a lame man in the temple. They overtly rejected the plaudits of the crowd,, and attributed the event to the resurrection power of Jesus. Paul and Barnabas reacted the same way to the worship offered them at Lystra (Ac.14).

There will – there must – be leadership in the Kingdom. But faithful leaders will take care that there be NO VEIL – total openness, total honesty, and the complete absence of any shred of secrecy or manipulation, is absolutely necessary.

Another safeguard which helped prevent any abuse of authority is the consistent pattern that every assignment, every “office” in the N.T. church is always spoken of in the PLURAL. In every group, apostles appointed local elders (plural) to supervise the new brotherhood. Eph.4:11 lists apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers (ALL PLURAL) who are to facilitate the ministries of ALL THE SAINTS. And even a cursory study of that term reveals that “saints” consistently refers, not to individuals of superior power or holiness, but to ALL the people of God. There is no hint of expectation that all the jobs in any given congregation will be filled by one or two individuals hired to “run” the church. In a faithful colony of the Kingdom, NOBODY IS OVERWORKED!! If in any congregation or denomination someone is overloaded with responsibility, then someone else – probably many ‘someone else’s’– are being cheated out of the privilege to be active in the King’s service. THE PRIMARY JOB OF ANYONE IN LEADERSHIP IS TO SEE THAT THE BODY BENEFITS FROM THE CONTRIBUTION OF EVERY BROTHER AND SISTER!!!!! The second is to be busily training his replacement.

Jesus himself had sharply defined the function of leadership in the Matthew passage we read this morning, and strictly forbidden the use of any honorary titles or deferential treatment of anyone filling ANY role. The lesson was apparently learned so well that at this distance it is difficult to determine who had what responsibilities. Steven, for example, chosen for deacon work in caring for widows, became a powerful preacher. Paul’s letters refer to “apostles” (using both male and female names) of whom Acts bear no record. Philip, also starting out as a deacon, was later known as an evangelist. The concern clearly was getting the work done, not in handing out certificates of merit or protecting anyone’s “turf”.

Jesus had stated it very clearly: “You have one Teacher and you are all brothers.” Different people may be in charge of directing different aspects of Kingdom work, but NO ONE INDIVIDUAL IS IN CHARGE!

In fact there is only one NT reference to one person being “in charge” of a local group – In III Jn.9-10 Diotrephes is chastised for speaking against elder apostles, loving to be first, refusing to welcome other brethren, in short, “running the show.”

No leader must ever be beyond challenge. Paul reported to the Galatian church about his encounter with Peter, when Peter stood in need of correction. On several other occasions he challenged the “pedigree game” and deliberately rejected the “value” of his own.

How then were assignments made? In many different ways.
Saul, who was used to giving orders, was introduced to his new role by Ananias, an obscure disciple in Damascus, who is never mentioned again. Ananias’ obedience to the Lord, however was a link in the chain that gifted the world with the ministry of Paul. Later, Barnabas took him in hand and encouraged the other apostles to accept the authenticity of his conversion. How much poorer would we be, had these two not acted in faithfulness!
Matthias (Ac.1) was chosen by lot at the initiative of the first disciples, after the congregation had chosen two nominees.
The deacons were selected by the entire congregation, to minister to an unmet need among them. The twelve, who obviously exercised a degree of authority, did not act threatened or defensive when the oversight was called to their attention. They did not call a private “ministers meeting”. They threw the issue back to those who had perceived the problem, and said, in effect, “you’re right: find some qualified folks to do the job!”
Prophets (plural) and teachers (also plural) in Antioch were enjoying a prayer meeting when the Holy Spirit spoke, directing them to call Paul and Barnabas for a special assignment.
At Lystra, Paul met a promising young man and invited Timothy to join the work.

The method of selection does not seem to have mattered.
But please notice, that IN NO INSTANCE was a permanent or even a temporary title conferred upon anyone. Jesus had forbidden that!!! Each was simply called to perform a needed function!

In view of the importance of function a look at the system in action may be helpful. A good example is the account in Acts 15. The Gentile brethren in Antioch were being hassled by some self-appointed “defenders of the faith”. The troublemakers had not come with the endorsement of the brotherhood, but on their own initiative. Discussions became heated. Consequently, the church commissioned Paul and Barnabas and some others who are not listed, to take the matter to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, who were apparently serving in a supervisory capacity. Their choice is described by the same word that is translated “ordain” in other contexts. Sent by the church, they set out, reporting as they went the work of God in calling Gentiles into his Body.

In Jerusalem, they met with “the church, the apostles, and the elders.” As they repeated their report, some folks objected: likely either the ones who had caused the problem, or some of their cohorts. At this point, (perhaps there was too much commotion to make any sense out of things!) the apostles and elders gathered to study the matter. BEFORE A JUDGMENT WAS MADE, however, ALL THE ASSEMBLY (literally “all the multitude”) listened to the testimony. In an eloquent demonstration of New Testament leadership, James summarized the argument, related it to Biblical precedent, and recommended a solution. “Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders AND THE WHOLE CHURCH, having chosen men from among them, to send them to Antioch…” Their letter speaks of “having come to one mind”, and confidently reports “It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

Here is New Testament leadership at its best: hearing all sides, bringing them face to face, and helping them to a Scriptural consensus that results in “great rejoicing” among the brethren. THERE WAS NO CLOSED DOOR MEETING OF AN HIERARCHICAL IN-GROUP, but simply open sharing of perceived light among the citizens of the Kingdom.

Clearly, there will – there MUST – be leadership. That is to be neither lamented nor celebrated, neither sought nor avoided, but carefully controlled, and conformed, not to the pattern of the world with its executives, flow charts and committees, but to the model of our Servant King. In the Kingdom, all the citizens function together, in obedience to their ONE leader, each filling the role assigned to him at the moment, in the power of God, in faithfulness and joy.

(Prepared for our small congregation May 21, 2017)

I will begin to address this topic with our favorite teacher’s favorite question: “Well, what did you find?” I hope some of you did your “homework” and have some ideas to contribute.
(This was followed with responses by people who had looked up a few references as requested ahead of time, most of which were properly focused on the word “church” in Scripture).

This is not at all what I “grew up with”. My family usually “went to church” – a weekly visit to a large, gray stone building where you had to dress up (heels and stockings, hat, and gloves!) and be quiet. Children did not go to “big church”, but to “Sunday School” where you heard stories, sang songs, memorized a few psalms and other “verses”, and dressed up in bathrobes and long nightgowns (with cardboard crowns and tinsel halos) for a yearly “Christmas program”. In early teens, you “joined the church”, after which you were expected to sit quietly and listen to the skilled, hired choir, organist and preacher. I did not meet Jesus there.

I only encountered people who were serious about following Jesus after I went to college. I found the way they studied the New Testament, interacted, looked out for each other, and included me, fascinating and attractive. From these fellow-students, I learned that our most genuine need was to focus on trying to become the kind of disciples that the New Testament described. It was several years and (thankfully) in another context before I was subjected to the rhetoric about “wrath” and “being lost.” By that time, I was already immersed in the study of the New Testament and its original language, first just to learn more, and then to prepare for translating it for people who lacked that privilege. This had two very helpful results: it both led me to the practice of trying to figure out just what was meant by many of the words that most folks used almost automatically, and protected me from the unBiblical threats of some who called themselves “evangelists”. The New Testament itself became my standard and my goal.

The word translated “church”, “ekklesia”, which etymologically means simply “called out”, was not at all uncommon in classical usage – but not in the way I had ever heard it used. As early as Homer, in the 6^th century BC, it was used of any assembly officially summoned for a particular purpose: legal, civil, or even military. It is used that way in the account of the riot in Ephesus, described in Acts 19, referring to both the angry mob and the legal jurisdiction to which the town clerk referred them. The classical dictionary notes that the NT uses it to refer to a “body of Christians”, and notes that the word was not applied to a building or to a cadre of officials, until sometime in the 4^th to the 6^th centuries, well after the Roman emperor Constantine had restructured the “church” into a civic institution.

But we are concerned today with the faithful New Testament pattern. The word occurs only three times in the Gospels: once in Matthew’s account of Peter’s recognition of Jesus’ true identity (16:18), and twice in Jesus’ instructions for reconciliation among brethren (Mt.18:17). Very likely, the lack of gospel references is due to the more common use of sunago and its related words (English “synagogue”) as a gathering, or the gathering place, of the Jewish faithful. If this is the case, then Jesus’ deliberate choice of a different word takes on sharp significance. When he says “I will build my church”, he clearly intends to do a new thing. Please note that Jesus says HE intends to do the building! In recent years it has been in vogue for individuals or groups – mere people – to set out to “build” churches. With all due respect to their sincerity, THAT IS NOT OUR JOB!!!!! Peter casts it properly in the passive voice, (I Pet.2:5) that we are to BE BUILT into Jesus’ household! We are the building materials – called “living stones” – not the builders. We need to make ourselves available as building materials – but leave the building to the Master Builder! HE knows what he wants done and how he wants to operate. He, after all, is the architect, the head contractor, and the construction superintendent!!

There’s plenty of work that IS assigned to us. This is found in the epistles, which are addressed to the growing churches – NOT, please notice, to officials in charge of them! Check out to whom the vast majority of the NT letters are addressed: “to all the saints” (faithful) at a particular place.
It is “through the church” – not a place, but a people – that “rulers and authorities”, whether in heaven or on earth, are expected to see a demonstration of the “many-faceted wisdom of God”! as was read in Ephesians this morning.

For this purpose, Jesus has been provided to us as “head over everything with respect to the church, which is his Body” (Eph.1:22, Col.1:18). Paul has furnished us with an “instruction manual” (I Cor.12) for learning to function as members of that Body – with each person actively contributing to the interdependent unit.
The closest we come to a “recipe” in the New Testament for a gathering of the church is found in I Cor.14 – especially verses 24-31, where everyone was expected to come with something to share. I have never seen a group try that, have you? It would be a truly wonderful meeting! Admittedly, it would probably be upsetting to anyone who has a need to be in control, or who feels he “needs” to be under the control of some sort of “superior”. But please note that when anyone speaks, the rest are expected to evaluate what is said. It’s not a situation of an “anything goes” free-for-all. Nothing is to be automatically accepted without that evaluation. The description of their other activity in Ac.2:42-47 is similarly attractive, and just as rare.

Being composed of very human people, of course, even the early church was not all glorious sweetness and light. Jesus himself (Mt.18:17) had given instructions for dealing with conflict, with the help of the church. An excellent practical example is described in the conference at Jerusalem (Ac.15), dealing with conflict concerning the inclusion of Gentiles – an outstanding example of mediated reconciliation. Notice that this was a meeting of the whole group, not just the “apostles and elders”. Paul emphasizes in I Cor. 5 and 6 that the church, and not civil courts, should be called upon when mediation is needed, and gives explicit instructions for dealing with someone who needs to be corrected.

So, what is “the work of the church”?
The church at Antioch, after consensus about the Holy Spirit’s leading at a simple prayer meeting, sent out Paul, Barnabas, and Silas (and possibly others) to carry the message into unreached areas. Paul, however, is careful to remind folks that he has earned his own support and did not beg it of others (Ac.20:34). On occasion, congregations also volunteered to help support their work: the letter to the Philippians is basically a thank-you note. See (Phil.4:15, II Cor.11:8, 12-13), and a sizable group cooperated to send relief to needy brethren (II Cor.8) when they heard of a famine among distant brethren.

“The church” was also charged with the care of widows who had no family – which would have been a serious concern in groups under persecution. Paul gave very explicit instructions for this responsibility to Timothy in his first letter. The description at the end of Ac. 2 and Ac.4 lists some of their other activities, as does the extensive reference to the relief offering in II Cor.

Most of the church groups seem to have met in people’s homes. Ac.2:46 speaks of “breaking bread from house to house”, and Paul mentions groups meeting in the homes of Aquila and Priscilla (I Cor.16 and Rom.16), and Titus Justus (Ac.18:7) in Corinth; Nympha (Col.4:15) and Philemon (Phm.2) in Colossae; Lydia (Ac.16) in Philippi; John Mark’s mother in Jerusalem (Ac.12:12); and probably Gaius (Rom.16) wherever Romans was written from. Occasionally, as in Ephesus (Ac.19:9) at the beginning, a rented hall was used – perhaps to accommodate a larger group, or before a host was available. It was natural, then, for Paul to refer to the church (I Tim.3:15) as “the household of God.” About half of the references are plural, which probably indicates more than one congregation in a location. In any event, real estate does not seem to have been a concern.

There is no reference to the church as “a place to go on Sunday” to sit and listen to a learned lecture (or less-learned diatribe) and professionally performed music or other entertainment. There is no prescribed agenda or “liturgy,” except for Paul’s advice referenced in I Cor.14 and mentioned earlier.

It is important to note that, except for his instructions to Timothy and Titus, who seem to have been serving as his “deputies”, Paul addresses his letters to “all God’s people [the “saints”] at ….” [a location], and not to officials of any kind. In Phil.1:1, leaders are included in the address, but are not primary. This makes one wonder about the addressing of the “mail” in Rev.2 and 3 to “the messenger” (aggelos)– traditionally rendered “angel” (there is a word study on this usage), and the “you” words are singular, which is uncommon. Might this person have been some sort of corresponding secretary? But even in this case, everyone is called upon to heed “what the Spirit says to the churches.”

So what is this New Creation called “the church”?
I like the suggestion of a student years ago in a word study class, “a combination of a colony of the Kingdom and a support group!”
These are people gathered, as in Ac.2:42-47, to celebrate and share the resurrection life of their King.
As in Ac.11:26, to learn his ways, in order to represent him faithfully to those outside,
As in Ac.12:15, for mutual support and prayer in the face of persecution.
They deliberately avoid (Heb.10:25) neglecting to get together, since they need to keep coaching and encouraging one another to faithfulness,
(I Cor.14:12) each seeking to excel in what will edify the church, as they
(Heb.10:24) concentrate on prodding each other with love and good deeds.
They serve as a “demonstration project” of the wisdom and glory of God (Eph.3:10)
being “built together into a permanent dwelling place for God, in the Spirit.”(Eph.2:22).

No, the citizens of the Kingdom of Jesus do not and can not “go to church.” If they are faithful, they never LEAVE!!! “Church” is not a place to go. It is WHO YOU ARE!!! Not a place, but a people. Remember, that “you” is plural. Jesus’ statement that he is present whenever two or three of his people are deliberately “gathered in his name” (another subject that needs serious study, along with the rest of Mt.18), has far-reaching implications. The identity of the “church” and those who compose it is a personal, but not a private, affair. One’s decision to commit his life to faithfulness to Jesus should be the last wholly individual decision of his life. Only together can we be truly faithful to the gracious calling that we share.

May we learn to do so faithfully!

This little illustration was first published in a church magazine in 1984, when I was already sympathizing with fellow-disciples who were also being denigrated for doing their level best to be faithful. I think it is even more needed now, so I am offering it to you as an alternative narrative that just might bear consideration.
I called it “A Word in Defense of the Much-maligned Innkeeper”.

The Christmas season is upon us again, and with it the usual deluge of abuse, printed and preached, for the defenseless “villain” of the story, the innkeeper who sent Mary and Joseph to the stable, “because there was no room for them in the inn.” That is all that Luke says: yet from those few words, for some perverse reason, people have conjured-up the image of a heartless, unfeeling man, who had no sympathy at all for the lowly folks on his doorstep.

I wish I could have invited you to our home years ago, on Christmas Eve. You just might leave with a different view of the innkeeper. In fact, I am heretical enough to suggest that the innkeeper might have done for the expectant parents the very kindest thing in his power.

When we lived in the country, we enjoyed the delight of having a few animals. They included, at various times, sheep, goats, and a cow, as well as the ubiquitous dogs and cats. On our first Christmas there, one of the kids got the idea, “Why don’t we have our Christmas worship down in the barn with the animals?” Sort of the “authentic real thing?” We invited a few friends, and all were so impressed that this became an annual tradition.

All of our animals were pets, to the great amusement of the neighbors who were “real” farmers. Very likely, our relationship with our animals was more like what you would have seen in the rural Middle East of the first century, where people lived very close to their creatures, (even sometimes in the same house!) – than to the situation of those neighbors, for whom their animals had only commercial value. Our barn was sheltered, and surprisingly warm, in spite of being cheaply built of salvaged materials. The straw and hay was clean-smelling and cozy. The sheep, especially, were friendly and curious. One would often come and lie down with her head in my lap, sharing the warmth of her beautiful thick wool.

There would be a lot of worse places to have a baby! Starting with a smelly, crowded, vermin-infested inn! Remember, it was not a Holiday Inn that turned away the wandering couple. Inns of that day consisted of one large common room, shared by all, with no privacy and negligible sanitation. Give me a clean, quiet barn any day! I would much prefer friendly sheep as birth attendants, to a horde of stinking, swearing mule-drivers snarling their displeasure at being forced to register for yet another oppressive Roman tax!

The only people who think of a barn as a dirty, uninviting place are those who have never been around people who cared for their animals. Surely, for rural people accustomed to living with their flocks, the stable would have been the most comforting place imaginable, if they were denied the privilege of staying in their own home!

As we read the Christmas story, and the earlier prophecies, and gave thanks for the Lord who did not scorn to identify with humble folk, a very different scenario suggested itself:

A simple couple arriving at the door of an inn, tired from their journey, and somewhat frightened at the impending birth, is greeted by a kindly old grandpa-type and his wife. Hardened by the harshness of many of their customers, the sight of the soon-to-be-parents awakens a compassion that they had almost forgotten. “The inn is crowded – see for yourselves! This is no place to have a baby! You need quiet and rest. We ourselves have only a corner off the kitchen. But if you wish, out back here, there is a quiet spot…”

Throwing down some clean straw, and shooing the occupants out of one stall, they lead the young parents out of the noise and shoving, and into peace…..

Thanks be to God!