Drunken Mystic

Okay, so this one might sound iffy at first, but stay with me.

Let’s say you’re going to start a “church”, an organized fellowship that meets in a building for purposes of worship. Traditionally, there are several things that need to happen, may of which we’ve already discussed.

One thing that generally happens is that a pastor or a committee or the elders or some institution of leadership sees a couple specific needs and they think, “we need to hire a pastor for that.” For instance, two of the main positions sought are a “worship leader” or “music minister” and a “youth pastor.” There are other positions that come up as “needs.” Associate pastor, children’s pastor, administrative pastor, young adult’s pastor, and others are all necessary and even assumed as a fellowship grows.

Here’s my point. I don’t find any of these specific positions mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Now, as usual, when I say something like that, people get immediately defensive and try to make excuses. We’ll get to those in a moment, but bear with me. I know some of you reading this are in such positions or have been and there are a lot of perceptions and traditions associated with such things.

I’ll be so bold as to say it would be difficult to support a head pastor, the most common one of all, as a biblical position.

Again, as with many of these TICFITB, with something so common and assumed in the Body of Christ, shouldn’t we find some evidence or expression of it in the scripture? I believe that we should.

The only two actual positions we find in the New Testament concerning the Church are the Bishop and the Elder, both described in Timothy, although mentioned other places. Their roles were wide in scope and relational in nature, usually several of each per fellowship. These weren’t administrative positions meant to do the work of ministry while everyone else showed up. They were leaders and guides and facilitators more than anything, which was why their character was their most important feature and not their education.

You could stretch other things as positions in the Church from the scripture, like apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors. But again, these were more based on gift and function than pure administrative or organizational titles. Paul even rebuked the Corinthian believers when they were arguing over who had more authority over them … Paul made it clear that neither he nor Apollos were anything but vessels used by God. They belonged to Christ.

Even so, these things don’t especially support the need for a pastor over a certain group of people. I’m going to primarily be using the youth pastor position to make my point here for two reasons. First, its one of the most common percieved “needs” and second, it is a clear representation of the segregation that takes place because of these positions.

I’ve heard the reasons in many a committee meeting. “We have youth without a pastor. They need a pastor!” I knew one well meaning mother who wept at the thought of no youth pastor at the Church. She even begged me to take the position, even though she didn’t really like me all that much. She didn’t know how her children could grow in Christ without one.

Is that tragic to anyone else but me?

We have this modern mentality that the way to minister to people is to put them in a room of people in a similar life situation (usually by marital status and/or age) and then expect them to grow that way. Then we are confused as to why divorce rates don’t go down and young people leave the church in droves once they hit 19 or 20 years old.

Many youth pastors have admitted to me that the youth in their program that were just on fire and/or committed during their teen years largely fell away from their fellowship once they hit their college years, many completely blowing off fellowship with other Christians. Many of those who blew off “church” when they were 16 become leaders in a fellowship somewhere in college or their mid twenties. I’ve seen it myself.

Everyone’s an individual, sure, and these are only general patterns, but they have been observed as true.

What has consistently worked in most young people, however, both statistically and from my own experience, has been giving them an adult mentor at a young age that gave them an intimate relationship with someone older and much wiser. We commonly call this discipleship. When a young person has an intimate relationship with an older believer, they are called into maturity at an overwhelming pace. This is called “fathering” and “mothering” in the faith. A young man needs an older man to help him, guide him, befriend him, and encourage him in the faith. A young woman needs the same from an older woman. How can hanging out with people your own age ever mature you? You become young adults who only know how to be 16 and in a youth class that does more to entertain you than teach you, and you become disillusioned with church.

If mentored, discipled, or fathered or mothered by those more mature in the faith, then you see yourself as part of the family of God then, not waiting until you grow up, and see a real life example of a common believer reaching out instead of sitting and waiting to be given to and ministered to on their level.

Are specific ministry positions wrong? I don’t think they are, just not in the Bible and therefore misguided when we put such mammoth expectations upon them, as if we can use a corporate marketing model to do the work required within discipleship and the Holy Spirit. And when things are a little off, things don’t function the way they should and we cause more problems than we are solving.

I also don’t see the wisdom in the segregation of the Body of Christ, nor do I see it anywhere in the scripture. One of the strengths of the Body should be the diversity among those that meet together, people of different cultures and age groups and other places in their life living out the example that it is the Spirit that draws us as a family and not our superficial commonalities.

Hear this encouragement before I close. Whether or not you have a title or not, you are needed in the Body of Christ. You should actively seek out those to have relationship with and disciple and be discipled, all using our gifts in real ways that truly impact people instead of patting ourselves on the back for who attended our program.

Peace.

One of my favorite movies as a child, and one that still chokes me up sometimes, is a movie called Chariots of Fire. Not only was it well written and acted and directed, but one of the main characters was a Christian athlete. Based on a true story, Eric Liddel was a Scottish missionary to China who happened to be a very fast runner. He and a Jewish character, Harold, are the two fastest and the main story alternates between the two of them and their journey to the Olympics.

At one point, the plot hinges around a heat for the Olympics that would take place on Sunday, which Liddel will not participate in since he wants to stay true to the Lord’s Day, the Sabbath. Even earlier in the movie, he encourages a young boy to not play soccer (football) on Sunday since that is the day to go to “church.” It all works out and Liddel ends up running in a different race on a different day, even though the British government was going to try to make him run on Sunday. He gets his gold medal and everyone is happy.

My heart swelled with pride as a young man that this missionary to China would stand up to everyone based on his principles, namely the Sabbath day, Sunday. I was taught the same thing as a young person and loved a mainstream movie that glorified my beliefs that we are to set aside Sunday as the Lord’s Day.

The problem with me now is that I can’t seem to find it in the Bible.

Now I still love that movie and want to honor Liddel’s sacrifice for the gospel in a foreign land (he died in China). But at the same time, what support is there in the scripture for setting aside Sunday as the Sabbath?

I have to admit that I don’t really find any support for it.

First of all, the Sabbath was never changed to Sunday. The Sabbath, according to the Old Testament Law, is Saturday. Nowhere does the New Testament teach that the Sabbath is now on Sunday.

Some people get around this by noting a few things in the New Testament. First, they say that Christ rose on Sunday, which is why that is our celebration time and our new Sabbath day. To be honest, I would say that Christ’s resurrection on Sunday more supports the Sabbath Day to be on Saturday, since He did not rise on that day, but rested instead … in rising on Sunday, Christ might have been keeping the Sabbath more than attempting to establish a new one.

Second, there is an instance where Paul is teaching on a Sunday (the first day of the week). But we can see in Acts that people met often during the week and in context, Paul had to leave the next day so they were getting as much teaching from them as they could more than establishing a new meeting day.

Third, there is the reference in Revelation where John begins his revelation by saying he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” This one is mysterious to me because nowhere else is the term “the Lord’s day” used anywhere in the New or Old Testament. Christendom has collectively interpreted this to mean Sunday, but John never mentions a particular day of the week and nowhere else is the first day of the week associated with the term. “the Lord’s day” is possessive, as in the Day of the Lord, which occurs several times in the Old and New Testament and refers each time to some aspect of God’s revelation or judgment.

What was the name of the book again? What is its primary theme?

Fourth, there is an instance in 2 Corinthians where Paul tells them to collect money on the first day of the week. This is the best support for meeting on Sundays in the Bible that you can find, in my consideration. But he isn’t commanding them to meet on Sundays, only that when they do, they should take up the collection then to expedite Paul’s collection for the churches. This is mainly administrative in function, not meant to be support of a legalistic doctrine of when to meet.

Whey would they choose the first day of the week anyway? Because the first day of the week, under the Roman system, was dedicated to their most influential god, the sun god, therefore calling it Sunday. Most of the days are named after Roman pagan gods. This was a common day of meeting and worship all over the empire, but for pagan reasons. The church probably had the day off and free time to meet for longer periods and do major business apart from their regular jobs or duties.

The Romans actually changed our idea of when the Sabbath was because of this day. As they transitioned into a state run religion, it was easier to tell everyone to worship on Sunday, since people were used to setting that day aside and when you force people to change religions, it helps if you give them some holdovers of their old one, like meeting on Sunday and their yearly worship of the sun god during the solstice which was on December 25. They had to justify these things according to the new religion, so Sunday became the Sabbath and December 25 became Christmas.

Let’s get away from the negative and see what the Bible says about observing days.

Colossians 2:16 makes it clear that Sabbaths (did you know there was more than one? read Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers and see) and New Moon festivals and holidays are not important anymore. They are actually shadows of the substance, which is Christ Himself based in the Old Law. And Hebrews says we have promises infintely greater than those shadows. Why would we return to them? They don’t define our spirituality in the least.

Galatians 4:9-11 says this: “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.”

To observe a specific day over another is of “weak and beggarly elements” and speaks of “bondage” and makes Paul concerned that his spread of the gospel in their lives was “in vain.”

That’s a powerful verse.

We don’t honor Christ by setting aside a specific day. Hebrews makes it clear that He is our Sabbath rest. To set aside the eternal Sabbath rest of Christ and give it to a day that will end is to cheapen it. This is a spiritual rest, of course, from our own labors and choosing His, to let Him work through us instead of seeking our own agendas and solutions, which are limited at best.

Our bodies do need physical rest, which is why we sleep a third of our life away. Our minds and emotions need rest, as well, times to be still and know God, to pull away from the busyness and just mentally rest.

I find it funny, and have for quite a while, that most people don’t “rest” on Sunday anyway, especially if they have responsibilities in the Body. People are busy working on Sunday and call it rest. It becomes a day off of a 9-5 job, unless you’re a professional minister, which it therefore becomes a day of work for you (see Priest Class Under the New Covenant for more on this).

I would say the biblical pattern is to get together every day with the Body of Christ as they did in Acts. This would be for fellowship primarily, then for discipleship and then praise and teaching. Where two or more are gathered, there He is in a unique manifestation of Himself for all to see. If you’re going to be traditional about it, observe every day as set aside for Him. Stay sensitive to the Spirit and know when to pull away and be alone and rest and be wise. All wisdom comes from Him, right? Not from some pseudo legalistic tradition we don’t really follow anyway. Be as wise as you can be by listening and following Him alone.

Peace.

Since this one came up so much over the past week, I’ll go ahead and do it.

I have 24 things on the list, by the way, so this will mark the halfway point of TICFITB.

On some level I’ve heard it my whole life. I hear it in different ways. “Well, you know we can’t help but sin.” “We are still sinners.” In one of our meetings in Korea, a young man with the motivation to encourage everyone said, “I can’t go five minutes without sinning,” which resulted from a very loving rebuke from me and the group as a whole.

Ultimately, I believe people are attempting to be encouraging with a statement that basically says, “its okay to sin once in a while, everybody does it.” I’m reminded of what my Dad used to say. If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you? Besides the fact I’m uncomfortable with using peer pressure to excuse sin, I have to admit …

I can’t find it in the Bible.

Now, there are two verses that people use to justify these types of statements, so let’s discuss them now.

First off we have the passage out of Romans 7 where Paul discusses the times when he wants to do good and cannot do it and instead does the bad stuff he doesn’t want to do. I’ve heard this from individuals in personal conversation as well as public teaching or preaching. “See? If Paul cannot be righteous, what hope do we have?”

The context of this passage tells a different story, however. Paul is discussing the law in chapter 7 and is explaining from personal experience that although the Law taught him right and wrong, and he even desired to do it, he found that he could not be righteous on his own under the Law. So he was not discussing a Christian’s inability to be righteous but someone under the Law. In fact, he thanks Christ for the ability to live apart from the law and live by the Spirit, continuing into chapter 8.

What does it mean to live by the Spirit? Be reminded its the Holy Spirit. How can we live by the Holy Spirit and not live a life that is holy?

The other verse is from Paul again. Poor Paul … even Peter knew he was misunderstood. Paul says in 1 Timothy that he is the chief of sinners. But again, if you look at the context of that statement, he calls himself the chief of sinners BEFORE the grace and mercy of Christ so that Paul might be an example (remember he persecuted and killed Christians!).

An example of what? That even the worst sinner is redeemable by God. And redemption is not living like the chief of sinners while you call yourself Christian.

Romans takes great pains to let us know that sin no longer has any power over us through our death from sin to life in God, freedom from slavery to sin to slavery to God and through the death a divorce from our evil husband, the Devil, to our new husband, God. Paul says that God’s grace is sufficient, that there is no excuse any longer for sin. We are called saints, kings, priests, sons and daughters of God, but never sinners by the New Testament writers. Sinners are those who need Christ.

Despite whether you are evangelical or charismatic, you believe you are “filled with the Holy Spirit” at some point in your walk. How can you be filled with holiness and not have the ability to be holy? How can you be filled with something you can’t be?

The scriptures that support a walk in Christ that can be righteous are too numerous to put here, not without getting a TLDR from Eric, at least (I might be too late!). Peter tells us to be holy as God is holy. Where does sin come into that?

This does not mean that if you sin at all you aren’t a Christian. Thank God for the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. It means that we are not defined by sin any longer, if we are truly in Christ, and that means that a life of sin will not define us.

Two more things here to help us understand the holy life we can live through righteousness. First of all, this does not mean that we will not make mistakes. An honest mistake is not a sin. If you stub your toe on the dresser on your way to the bathroom, that doesn’t mean you’re not holy. It just means you live in a fallen world where the just and the unjust all fall side by side. If a mistake causes a problem with others, take responsibility for it and apologize, but that doesn’t mean you sinned. That just makes you humble and actually more righteous for how you responded in the midst of it.

Secondly, temptation is not a sin. Hebrews tells us that Christ was tempted with EVERYTHING we’ve been tempted with in order to make Him the perfect high priest. That means that the most heinous thing anyone could ever be tempted with, He was tempted with. I wouldn’t counsel sitting and thinking about all those things, but the principle is valid. Even though Christ was tempted more than we can imagine, He did not sin.

Holiness also does not mean that we necessarily want to do what God wants us to do. Jesus had a will that was different from His Father, too, and struggled to the shedding of blood in the Garden with giving up his will. But He chose His Father’s will in the end.

If Christ lives within us, that’s the victory we have within us. This does not mean it will be easy. Many times it is extremely difficult. But the same grace that can pass you from death to life can keep you righteous. Lay hold of it in moments of temptation. There will always be a way out of it.

Peace to the SAINTS.