Drunken Mystic

The word “doctrine” has gotten a bad rap in some circles, mostly in an attempt to be “non-denominational”.  But believe it or not, the modern idea of what it means t obe “non-denominational” is “doctrine” as well, so it’s kinda silly to say, “We don’t  get into all that theology and doctrine stuff”, because, well, that is then your doctrine.  It’s like the post-modernist saying, “There are no absolutes.”  The statement in itself is more to be passe than an attempt at truth.

I don’t want to be too harsh, though.  When we avoid theological or doctrinal disputes because they are “vain arguments” and distractions from real conversations about what it means to be “a little Christ” (you know, a Christian), then I say well done.  But sometimes it becomes a smokescreen to keep us from standing on what are core doctrines.

Paul tells Timothy to stand fast and fight the good fight for the doctrine he received, what the early church fathers called “the way of faith” before they felt they needed to canonize scripture.  I was asked by a young man the other day, “what was that way of faith?”

Others, especially my good friend Shammah, could give a full response to that question, and a more scholarly one based on the church fathers.  But for the apostles and the testimony of scripture, the list I came up with in my conclusion stands:

The supremacy of Christ, the righteous conduct of the believer, freedom from ceremony and law, the unity of the brethren in love, godly contentment with basic provision, looking forward to Christ’s return and judgment, and sacrificial servant leadership.

I also made a statement that I feel should be qualified, the real reason for this post.  I mentioned Bill and Jim, and how if their teaching compromised a central truth from that list, then they probably have a compromised view of Christ, as well.

Now, I know what I meant, and maybe you did, too, but just to make sure, allow me to expound a little on that statement.

Not only is the supremacy of Christ, and our knowledge of Him in reality and truth, #1 on the list (even way out in front), the other six are central because they deal with a correct understanding of the supremacy of Christ.

And maybe, if I were the purist I thought I was, I could have structured the series that way …

Alas, I didn’t, so here goes a short summary on how the subsequent six directly deal with an understanding of Christ.

#2.  Righteous conduct of the believer.  To be called “little Christ” is to say we “walk as He walked.”  How did He walk?  Only doing what He saw the Father doing and saying what He heard the Father say.  Jesus lived in a reality, while in the physical body, that He could do nothing of Himself.  In this, Jesus lived a completely sinless life.

Our relationship with Christ is the same.  Jesus said, “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

So while it seems humble to claim we are incapable of living a righteous life, it is really pride in our own ability (ironic, eh?) instead of resting in Christ alone and what He accomplished in us. 

Of course you cannot live righteous.  But you couldn’t save yourself, either.  Does that mean you are not saved or that God doesn’t have the power to save?  The same Christ that has the power to save us in spite of your inability is the same Christ that empowers us to live righeous by being “partakers of the divine nature.”

But you must rest in His power and ability alone and not in yourself.  That’s the secret.  You must cease from your own labors to enter into His.  You must lose your life for His sake and truly find your life.  To teach that we can be partakers of the divine nature and still be bound to sin is only a way to justify that we are placing our trust in our own ability (still seeking to save our own life) than in an omnipotent God.

#3.  Freedom from law.  As I did mention in the original article, to place spiritual power in external ceremony is to deny the substance of Christ in favor of a symbol.  To choose the symbol over the substance is like me wooing a picture of my wife while she sits there in the room with me.

All things have been fulfilled in Christ, so to place requirements with external religion, things that “perish with the using”, is to rest in our own ability and flesh.

#4.  Unity of the brethren in love.  Jesus prayed that “they be one as we are one,” speaking of Himself and the Father.  We are all brought into Christ as His Body.  To divide that Body is to believe that Christ is divided, some schizophrenic Messiah who cannot make up His mind.

#5.  Godliness with contentment.  “The Son of Man has nowhwere to lay His head.”  Giving to the poor was so common in Christ’s ministry that when Judas ran out to betray Him, they thought Judas was going out in the middle of the night to be charitable.

In order to believe in a Christian right to prosperity you must do one of two things: twist scripture to make Jesus a rich man or make excuses as to why what He taught and the life He lived does not apply to you (who call yourself a “little Christ”).  Both are just plain dangerous.

#6.  The judgment/return of Christ.  This one deals with hope.  Is your hope in Christ, who promises another Kingdom, or in this life and in this world?  The “mystery of Christ in you, the hope of glory.”  What glory?  Part of the true revelation of Christ sets our heart on eternal things, eternal life, which then births an expectation within our being on Christ to restore all things and reign in His Kingdom.  And we will reign with Him.

#7.  Sacrificial servant leadership.  “Let this mind be in you …”  What mind?  “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.”  By washing feet, the service of a slave, Christ exemplified the standard, refusing to accept any earthly kingship.  He proved His authority through his self-sacrifice.

These are just short summaries, and I probably should have organized it this way to begin with, but there you go.

Peace.

Hey, I made it the rest of the way with no C.S. Lewis quotes!  Well, we’ll see if I can make it through the conclusion here …

A few thoughts to pull it all together.  Don’t skip this one, it’s important.

The divisiveness of the modern Church is a bad testimony to the world, and even to the Body of Christ herself.  Not all division is inherently bad; to think division is always bad is a danger in and of itself.  The problem is not the division per se, but the reasons behind the divisions.  Those can compromise our testimony to the world more than we understand, even those of us who get severely pissed off about it, to use some crude language.

Not that I care what the world thinks of the Church, ultimately.  I care way more what God thinks of the Church.  Jesus said, “They didn’t receive me, and they won’t receive you,” so I’m not looking for some grand favor with the world.  In fact, persecution is promised, and if the world loves you, you got a problem.  It is supposed to hate you.  But for the sake of God, can they please hate us for the right reasons?

Let’s look at the top reasons why many churches, doctrinally, divide.  In a rough order, we have ideas of eternal security (whether or not you can lose your salvation), free will vs. predestination, the gifts of the Holy Spirit (the validity and practice of them), and leadership structure (pastoral dictatorship, council of elders, none at all, etc.).  These are the main four.  We also get issues over baptism (usually doctrines about but also practices of), communion, liturgy, holiness, and covenantal theology.

Of all of these doctrines, the only ones explicitly stated in the Bible as an issue would be holiness, number 2 on my list, and possibly liturgy, when it morphs into legalism, as it often does.

Of the rest of them, nowhere does the Bible teach that fellowship is to be denied, or that there should be some division, because of them.

Please do not misunderstand me.  I’m not saying these doctrines or theologies have no place or even that they are unimportant.  Some of them are very important, but the doctrines themselves aren’t worthy of dividing over, and for those that do, making “vain arguments”, they are the ones the Bible rebukes and takes an offense to.

To bring a little balance here, it is actually how you teach these doctrines and put them into practice that ends up being the problem.  I’ll take the first one, eternal security, as touchy as that might be, to give an example.  Let’s say you have two people: Bob believes you can lose your salvation and Jim believes you cannot.  If Bob uses his doctrine, that you can lose your salvation, to direct people by warning to live a righteous life by obeying Christ and the Holy Spirit, leading them, in effect, to their need of Jesus, we have no problem.  And if Jim, as he teaches his doctrine that you cannot lose your salvation, teaches it in such a way as to empower believers to realize the grace they have been given, not in their own merit, to obey Christ through the Holy Spirit and leading them to their need of Jesus, we have no problem.

But if Bob teaches that you can lose your salvation in such a way as to cause undue fear, as if to sin once is to lose your whole salvation, and therefore places heavy burdens and a legalistic mentality upon others, then we have a problem.  If Jim teaches that through eternal security, you can now live as you like without consequence and freely, then we have a problem.  Because in these instances, Bob’s really getting into legalism, #3 on my list, and Jim is getting into grace to sin, #2 on my list.  And if you really get to talk to them, they probably have some issue with #1, as well.

See the point?  In actuality, I know many Calvinists who would never argue that our salvation was to now do whatever we want to do and sin at will.  I know many who believe you can lose your salvation, but would never suppose or even teach that meant that one infraction sends you back to hell.

And I could give similar examples on every other one of the four major doctrines I listed a few paragraphs before.

To recap the list of what the apostles taught were worthy of sharp, strong rebuke and dividing over:  A humanist and wrong view of Christ, grace is given now to sin, legalism (or the ability to be saved through external means and ceremony), unnecessary divisiveness, using godliness for personal material or monetary gain, denying the judgment at the return of Christ, and abusing leadership over the Body of Christ.

Many of these are not only widespread in modern Western Christianity, but they are seen as fine and a part of Christianity themselves.  They deserve to be rebuked, and strongly, first of all in ourselves but also in the Body of Christ at large.  And in some instances, especially in the extreme, we are to refuse fellowship over them.

But mostly what the world sees is the shrugging of our shoulders over the seven I mentioned, if not justifying some of them, and a Christianity that finds other things way more important than they ought to be.  The result is that the world hates a Church that is carnal and doesn’t love one another instead of a Church full of the Spirit and righteousness and love for one another.

There is a positive to these seven, as well.  To look at these seven, you also see, in a positive sense, what we are to teach on: the supremacy of Christ, the righteous and holy conduct of the believer, the freedom from ceremonial obligation and religious symbol, the unity of the brethren in love, contentment in this life with basic provision, looking forward to the return and judgment of Christ, and leadership based on self-sacrifice, service, and edification to the whole Body unto Christ alone. 

If you concentrate on those, you’re worthy of fellowship, according to the Bible and in my book, too.  And in my opinion, if you teach on those seven alone, you’ll raise up a people that will turn the world upside down.

Does the Bible teach other things?  Absolutely.  And I have strong convictions on many of them, and I’m willing to sit and talk with you late in the night, as brothers, about them over a drink or coffee (preferably coffee if I’m staying up late).  But I will not call you a heretic over it, or consider you unworthy of fellowship, and would rebuke others if they do.

Peace.

This will be the last one, I think, nice round Christian number of seven, so it will be good to stop here and then do a conclusion tomorrow.

As Jesus began his ministry, he set aside twelve men to have a more focused relationship with and to be his right hand men.  Not only were they close to Jesus, but they were seen by others as leaders in his ministry.  Jesus never rebuked this.

Then Jesus died, rose from the dead, then sent them out to spread the Kingdom of God.  As we see their interaction and practices in Acts, these men were clearly leaders and instrumental in leading the newly born Church of God. 

One of the first crisis moments in the Church was that some widows were not being served.  The twelve realized that they couldn’t devote themselves to prayer and teaching AND serve bread (remember, there were thousands of people in the Church in Jerusalem by this point).  So they told the Church (baby Christians by our estimation) to choose seven men to “serve tables.” 

So as I go into this post, don’t misunderstand me.  There is strong biblical evidence for Christian leadership, its validity and its role.  Those of us in more “organic” settings may pride ourselves in a different leadership model from time to time, but there is no specific leadership structure explicitly formulated through the New Testament.  Sometimes groups had no distinct leadership, sometimes they were elders and bishops or an apostle, but there is no one formula we can unequivocally point to.  Leadership itself, however, is a very biblical role and is very useful in the Church.

The problem is not that there are leaders.  That is a natural point of growth in the Kingdom of God and even designed by God himself.  The problem becomes how those leaders practice and use their role.

We’re going to start with the Nicolaitans.  They are mentioned twice in Revelation by Jesus through John.  To the church at Ephesus, Jesus commends them by saying, “you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”  And then when rebuking Pergamos, Jesus says, “you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”

There is no evidence I’m aware of to explain exactly who these people were, so I’m beginning with something of a stretch here, but stick with me.  The world “nicolaitan” means “to conquer the people”, literally.  To be intellectually honest, they could have been a heretical group associated with some dude named Nicolas (probably not St. Nick), but Jesus twice says he hates their doctrine and practice.  And if the very word, Nicolaitan, has any bearing on their practice or doctrine, then God literally hates the doctrine and practice of having power over people, as if to conquer them, in the Church.

Well, instead of continuing on teaching something of a biblical stretch, let’s get into explicit teaching from the scripture to help you see what I mean.

Nothing is more clear than Jesus’ own teaching in regards to leadership.  In Matthew 20, Jesus details his ideas of leadership: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.  Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.  And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Christian leadership, therefore, is to give, to serve, to give of your own life, not to receive glory or stature or to be served.  Jesus teaches again on this in Matthew 23, in speaking on the “scribes and Pharisees”, he tells them to do what they say (because of their position in Moses’ seat) but “do not do according to their works.” 

What were their works?  He expains: They “bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.  But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.  They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’”

To state that many men in ministry today act just like this is so obvious to be tragic. 

Jesus also gives his followers, if we are those, what to do.  “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.  Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.  And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.  But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Too much of modern “Christian” ministry is caught up in exalting oneself.  Too little modern ministry and leadership is of the sort that refuses to take formal titles and teaches that there is one Teacher and one Father, and that to take those titles, as we just read, is to – at the very least – mislead the Body of Whom they truly belong to.  Jesus also says of the scribes and Pharisees that abuse their position, “they shall receive a greater condemnation.”  If you don’t believe in greater condemnations, then you should.

You can easily point to scriptures in which Paul calls himself an apostle, or Agabus in Acts is deemed a prophet, or how James talks about how people shouldn’t desire to be teachers, because teachers will be judged more harshly by God (as they should).  And we should look at these scriptures to see the full testimony of truth.

But we must be careful not to take these scriptures and then completely ignore very clear teaching by Jesus.  The mention of a “greater condemnation” alone should make us deal with this as honestly as we can.

When Paul calls himself an apostle, he defends himself as such based on three criteria.  First, it was a calling given by God.  Paul makes it clear that his apostleship is not something given by men, but by God.  Second, he gives a rundown of his lifestyle, given over to persecutions, in danger of death, treated like scum of the earth, things like that (not well dressed or well fed, mind you).  Thirdly, evidence of his apostleship is in the testimony of the people he has led into a saving and free knowledge of Christ, letters “written on hearts.”

So we can see that leadership is, therefore, not a position of title but of FUNCTION.  We see this also in Ephesians, where the “five-fold” ministry idea comes into play, that some were given, by spiritual gifting, roles of apostle, some prophets, some pastors, some evangelists, and some teachers.  Why?  “For the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

And with this function of edification also comes the ability to rebuke and correct as the Spirit leads and gives place.  We cannot forget that, either.  But we are also able to teach and even rebuke one another by the Spirit, maybe not to the same degree, but woe to those who grieve the Spirit because they don’t allow the Body to minister to itself in such a way because of some worldly idea of position.

To give scripture for this, in Galatians, Paul tells the story how he spoke to those apostles in Jerusalem: “whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man.”  Paul then goes on to detail how he rebuked Peter for being a Judaizer.

Also, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for saying, “I am of Paul.”  As you read his letters, he considered the fact he had to defend his apostleship a carnal, shameful thing.  If anyone calls himself an apostle, be skeptical.  The fruit should be evidence enough.

Again, it is all about function.  Let’s quickly look at 1 John, where the apostle John states that “the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”  But wait, isn’t John, technically teaching and instructing in this very letter?  He absolutely is.

The difference is, what is he using his gift and role to perpetuate, more of a focus on himself or on Christ, specifically here the Christ within?  On Christ.

I remember a conversation where a young man who was very close to me (I love you, Chris!) passionately tried to get me to call myself a pastor while we were at dinner.  My only answer was, “you can call me pastor if I’m a pastor to you, but I will not hold the title.”

I don’t care what title you hold, but if it is not a gift given by God; and you don’t live the self-sacrificial lifestyle of such a calling; and there is no fruit in other people to give testimony to that calling (i.e. changed lives given solely unto Christ), then your title means absolutely nothing in the true Kingdom of God.

Oh, it might have some bearing in worldly authority, but that’s because it’s been worldly given and it is worldly operated, and some honor is due to worldly authority, but that is as far as it goes.

Now that we understand biblical leadership is one of function, to gather a people solely unto Christ, to edify them into fullness of maturity and ministry by the Holy Spirit, we can see how the practice of power over people is abusive to the calling of leadership by God.

A couple more scriptures before I close.  In 3 John, the apostle deals with a specific individual: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.”  This guy had such a power trip that he wouldn’t even receive doctrine from John the Apostle, whom Jesus loved.

Also, in describing to Timothy the criteria for elders and bishops, he warns Timothy not to make a new believer, or someone immature in their faith, an elder or else they might become arrogant and fall into the same trap as the Devil.  How often do we see a young believer full of zeal and then equate that into a readiness for some leadership position?  Many ministries based in immaturity and pride have begun right there.

When a leader draws men to himself, to his teaching, to his ministry, to exalt himself or create a successful career path, when he places heavy burdens upon those in his care and does not rather set men free, when he begins to love special perks and expects others to serve him, when even the good things he does only to be seen by other men, then he is abusing his position, God given or not.

To repeat myself from earlier, there is no special leadership structure that fixes this, despite what some will tell you.  I’ve seen such abuse in house church to mega church and everywhere inbetween.  I’ve seen more neo-traditional pastors, as unbiblical as that role might be, be amazingly godly and righteous leaders.

And yes, even based solely upon the reactions of Jesus to the Jewish religious leaders of his day, I believe God hates it with a passion.  And if God hates this, am I supposed to give it any place?  God help us all to take this as seriously as we can, to search our hearts deeply, not to point fingers but to cleanse ourselves of the pride that would feed such an abomination.

Let us all, instead, endeavor to encourage and marry every soul we meet unto Christ and his Body, their life, instead of ourselves or our ministry, and let us give to serve, not be served, to humble ourselves so that we can be exalted by Christ himself, not by man.  I have faith that he is able to do such.

Peace.

This one could have been a subtext of the article on divisiveness, and even combined with the next one, but it seemed a separate enough issue to deal with a little on its own.

Jesus taught several times in general public teaching to “sell all your possessions and give to the poor.”  He didn’t just say it to the Rich Young Ruler, of which we all quickly point to as, “that’s just for the Rich Young Ruler, not for everybody!  He had a problem with his possessions, I don’t!”  Unfortunately, the Gospels record that this was also a general teaching to all.

I’m not trying to make anyone feel guilty here, only to be honest about the teachings of Jesus, teachings He said at the end of Matthew to teach all who believe to observe.  And when you read the first few chapters in Acts, that is exactly what the apostles did teach.  You had a Church of at least five thousand people, all of whom gave liberally.  No one counted any possession as their own.

What I’m trying to establish is that a basic idea and doctrine of Christianity was giving all, your life first, and by extension your possessions.  If you have died with Christ, how does a dead man have personal possessions?  Jesus taught principles of extreme giving, primarily to the poor, and the apostles took that teaching and applied it to a community the like of which had never been seen on earth before, where such giving was outrageous and so common that a married couple felt the need to lie and died because of that lie.

And given the One we should be following – the One who humbled Himself from Heaven to live in an earthly vessel, a poor earthly vessel that was born in a dung heap and lived in Nazareth (”can any good thing come from Nazareth?”), then took that position and gave His physical life, experienced complete separation from His Father as He bore the sin of the world, all so others could have eternal life - giving up our rights to our possessions to meet the needs of others seems to be a rather appropriate beginning.

So to enter into the Kingdom with a motivation for personal profit, especially money, was a sign of something sinister, not something of God in any way.

In instructing Timothy in his first letter, Paul details divisive people with bad doctrine in chapter 6.  One of the main signs was men “of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose godliness is a means of gain.  From such withdraw yourself.”  Then Paul goes on to talk about “godliness with contentment is great gain.”  Content with what?  “Food and clothing.”  He doesn’t include shelter! 

Paul then says, “those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”  As you can see, the “desire to be rich” is the foundation by which men fall into great sin, sin that destroys them.

Also in 1 Timothy, Paul instructs him to use specific criteria for appointing elders, among which is: “not a lover of money.”

This is in line with the teachings of Jesus, who in the Sermon on the Mount, taught contentment with food and clothing (again, no shelter) and trust that God would provide these things if our focus was on the Kingdom and His righteousness.  Also remember the parable of the soils, in which one of the soils produced a plant, produced life, but was choked by thorns, representative of “the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.”  And we remember what Jesus did to the fig tree without fruit, right?

Jude also deals with it as a mark of those who have turned the grace of God into a liscence to sin, saying, “they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error.”  Balaam wasn’t just rebuked by God through a donkey, he was also responsible for leading Israel into idolatry.  And although that was just a short comment in the Old Testament on Balaam, the rest of the Bible speaks very ill of him.

How do we see this play out today?  Well, that is easy.  First of all, we have Christians who literally swindle people out of money, through all kinds of means, and these people should be sharply rebuked. 

It is also common for ministers and leaders/pastors to actually get rich off of the Church, and treat ministry as the same as they would a worldly career path.  They have all the worldly signs of American material success (big house, nice cars, excellent retirment plan, etc.).  This is patently against the ideas of the scripture.  They should be rebuked, as well.  But it is so intrinsic within some organizations and systems that many would bristle that I would even question it, much less say it is completely wrong.

While Paul does assert the right to be financially supported for preaching the gospel, he decided not to take the support or exercise that right.  He did this for two reasons.  First, he wanted the eternal reward such would give him, and second, he didn’t want to “abuse my authority in the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:18).  He also mentions again to the Corinthians his desire to preach the gospel “free of charge”, saying, “Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.”

This is a theme throughout Paul’s letters, that he will not take money in support, considering the one time he did as “robbing” the Church.

Again, this is not to say that supporting ministers is wrong, or unbiblical, but it should be based on need, not position alone.  And I do not intend to question the heart of every minister who receives a salary, but it does happen that some get caught up in lusts and greed for materialism and financial security through the Kingdom of God.  And that is not the nature of the Kingdom of God.  If we believe the Bible, that is.

(As a side note, I am personally challenged and encouraged by Rick Warren, who made a ton of money off of the Church through his writings but gives 90% of his earnings to different charities.  That is cool.)

A close cousin of this problematic doctrine is the popular prosperity message.  Where the prosperity message is taught to empower people to give liberally because God is faithful to provide for our needs, not our luxurious desires, we have no problem.  But some teaching from the prosperity message equates worldly wealth with great faith, and that is a major problem.

No poor person was ever rebuked in scripture for being poor.  Rather, the poor are continually commended for their faith.  It is the wealthy that are given “woes”.

Don’t misunderstand me, it is not a sin to do noble work with integrity and make a lot of money.  Paul made money making tents.  But he refused to get into the habit of taking money from the Church.  Even the money he made making tents was poured into ministry to others, saving souls and starting churches, not for his own benefit.  That was the example he wished to set to the Corinthians, the Thessalonians, and every church he planted.  That is the most cohesive biblical example we have.

And while it is not a sin to make a lot of money, remember you are called to contentment with food and clothing alone, not luxury and wealth.  Paul tells Timothy to admonish the rich that they are to be generous and rich in good deeds, not arrogant or to put hope in wealth, which is uncertain.

In conclusion, the Kingdom of God is an opportunity to serve, not receive personal gain.  To be great in the Kingdom of God, you must be a “slave of all”, giving of yourself and preferring others over yourself.  Do that and you’ll have reward in Heaven.  To be caught up in the cares of this life and deceitfulness of wealth causes you to be spiritually unfruitful and unprofitable, which doesn’t usually end well for those people in scripture.

Peace.

The rest of these should be shorter, and to some degree are more minor than the first four.  I could have stopped at four, and it probably would have been fine, but seven were on my heart, even though the first four, the first three especially, are more central to the core of basic Christian belief, not based on modern theology, but based on the testimony of the Bible itself.

And it should be self-explanatory to mention that all of these are interrelated.  They are interdependent.  As I’ve explained before, teachers love to break down to explain, but please do not be misled that all truth is truly in a Person, and that Truth cannot be divorced from other aspects of Himself.  He is at once a lion and a lamb, not both separately.  And although manifested in different ways, “the Lord is one.”  And His truth, especially core truths like these that deserve a strong stand, is the same.

From the time of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels through Revelation (duh), there is a clear doctrine that Jesus will return, in person, at a specific time in the future.  I don’t feel I need to take time to detail this doctrine, but His return, correlating with a day of judgment upon the whole earth, was a central belief of the early Church.

So central, in fact, that it became one of the first major issues for them to deal with.  They taught that Jesus would return, probably soon.  And that anyone who repented to follow Jesus would receive eternal life, looking forward to that return.  Then time passed.  People died.

This became a test of the doctrine of eternal life and His return.  What did Jesus teach?  What did He mean?

Paul deals with it in 1 Thessalonians 4, where he says, “I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.”  The result of now believing that Jesus wasn’t going to return and that they wouldn’t live forever was a complete lack of hope unto sorrow.  The rest of 1 Thessalonians 4 deals with a quick doctrine on the personal return of Jesus to re-establish that hope.

One of the earliest letters, 1 Corinthians, finishes with an amazing chapter 15, which deals specifically with the necessity of believing, in hope, of the resurrection of all believers after death unto a spiritual inheritance.  Paul even states, if there is no resurrection, then we of all men are most pitiable, that we would live a life this way and not realize the hope we preach.

2 Peter 3 instructs us that in the last days, scoffers will come, saying, “Where is His return?” and question the validity of Jesus’ return and the resulting judgment.  Peter reminds them that Jesus is not slow in His coming; He will consume the whole earth in fire by His word, and His purpose in patience is out of love, to see more come to repentance.

Peter says that the reason these scoffers deny the return of Christ is so they can walk in their own lusts, willfully forgetting because at that time God will judge ungodly men.  Peter reiterates that the Day will come “like a theif in the night”, and that since that Day is coming, it should cause us to act as holy and righteous people in our conduct, to be diligent to be found by Him, “in peace, without spot and blameless.”

An important aspect of this, as implied in the preceding scripture, is that Christians will also be judged for what they have done.  The letters of the early apostles repeatedly remind believers, disciples, that upon their death or the return of Jesus, all men will be judged according to their works done while alive.

Hopefully I’m making this brief and clear.  To deny the return of Christ is to deny that all will be judged, and to deny a judgment means that we are free to live as we please, which despite how you define it religiously, is not Christianity.  Paul’s preaching at one point to a worldly ruler in Acts was, “self-control, righteousness, and the judgment to come.”

Now the question becomes, is this still a problem today?  Well, among many evangelicals, the basic belief of Christ’s return is sound and at least taught as a foundation.  But many Christian groups teach that Christians will not be judged at all, which explains, biblically speaking, why the Church today is so carnal in so many areas.  And there are doctrines floating around that teach that Christ has already returned or even will not return at all.

Those that teach Christ has already returned in some way usually have some historical interpretation of events such as the destruction of the Judaic Temple in 70 AD or the persecution of Christians by Nero or the state’s acceptance of Christianity by Constantine. 

Those that teach Christ will not return explain away such verses as ignorant or fully realized in the current age of the Church.  A close companion to these teachings is usually some aspect of extreme focus on social justice that equates the return of Jesus and His reign as a progression to a Utopian world usually through worldly political means (mostly liberal theology but conservative evangelicals get to this place, too). 

There are specific and explicit (and implicit) scriptures that they have to explain away or find hidden meanings beyond the clear statements they hold, but people have been twisting words to believe what they want for two thousand years.  As the Bible says, it will only get worse as time goes on.

Of course I haven’t touched on specifics or details on timing (there’s a warning in the Bible there, too … if anyone tells you that he or she knows exactly when Jesus is coming back, rebuke him or her sharply … they didn’t get it from God) or the rapture or place.  Not that I don’t have beliefs there, and that even some of those beliefs have righteous or unrighteous consequences, only that the apostles don’t seem to have split hairs on these things, so I choose not to, as well.

So my encouragement to all who desire truth is to stand fast that Jesus Christ will come in a very personal way, glorify the Father, Himself, and those that follow Him at some time in the future, and at that time the world will be shaken as never before and be judged in “fervent heat” and “fire.”  Hold on to that hope.  Look forward to it with all you can, because something eternally better is to be revealed.  Don’t seek it through the establishment of worldly organizations, philosophies, or political perspectives (or political figures, especially).  You have a King.  You are a citizen of a much higher Kingdom than anything than can be established in worldly terms, and that Kingdom will be established in full glory one day.

Peace.

Ironic that I’m writing this on Sunday morning when most people are out at a building?  Hmnnn …  Oh, and I’ll try to write this one without quoting C.S. Lewis.  I’ll try.

Anyway, this one was almost number 2, but there was more biblical evidence that using the grace of God for sin and disobedience was basis for not only sharp rebuke, but in some situations, fully justifiable reason for ceasing all fellowship with the Church.  So that one won for #2.  This one is just as close, though.

As Christianity became the worldwide inclusive movement it was prophesied to be, non-Jews had to be included.  The problem became … what do we do with these Gentiles?

There were two main schools of thought.  The official position of the apostles in Jerusalem, the first main council recorded, was that Gentiles were not required to become Jews in order to believe in Christ.  This was a major issue in Acts.  All of the old Law that they were to require of Gentile Christians was that they would abstain from food given to idols, from blood, and from sexual immorality.  All the rest of the old Law was not important for Gentiles to worry about.

There were still many Jews in the early Church, however, that believed you must become a Jew in order to become a Christian.  And while fellowship was never officially rejected over this issue, any who taught it were severely rebuked by Paul in his writings.

Paul wrote a whole letter rebuking this idea.  It is called Galatians.  Read in its entirety, as it was written and meant to be read, it is a clear argument against any idea that ceremonial acts have any power in and of themselves, and that teaching that they do goes against the very Gospel of Christ.

It gets kinda nasty in Galatians, to be honest.  As Paul deals with these men who have come in to teach the Galatians that becoming a Jew was necessary, he says twice (the only one of three statements Paul repeats for emphasis – we dealt with the another one in the last post and with another one later) that “if anyone preaches a different gospel to you than what we preached, even an angel, let him be accursed.”  That is pretty strong language.

Then Paul goes into how he rebuked Peter “to his face” and publicly over this issue, making the statement that “if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself a trangressor”, meaning that if he were to return to an idea that the Law had power to save, he would disprove Christ.  Remember that this comes from a guy who at one point used the Law to kill Christians.  He probably knows what he’s talking about.

Paul then says, “Who has bewitched (deceived) you, that what you acquired by faith you can now work out in your flesh?”  Somewhat of a rhetorical question, since he knew exactly who, but his point that the Law is of the power of the flesh and bondage is continually made through the rest of the letter, equating the Old Covenant (and the Law) with Hagar (the slave) and Ishmael (the son of the slave and the flesh that persecuted the son of the promise, Isaac).  He then shows how Sarah (the free woman) and Isaac (the supernaturally given son of the promise) symbolizes the promise and the freedom of the New Covenant.  It is a brilliant argument, really.

One of the most heartbreaking statements comes in ch. 4: “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to 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 in vain.”

In ch. 5 Paul says that “if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.”  He is speaking not of circumcision itself, but of the idea that circumcision has some spiritual power, because Paul goes on to say, “you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”  And also repeats the phrase twice “for in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything”, once saying “but faith working through love” and the next saying “but the new creation”.  He also says in 1 Corinthians, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”

But wait, wasn’t circumcision a commandment of God?  In his letters to the Gentiles, and the Jews, for that matter, Paul continually makes a distinction between the moral laws (the laws that deal with how you treat other people: greed, sexual immorality, etc.) and the ceremonial laws.  The “new man”, as Paul describes in Ephesians, is the man who does not lie or get angry or steal.

Legalism, therefore, is not an emphasis on the righteousness of the believer, as some modern theologians and teachers would have you believe.  Legalism is the idea that some external ceremonial act has spiritual power.  And the main source of legalism in the New Testament came from the Jews.

To look at other scriptures, Paul deals with this again in Colossians 2, that subjecting yourself to regulations – “‘do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using” – have “an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion … but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.”

Which brings us back to Galatians, that they are “beggarly elements” and taking a gift of faith and attempting to work it out “in your own flesh”.

To give one last thought from Galatians, Paul wishes that those who believed in circumcision would cut the whole thing off, would castrate themselves.  Makes sense, though, right?  If cuting off a piece of the penis means something, why not cut the whole thing off?  Then you’d be really spiritual!

To go more postitive, we could look at Hebrews, author technically unknown, where we see a beautiful argument not against the Old Covenant, necessarily, but for the absolute supremacy of Christ and the New Covenant.  The Old Covenant is seen as the symbol, of which we now have the substance in Christ Himself.  Why the need for the symbol any longer if we have the substance, Christ Himself?  A nice summary could be found with “for that if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.”

So the tension does exist, even in Hebrews, with amazing statements like “the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.  It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices offered which cannot make him who perform the service perfect in regard to the conscience – concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.  But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.”

It was doctrine like this actually, that blinded the Jews of the time of the early Church, along with the mass inclusion of Gentiles, and separated Christianity from Judaism altogether within a century.  The idea that the way – Christ Himself – was the substantive fulfillment of things that were only symbols and had no power was difficult for the Jews of the day.

Paul was intently protective of the early Church in this matter, as you can see from Galatians and his other letters.

Do we still have Judaizers in this day?  We absolutely do.  There are whole Christian denominations that raise money and set aside resources and times of intense prayer to do things like rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, they observe special days as if there were power to do so (whether the Sabbath or the pseudo-Sabbath, Sunday), and some even look forward to the finding of the Ark of the Covenant.  These groups believe and teach that some restoration of the Old Covenant, usually through some Davidic prophecy, is part of the return of Christ and even teach that Jesus is somehow still Jewish.

I don’t have time here to go into why that’s silly … but it is.

We also have Christian versions of such legalistic ideas.  The focus on a building (the need for one and the designation that a physical building is “the house of God”), the observance of Sunday as some new Christian Sabbath, and even the desire or need for a professional class of ministers all harken back to Old Covenant ideas.  Again, not that you have a building or meet on a day or have leaders, but believe and hold these things sacred in and of themselves.

And we’ve made up our own, too.  I was in a meeting with a fellowship once that was discussing their building plan and project, and I suggested that twenty grand might be a lot for a steeple and that maybe we could save that 20 thousand by just not having a steeple.  I was told, in all seriousness, “it’s not a church without a steeple.”  I didn’t argue.  It wouldn’t have made a difference.

Believe it or not, we can even lift the Bible itself into a place of divinity it wasn’t even meant to have, or designed to have, and that can be the source of just bad biblical teaching and theology.  In John 5:39-40 Jesus says, “you search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.  But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”  Life is the Person, not in a book.  The book was designed to lead us to and teach us of that Person who is Life.  To lift the Bible higher than that is dangerous.

What about baptism and communion?  While I cannot and will not deny that Jesus told them to baptize as He sent them out, and that the early Church did just that, I cannot find any evidence, biblically, that someone’s theology or doctrine or lack of participation in baptism was a cause for rebuke or to cease from fellowship.  And with all that Paul had to deal with, this never came up?  He dealt with Judaizers and people who would sin at will while claiming Christ and widows and eldership and all kinds of things, but he never has to rebuke someone for teaching some weird idea about baptism or the fact that they weren’t water baptized at all?  The only time he deals with some sort of rebuke about it is when it was used as a source of division in 1 Corinthians.

Actually, if you read in Acts, Paul was concerned about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, even though one group had been water baptized into repentance.  Which is a whole different discussion.

Again, not that he didn’t teach anything about water baptism, only that it never came up as a problematic doctrine that necessitated rebuke or an end of fellowship.

Communion is in a similar boat.  The early Church had some sort of “love feast”, but this seems rather far from the ceremonial beast it has become, especially in certain groups.  And while there is the famous passage in 1 Corinthians dealing with the communion “love feast” and Paul’s rebuke, his rebuke was more about how others were treated and how they were using “communion” to get drunk and exclude some from eating.  While there were consequences for such behavior (”some are getting sick and dying”), it wasn’t the requirement to participate in the event that Paul was concerned about, more how it was being used for ill and not for good.

I’m not telling anyone what to believe about these practices.  That isn’t necessarily the point of this series.  My point is that the scripture itself, while teaching about them, doesn’t see any doctrine on or particpation in baptism or communion as cause for rebuke or rejection of fellowship.

And for myself, while I do not deny the biblical tradition of baptism, or even its practice, my question has been this: if God, through Christ, put to death the Law and all its ordinances on the cross, did He really mean to institute completely new sacred acts with baptism and communion in a covenant where we are continually told that we have access to the holy of holies through Christ alone?  Some would say yes, and I really do respect that.

But I do know this: that the New Testament repeatedly rebukes those that would equate a sacred nature to physical places, times, or ceremonial acts.  And that seems to make my question valid.

Peace.

I’m somewhat doing these in order … so this one is definitely number 2.

An idolatrous version of Jesus (one made in our own image or likeness instead of the true God) is and should be the most central problem facing Christianity.  This is the first determining factor whether or not you can be saved and in fellowship in the Church of God.

Throughout the New Testament, it is clear that the conversion to following Christ can be summed up in one word: repentance.  To repent means to turn, like a 180.  This is a turning from self and, by extension, sin; and turning to Christ and, by extension, righteousness.  This is primarily an issue of the heart.  To follow Christ I must, by necessity, cease trusting and clinging to my own self and my rights and thoughts and motivations, and instead begin placing all my trust and hope into the power of the resurrected Christ.

But the moral implications were never ignored in scripture.  They were expressly taught.  Paul says in Acts 26 that his gospel to Jews and Gentiles was to “repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.”  In fact, the whole New Testament expresses a conversion experience that demands the immediate change of the entire person.  Not that there isn’t maturity available in Christ as we go on, there absolutely is and we must continue to move on and upwards, but even the initial change seen and expected in the Christians of the Bible would seem to many of us as saintly, at the very least.

In other words, a complete and immediate change to living righteously upon conversion was considered NORMAL Christianity by the writers of the New Testament.

So you can see how the belief that Christ gives grace to enable us to sin without consequence becomes more than problematic to the early Christians, even abominable, to use a harsh but appropriate word.

It doesn’t seem so big a deal to us today because we do not have the same extreme expectation, at least in the West, of a complete immediate change, first of the heart, then of the entire person.  But to the first century apostles it was the very opposite of the gospel they preached.

To go to some verses to help us see how they viewed this, we could start with Romans.  In the midst of Romans 3, as Paul was explaining his doctrine on the Jews and the common state that we have all sinned, he makes the following statement: “And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.”  Paul considered it slander to even suggest and affirm that he would teach such a thing and then states that their condemnation was completely justified.

To even stay in Romans, Paul deals with it again in chapter 6, in the midst of his doctrine on grace, stating “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?  Certainly not!” at the beginning of the chapter and then states it AGAIN in v.15 “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!”  Realize two things here.  For Paul to repeat himself this way, twice in writing, was to further underscore the point, to make it as strong as he could make it.  And secondly, the Greek language is even further expressive and harsh than the English language used to interpret it.

(Another thing to note in chapter 6 is that we had died to sin (i.e. set free from it) at baptism, which is at conversion and commitment, being “baptized into His death”, and that Paul describes the process of sinning now as a Christian as “presenting your members” to unrighteousness, which is not being bound to sin any longer but choosing to offer yourself as an instrument of sin even though you are spiritually free from it.  The answer overcoming sin is a little earlier in chapter 6, that you “reckon yourself” dead to sin.  The problem is not the state of being free, therefore, to overcome sin, but the renewing of our mind to actually believe and fully trust that something so amazing beyond our ability or merit had been done even at conversion, to be completely set free from the power of sin.)

Well, let’s get out of Romans and into a more scary letter, Jude.  The whole letter of Jude was written to combat this problematic doctrine.  Jude is writing to them because he is concerned for their salvation, that they should contend for the faith “delivered to all the saints” because “certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Even in this introduction, we see the connection between the doctrine and the very denial of Christ.

Jude goes on in his letter to give examples from the Old Testament and the book of Enoch to show God’s hate and subsequent wrath for sin.  Most people don’t normally read this letter, but it is just as true as “salvation by faith and grace alone.”

Jude also considers them “marked out for condemnation” who believe and teach this doctrine, which again supports the absolute intolerance for this doctrine, biblically, and why it even becomes an issue of fellowship.

I do love, as a slight tangent, the end of the letter, where Jude describes how to deal with such people.  “And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.”  In other words, there is a place for both compassion and fear and hate in dealing with these things.  It is wisdom to remember the validity of them all.

One more scripture to underscore that this was something that became grounds for breaking off fellowship.  1 Corinthians 5 details a situation in which the local assembly had continued to accept a man who had done a pretty reprehensible thing, and they were proud of it.  More implied than stated, this is the same doctrine that grace can accept such a man steeped in such sin.

Paul’s instruction to them was to cease all fellowship with such an individual, literally calling it “handing him over to Satan.”  Then Paul goes on to remind them that this is a general doctrine for the Church.  “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?  But those who are outside God judges. Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’”

Paul’s concern was not that you break off all fellowship with the sinners of the world.  Sinners will be sinners, and we should not expect something different from them.  Paul’s strong concern was that someone who says they believe in Christ would participate in sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, or extortion, should be put out of the local assembly, the equivalent of not even eating with such a person.

A redemptive aspect of this which may help some of you feel better is that this specific person mentioned in chapter 5 was allowed back into the church after he repented and he had “suffered enough” (Paul speaks of him again in 2 Corinthians).  Additionally, most of 1 Corinthians is a rebuke against selfish and divisive behavior, and yet Paul’s expectation was that they would repent, to turn again to what he had taught them in righteousness and love, and all evidence suggests they did.

You can stop reading now, if you’d like.  I know it is getting TLDR, but there was one example on my heart to share that may shed some light on this.

This doctrine, that the grace of God allows for sin or even justifies it, is willful denial of the lordship of Christ, His authority and the work done on the cross and in His resurrection.

Let’s say my son, Micah, disobeys but immediately recognizes that he was wrong and accepts my punishment as just.  (Believe it or not, it does happen ).  In that case, although disobedience occurred, relationship never really suffered, and while punishment does happen, it is quick and rather painless and things move on quickly again to intimacy because the correction to truth was almost instantaneous.  But let’s say that when I tell Micah to do something, he stands there, crosses his arms, looks me in the eye and says, defiantly, “No.”  (Rare, but that happens, too)  In that case, Micah is denying my right to give him instruction and commands, denying his obligation and responsibility to obey, in practice and in attitude denying that I am his father at all, asserting his independence from my authority over him.  All of this is a lie and a denial of truth.  As a good parent, this is beyond problematic, it is dangerous to his very spiritual health, and all of my energy and attention is now on this problem.  My response must be decisive and intentional, and the punishment for such a thing severe.

Because I love him.

If I didn’t love my son, then such a defiance would be tolerable, even funny.  But because I love him so much, I want the best for him, to grow to be a man of character and integrity, I must by nature treat such defiance with severity.

And once Micah’s attitude has changed, the correction has occurred.  The punishment itself, or even the severity, is not the goal, but the correction in attitude.  Once such a correction occurs, our relationship is fully restored to truth, and in intimacy I assert with words and instruction the deep love that obligated my severity.

God is the same.  Paul’s goal in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 was not the punishment, but the correction, the repentance, and it happened.  Paul’s rejection of fellowship for this believer, even all believers who participate in such things believing it is fine, is an act of love.  And God’s chastening of us is as sons and daughters.  If he didn’t seek the best for us, our righteous character and integrity, He wouldn’t be God and we wouldn’t be his children.  We would be bastards.

As C.S. Lewis says, to want a God who lets us do what we want and excuses our sin is to want a God who loves us less, not more.

Peace.

Well, we gotta start here, right?  I mean, it is “Christianity” and all.

One of the main theological and doctrinal challenges the early Church faced was from something called gnosticism, which was kind of a Greek philosophy that found its way into the Church since Gentiles were exponentially getting saved there in the first century.  Since John the Apostle was one of the later writers (the only one of the twelve to die a natural death), he deals with it the most in his Gospel and then in his letters.

But even before gnosticism, the doctrine of the person of Christ was really important.  It was even important to Jesus: “Who do you say I am?”  “Before Abraham was, I AM.”  You know, stuff like that.  Even in Paul’s letters, statements were made about Jesus that blows my mind.  “He is the only potentate (power)” “Through him all things were created, and by him all things consist and have their being.”  And Paul is not necessarily guarding against gnosticism there, but obviously felt the need to establish the supremacy of Christ.  The Jews alone attacked the doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messianic promise, come in the flesh to establish a new Kingdom.  This was a doctrine important from the very beginning of even Jesus’ own ministry.

And like everything else, there is nothing new under the sun.  The issue still exists today.  This is a blog, so I’m not going to go over EVERY little idea of the person of Christ, but I will give a little summary off the top of my head.

Christ is eternal and uncreated, begotten of God, present at creation, and as stated before, the focus of it.  He is the only Son of God, manifested in human form, conceived in a virgin, fully God and fully man, lived a sinless and righteous life, was crucified unto death and rose again a couple days later.  Now he is seated at the right hand of God and enthroned upon the hearts of those who truly love and follow Him.  One day He will return to establish a culmination and eternal expression of the Kingdom that is now being spread.

God has given Christ a name above all names and therefore there is no other way by which men can be saved.  Jesus is Himself the only way to true and eternal life.  Every other way is death.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  I could give scripture for every one of those statements, but you can get on biblegateway.com just as easily as I can.

Of course we have other “christs” that people love to believe in.  He was just a good teacher, a good man, some liberal political revolutionary, or just one of many ways or gods.  All in all, the problematic doctrines on Christ center on a denial of His ultimate divinity and His exclusive work because believing in those things demand that a person actually change in order to be associated with Him.  We still have people who have to try to diminish who He was and is and will be in order to deny truly following Him.

Either way, the view of Christ infects everything in Christianity.  That seems like a “duh” statement, but I don’t think it is focused on enough.  A high view of Christ empowers the disciple and the Church to victory and love; a low view of Christ is defeatist and very worldly.

A little hint on teaching about Christ.  I don’t know that you can go too far in ascribing power and might and glory to Him as a person.  Statements like “I am the Alpha and Omega” and others are either hyperbole or absolutely true and only a hint in our puny brains of the immensity that is Christ.  Where you you get in trouble is when you equate Him with darkness and finiteness and sin.  That caused Jesus to teach on something called the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”, which is kinda scary, so I’d believe the other way, if I were you.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis’ popular argument is still the best.  Either Jesus was who He said He was or He was a liar.  If He was who He said He was, that necessitates a decision so extreme on our part as to seem absurd to a world that doesn’t believe.  If He was a liar, then we can believe nothing of what He said.  It is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose His words for a personal or political agenda and not accept the whole teaching of someone who claimed to be the only Son of the only God, THE Son of Man.

Peace.

I’ve been threatening to write this series for a while, so here goes.

I’ve been in the Church long enough to both get really charged by differences in doctrine and also pretty disgusted.  You still see both extremes in modern Christianity.  You get the people that just don’t care what you believe about Jesus: “You think He was an alien from Venus?  Cool!  I’d love to hear more about that!”  And then you get the Christians that make everything heresy: “You think Jesus ate blackened fish instead of raw?  Heresy!”

Obviously I’m making light, and obviously there is a balance somewhere inbetween.

Doing organic/simple/housechurch has been an interesting experience.  Combined with the Hospitality House ministry I was a part of in Korea, the years have taught me that there are a lot of different people with a lot of different doctrines out there.  And in a normal, neo-traditional fellowship, you’d hand them a doctrinal statement they have to sign off on and then hold them to it whether they really felt convicted about it or not since you had the control of who got to speak and teach.

But if you believe, as we do, that every true disciple of Christ has the gift of the Holy Spirit and is able to bless and contribute, even in the worship meetings, then certain personal doctrines and perspectives start to show up and either you make it a big deal or you don’t.

There are many guards against this, but for some, even in organic church, the answer is still a strict set of beliefs that you either agree with or there’s no fellowship.  We don’t really have that, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t doctrines that are problematic enough to challenge and correct.  And we have.

Our particular group is very diverse in doctrine.  And I would guess most fellowships are pretty diverse … you just don’t get to see it because the system doesn’t allow teaching except by an ordained few.  But we have people from just about every type of background.

A lot of doctrinal differences, from my experience, come down to two people who have been taught an aspect of the Kingdom and then define strict truth according to that thing that God has taught them about.

I’ll give an example.  Let’s say Bob has really been studying and learning about how the Trinity is one and unified in every way.  Then we have Tom who has been dealing with the three separate persons of the Trinity and how distinct they are and their roles and such.  Then these people meet, both convicted of their own positions, and they are so busy calling each other heretics that they don’t realize that they are both probably right and could really learn from one another instead of contending.

Hopefully I didn’t just really offend anyone even with that example, but if I did, that would probably just prove my point.

On the other hand, there are doctrines that the early Church was really concerned about, things that when taught were considered dangerous to the Truth of Christ and His work in His people.  These are dealt with in the Bible, even in some extreme cases to cut off fellowship.  That’s what this series will be about.

And you know what?  It might surprise you what they are and what they are not.  Not to get too ahead of myself, but there is no biblical evidence that people refused fellowship over whether you believed you could lose your salvation or not.  Of course I hold my belief on the issue, and I’m not even saying it’s not important, just not as important as you might think … at least if we really believe the Bible.

Anyway, you’ll get the first one tomorrow if you’re still reading this without wanting to punch me.

Peace.