Knowing God is (Part Four)

So far we have established, inter alia, that God, the social tri-unity, is relational both in His nature and His intent. This sense of relationship is further substantiated by Him being seen as Creator involved with what He has created, i.e. Creator and creation (Genesis 1&2).

It is no co-incidence then that secular society would rather speak of ‘mother nature’ and ‘nature’ thus corrupting (via counterfeit) the idea of Divine relationship with creation, and He being the source thereof, in favour of a pagan representation.

The opening lines of the ‘Apostles’ Creed’ states, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, ...”  What does it mean to confess faith in the creator God?

Firstly, it is an acknowledgement that creation was a Divine act. Secondly, it is an awareness of our role and relationship as a consequence of that Divine act.

The act of creation was a ‘free’ act. In other words, God was not acting under compulsion or necessity. In fact, creation was not necessary. God alone is sovereign, so if there were an exterior compulsion the source of that would, in fact, be more powerful than God.

What of an interior compulsion?  Again, no such compulsion existed. If it had, God would be bound up in His creation. He would need the creation in order to be who He is. In other words He remains transcendent while being immanent.

God is continually involved in and with His creation. This is known theologically as ‘Providence’.

Divine providence

What does this mean?

The continuing action of God in preserving His creation.

·         His continual guidance of creation towards His intended purpose.

·         Included within providence is the concept of ‘government’.

·         Government implies that God is actively engaged in creation achieving His purposes and sin cannot thwart those purposes.

Providence then is seen in two aspects: Preservation and government. Seeing the difference between preservation and government is vital. However, they should not be seen as sharply separated acts of God, but part of His unitary work.

·         Preservation = Maintaining and sustaining creation (Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3; cf. Matthew 6:26). It is helpful to remember at this point that creation is not self-sustaining nor did God cease from His work within creation after the original act of creation (Genesis 1&2).

·         Government = Guiding and directing the course of events to fulfil His ultimate purpose (Psalm 103:19-22; Daniel 2:21).

God is sovereign; therefore His purposes cannot be defeated. If this is so, and it is, then God’s purpose for and in creation cannot be thwarted. Creation, and all it contains, then has a purpose. Creation then is His originating work. Providence is His continuing relationship to it.

The word ‘providence’ is derived from the Latin providere which literally means to foresee. This word carries with it the understanding not only seeing the future, so to speak, but acting prudently or making preparation for that future.

Providence means that as Christians we are able to live in the full assurance that God is present and active in our lives regardless of the circumstances. We are assured that we are in His care and things are not just happening by chance. Therefore, we can face danger knowing that God is aware and involved (Matthew 24:15-31; Luke 22:42; I Peter 1:6, 4:12; cf. Philippians 4:11).

Providence makes it certain that creation and us within it are heading somewhere, there is a plan and it is being worked out by God Himself who is maintaining the means of that plan (Romans 8:18-25; II Peter 3:10-13).

One can see God’s power over the natural creation (governmental activity) in such events as His interaction with Elijah (I Kings 18:41-46). Further examples can be found in Job 9:5-9, 37; Psalm 104:14; 147:8-15; Matthew 6:25-30; Mark 4:39.

This government also impacts upon the animal kingdom (Psalm 104:21-29; cf. I Kings 17:4).

Human history and the destiny of nations fall within the authority of God’s governance (Acts 17:26; Daniel 2:21, 4:24&25 cf. Isaiah 10:5-12).

So much for the nations, God’s governance directly impacts each individual human life (I Samuel 2:6&7; Luke 1:52; I Corinthians 4:6&7; Galatians 1:15&16). This remains applicable even within the Body of Christ (Romans 12:3-6; I Corinthians 12:4-11).

Providence and prayer.

It is vital not to assume that some form of fatalism is the consequence of Divine providence. So, what does prayer accomplish in the light of the above? To answer this one must consider the interaction of the following, seemingly contradictory, two facts:

·         Scripture teaches that God’s plan is fixed and definite.

·         Believers are commanded to pray and are taught the value of such in James 5:16.

Scripture shows that God does work in something approaching a partnership with His people (cf. Mark 6:6, 14:22-42). What arises here is that when God wills the ends, He also wills the means. Therefore, prayer does not change what God has purposed to do. It is the means by which He accomplishes that goal.

“Prayer is in large part a matter of creating in ourselves a right attitude with respect to God’s will.” [i] (cf. Matthew 6:9-13). Prayer is not about us getting our will done, but wanting to see that God has His will done.

To this end we are called to pray persistently (Luke 11:9&10) and to be aware that we will not always receive what we pray for (Luke 22:42; II Corinthians 12:9&10), having said, the following Scripture should be borne in mind: Psalm 84:11 (cf. Psalm 81:13,14&16).

---

[i] Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids. Baker. 2003. Pg. 431

Knowing God is (Part Three Of Four)

The God who relates (I John 1:3).

It is the confession of the believer that through Christ we have come to know God who is Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit. This expression of tri-unity manifests the relational nature of God. Relationship is at the very centre of who God is, a ‘oneness’ (unity) of three (Matthew 28:19; John 14:26, 15:26; II Corinthians 13:14; I Peter 1:2). The tri-unity of God then is a social ‘trinity’, the supernatural dance of the Divine.

While the aforementioned Scriptures clearly underpin the truth of the existence of God as triune, John 14:16-31 places the Three in a dramatic representation of triune relationship:

·         Vs. 16 – Conversation.

·         Vs. 18 – Orphan status for man does not gel with who God is.

·         Vs. 20 – In the Father, in each other.

·         Vs. 21 – Personal disclosure, the basic building block of relationship.

·         Vs. 23 – Sharing life together through abiding.

·         Vs. 28 – Going away from (temporary) and coming back to = The to-and-fro of relationship.

A God who is manifested through relationship within Himself, must, as a matter of nature, continue in relationship with that which He has created. In fact, the act of creation was an act of love. Love, in turn, demands the arena of relationship in order to express itself. So, God’s express desire as recorded in Genesis 1:26 sums up His intention as love (I John 4:8).

Therefore, the revelation we seek is the self-disclosure of God in relation.

In order to develop our understanding of the relational God whom we serve, it is necessary to clearly define two very important terms:

·    Transcendence – To go (be) beyond normal or physical human experience. To exist apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe (Ecclesiastes 5:2; Isaiah 6:1).

·     Immanence – Existing or operating within. With regard to God; to permanently pervade (i.e. to be present and active throughout) the universe (Acts 17:27&28; Job 34:14&15; Psalm 104:29&30; cf. Matthew 5:45, 6:25-30, 10:29&30).

This wondrous dichotomy represents an element of the awesomeness of God. Although he comes to us beyond the realm of the material (and the comprehensible), He enables Himself, by an act of His will, to enter into our experience of the material universe, thus making relationship possible  (cf. Genesis 3:8 [pre- ‘the fall’]; Hebrews 2:14-18, 4:14-16 [post-redemption]). However, He remains over it and self-sufficient from it, while remaining with us.

As physical beings, it is vital to understand just what the Bible means by describing God as spirit (John 4:24; cf. John 1:18; I Timothy 1:17, 6:15&16).

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word for spirit is ru’ach, meaning ‘breath’ or ‘wind’. A secondary meaning  is “the life principle in a human person.” [i]

This secondary meaning arose as the ancients recognized breathing as a normal sign of life. The Hebrews developed this idea by acknowledging God as the source of the ‘life principle’ (Genesis 2:7). This source of life principle brought about a third meaning for ru’arch: Spirit is the divine power which creates and sustains life.

In the New Testament the Koine Greek for spirit is: pneuma. Like its Old Testament counterpart this word reflects the interconnectedness of meanings. Pneuma also speaks of ‘breath’ and ‘wind’. Furthermore, it speaks of ‘life’ as well, and, it too, came to mean “the life creating power.” [ii]

These two words speak into God’s relationship to creation – He is the source and sustainer of all life, but, most significantly, human life.

This understanding of God as ‘spirit’ must also be understood within the dynamic of the tri-unity in terms of relationship. God then is dynamic movement (John 5:26). God is spirit = God is relational.

To only acknowledge God as ‘spirit’ would be to deprive the transcendent God of His immanence as a person. However, there is no Biblical text that explicitly states that God is ‘a person’. Having said that, the personhood of God naturally flows out of the Biblical witness as seen in the following examples of the attributes of personhood:

God is compassionate – Genesis 16:11; Psalm 78:38; James 5:11.

·        God is faithful – Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 36:5; I Corinthians 1:9.

·        God is gentle – Psalm 18:35; Isaiah 40:11, 42:3; II Corinthians 10:1.

·        God is longsuffering – Numbers 14:18; Psalm 78:38; II Peter 3:9.

It is not surprising then that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to list the fruits of the Spirit required from the redeemed persons, i.e. the Church (Galatians 5:22&23).

19^th Century German philosophy gave rise to a debate concerning Divine personhood. The argument against such personhood stated that to be a person always entails comparison. In other words, to be a person presumes a counterpart which in turn is limited and finite. God, therefore, cannot be a person as He is infinite. However, a counter argument corrects this error: To be a person does not mean to be limited to one’s counterpart, but to be related to such.

The personhood of God is further reinforced by considering the following manner in which He relates to this world:

·         He is incomprehensible: Personhood is ascribed to human beings because of this very thing. We never plumb the depths of the existence of our fellows.

·         He has a will: Human beings are persons because we witness each other exercising self-determination. All of us have goals, purposes, and plans. God is self-determining and He lies beyond our control.

·       He is free: True personhood is connected to freedom. Humans are persons because they act beyond the total control of others. As such we see God as totally beyond our control. Having said that, He is also the source of our freedom.

In Exodus 3:14 God calls Himself “I am”. In so doing “He demonstrates that His not an abstract, unknowable being or nameless force.” [iii]

---

[i] Grenz. Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids. Eerdmans. 2000. Pg. 82.

[ii] ibid. Pg. 83.

[iii] Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids. Baker. 2003. Pg. 295.

The triune God - II Corinthians 13:14.

The triunity of God is perhaps the most difficult theological concept to grasp. Having said that, this concept is closest to the very heart of the mystery of God.

Christianity stands alone in stating that God is one in three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The commonly understood word 'trinity' is found nowhere in the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible never once attempts to delineate the concept.

Only the A.V. offers what appears to be an explicit reference to God as triune (I John 5:7).

The Doctrine of the Trinity, as it has become known, was not taught by the original New Testament community. However, the Church, during the patristic period, correctly began to realize that the formulation of this doctrine was necessary as a non-negotiable dimension of the Gospel. Why? The concept of tri-unity lies at the very heart of the Christian understanding of God and is therefore necessary in order to maintain the central message of the Bible.

The doctrine itself is the result of a lengthy process arising from the experience of the community of faith.

The journey towards a doctrine of tri-unity lies rooted in the Old Testament. However, the need only came into view when the first Christians needed to bring together three seemingly separate strands of belief:

1) Monotheism and the issue of the deity of the Father.

The early Church claimed, correctly, that their new movement was a continuation of what God had been doing in the Old Testament era, as the prophets had foretold. At the centre was the belief that God was one and the necessary rejection of the polytheism of the surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:18; cf. James 2:19).

The deity of the Father was accepted by the Church (I Corinthians 8:4, 6; I Timothy 2:5;6). This belief was, at least in part, based on Jesus’ teaching, both spoken and implied (Matthew 6:26-32). Therefore, as far as Jesus was concerned, ‘God’ and ‘Father’ were interchangeable expressions (cf. Matthew 19:23-26; 27:46; Mark 12:17, 24-27).

2) The confession of Jesus' Lordship.

Evidentially the early Church continued the worship of the 'one' God (Acts 3:1ff). However, this 'one' God had revealed Himself in Jesus, the head of the Church and the Lord of all creation (Colossians 1:15ff). The Church thus set forth the belief, that is the assertion of the Divinity and Lordship of Christ (John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13).

In keeping with the pattern set by Jesus, His Church differentiated between Him as Son, and the One whom He claimed to be His Father (Romans 15:5&6). It was these distinctions that led to the use of the terms Father and Son.

The idea of God as Father is not totally foreign to the Old Testament (II Samuel 7:14; Jeremiah 31:20; Isaiah 63:16 & 64:8&9). In so doing, the Old Testament saints were not implying a solely masculine deity, for they also spoke of God's motherly care.

Jesus not only spoke of the Father's parental care of creation, but something more filial in that He called His Father, "Abba". Jesus thus invited His Body into a ‘sonship’ participation. It is for this reason that the terms 'Father' and 'Son' became embedded in the language of the Church. To that end, the early Church developed a hymn that proclaimed the deity of Jesus. Paul uses this hymn to underpin his teaching of Christ to the Philippian believers (Philippians 2:5-11). N.B. One who is equal with God, must be God (cf. Hebrews 1:1-5; John 20:28).

3) The experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit.

In addition to all of the above, the early Church also asserted that God was now present among them in the Person of the Holy Spirit. This came about because of an ongoing experience of a personal, divine reality within the Church that was neither the Father nor the Son.

a) The writers spoke of the Spirit in personal terms.

b) They employed masculine pronouns for what in the Greek language was actually neuter.

c) They attributed aspects of personality to the Spirit: intellect, will, and emotion (I Corinthians 2:10; 12:11; Romans 8:26&27).

d) In addition to seeing the Spirit as personal, they also accepted the Spirit as divine (Acts 5:3&4).

e) While the early Church closely linked the Holy Spirit with Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 3:17&18), they also made a definite distinction between the Spirit and both the Father and the Son (II Corinthians 13:14; I Peter 1:2). This distinction was also evident in the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19).

Jesus Himself made it clear that the Holy Spirit was God and that would become evident in His role after Jesus’ ascension (John 3:8; 16:8-11). Paul wrote of the role of the Holy Spirit with regard to the gifts (I Corinthians 12:4-11).

So, the early Church began to integrate into a composite understanding of these three dimensions of their experience. Therefore, the early Church confessed the one true God of the Old Testament. They proclaimed the Lordship of Jesus Christ who differentiated Himself from the Father. And they knew the reality of the ongoing presence of God through the Holy Spirit who is distinct from both Father and Son.

In spite of all the evidence and discussion above, we would be wise to heed the following:

“It appears that Tertullian was right in affirming that the doctrine of the Trinity must be divinely revealed, nut humanly constructed. It is so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it. We do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity because it is self-evident or logically cogent. We hold it because God has revealed that this is what He is like. As someone has said of this doctrine:

Try to explain it, and you’ll lose your mind. But try to deny it, and you’ll lose your soul.” [Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids. Baker. 2003. Pg.367].

The Apostles' Creed

The basic creed of Reformed churches, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles' Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament.

---

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
    the Maker of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
    born of the virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
    and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
    from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
    the holy catholic church;
    the communion of saints;
    the forgiveness of sins;
    the resurrection of the body;
    and the life everlasting.

Amen.

Knowing God is. (Part 1 of 4)

A principle confession of faith is our acknowledgment of God. i.e. God exists (Isaiah 45:22). Not only does He exist, but He is ultimately in control of all creation. The first focus of any theology then has to be the doctrine of God. Doctrine, in this instance, means: The exploration of the reality of the God whom we have come to know in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9; cf. Hebrews 1:1-3).

Hebrews 11:6 is the foundational Scripture to our discussion. For, when all is said and done, one must believe that He is God and that He does, in fact, exist. Our entire lives and the way we interact with the world is premised on the fact that we have come to know the only true God. As Christians we believe that we know, personally, the God who chooses to be known by His creatures (Genesis 3:8; John 14:23).

This position of faith is not isolated to each one of us as individuals, but it has marked the people of faith for generations and we are thus linked with the faith community that spans the generations (Hebrews 12:1).

Although our faith in God is based on personal experience and faith, our position is not universally shared. So, in pursuit of an apologetic position, it is necessary to consider the possibility of faith. To do so we will focus on two questions that are very much in vogue in our day:

1) Is there a God?
2) Can humans know God?

God's existence is foundational to the faith of the Christian community. It is this claim of the existence of God that is under attack from many quarters. Questioning the existence of God is nothing new (Psalm 14:1, 53:1). Here we must sound a cautionary note, the atheism of the ancient Near East cannot be equated with its intellectual counterpart of modern western philosophy. The latter was not an option in the ancient world. The atheism mentioned by the Psalmist did not focus on the intellectual, but on the practical and the moral, i.e. the fool lived as if there was no God. The Scriptures do not acknowledge the existence of atheism.

Having said that, they do recognize a wilfull and thus culpable suppressing of the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18). In the first-century Christians were considered atheists as they rejected the Roman pantheon (I Corinthians 8:5&6). As noted above, the modern intellectual scepticism was not the issue but rather the conflicts that existed between rival tribal gods. So the question of the existence of God focussed on which god was the most worthy of worship. The 'spiritual' climate of the ancient Near East was marked by the worship of many gods. The relative strength of this variety of deities was measured by world events. The mightier the god the mightier the works that were evident.

Knowing this adds insight into the Exodus account of the ten plagues (Exodus 7ff). Each of the plagues clearly displayed to all the superiority of Yahweh over the gods of Egypt. If that were not enough, Israel's Red Sea deliverance was a further sign of Yahweh's power (Exodus 15:11-16). A similar act at the River Jordan struck fear into the watching Canaanites (Joshua 5:1). A further 'comparative' act took place at Mount Carmel involving the prophet Elijah (I Kings 18).

One mighty act above all others stood out to the ancients and that was the granting of victory in battle. Such military clashes were so much more than a feat or arms, they were a clash between rival deities (cf. II Kings 18:32-35). Subsequent military reversals for Israel and Judah were explained by the prophets: Such defeats were not evidence of Yahweh's weakness as compared with the other deities, but rather His exercise of judgement upon their sin.

The Old Testament prophets were united in their mission to proclaim Yahweh as the true God. It was for this reason that they relentlessly spoke out against idolatry in the land (E.G. Isaiah 44:9-17; Ezekiel 6:1-14). They were eventually successful as the remnant of Judah that returned from Babylon were committed monotheists.

The issue of Yahweh appearing, as it were, as Judah's God posed a problem of its own: Was He Judah's alone, or was He for the whole of humanity. This problem was only able to raise its head as Israel had so clearly failed to be Yahweh's representative to the surrounding nations, a task for which they were chosen (Exodus 19:4-6; Isaiah 43:12). This issue was not resolved until the advent of the New Testament, but a post-exilic prophet did look forward to that time albeit through apocalyptic symbolism (Zechariah 14:16). 

The early Church inherited the debate as was highlighted in Acts 15. Paul built upon the fact established by the Jerusalem Council by writing that the idols were nothing (I Corinthians 8:4-7) or even demonic (I Corinthians 10:18-22). So, the Body of Christ affirmed that Yahweh was indeed the one and only universal God. He, the God of the patriarchs, was the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, He alone was worthy of universal worship. The question then has evolved from which tribal god is stronger, and thus worthy of worship, to the intellectual question concerning the very existence of God.

As Christianity spread west it encountered Greek philosophy. It found that the great philosophers embraced a type of monotheism, for they did acknowledge a creator God beyond the pantheon of gods that the common people worshipped. The immediate question that would have arisen among the philosophers was the nature of relationship between the God of the Christians and the 'First Cause' of the world that the Greek philosophers acknowledged. Paul obviously recognized this situation in his encounter upon Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34).

An ongoing journey (part two).

Before we continue.

Please note that this blog is the second in a series of ‘thinking out loud about the Church. Nothing that is written here is a ‘special revelation’ (if such a thing exists) on how to do Church universally or, more importantly, locally. This series of blogs reflect my questions and concerns about the effectiveness of the local church as I witness it in South Africa in particular.

Introduction:

The purpose of this article is to explore what the New Testament says concerning the form and function of the local church. To that end, no outside source will be referred to in any way. We will approach this subject as enquirers who only have the Bible, not historical opinion or bias, as their guide.

The place of meeting:

Just prior to the birth of the Church as recorded in Acts 2:1-4, the disciples gathered together in the upper room of a house somewhere in Jerusalem (Acts 1:13). The birth itself took place in the very public environment of the Temple courtyards, this is evident given the description of the immediate audience to their infilling by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:5,6,14,41).

The fledgling Church soon had 3120 members drawn from the Jewish - proselyte and born -population of Jerusalem and those visiting from around the known world (Acts 2:5,9-11). Luke tells us that this group met daily to hear the apostles’ doctrine (i.e. that which they had been entrusted with by Jesus Himself – Matthew 28:19&20).

Consider the mammoth task of marshalling a single group of over 3000 people without an established leadership structure. Furthermore, given the Temple hierarchy’s attitude towards Christ, large ongoing meetings promoting Him as Messiah would not have been tolerated for too long. Therefore it would have been necessary to break up this group and have each sub-group meet in the various private houses of those who had come to repentance along with the original 120 (Acts 2:46).

Even when Saul (i.e. Paul) enters the account we find him raiding private homes as a means of ravaging the church (Acts 8:3a). In Acts 12:12 Peter arrives at a private house where the believers were gathered.

Acts 16:5 presents compelling evidence of the growth of the church taking place in private dwellings. The context makes it clear that individual believers were not being discussed here, but rather the corporate gathering of believers. The number of congregations was increasing daily this could only have been possible if the private homes of believers were being used.

The practise of new converts allowing their homes to be used as meeting places is borne out by the account of Lydia’s conversion and baptism (Acts 16:15,34).

In Thessalonica, Greece, the church met, at some risk it would appear, in the house of Jason (Acts 17:5) who had opened his house to a group of converts from Paul’s meeting in the local synagogue (Acts 17:1-4).

While in Corinth Paul met Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2,18) whom had taken the eloquent but untrained Apollos into their home, where the church met, for teaching (Acts 18:26; Romans 16:3-5a; I Corinthians 16:19). The city of Corinth had at least one other church group meeting in a private home, that of Titius Justus (Acts 18:7). This house was next door to the local synagogue where Paul was preaching the Gospel (Acts 18:4,8).

It would appear that a church met in the very house of Caesar (Philippians 4:22). Furthermore, it would appear that women were forthcoming with the use of their homes as the cases of Lydia (see above) and Nympha clearly indicate (Colossians 4:15).
The letter to Philemon reveals that the recipient of that letter also hosted the church within his private dwelling (Philemon 2). This letter also shows the expanded activities of the local church (vss. 7, 22).

The 'how' of meeting:

Again we approach only the Scriptures, this time to discover what should take place in our regular meetings together.

The first recorded meetings of the church (Acts 2:42-47) included: (1) Apostles’ teaching, i.e. Bible study/preaching (I Thessalonians 5:12; I Timothy 5:17; II Timothy 4:2; Hebrews 13:7), (2) Fellowship, i.e. partnership and participation (I Corinthians 14:20-33; I Timothy 4:13; I John 1:7) and social intercourse (including financial giving), (3) Breaking of Bread, i.e. communion (I Corinthians 10:16; 11:23-32), (4) Prayer = individual and corporate. It was for these reasons that the writer to the Hebrews discouraged absenteeism (Hebrews 10:19-25)

• These meetings were marked by a sense of awe and, quite separately, N.B. not the cause of the awe, signs and wonders were being done through the apostles (cf. II Corinthians 12:12).

• Those who were partaking in these meetings were delivered from the confines of ownership and made themselves and their possessions available to all by being prepared to liquidate assets to produce finance for those in need.
• The ongoing fruit of these activities was the salvation of new converts every day.

In the next blog we will continue to investigate the Biblical record for insight into the functioning of the New Testament Church in its local context.

An ongoing journey.

Those of you who have read my blog in the past will know that I spent a lot of time attempting something approaching an allegory. The main thrust of that attempt was a journey through various ‘spiritual’ experiences and, I suppose, living parables. Whether I was successful in my quest is a discussion for another day.

Right now I want to share another journey with you. One that I have barely begun but have covered quite a bit of ground already. Just a quick piece of personal background. I have been in the so-called full-time ministry since December 1992. In that time I have pastored and fulfilled, hopefully, the role of a teacher (Bible teacher, that is, not those heroes and heroines who go to schools each day). I have studied at seminary and hold two degrees, one post-graduate. I lecture in college and travel quite a bit. I have written a few unpublished books which have proven helpful in one or two contexts.

Throughout this period, with growing intensity, I have felt somewhat concerned at how the average Christian group ‘does church’. Like many, as I am sure I am not alone, I have been concerned at the largely ineffective presence of churches in various communities where I have had the privilege to travel, work and minister. On the whole, and this is my personal opinion formed from my own observations, church is little more than a gathering of like-minded people to be entertained by musicians and singers of varying talents, or lack thereof, and then be spoken to, lectured, or preached at by what appears to be a specialist. Every now and again the doors to these gatherings open to release a minority of ‘insiders’ out into the world to reach out with whatever message is received behind those doors.

Please do not misunderstand me, many churches and Christian groupings around the world do marvelous work among the poor, and the disenfranchised. I honour them for their self-sacrifice and open-heartedness. But, do we really witness change on a Book of Acts level? I mean, do the young people of our city streets, for instance, really get attracted by the message they are hearing, or are they put off by the threat, intended or otherwise, of having to give things up, lose their friends, follow a particular set of rules pertaining to dress, music, and the like? Do suburban families who work hard and often with long hours really feel the need for what their local churches offer?

Why not start right there? What does the average local church offer? Now, you and I really need to be honest here, it will not be easy or palatable, but we must be courageous and face the facts head on. The average local church, of whatever ilk, has one primary activity: Meetings. More than likely the principle gathering will be a so-called Sunday morning service. This will comprise of some singing led by a ‘worship leader’, followed by an appeal for money, i.e. the offering, followed by the sermon, followed by some announcements concerning some more meetings. Is that really the best we can do?

You may argue that my description above is painted with a rather broad brush. That may be so, but is any Evangelical church, be it Charismatic, Pentecostal, hybrid, or otherwise really any different in its approach? Come on, be honest now. The format is pretty universal and, dare I say it, predictable.

At this point, please allow me to remind you that all of this is part of my journey. As such, I have many more questions than answers. What I am writing constitutes my questions; how I would love some answers.

Let me pose the principle question: Is church as we practice it in the western world (I have not traveled to the Middle East or Asia ... yet) really what Jesus had in mind when He spoke of “life more abundantly”? Okay, I can hear you. I know we are not supposed to just focus on the meetings as they only constitute a very small part of our lives. However, church is what the world equates with Christianity.

Where I find myself right now, I would say the following traits would more closely approximate God’s intentions: 1) Church should not be about tasking together, but about relating to each other, i.e. all who come regardless of need, belief, position, potential, etc. 2) Church should be a place where an environment is facilitated where people feel loved and secure. 3) Church is a tool to facilitate our lives together in relationship with each other and Jesus Christ.

After all is Christianity, first and foremost, God’s invitation for us to enter His reality? Now surely such cannot be ‘achieved’ with predictable formats, humanly led and dominated programmes which can only happen on certain days and times?

There is a place for group Bible study, no doubt about that. Corporate times of prayer, well there can be no debate there, can there? Times of rejoicing in song? Bring it on. However, each of these things are not an end in themselves, they are merely component parts of a greater whole.

That greater whole is the life I live beyond Sundays. The life with the not yet Christians with whom I work, study, play, and live. What I live out in that primary arena is what will attract, or put off, men and women towards the reality of a relationship with Jesus Christ. Please note, I did not say attract them to church.

Let me make my position clear on this point. I attend a gathering of Christians because I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ and I do like to be among people who love Him and are loved by Him (as everyone is). However, this getting together does not define my walk with God. Jesus Christ does.

I have a lot more to say on this subject but to go on would only put off those who have been mad enough to still be reading this far and I do not want to lose them as well.

So, let’s talk about this ...