Archive for January, 2007

h1

Romans 1

January 28, 2007

I am preparing a series of classes on the book of Romans, so that will be my topic for the next few blog posts. I recently posted some thoughts on the historical context of the book.

Some of the teachings found in Romans are undoubtedly among those Peter referred to when he said:

2 Pet 3:16b His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Romans 3:8, Romans 6:1, Romans 6:15, Romans 7:7, and James 2:14-26 are a few indicators that Paul’s difficult teachings were being distorted even in his day.

The evident purpose of Paul’s letter to the Romans was to stop the Judaizing influences in the church. In this letter Paul proved that Jews and Gentiles were equally separated from God and equally dependent upon God’s intervention to bring about redemption.

To prove this point, Paul taught the Romans about righteousness. The words righteous, unrighteous, and other variants appear over forty times in the book of Romans, and are found in each of the first ten chapters. The basic message was that Jews and Gentiles alike were unrighteous and helpless to do anything about it. But God intervened, providing a way for us to be granted righteousness through faith.

After greeting the Roman Christians in the first part of Romans 1, Paul introduced the theme of the book:

Rom 1:16-17 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Paul then immediately focused on the core problem of unrighteousness beginning in verse 18:

Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

The wickedness (KJV unrighteousness) resulted from men refusing to acknowledge God and becoming fools, following after created things rather than the creator. According to Paul, this is the root cause of sin.

And then Paul wrote some of the most sobering words in all scripture:

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over…

God gave them over! He did not prevent man from spiraling deeper into wickedness. The consequence for not acknowledging God is to be destroyed by our own folly and wickedness.As a direct consequence of men not acknowledging God, they were “given over” to sexual immorality, idolatry, and homosexuality.

Note that Paul made it unmistakably clear that homosexuality is sin, both for men and for women. In today’s American culture that is being called into question. But based on this passage, there can be no doubt where Paul stood on the question of homosexuality. This is certainly not one of Paul’s difficult passages! He called homosexuality shameful, unnatural, and indecent. He called it a perversion, for which there is a penalty due. Also note that Peter accepted Paul’s letters as scripture, the Word of God (2 Pet 3:16, see above). Those who take the opposing view on homosexuality cannot reasonably claim to hold the scriptures as their standard.

Paul listed numerous other sins that follow when men fail to acknowledge God, because of their depraved minds.

Rom 1:28-31 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Here Paul presented an interesting list of evil deeds. Envy and deceit are in the same group as murder. Godhaters are right next to the slanderers, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. Disobedience to parents is listed along with ruthlessness. It is impossible to imagine a person who is not guilty on some point according to this list.

Then, so that there could be no doubt about the consequences for such sins, Paul stated:

Rom 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

God has decreed that those who do these deeds deserve death.

Our proper response to these things will only become clear as we continue into the following chapters. But a few things are already obvious:

  1. We must acknowledge God in our lives. That means more than an intellectual admission that God exists. It also means that we need to glorify God and to give thanks to Him. And it means that we must not exchange God for the things of this world.
  2. We need to flee from the sins described in this passage!
  3. We must not approve of these sins, neither in our own lives nor in the lives of others.

Yet as we continue into Romans we will find that even doing all this will not make us righteous. We need to be rescued fom ourselves.

h1

Conservative?

January 22, 2007

This past Friday and Saturday, the elders, deacons, and some other older men in our congregation shared in a retreat. On Saturday I spoke to the group about being devoted to one another, from Rom 12:10. Setting the stage for this passage, I shared some thoughts about the church at Rome which I also shared here in my previous post. Then I made the point that “one another” includes more than just congregations sharing our background as part of the ICOC. I specifically mentioned the mainline churches of Christ and the independent Christian churches as two groups that practice biblical conversion including baptism into Christ. Members of these churches have been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, just as we have. And if we are all alike united with Christ, we must therefore be united with one another. So therefore these groups are part of the “one another” to whom we should show philostorgoi, the kind of love that is seen in a close family.

The message was well received by all who were present. Then on the next day, one of the deacons spoke to me very briefly about that point. He indicated that the message caused him to reconsider his impression of me being conservative. He said that my comment about these other Restoration Movement groups was not conservative, but “aggressive”. Time did not permit us to discuss this in more depth at the time. But it made me think about what it means to be conservative.

I suppose his original impression of me as a conservative must come from my views on things like Bible study, the role of women, and children in worship. On all those topics I have publicly taught what he might consider a conservative understanding. And I think he regarded my comments on Saturday about the other Restoration Movement groups as progressive rather than conservative.

The primary definition of conservative at answers.com is:

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

That definition presents a paradox in my case. In many areas I have advocated returning to traditional views that have been abandoned for a decade or two. I favor the traditional views, and therefore I advocate change. Is that being conservative?

Many of the beliefs I have blogged about on this site come from what I consider a conservative view of scriptures. The “traditional views and values” are defined by scripture, and we don’t have a right to change them. So I don’t think I have a right to make rules not found in scripture. And I don’t think I have a right to draw lines of fellowship not drawn in scripture. I make every effort to hold to those principles rigorously. To me, that seems very conservative. But those conservative principles lead me to positions that some people consider liberal. (permitting musical instruments in worship, for example).

In my opinion, the ICOC congregations in the past drew lines of fellowship in some unjustified places. (This area has been changing in many congregations, but it needs a stronger and more public focus.) Based on my conservative view of the scriptures, I do not think all the lines that were drawn in the past can be defended biblically. I strongly advocate change in that area. I guess that makes me a progressive-conservative.

Whatever the label, let’s aggressively work to take down walls that God did not erect.

h1

The Church at Rome

January 17, 2007

First century Rome was similar in some important ways to major cities today. By looking at those similarities, and contemplating the letter that Paul wrote to those Christians, we can better understand what the church ought to be like in the modern world.

It is not known when the church was established in Rome. On the day of Pentecost there were visitors from Rome (Acts 2:10) in the crowd at Jerusalem when Peter preached and 3000 were baptized. It is quite likely that some of these Jews eventually returned to Rome (perhaps after the stoning of Stephen) and began to build the Roman church. At least, we know that Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7) were converted before Paul, quite possibly before the dispersion in Acts 8.

Sometime during the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD), the emperor ordered all the Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2, Priscilla and Aquilla). By this time there must have been a substantial congregation of Gentile Christians, who were left to fend for themselves when their Jewish brothers and sisters were evicted.

During the intervening years while the Jews were banished, the Gentile church continued to grow, and new leaders must have stepped forward out of necessity. Without the influence of the Jews who had started the church, their worship undoubtedly drifted farther and farther from the style of the Jews. These became Gentile congregations, in every sense. This is important to remember when trying to understand Romans.

After the death of Claudius in AD 54, the edict became void, and the Jews returned to Rome. So by the time Romans was written (maybe AD 57), Priscilla and Aquilla had returned to Rome, and a congregation was meeting in their home. This may well have been primarily a Jewish congregation. At least it was being led by Aquilla and Priscilla, who were Jews.

By the time of Paul’s letter, there were numerous congregations meeting in different places in Rome, each with its own leadership. Paul greets several distinct groups in chapter 16:

  • the church meeting in Priscilla and Aquilla’s house (Rom 16:5)
  • Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers with them (Rom 16:14)
  • Philologus, Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them (Rom 16:15)

Those named were probably the leaders in different house churches. The others whom Paul greeted individually may also have been part of separate congregations (since Paul chose to group them separately from the other congregations in the greeting).

By the time the Jews returned, there must have been multiple established Gentile congregations in Rome. And the Jews who returned may well have “flocked together” as mainly Jewish congregations.

This is the environment Paul addressed in the Roman letter. There were growing cultural differences between Jewish and Gentile congregations in Rome, and these were leading to conflict. Paul explained that the Jews and Gentiles were in the same condition, with no hope other than Jesus. He pointed out that they shared the same baptism. They were part of the same olive tree. He warned the Jew that he could be cut out of the olive tree, and he warned the Gentile that he could also be cut out after having been grafted in. Paul opened up his heart as he shared his concern for the salvation of Israel. And then he turned to practicals.

Remember the situation in the Roman church as you consider chapters 12-15. There were multiple congregations, with striking differences between Jews and Gentiles. Paul called all of them to be living sacrifices; not to think of themselves too highly; and to respect the differences among them. He instructed them to be devoted to one another in brotherly love. (devoted = Gk philostorgoi, the mutual love between parent and child). They were to treat one another as family–not only the fellow Jews but also the Gentiles; not only those in their own congregation, but also those in other congregations. They were to treat one another as family, despite all the differences and despite their being in different congregations.

Chapters 14 and 15 address differing doctrinal understandings between Jews and Gentiles (things like eating meat, drinking wine, and observing special days). Once again the message is clear: they were to accept one another despite these differences.

Jews and Gentiles alike were all sinners. They were all baptized into Christ, and thus united in His death and in his resurrection. They were all united, in Christ. The differences among them did not prevent them from being united in Christ.

How about us? As descendents of the Restoration Movement, what should we learn from Romans?

Like first century Rome, many of our cities have multiple congregations of baptized believers. These congregations have different cultures and even some different doctrinal understandings. But the differences among our congregations pale in significance when contrasted to the differences between Jews and Gentiles in the first century church. The message of Romans to our churches today is to accept one another despite our differences. If we have been united with Christ, we are united with one another. And we should reflect that in how we treat one another.

h1

Children in Worship

January 11, 2007

Should children be included in the adults’ congregational worship service?

In my branch of the Restoration Movement, for most of the past 20 years, children have been dropped off in children’s classes while the adults (except for classroom teachers) participate in congregational worship. These congregations were full of young parents with small children. Most were converted into the Restoration Movement rather than having been raised in it, and many had limited or no church background. So it is not surprising that it seemed like a good idea to get all those children out of the auditorium so the adults could concentrate on worship.

In the past year my congregation has re-examined this question. I now see good reasons, both biblical and practical, for including children in worship.

Deuteronomy 29:10:13 You are standing today all of you before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

In Deut 29, Moses is renewing the covenant with the Israelites. This is not a short sermon, and it was not tailored for small children. Yet the small children were present. The Hebrew word translated as “little ones” in the ESV is derived from the word “to trip”. It has a striking resemblance to our word “toddler.” When Moses called the people together for this sermon, he included the toddlers.

Jos 8:34-35 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.

In Joshua 8, Joshua read all the words of the law to an assembly including the toddlers.

So there is a biblical precedent for including the children in worship. This seems only natural, given the importance of passing on the covenant to the next generation.

Mat 19:13-15 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Mar 10:13-14 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Why did Jesus’ disciples consider it inappropriate for the children to be brought to Jesus? Perhaps they saw it as an unnecessary inconvenience and distraction. The children could not understand what Jesus was teaching. (Even the adults struggled with that!) But Jesus was indignant. He wanted the children brought to him.

I wonder if Jesus has been indignant about our excluding the children from the public worship for the convenience of the adults.

Christian parents are responsible to bring up their children in the teaching of the Lord. (Especially fathers! Eph 6:4) Part of that is teaching them how to worship. The children learn by observing their parents, and participating in age-appropriate ways at every stage. It is not sufficient to hand the children off to a Sunday School teacher for an hour or two each week. Christianity is a family affair. I don’t think you can expect a child to suddenly want to worship God at age 13. It has to be taught from the beginning. And it needs to be taught by the parents.

As we have begun to include children in our worship service, it has not been without challenges. Our members do not have experience in managing children in service. They have not seen it done. There is really nobody in these congregations who has the experience to write books and teach classes about how to do it effectively. Thank God for the internet! I have been amazed to find communities of people online, full of conviction on the subject, who have tackled and solved this problem, and offer excellent practical advice on how to make the worship service a spiritual event for children of all ages.

One book keeps showing up at the blogs that talk about this subject: Parenting in the Pew by Robbie Castleman. Many of the ideas on the blogs are taken from this book.

I’d like to hear some comments about other people’s experiences. Parents, how are you addressing this in your family?

h1

Peace On Earth Ministries

January 8, 2007

I recently discovered the site of Peace On Earth Ministries (POEM). From their Purpose statement on the web site:

To challenge those who share the same religious heritage in the Restoration Movement to recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, and to reach out to all who believe in Christ through the Word (John 17:20).

It is always encouraging to find someone else singing from the same sheet of music!

In particular I want to recommend an article titled Dear Lord, Give Us a Vision Greater Than Our Division (PDF). This was a presentation made at the National Missionary Convention on November 17, 2006 by Victor Knowles.

h1

The Rebirth of a Dream

January 4, 2007

Thanks to an alert reader named “hawk” for pointing me to an excellent article in the restoration archives by W Carl Ketcherside. The title of the article is The Death of a Dream. It comes from the 1972 edition of Ketcherside’s journal, The Mission Messenger. (I’ve posted about Ketcherside previously.) In The Death of a Dream, Ketcherside compares Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address to a masterpiece painting by Raphael, which was hidden from Napoleon’s armies by painting an unremarkable picture over the original. Subsequently the masterpiece was forgotten, until the inferior painting started to peel away with age.

Like Raphael’s painting, the original aim of the Declaration and Address has been forgotten for over a century. Rather than unifying all Christians on the scriptures, the Restoration Movement has become a spectacle of division. But now there is evidence that the inferior painting of sectarianism is beginning to crack and peel away.

Ketcherside goes on to summarize the Declaration and Address (I wrote a previous blog series on the thirteen propositions here) He focuses on the aspect of the propositions addressing inferences and human opinions, and the need for a kind of unity that accepts diversity on such matters.

Then he describes an event in which Thomas Campbell publicly extended fellowship to a man with whom he disagreed on significant doctrinal points. Despite the controversy that this prompted, Campbell said:

Brother Raines has been with me during the last several months and we have fully unbosomed ourselves to each other. He is philosophically a Restorationist and I am a Calvinist, but notwithstanding this difference of opinion between us, I would put my right hand into the fire and have it burned off, before I would hold up my hands against him. And from all I know of Brother Raines, if I were Paul, I would have him in preference to any young man of my acquaintance, to be my Timothy.

Thomas Campbell found it in his heart to embrace a man as a brother despite differing doctrinal understandings. In the 20th century, the Restoration Movement lost sight of the kind of unity that leaves room for differing opinions. The movement has fully abandoned this biblical principle (Rom 14:1) Ketcherside laments how far the Restoration Movement has fallen:

We are divided over missionary societies, instrumental music, centralized control, colleges, orphan homes, national radio and television programs, the right to own television sets, leavened bread, unleavened bread, the manner of breaking the bread, fermented wine, individual cups, Bible classes, uninspired literature, evangelists, the hiring of ministers, the pastor system, marriage of divorced persons, speaking in tongues, divine healing, foot-washing, the hour of meeting to eat the Lord’s Supper, and a host of other things. And every division has been brought about by someone esteeming an opinion of greater value than the blood of Christ. Those who stand together one week and sing “Blest Be the Tie that Binds,” sever it the following week over some trivial concept.

Then Ketcherside pledges to work for unity with diversity:

I will cross over every barrier, break through every wall, and ignore every fence which men have erected in Christ Jesus my Lord. I will labor with all of my brethren who permit me to do so, and love those who will not. My only creed is Christ, and while I respect every rock of truth scattered over God’s revelational landscape, I will build upon none of them. My hope of heaven depends not so much upon propagating a party to defend a truth as it does in personally casting myself in absolute dependence upon him who is the truth. And while every truth is precious to me, and will be included as discovered in my rock garden for meditation and enjoyment, I will plant my trust only upon him whom God planted his community, the Rock of Ages! For other foundation can no man lay!

This means that every child of God is my brother. And I have no half-brothers or step-brothers in the Lord. I accept you where you are and as you are. I accept you as God accepted me, in my weakness, frailty and failures. If you are good enough to be his son or daughter you are not too bad to be my brother or sister. And I receive you, and receive you now. We can stop this silly march into oblivion. We can halt the cancerous growth of division which is slowly consuming the body. We do not need to wait until we have debated every action of every faction. We can be one in Christ Jesus now! All we need to do is to extend the hand of fellowship in spite of differences, as did the brethren in Lexington, almost a century-and-a-half ago, and we can walk out of this hall tonight blessed as peacemakers and deserving to be called the children of God.

I have brethren who, in good conscience, can accompany their praise service to God, with instruments of music; I have brethren whose consciences will not allow them to do so. I have brethren who give money to support Herald of Truth and never look at it; I have brethren who refuse to support it and never miss seeing it. I have brethren who teach in Sunday Schools with classes for all ages, and others who gather in undivided assemblies to study the sacred pages. I have brethren who remember the shedding of the blood while drinking from individual cups; I have brethren who pass one container to the body of saints. They are all my brethren. I love them all.

Encouraging evidence is appearing that this kind of unity is once again on the minds of Christians. The recent decision at Richland Hills is one illustration. May the dream of unity be reborn, and become reality throughout all of the Lord’s churches!

h1

The Both/And Church

January 1, 2007

Editing (again…) to update the links to the three messages….

I want to recommend Rick Atchley’s recent three sermon series explaining the Richland Hills church’s decision to add a Saturday evening instrumental worship service. He has done a superb job of saying some things that have needed to be said in churches of Christ for over a hundred years. Thanks to Brett for providing the link to these sermons (though I know and respect that Brett does not agree with Rick’s message).

I am wrestling with whether or not to post articles about these three messages. Maybe I should leave it alone. I doubt I can add much to improve what Rick has said. I do want to call for those on both sides of the issue to accept one another without passing judgment on this or any other disputable matter.