Christian Unity

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — First Amendement to the Constitution of the United States of America

The recent mess in Texas should make people with minority religious beliefs nervous.

Based on an anonymous phone tip that now appears to have been a hoax, 416 children have been taken into state custody from a polygamous sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). While investigating the tip, the law enforcement officers observed pregnant minors in the LDS facility. Based on the apparently pervasive marital practices of this religous group, a decision was made to remove all these children from their homes. At issue are the practice of polygamy, arranged marriages of minor girls, and pregnancy of minors. And yet…

Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist who has studied children in cults….acknowledged that many adults at the ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy. When asked whether the belief system really endangered the older boys or young children, Perry said, “I have lost sleep over that question.”

You wont’ find me defending the practices that are under government scrutiny in this group. But the indiscriminant removal of such a large number of children from their homes (both boys and girls,) without specific evidence of danger in each child’s case, raises serious questions. Just how far can government go to eradicate unpopular religious practices? Did they really think the boys were in danger? If so, on what evidence, and on what legal grounds?

How many of us could go back two or three generations in our own ancestry, and not find that we are descended from a 15 year old mother? Or that we are descended from an arranged marriage? Is that somehow unethical, or un-American?

Of broader concern to me is the ethical issue of government interfering with the practice of religion. Where will this kind of government action take us? Will a church continue to have the right to exclude homosexuals from the ordained ministry? Or, to exclude women from the ministry? Will parents have the right to teach their religion to their children? Or to home school their children? Will the American people consent to their government regulating religious beliefs and practices?

The polygamy issue is complex. Utah has quite a bit more experience in this area than does Texas. These Texas officials are in uncharted territory. They’ve opened Pandora’s box, and they have no idea what is inside. They may find that their cure is worse than the disease.

Today, the issues are religious practices that many (including myself) find bizzarre and repugnant. I wonder whether that will still be true about the issues tomorrow.

I’ll close with a quote I’ve lifted from my daughter’s blog:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
(Pastor Martin Niemöller)

Yesterday, I taught a class on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, on the subject of head coverings. Really.

I cannot remember ever in my life hearing someone else teach this passage. What possible relevance could the subject of head coverings have for a 21st century American church? Why risk the controversy? Why bring up a difficult subject that may confuse a lot of people? And, above all, why teach the congregation that we may have been neglecting a command of scripture for generations?

The reason I taught the class is pretty simple. I am teaching a series on the book of 1 Corinthians. I suppose I could have skipped this topic. But elders are admonished not to shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God to the church. If I choose not to teach this passage, I cannot claim to have taught everything I have been called to teach. God devoted half a chapter in 1 Corinthians to this subject for a reason.

But if I teach a passage of scripture, I have no choice but to teach what I believe it says. So that is what I did.

What kind of reaction would you expect to receive from your congregation from a lesson like that? The response of our congregation was one of keen interest, appreciation, and a desire to study it further. After service, the auditorium was buzzing with conversations on the topic in every aisle. Of particular interest to me, two brothers who are native of other countries came up to me afterward expressing their appreciation that the subject has finally been addressed. They were raised believing this teaching. From their perspective, the American churches have lost their way on the topic of women. We have become saturated with the culture in which we live. The church is becoming more and more like the secular world.

We Americans are like frogs in a pot of water. As the temperature rises to the boiling point, we hardly notice. We don’t realize that the rising temperature will eventually kill us. To us, everything seems normal. But to these two brothers from other countries, the insidiously gradual secularization of the American church is obvious. We need to wake up to what is happening.

Don’t worry, this is still the same blog! I decided it was time for a facelift. This simple setup makes better use of the screen space. And I like the brighter appearance. Now if I can just find time to add the missing series to my Past Series section, and maybe even add some tags to make the archives more useful.

Hope you like the new look!

Unity would be easy if it wasn’t for those pesky convictions.

Through blogging about Christian Unity for the past 30 months, I’ve come in contact with a lot of great folks who share my desire to promote unity among Christians. I’ve found a growing number of Christians (particularly among Restoration Movement groups sharing the same conversion doctrine) who believe we’ve spent too long defending the borders of our various factions. Like me, these folks want to be part of the solution to that problem.

Most of the things dividing churches of Christ are of secondary importance. Communion cups, instrumental music, kitchens, cooperation between congregations, Sunday school classes, Bible translations, and the like are not the central issues of the gospel. (1 Cor 15:1-11) But unity among Christians is of central importance. Jesus prayed for it the night he was betrayed, so that the world would believe. That makes unity among the top priorities for the church. And we must not allow the secondary issues to derail things of higher priority.

Being united does not mean we have to agree on everything. I think it does require that we agree on the core gospel. And it requires that we treat one another with dignity and respect in the areas of disagreement.

I’ve found that a lot of people agree with me on those matters.

However, in a few ways I feel like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. My conviction about gender roles conflicts with the beliefs of the vast majority of people who are with me on the unity topic. I’ve listened to other viewpoints and studied the subject carefully, but I keep coming to the same conclusion. I think the scriptures define different roles for men and women in the church. Most of my fellow unity advocates seem to think otherwise. And often they have a hard time understanding me as a result. How could someone who loves unity believe what I believe about gender roles? I don’t fit the normal mold.

I suspect that many of us are in my position on at least one subject. We want unity, but we have some inconvenient convictions that we can’t deny in good conscience. I have to live by what I believe the scriptures say, whether others agree or not. And as an elder, my conviction affects more people than just myself. That doesn’t mean I can’t have unity with people who disagree with me. It just means both sides have to overlook a few things, and leave it up to God to take care of the differences.

Sitting on this side of the gender issue, I can clearly see that unity will be a lot more likely if people on the other side will at least show some respect and deference to my convictions. That doesn’t mean they have to follow my convictions. But I’m already swimming against the current in order to be true to my beliefs. Any efforts to avoid making it harder for me are appreciated!

And of course I need to offer the same kind of consideration to people who hold different inconvenient convictions. I need to remember how I feel on “my issue” so I can understand how they feel about theirs.

It feels different on the other side of the issue. If we were more sensitive to that fact, it would go a long way toward enabling greater unity.

“Protectionism in all its guises, both domestic and international does not contribute to the welfare of American workers. At best, it is a short-term fix at a cost of lower standards of living for the nation as a whole.” — Alan Greenspan (2002)

Alan Greenspan, highly respected former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has been a long time critic of protectionism — the practice of limiting foreign competition by erecting barriers to trade (tarrifs, quotas, subsidies, etc). Economists generally agree that trade which is free from such barriers produces benefits to the economies of both parties in the trading relationship. As Greenspan noted in the above quote, protectionism may appear to produce short term benefits, but actually leads to the long term detriment of those whom it was supposed to benefit.

Perhaps the same could be said about the “economies” of churches. Churches that share the same core doctrine about salvation often find themselves applying similar protectionist policies to retain their members.

For better or worse, there is a perceived competition among churches for members. In a given community, there may be many churches. Members in each of these churches could choose to attend whichever church they want. Since the viability of each congregation depends on its ability to retain its members, there is a built-in incentive for church leaders (especially full-time salaried leaders) to create barriers to keep people from leaving their congregation for another.

Sometimes, the barrier of choice is to convince members that the other churches are inferior. A church may accomplish this by emphasizing any existing (or imagined) doctrinal differences, or by creating the impression (whether true or false) that other churches are less committed, or have other spiritual deficiencies. By doing so, they attempt to deter members from wanting to be associated with one of the other congregations. At the same time, they may be neglecting the real spiritual needs of their own congregation.

Others take a different approach. They try to retain members by producing a high quality product. That might be accomplished by excelling in Bible teaching, preaching, and ministering to the spiritual needs of the members. Or it might be accomplished by building such strong family relationships among members, that people want to stay together. Or it might mean catering to certain demographic groups (alternate languages, music, specific ministries, etc). It might include all of those approaches, and more.

It is difficult to excel at everything, especially for a small church. It might not be practical for a church of 100 members to support programs in more than one language, for example. It would be better for each church to identify the area or areas of ministry in which they have a natural advantage, and to excel in those areas. Then the various churches can benefit from each other’s strengths.

Protectionism prevents that kind of benefit, by building walls between churches. As Alan Greenspan said, protectionism does not contribute to the long term benefit of the average person. At best it produces a limited short term local benefit, with a larger long term cost. In the end, all the congregations would become poorer because of it. The average member would be worse off in the long run.

There are certainly some doctrinal issues between churches that warrant protective measures. But the constructive way to protect in those areas is to teach the scriptures on those doctrinal subjects. It is not necessary to sully the public image of another congregation to accomplish that.

Elders and ministers who are responsible for the care of God’s church should take a constructive approach to retaining members. Let’s help one another to excel at the task God has given us. We are on the same team.

Two groups of restoration-minded Christians came together in 1832.

Alexander Campbell had been seeking to bring about the vision his father Thomas had articulated in his Declaration and Address of 1809. Working for reforms within the Baptist church for two decades, Campbell called for a restoration of the “ancient order”. There was significant resistance to some of his teachings (particularly regarding the role of the the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments in Christian doctrine.) The so-called Baptist Reformers were finally pushed out of the Baptist fellowship beginning in 1829. Due to the autonomous nature of the Baptist churches, this happened in isolated places at first, and spread until by 1832 the Baptist Reformers were completely separate. These reformer congregations continued to associate with each other, and diligently preached the “ancient gospel” and calling people to the “ancient order.” To avoid creating a new party named after a person (as the Lutherans and Wesleyans) or a characteristic doctrine (as the Baptists and Presbyterians,) they chose the name Disciples of Christ. For similar reasons, Campbell ceased publishing the Christian Baptist and began a new paper, the Millennial Harbinger.

The second group was led by Barton Stone. Stone had broken away from the Presbyterian church in 1803, and began calling believers to unite under the name “Christians” upon the Bible alone. He formed congregations throughout Ohio and Kentucky.

As the Disciples and the Christians went about preaching in the same territory, they naturally encountered one another. They found that they held many of the same convictions, and began to associate informally. But there was one difference in their doctrine. The Disciples held that a person must be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins in order to enter the fellowship of believers. The Christians taught baptism for forgiveness of sins, but they received new members simply by giving “the right hand of fellowship,” and left it up to each one to decide whether to be baptized. The two leaders held each other in high respect, and communicated on more than one occasion about the possibility of a union between the two groups. Campbell had significant influence on Stone in bringing him around on the key topics of difference.

Meanwhile, the members of the two groups continued to associate with one another at every opportunity. Then in January 1832, representatives of the two movements (John “Raccoon” Smith from the Disciples, and Barton Stone from the Christians) met in Lexington to discuss a union. They agreed to unify based on the Bible and the Bible only. They were not concerned about their different opinions on various topics, and agreed not to make those opinions a condition of fellowship. The two groups in attendance became one that day, and went out to take the message of union to the other congregations.

Maybe we can do that again one day.

A current conversation over at Jay Guin’s blog sparked my interest in the “marks of the church.”  On the surface, the concept has some unpleasant connotations for someone who longs for the visible unity of the Lord’s church.  Proclaiming a list of “marks of the church” seems to move in the other direction, distinguishing one church from all the others.  It says “We are the true church.  The others are not.”  

Apparently the concept comes originally from the Catholic church.  In the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, the phrase “[We believe]… in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”  was added to the Nicene Creed.  These four adjectives became known as the “Four Marks of the Church.” The four marks are associated not only with the Catholic church, but also appear in creeds of many Protestant denominations.

A quick Google search brings back interesting results on the subject.   In the early 1900’s, in a book titled “Trail of Blood”, J. H. Carroll identified eleven marks of the (Baptist) church:

1. Its Head and Founder–CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18) 

2. Its only rule of faith and practice–THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17) 

3. Its name–“CHURCH,” “CHURCHES.” (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16) 

4. Its polity–CONGREGATIONAL–all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12) 

5. Its members–only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5) 

6. Its ordinances–BELIEVERS’ BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20) 

7. Its officers–PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16) 

8. Its work–getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God’s Word), teaching them (“to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”). (Matt. 28:16-20) 

9. Its financial plan–“Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel,” (I Cor. 9:14) 

10. Its weapons of warfare–spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20) 

11. Its independence–separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

In more recent times, defining the marks of the true church seems to have become something of a hobby among a few groups.  Churches of Christ have taken our turn at this hobby.  Searching Google for  “marks of the New Testament Church” helps to narrow down to the the efforts of churches of Christ to define these marks.  A few examples of these efforts  (ppt) suffice  to show what they are trying to accomplish.  These lists emphasize the features that make churches of Christ unique.  They seem designed to prove that churches of Christ are the only true churches.  While the principles in these lists may be correct, it cannot be shown from the scriptures that a church missing one of these characteristics is therefore not a true church.  (For example, a church with a name not found in scripture is not for that reason a false church.)

Biblically, there was only one church, with local congregations in many places.  A person who became a Christian automatically became a member of the church and began to assemble together with the other Christians in their location.  Similarly today,  any assembly of Christians is the church in that location.  So the true mark of a church is that it is composed of Christians.  Any assembly of true Christians is a true church of Christ.

There are many topics and issues on which many churches differ.  Some of these differences are quite significant.  The same was true in the first century.  Based on the information we have from the scriptures, perhaps the Corinthian church was farthest from sound doctrine and practice in its day.  That congregation was divided into factions; they condoned sexual immorality; they were taking one another to court; they were playing with idolatry;  they were abandoning the gender roles they had been taught; they were corrupting the Lord’s supper; they had an unhealthy attitude toward spiritual gifts; and some of them even denied the resurrection of the dead.  Yet Paul did not hestiate to call them a church of God.   They were sanctified by God. 

The only definitive marks that distinguish a true church from a false one is whether or not its members are Christians.   Whatever else may be wrong with them, they are an assembly of people saved by the blood of Christ.  The other things matter, sometimes profoundly.  But if the members are Christians, the blood of Christ continually cleanses them.  The blood of Christ on each member is the only defining mark of the true church. 

In my previous post I talked about church membership from a biblical perspective. There just doesn’t seem to be any biblical support for a concept of church membership distinct from the list of Christians who assemble together at a regular time and place.

But there is another side to the story about church membership. This article from 2005 on Christianity Today advocates a definitive approach to church membership for the legal protection of the church. In the course of practicing its religious convictions, a church may have to take action that leads to a civil lawsuit. The biblical practice of church discipline is a clear example of a Christian doctrine that might lead to a lawsuit.

A person who is disciplined by the church might claim he or she did not consent to the practice as a part of being a member. By clearly defining who is a member, and clearly teaching the doctrine of the church on the matter of church discipline, a church can protect itself in the eyes of the secular courts. They can show that the disciplined member knew, or should have known, the teaching of the church regarding discipline. Since the disciplined member continued to be a member anyway, he or she assumed the responsibility for the consequences of that decision. So the church would have a strong position in the event of a lawsuit.

If the church has not taken adequate measures to define membership and to teach about church discipline, the threat of lawsuits might deter them from carrying out biblical discipline. That may in turn lead to harm coming to members of the church by the one who should have been disciplined — and even more risk of lawsuits.

The approach advocated in the Christianity Today article is to have a “membership covenant” signed by each member, stating among other things their awareness of church discipline policy. With such a signed statement on file, a disciplined member would have little recourse in the secular courts. That approach probably sounds good to a lawyer, but it sounds pretty heavy-handed and insensitive to me. I don’t know of any church that carries matters that far, in an effort to protect against the remote possibility of a future discipline case leading to a lawsuit.

I’m just not comfortable with placing requirements on church membership that come from an indisputably secular source. I think it should be enough to keep a membership list, to have a process for welcoming new members, and a regular practice of teaching the scriptures, including the subject of discipline. Then, if discipline is necessary, the church should document each step in the process as a person is warned about what will happen if they do not repent. In all such cases, the church should seek the advice of a good Christian lawyer to guide them through the process.

The day a Christian first arrives in our midst is not the time to talk about the prospect of expelling them from the church. Christians should be welcomed into the church with open arms and made to feel like a beloved part of the family. That is what they are!

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so take my advice on this with a grain of salt!

What does it mean to be a “member” of a congregation?

We read of quite a few congregations in the New Testament. Paul wrote two letters to “the church of God in Corinth.” Galatians was written to “the churches in Galatia.” Romans chapter 16 mentions multiple churches (Gk ekklesias, or assembly). The term “church” referred to the people who assembled together regularly in a particular place. It was obvious who was a part of a particular church. What made a person a member of a certain church was that they were a Christian, and that they assembled with that group.

When a person went from one congregation to another, there seems to have been a practice of sending a letter of recommendation:

Act 18:27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

1Co 16:3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

2Co 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you?

Php 2:29 Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him,

Col 4:10 My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)

3Jn 1:10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

The purpose of those letters was to confirm the fact that the person was a faithful Christian. The letter did not add another requirement for church membership. Diotrephes apparently was refusing to accept some from another congregation who came with a proper recommendation — and was publicly “called out” for his refusals.

Shepherds need to know who is part of the flock under their care. So there needs to be some kind of communication to let the shepherds know the sheep, and to let the sheep know the shepherds. But what should be the process for accepting a member into a local congregation?

It seems reasonable (and there is biblical precedent) to confirm with the previous congregation that the person is a faithful Christian. But a Christian’s “membership” in the congregation should not be contingent upon the leadership exercising that option. It also seems reasonable to explain to the new member what the local leadership expects of all the Christians (Heb 13:17). But again, their “membership” should not be contingent on leadership getting around to having that conversation. As soon as a Christian begins assembling with the rest, he or she is a part of the assembly (aka church.) A Christian should not be expected to jump through hoops to become a member of the local congregation. There should be no probationary period!

Once someone is a member of a congregation, they should be considered a member until they move to another congregation, or until they fall away. If they move, there should be a positive communication with their new congregation to be sure that shepherds there are aware of their new sheep. If a person is showing signs of falling away, multiple persistent attempts must be made to bring them back. A sheep does not cease to be the responsibility of the shepherds when the sheep wanders away! (Eze 34:2-6 Eze 34:12 Eze 34:16) It is not the responsibility of the sheep to seek out the shepherd. Rather the shepherd is responsible to retrieve the wandering sheep. Wandering sheep are still part of the flock, and are still the responsibility of the flock’s shepherds.

The modern concept of church membership is not found in the scriptures. It seems to have been invented to simplify the job of shepherds. But in effect it gives shepherds an excuse not to do an important part of their jobs. I don’t think that excuse will stand up on the day of judgment.

Those are my thoughts on the question. I am interested to know how other congregations handle this.

Heb 10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

A primary responsibility of church leadership is to prepare God’s people for works of service. (Eph 4:11-12) I’ve written before about the need for Christians to be active in doing good works. This is the purpose for which we were created in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:8-10) By doing good works we bring glory to God (Matt 5:14-16, 1 Pet 2:12). It is therefore essential for church leadership to be effective at promoting good works in the life of every Christian.

We are instructed to consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good works. So let’s consider that question. What motivates people to do good works?

An interesting study published in 1973 illustrates some fascinating and valuable insights into motivation. Quoting from an article citing that study:

The 1973 paper “Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis” by M Lepper, D Green & R Nisbett, reported an interesting experimental observation. During children’s free-play time, a fun drawing activity was introduced. They observed the children playing and selected those children who appeared to find intrinsic satisfaction in drawing. These children were placed under three different conditions.

Condition 1: “Good Player” certificate was shown to some of the children, and asked if they would like to draw to win the certificate.

Condition 2: Some children were given the opportunity to simply engage in drawing and the children were given the “Good Player” certificate unexpectedly.

Condition 3: Some children simply drew without expecting or receiving any reward.

Two weeks later, all these children were again allowed to engage in the drawing activity. The result was interesting. It was found that the children who chose to draw for the reward showed less interest in drawing, and also when the reward was withdrawn, these children simply stopped drawing. Children in the other two conditions showed no significant change in their interest in drawing. The result seems to suggest that the external reward of a “Good Player” certificate destroyed the original intrinsic motivation for drawing.

The above study suggests that intrinsic motivation (that which is based on satisfaction inherent in the activity itself) can be displaced by extrinsic motivation (that which is based on rewards and punishments.) Once intrinsic motivation has been displaced, it can be hard to get back. In the end, people often lose all motivation to do what they once were highly motivated to do.

How does this apply to Christians doing good works?

Clearly, God uses rewards and punishments to get us to do the right things. But we are also called to do things out of a higher motivation. The greatest command is to love God. The love of God should compel us to do the right things (2 Cor 5:14-15). God created this motivation by sending his son to die on the cross for us. We love because God first loved us. And therefore we serve in joyful, grateful response. That is an intrinsic motivation.

The second greatest command is to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are called to serve one another in love (Gal 5:13). When our serving is prompted by love for the person we serve, we are acting on intrinsic motivation. If our service is not prompted by love, we accomplish nothing. (1 Cor 13:1-3).

The reward and punishment God uses as motivation are heaven and hell. From the parable of the sheep and the goats:

Matt 25:34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.’ “

Matt 25:41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ “

We should use all the motivations that God uses to spur one another on toward love and good works. But if we add our own rewards and punishments to the mix, we are taking a dangerous path. Many of us have seen man-made motivations (supervision and management of performance with rewards and punishments) kill the healthy intrinsic motivation to do good, over a period of years.

The church should not manage performance with rewards and punishments like the corporate world does. Instead we should nurture people’s intrinsic motivation. Like the apostle Paul, we should focus on traits like compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience (Col 3:12) We should cultivate the field so that the good fruit will thrive. Let’s cultivate love as the fundamental motivation for the Christian life. Love never fails.