;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Church Life, Church Membership, Ecclesiology, Evangelism, Lord's Supper, Rob AyersThe Body
Posted by Rob Ayers in Church & Missions
(Rob is on vacation this week. He has left this missive for all to consider and contemplate. While he encourages discussion, just understand that it will not be until the first of the week before he attempts any comment. All that he asks for is that everybody plays nice.)
There has been great deal of angst about what is “The Church” on these pages of late. Of course one of my favorite books which I find inspiring personally on the subject is Chuck Colson’s The Body: Being Light in Darkness (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1992). Having turned from being a convicted felon of Watergate fame, Chuck has turned into a world class contemporary Christian philosopher in the realm of Francis Schaeffer and C.S. Lewis, as well as a well regarded Christian philanthropist (as founder and President of Prison Fellowship Ministries). His seminal work, How Now Shall We Live (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale Publishing House, 1999) should be required reading for every philosophy class in a Christian university/seminary setting, and further as one of those “discipleship” classes that explains the Christian worldview. He claims Southern Baptist ties as member of a Southern Baptist church (although not every Southern Baptist may like that these days).
The chapter that defines “The Body” is chapter 20 titled “The Body.” Here Chuck describes the scene of that final Passover meal of Jesus and His disciples. Chuck then paraphrases with feeling John 14:12-14:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
What was about to happen here? Jesus was going to His crucifixion and death. The die had been cast – by the Father’s will the Son would now place Himself on the altar of sacrifice as the Lamb of God. These men around that table that night had no earthly clue what was about to take place. How were they to have more power than Jesus had demonstrated before their very eyes? He promised those men that night that He would ask of the Father to send the Spirit, the Comforter, who would be with these men and their spiritual descendants “forever.” Forever! Amen!
As Chuck says, “In His earthly ministry, Jesus was limited to one human body; now the body of Christ is made up of millions and millions of human bodies stamped with His image – His followers. That includes you and me, for Jesus prayed for us that last evening…” (The Body, 270). Knowing this awesome truth ought to turn us jelly at the very thought. The sovereign of the universe living and breathing through those who are called by His name. If we only knew who we truly were, indeed the world would be turned “upside down.”
It is truly a scandal then to see such a low view of the church, the body, by those who claim an allegiance to Jesus Christ. The two extremes that have been seen of late in Christendom is the rugged radical individualist and the social butterfly.
The “Social Butterfly” is those folks who would define “church” as a building or social center. They often flip around from congregation to congregation. They are seeking not a place of growth or service, but a place of dependence and furthering immaturity instead of growth. They are narcissistic for it is “all about them and their needs” rather than the needs of the Body. There is no social interaction save in redeeming their needs from the “church” which is seen as no more as a social institution rather than a spiritual solitude and a place for spiritual growth. It is with a little bit of sadness that the modern “church” has given in to this particular impulse to increase its numbers – if one does not have a “Family Life Center” then one is not keeping up with everybody else who is “somebody”. It is this template which has grown the modern “institutional” church which spends more money on “Body Works” rather than on missions and discipleship, where the physical “body” has become more important in some respects than to the Body of Christ – which in my paradigm is both local “particular” as well as universal.
The “Rugged” Individualist is the second type that has a very low view of church. To some, this a reaction to the church of the “Social Butterfly.” Yet in many ways, it this person has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. They see practically all “local” churches as being institutionalized, with membership roles, rigid forms of offices, and personal services that have little to do with communicating the cause of Christ and His Kingdom in the world. Of course every believer is a member of the “universal” church – so for many with this paradigm that is all the membership one needs.
The individualist is also narcissistic. It too is “all about them” not ever believing that “church” in an organized community can have any intrinsic value. All “bodies” have organization – without God making a new creation in “order” then no life is possible. His Body is also the same – built “in order” in both it’s universal as well as particular incarnations. “It is within the church particular that we commit ourselves to intimate relationships with fellow believers and submit ourselves to accountability, duties, and responsibilities. In this community Christian character is shaped; it is the context in which our spiritual gifts are developed and exercised. It is the family whose ties cannot be broken. It is the training camp that disciples and equips believers to be God’s people against the world and for the world. If we don’t grasp the intrinsically corporate nature of Christianity embodied in the church, we are missing the heart of Jesus’ plan” (271).
“The Body” is not a building built in stone, wood, or steel. It contains those who are bought by the blood of Jesus, redeemed into both the Body which cannot be seen (universal) and a Body which can be seen (particular – local). One can be a member of a local body, yet not be a member of the Body of Christ. Yet one should be a member of a local assembly. “Formalizing” relationships these days is a bit saucy – the “spirit of the age” says one can live with members of the opposite sex “informally and causally” but this is not by God’s design. The same can be said with the church. To the universal church, we are committed to Christ and to all those who are born by His blood into the New Life. In the particular church, we have been placed by the Master to love and to be held accountable and to hold accountable those people God has sent to be in that location to minister His mission in the world through His church.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Rob,
If Chuck Colson is saying what I believe you claim he is saying, I would not compare him to philosophers like Lewis or Schaefer. Granted you have only given a snippet of his conclusions, but there appears to be a few things wrong with what he is saying.
My primary concern is that his definitions are not precise enough. If you take these definitions loosely it would seem like either everyone falls into one of these categories or no one does. However, if you were to take these definitions as strict guidelines, then such a few amount of people would be in these groups it would insignificant.
My secondary concern is that these ideas seem to be filled with false dichotomies. For instance, I would probably be considered a “rugged” individualist because I believe that most “local” (or traditional) gatherings are “institutionalized, with membership roles, rigid forms of offices, and personal services that have little to do with communicating the cause of Christ and His Kingdom in the world” but I do not believe that “organized community can[not] have any intrinsic value.” Also, my concern about the institutionalization of the Church is a concern for the people, not my own.
Thirdly, the universal/local or invisible/visible distinction falls flat on its face. Yes I believe that there are members of the Church who are local to me (i.e those I can “see”). But the way the traditional groups operate, the Methodists down the street are “invisible”. I think this is similar to what David Rogers was speaking of in his previous post on this blog.
I have “The Body” on my current list of books to read. Knowing that Colson is a deep thinker, I am looking forward to his thoughts on this subject. Frankly, I was disappointed when he came out as one of the main authors of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” back a few years ago, since I see official Catholic soteriology as outside the bounds of the Gospel essentials that bind us together as the Body of Christ. However, I want to make sure I am not rushing to conclusions based on prejudice related to my ecclesiastic background. For the time being, though, I see any efforts towards the furthering of Christian unity that embrace the Roman Catholic Church, at least, from an organizational position, as misguided. In general, though, beyond this caveat, it looks like Colson has some interesting observations on the spiritual reality that is the Body of Christ, and the practical application of these truths in our everyday lives. I look forward to reading and thinking through what he has to say.
Rob,
How can anyone call himself or herself a Baptist/Christian and want to Divide the Body of Christ? Is that what Denominations are all about? This is not what the Body of Christ is all about. My wife’s analogy in regard to you post and the arguments about the “CHURCH” is the Old Testament was all about Good and Evil. How God sent Prophets to warn the people. Evil was weaving in and out like a Snake and the people were divided in God’s Kingdom. God sent His Son to gather His People in His “BODY”. Jesus taught the Disciples how to Pray, (from Matthew Henry’s Commentary) ( Mat 6:9-15) -
God’s Kingdom
3. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. We pray that “”God’s Kingdom“”being come, we and others may be brought into obedience to all the laws and ordinances of it. By this let it appear that Christ’s kingdom is come, let God’s will be done; and by this let is appear that it is come as a kingdom of heaven, let it introduce a heaven upon earth. We make Christ but a titular Prince, if we call him King, and do not do his will: having prayed that he may rule us, we pray that we may in every thing be ruled by him. Observe, (1.) The thing prayed for, thy will be done; “Lord, do what thou pleasest with me and mine; 1Sa_3:18. I refer myself to thee, and am well satisfied that all thy counsel concerning me should be performed.” In this sense Christ prayed, not my will, but thine be done. “Enable me to do what is pleasing to thee; give me that grace that is necessary to the right knowledge of thy will, and an acceptable obedience to it. Let thy will be done conscientiously by me and others, not our own will, the will of the flesh, or the mind, not the will of men (1Pe_4:2), much less Satan’s will (Joh_8:44), that we may neither displease God in any thing we do (ut nihil nostrum displiceat Deo), nor be displeased at any thing God does” (ut nihil Dei displiceat nobis). (2.) The pattern of it, that it might be done on earth, in this place of our trial and probation (where our work must be done, or it never will be done), as it is done in heaven, that place of rest and joy. We pray that earth may be made more like heaven by the observance of God’s will (this earth, which, through the prevalency of Satan’s will, has become so near akin to hell), and that saints may be made more like the holy angels in their devotion and obedience. We are on earth, blessed be God, not yet under the earth; we pray for the living only, not for the dead that have gone down into silence.
Jesus Christ came and paid the Price for our Salvation, so that true believers can be United with Our God the Father.
Jesus Christ did not Come to do Man’s Will, He came to do God’s Will and to teach and tell Us about God’s Will. Jesus didn’t come to Divide the Kingdom of God. Why therefore are we Baptist(So called Christians, People of the BOOK) trying to Divide God’s Chosen People????????????
Wayne Smith
It is a legitimate arguement. Why is the Christian Body “as a whole” Divided? I think the ultimate question to ask is where is God moving on the subject of Ecumanism. Small gaps that divide the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church have not been bridged. But larger gaps between Roman Catholics and Protestants have been bridged. Such as the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Doctorine of Justification, which was just adopted by the Methodists. And of course Colsen’s much criticized move of working with Catholics.
Jesus prayed, “Let them be one as you and I are one” It is a tragedy that the body is divided.
My biggest concern with a body is, who will safeguard the truth? Every Christian should give testimony for the hope he has in Christ Jesus, but not every man should start a church.
As I reflect on what the church is, a question has plagued my mind for a few days. Maybe you guys (or gals) can help me. In order for a church to become a “member” of the SBC, is there a doctrinal standard/statement that they must hold to. Or if an entity or auxiliary group wanted to partner with the convention of churches known as the SBC, is there a doctrinal standard they must hold to?
In my findings, it seems that any church willing to give financial support to the CP can join the SBC. Is this true? And if so, does that mean (crazy hypothetical), technically, a mormon church could join if they desired and agreed to support the CP?
Chris,
There is no doctrinal statement for a church to approve, since that would be a bit like the Convention “ruling” over churches and is considered unbaptistic (but you sometimes see people in blogs suggesting this very thing). But the Convention does rule over its “employees,” thus all the rules about signing the BFM by seminary professors, IMB personnel, and I believe even the office secretary signs it now. This policy is implemented by the boards of trustees over the various SBC entities, but since the Convention is the ultimate arbiter of policy, it can try to rule by passing motions (like the Garner motion). But since there is no executive or judiciary in the SBC, the entities can ignore the motion or reinterpret it the way they like. Probably the only thing with teeth the Annual Messenger Meeting can do is instruct a trustee board to do something with the provision that if they don’t they are all fired and the SBC President is to appoint new trustees. Boards have been instructed to do things in the past (Midwestern to fire Ralph Elliott in the Message of Genesis controversy, in the 60′s I think), but an entire board has never been fired. Hershael Hobbs said this could be done, but it has never been tried. Probably they can do it since the Convention is now the sole owner of all its entities, but there could be a legal challenge (which would probably lose in court).
Any church that claims to be a regular Baptist church (probably words like this are written somewhere) can send messengers and money. So a Mormon church would have to say they are Baptist on the form on which their messengers are approved. The Convention can also refuse to seat messengers and can send back the money, but they have to vote on it (so it seldom happens). But people and churches that don’t agree with an organization never stick around for long.
“that would be a bit like the Convention “ruling” over churches”
I think that is insane.
“and is considered unbaptistic”
I think that is simply wrong.
Oh, well. Thanks for the thoughts. It is helping clear up the picture a bit for me. I find it humorous that many are arguing of what is “baptist” and if the truth be known, it appears baptist don’t believe anything. At least there is no clear statement of faith that we all agree and hold too (thus explaining our joining together).
If one were to ask ABC Baptist church, “what do baptist believe?”. No matter the answer given (baptist distinctives, BFM, etc.), XYZ Baptist church could answer “that’s not the case here, we believe…”.
I’m somewhat stunned that such a flimsy approach has been the standard for all these years.
Chris,
Haven’t your ever heard the expression, “When four Baptists get together you have five opinions?” Now you understand it better.
As far as the Convention “ruling” over the churches, Baptist would consider a the churches having to sign a statement a creed (there is an underlying fear of church hierarchy, and we are congregational). Almost everyone says we don’t believe in creeds. But the Conservatives in recent years have been big on “confessions.” It’s a fine distinction (something less binding on churches but needed (according to Conservatives) to make it all work).
I think that’s a misunderstanding of creed. We do believe in creeds. Just not man made ones. Our creed is the Bible itself. A statement of faith or doctrinal position is simply an agreement of what we believe that creed (the Scriptures) to teach. As for “binding” churches, it is true we don’t want a hierarchy but I believe expecting a church to affirm what the Scriptures teach (we are talking fundamental, essentials here…I know, I know, that can be debated as well) is far from threatening a congregational structure. It is simply the Body of Christ keeping the Body of Christ accountable to proclaim the gospel truth and not heresy.
I believe many have gotten so caught up in what is “baptist” that they have neglected what is biblical. Remember, we use to support slavery. It was baptist but not biblical. So, we repented and changed that. Sounds like some other changes are needed as well.
Chris,
I think you have a misunderstanding of what a creed is. It is a guiding principle. We were passed down these principles from the apostles long before we ever had the cannon of scripture, which is how we knew what to cannonize. Of course we believe in Creeds through tradition. How ridiculous. Every Bible Reading Christian is handed down the Nicene Creed of 381. We have different interpretations on other things, but if we reject that ruling we might as well open our doors to Mormanism, Jehovah’s witness, and a host of others who call themselves people of the Book as well.
Brett,
Thanks for the thoughts. I confess I don’t understand completely what you are saying. Here is where you lose me:
“I think you have a misunderstanding of what a creed is. It is a guiding principle. We were passed down these principles from the apostles long before we ever had the cannon of scripture, which is how we knew what to cannonize.”
I don’t really disagree, though I would still contend that Scripture is our creed now that we have the canon.
“Of course we believe in Creeds through tradition. How ridiculous. “
I didn’t really get what you were saying here. What is the “how ridiculous” referring too? I believe your first statement is true from many but unfortunate.
“Every Bible Reading Christian is handed down the Nicene Creed of 381. We have different interpretations on other things, but if we reject that ruling we might as well open our doors to Mormanism, Jehovah’s witness, and a host of others who call themselves people of the Book as well.”
Those creeds were affirmation of what Scripture already proclaimed (at least they should have been). I agree with your last sentence completely and it really fits in quite well with my original question and discussion. There is no standard doctrinal statement that Baptist hold too. Therefore, you could technically have a “mormon baptist church” if they simply agreed to pay to the CP. Granted, my example is farfetched but the principle is still the same. What IS a Baptist church? No matter how one answers that question, there could/would be a baptist church out there that denies your answer and believes quite the opposite.
“There is no standard doctrinal statement that Baptist hold too. Therefore, you could technically have a “mormon baptist church” if they simply agreed to pay to the CP. Granted, my example is farfetched but the principle is still the same. What IS a Baptist church? No matter how one answers that question, there could/would be a baptist church out there that denies your answer and believes quite the opposite.”
Why should I not be absolutely terrified by this? That makes me not want to identify myself as a baptist. Are we becoming relativists? We say we agree on the essentials and argue on the nonessentials, but with your statement you say that it is possile to even disagree on the nonessentials and still be a “baptist”?
There is plenty of scripture to agrue for using tradition to interpret. But I think by rejecting all tradition we fall into the danger of opening up our arms too wide and losing hold of the truth of scripture.
I mean’t “disagree on the essentials and still be a “baptist”.” in that second paragraph
Whoever,
Why Can’t Man Be Just a Christian?
At times it appears that in our “Christian world” man is converted to a church rather than to Jesus Christ. Loyalty to a body of believers seems to have priority over allegiance to the Lord Jesus. Although each religion claims faith in the same Bible, because of certain doctrines peculiar to various denominations they separate themselves from one another. Frequently each denomination is divided into a number of sects.
Is it possible for man simply to be a “Christian”? Must he separate himself with some denominational name as Baptist Christian, Methodist Christian, etc.? God doesn’t divide believers into various denominations-man does. Even with his own church choice, man is frequently at variance with his brother over some biblical understanding. Also, world Bible scholars differ in matters pertaining to Scripture understanding.
What authority does one believer have in saying, “I am right and you are wrong,” or “I am more honest than you.” Certainly the Bible is right, but does it necessarily follow that I am the one who has perfect understanding? Do you ever differ with members of your family over some conviction? Does it mean that you are no longer a member of that family? If there can be no unity in diversity, there is simply no possibility of unity, for we all differ in many things.
Wayne Smith
Brett,
I echo your comments and fears. But it is the reality of they way baptist have worked for over a 100 years.
Wayne,
Well, it depends on what you mean by “Christian” Should we have a strong definition for this or broad definition? Mormons call themselves Christians.
Think of the terms “good” and “evil”. How do we define them. By feeling? Well, in some cultures they believe it is good to love their neighbors and some cultures they think it is good to eat them. All on the basis of feeling. If truth is subjective it gives us no anchor for any value judgements.
But because we believe that we can define good and evil objectively, we must believe in an objective truth, and because we have an objective truth we must have a giver of this objective truth, God.
God has set a standard on truth, why should we not set a standard on how we define what a Christian is. We were one in the christian faith for a thousand years. All disputes debated thoughfully in house and decrees on the right way to interpret scriptures made. But as the church has divided, so has our authority. I hear many baptists scoff at the rigid authority and teaching body of Rome. But we ourselves seem to be a ship with full sails and no rudder.
I think of Luther’s quote when talking about the Eucharist and interpretational liscence.
“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Some responses:
Lew – no I did not expect you to agree. Unfortunately the only people that would be worthy of commendation in your paradigm would be those who agree with you – a class that also excludes Lewis and Schafer. Kant and Kirkeguarde are excluded in this conversation – a pair who also rejected organized “institutional” religion, preferring their own solutions.
Wayne – brother, for the life of me I do not understand your reply. Are you accusing me of dividing the body of Christ by my post? How?
David – I also was disappointed with Chuck and my perception of his seemingly acceptance of official Catholic soteriology through the proclamation. I think “The Body” goes a way in explaining his position though. He prisms his position through the darkness that was the Iron curtain and the harshness of life that knew no labels or boundaries. Your belief in Christ was at odds with the state, no matter your label (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist, Pentecostal).
Rob
Rob,
My comment was for those that Attack/Divide, such as those on Baptist Identity’s Blog. I concur with what you Posted.
Wayne Smith