LI: The Church of Acts 2

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved (Acts 2:42-47).

Thus we have the description of the early church in Jerusalem, a truly dynamic group that saw its numbers nearly double over a period of a few weeks, and eventually reach into the tens of thousands (cf. Acts 21:20). But how? Why do we not see the Gospel having the same attraction today as it did then?

Perhaps a good part of the difference may be found within the group in Jerusalem itself. Notice verse 42: they devoted themselves to the doctrines of the Apostles, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers. We see here four avenues of the Christian path that are quite essential for growth: studying God's Word, associating with the saints, the Lord's Supper and/or hospitality with other saints, and communication with God.

Verse 46 provides more insight: they continued daily in the Temple, together and with one accord, and they also "broke bread" from house to house. They are also known for "praising God".

But look here in verse 47: they had favor with all the people.

Why was that?

Because the teachings of the Gospel were socially acceptable? Hardly; such teachings led to Jesus' recent crucifixion, and their promotion led the Apostles to be thrown before the Sanhedrin, and many other Christians into trouble with the authorities later (Acts 7-8:2). We have no reason to believe that the order from the life of Jesus in John 9:22: any who professes Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue and essentially ostracized from the Jewish nation. It wasn't because of social acceptability.

Because the teachings of the Gospel were easy for Jews? Again, hardly; Jesus demanded much more of them than did the Law (Matthew 5:20-48). Jesus demanded true adherence to the principles that God set down, not mere lip observance as so many Jews were wont to give. Commandments demanding such persons to "take up their cross and follow Him" and to "lose their lives for Him" (cf. Matthew 16:24-25) would be as challenging for them as anyone else. It was not because the teachings were easy.

The Gospel was not socially acceptable, nor was it any easier for Jews of the first century than anyone else. Why, then, did the church grow? How did it have favor with all the people?

The answer, in reality, is reflected within the passage itself: the community which they developed. They were always together. They were sharing meals with simplicity and gladness of heart. They were in the Temple, learning of God and proclaiming what He had done. They were selling what they had so that all would have their needs met.

And everyone around them saw such things and saw that it was something special, something worth one's participation.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 John 4:7-11).

Christians, above all things, must be a peculiar people on account of their love for each other and for all men.

And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2).

We often talk about the "distinctives" of the faith, and when such a conversation takes place, various doctrinal matters get brought up. While we should certainly teach the truth, note how Paul says that without love, it simply doesn't matter. We can teach "the truth" day and night, but if we don't manifest love to each other and to those without, we won't get anywhere.

Love is to be the distinctive mark of the Christian and also the church, as seen in Acts 2. They loved each other in the faith, and they manifested that love by studying the truth of God together, associating with each other, breaking bread together, and praying together.

And when other Jews saw this in the Temple, they were at least somewhat interested in the concept.

In a world where there are many who are interested in Jesus but not in "church", the best form of evangelism is a community of Christians truly serving God-- not just according to the external observances that are quantifiable, but also in heart and soul, and most especially in love. When a group of Christians have the love for the Lord, each other, and those without that they ought to have, there you will find a dynamic and growing church!

The fate of Jerusalem and Ephesus are before us: what shall we choose?

ELDV

L: Movements and Titles

There's no use in trying to continue in denial.

I can't sit in this particular closet anymore.

Even though I had these feelings before, I had never seen them thus demonstrated before me.

I can't deny it...



...I'm emergent.

(not what you were expecting, were you? Dirty people!)

Well, not really emergent; mostly quasi-emergent.

Have no idea what I'm talking about? This may be of assistance.

The emergent movement is certainly at the "cutting edge" of modern "Christian" thinking, and is quite diverse and divergent. As the lesson referenced above indicates, I by no means desire to walk freely with emergism down the postmodern path, and find their cultural accommodations crossing the line into conformity.

Regardless, it is clear that my thinking, based upon my own study of the Scriptures and not previously influenced in any way, shape, or form by emergism, parallels the movement in many ways.

It may be all N.T. Wright's fault. Apparently his works are second to the Bible for many in emergism.

Regardless, there is emphasis on community, as in Acts 2, which I have emphasized; there is the recognition that much in Christianity can become too systematized and legalized, as the post below speaks about.

See, you've been sucked in also! :)

I say all of this in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner, because I do not want to be identified as "emergent"; neither do I wish to be labeled "modern" or "postmodern" or any other such thing, but simply a Christian.

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority (Colossians 2:1-10).

This passage is quite instructive for us, demonstrating that we need to be rooted in Jesus, not taken captive by worldly philosophies. This is true for emergism/postmodernism and modernism. Just because it's culturally easier to focus on the rational or systematic aspects of the faith does not mean we should neglect the more subjective and organic aspects of it; likewise, just because we live in an age of intense deconstruction and relativism does not mean that we should move away from the absolute truths expressed in Scripture. In all things, Jesus and His Kingdom should be our foundation and structure, and everything else should be understood through that lens. We will find no ready ally in any philosophical school of the world; each school of thought will present points of agreement and disagreement, and we should never emphasize either to the exclusion of the other.

The issue of the emergent movement does raise a great question, however, and one worthy of deliberation: the impact of postmodern ways of thinking and the promotion of the Kingdom of God. While I do not subscribe with the full immersion in culture concept of emergism, I also recognize that we must interact somehow with the culture from within if we will carry out God's charge in our age. How can we do this? How can we be as one under postmodernism, yet not postmodern per se toward God (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:21)? What values of postmodernism should we affirm as consistent with Christian belief and practice, and what should we stand against?

What say ye?

ELDV

XLIX: Problems and Solutions

I've been doing a lot of reading recently regarding many movement trends, and it's becoming clear that a lot of the problems that we perceive within the church are problems prevalent in many other groups. While I disagree with many of the solutions that are offered, it is certainly interesting to see how the problems are often the same.

What are these problems?

1. Too many consider Christianity to be "that religious thing you do on Sunday", and nothing more.

2. Christianity, to many, is building-focused, and not a lifestyle.

3. Too many within the church focus on those inside without striving to bring those without within.

4. Too many churches are not communities of believers as much as a collective of individuals who just happen to synchronize their schedules to come together occasionally.

5. More boundaries are raised between Christians and people within the world than can be effectively taken down.

These are just some of the many difficulties that are not limited to any particular geographic area or congregation. Many of them are systemic within our individualist, isolationist culture.

With any problem, however, comes the need for solution. How can we begin solving these endemic difficulties, many of which beset us in one way or another?

This is where I get stuck, really...because this is when matters of control leave my hands and the hands of many.

One "solution" is to preach and teach about it. Such presupposes, however, that people are willing to listen and act, and even if that willingness is there, that they know how to act. How do you preach, "be a community"? "Be open to people"? Preaching such things until one is blue in the face may not lead to many results.

One can certainly model proper patterns of behavior, encouraging community, working on many of these issues, but one person can only go so far.

In the end, I guess I struggle with the hard-to-swallow reality that much of what needs to be done is more organic and "bottom up" than "top down", which is always so easy.

That's what I've always seen as the disconnect between what we strive to do and what we see in the New Testament.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved (Acts 2:42-47).

But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto prayer: above all things being fervent in your love among yourselves; for love covereth a multitude of sins: using hospitality one to another without murmuring: according as each hath received a gift, ministering it among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God; if any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God; if any man ministereth, ministering as of the strength which God supplieth: that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4:7-11).

These types of things seem to come "naturally" from these believers. Did the early church need to go through the hoops that we seem to today to have the association they maintained?

The only realization I had came from reconsidering Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12, emphasis mine).

What do we usually call a "living thing" here on earth? Something "organic".

Now, I'm quite aware how the term "organic" is often used in contrast to "institutional" in terms of the church, and I desire to eschew such an unhelpful contrast. Trying to set up something apart from the church is not going to solve systemic patterns; working within the church and encouraging its members to be Biblical is the only path to take.

To be Biblical, one must allow one's faith to be organic-- something living, growing, developing, and not always boxed in, systematically analyzed, or requiring advanced apologetic argument.

I wonder sometimes if we partly kill the spirit of the New Testament church by feeling compelled to apologize for it so systematically. Come now-- if you went into the church in Corinth in 58 CE, and asked them why they did not use instruments, do you actually expect them to go into advanced detail on the nuances of generic and specific authority? I'm not trying to discredit the argument per se-- far from it-- but ask ourselves honestly whether we get too zealous to go against the arguments of others that we forget what we're trying to be about. The New Testament church had no need of instruments because they used their voices to praise God and encourage each other. Later people didn't think that the voice was good enough, and added instruments. We get rid of the instrument to return to the NT pattern.

I fear that too many think that "we" (whoever "we" happens to be) have "restored" the NT church and that "we" are "the" church because we don't use instruments, baptize for remission of sin, observe the Lord's Supper weekly, and fill in whatever other doctrine you want here. Such is easy-- it's quantifiable, it's "objective", and it works for us. Too bad, of course, that Ephesus probably fit that bill and yet was in danger (Revelation 2:1-7)!

The problem is that it's more complicated than that: if "we" are "the" true church, it's for all the reasons that we tend to neglect or to "assume". If "we" are "the" church, it's because we love each other with a godly love (1 John 4:7-21). If "we" are "the" church, it's because we have developed a Biblical community of believers that builds up its constituent members, like in Acts 2. Yes, it is important to teach and believe the truth, but truth without the "intangibles" is not going to please God.

And this is where I return to where I started: it's those intangibles that are often missing, and quite difficult to instill by means of preaching or teaching. It's not quantifiable, really, and that's so because it's based in having an organic, living, growing faith.

Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue; whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust. Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins (2 Peter 1:2-9, emphases mine).

This is the "natural" development of faith. It can't be boxed into a legal code or broken down into a systematic development chart...and it was never meant to be!

And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory (2 Corinthians 3:4-9).

The faith was never to be boiled down so legally and systematically because it was not the Law of Moses! In Jesus Christ there is "grace and truth" (John 1:17). Now, I know that most times this concept is put forth, it is to justify what is Biblically unjustifiable-- departure, in some way, shape, or form, from what God establishes as normative in the New Testament. Such misapplication does not rationalize ignoring this text or an attempt to "re-legalize" Christianity. You can't grow in the faith if you're not walking with God, and you can only walk with God when you do His commandments and walked in the paths that Christ walked (1 John 1:6-2:7). On the other hand, the faith is something alive, something that grows and develops-- some things can be taught and preached and boiled down and systematized, but much of it simply must be lived, experienced, and shared (Hebrews 5:14).

Christianity was not designed to be a list of rules, but a walk in obedient faith in the paths of Jesus Christ. When we focus on walking in obedient faith, we can be more open to the "intangibles" as much as the "tangibles". When we focus on both belief and practice, we minimize the risk of people getting the impression that as long as you believe the right thing, and go to the right church on Sunday morning, that everything will be alright. When we get back to preaching Christ crucified and living appropriately, we will find that others find it more appealing, and seek to take the same challenge upon themselves. When we give up trusting in programs and what we can systematically boil down and begin trusting again in God and His Word, we may find ourselves having a more authentic and holistic faith, and one that does not come off as legalistic, cranky, or outmoded.

When we have a living faith, living relationships with other Christians, we can then have living witness...and just may find that said life begins to spread just like it did in Acts 2.

After all, if we are the New Testament church, should we settle for anything less than what the New Testament church was able to do? It wasn't about the spiritual gifts of the day. It was about preaching and living a message of redemption. It may not be easy, it may require trust, faith, and a loss of control, but it's worth the challenge, no? Let's go for it!

ELDV