Timothy Cowin

03/03/2007

The Nature of the Church: The Body

The Body of Christ

God the Father sent the Son, (John 8.42). God the Father and the Son sent the Spirit, (Luke 11.13; John 14.26, 16.7-8). God the Father, the Son and the Spirit sent and are continually sending the Church on mission into the world, (Matthew 28.18-20; John 20.21; Acts 1.8). The church has been commissioned to be God’s “sent” people, on mission to take the gospel to the world. The mission of God continues on earth as Jesus sends his people out into the world as the continuation of His mission. As Jesus was sent, so is the church; to proclaim the gospel. Because our God is a missionary God, and because our Lord was a missionary savior, our identity is reflected in our being a missionary people. Therefore, mission is not merely what we do it is who we are in the world.

Who the church is in the world is revealed by the biblical description of it being the “body of Christ.” This image is used sixteen times in the New Testament as a metaphor for the church.[1] In Colossians we are taught that Jesus is “the head of the body, the church,” (Colossians 1:18). Just as a body is controlled by a brain, so Jesus is seen as having an “organic relationship over the church in which he exercised the control over his people.”[2] Thus, the church is then Christ’s body on earth, subjected to do his will. Paul teaches in Ephesians:

And he put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1.22-23)

As his body, the church continues to be the powerful presence of Christ Jesus in and to the world.[4] In a spiritual sense we are Christ’s loving serving presence on earth. Richardson points out that, “the church is thus the means of Christ’s work in the world; it is his hands and feet, his mouth and voice. As in his incarnate life, Christ had to have a body to proclaim his gospel and to do his work, so in his resurrection in this age he still needs a body to be the instrument of his gospel and of his work in the world.”[5]

This truth implies that the church must be filled with the Spirit of Christ and allow him to work through them. What we do is more about what Jesus works through us rather than what we do for him. Therefore, it is obvious from looking at the mission of Jesus on earth, that the church should primarily be an evangelistic, missionary body. If the body is not fulfilling the missionary mandates of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 24:46-48, John 20:21-23, Acts 1:8), then it is not in proper subordination to Christ the head.

Just as Jesus was God incarnated in human flesh, the church also follows Jesus’ model as it exists in the world as his body to reach the world with the gospel.[6] This is often referred to as an “incarnational” nature of the church. Stetzer observes that as Christ was God incarnated, so the church is to be the incarnation of Christ’s continued mission in the world:

Incarnational describes what’s actually happening. Just as Christ came to live among us, we dwell with the people around us. In many ways, we’re like them. But we’re changed, transformed; and because of that, we seek to change and transform.[7]

The reality is that the church is God’s agent to reach the world. Coleman points out that:

Christian disciples are sent men—sent out in the same work of world evangelism to which the Lord was sent, and for which He gave His life. Evangelism is not an optional accessory to our life. It is the heartbeat of all that we are called to be and do.[8]

The fact is that God desires to use ordinary, individual members of a church to incarnationally be on a gospel-mission in their world; in their work-places, schools, neighborhoods, and through other social interactions in their culture. Missions and evangelism can and should be more than a program or ministry of a church. Missions and evangelism can occur as Christ’s people live out Christ’s mission in their day to day lives. Stetzer calls these types of Churches and Christians “missional” as opposed to being merely “mission-minded:”

A missional church is “on mission.” Time for another definition: on mission means being intentional and deliberate about reaching others. For example, on-mission Christians might look like these people: She establishes a Bible study in her home for neighbors who are unchurched. He finds opportunities to share Christ with coworkers. A couple’s family vacations are mission trips, not only to share evangelism experiences but also to teach their children the value of sharing Christ as an ongoing lifestyle. An on-mission congregation might be one that sponsors events to bring into the church those people who usually avoid church, thinking it’s irrelevant…Christian leaders are beginning to understand that the church must not rework its programs; it must rediscover its mission. In short, it must become missional.[9]

The incarnational aspect of a church’s ministry as the body of Christ can only be fulfilled in the lives of his disciples. A building cannot penetrate the culture that exists around it. An institution that meets at a designated address in a specific facility is unable to permeate families, workplaces, schools and neighborhoods with the gospel. Only as Christ’s people become missional will we see the Gospel permeate our culture in ways similar to what is recorded in Acts.

We observe this kind of on-mission Christianity in Acts 8. After Stephen was killed a great persecution broke out against the church and we are told that, “Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word,” (Acts 8.4). From this verse we see that the mission to take the gospel to the world was accepted and lived out by not only the Apostles but also by ordinary Christians. We desperately need to foster this kind of incarnational evangelistic lifestyle in the lives of every member of our church.

As every church member understands that they are the hands and feet of Christ in this world, they will hopefully seek the Holy Spirit’s direction and empowering to take the gospel with them in their day-to-day lives. Then we will see our communities impacted for Christ in ways that many of us have never seen. As Jesus was the fullness of God incarnated and embodied in a human being, the missional church follows Jesus’ model, learning from him how to embody the fullness of Christ carrying on his mission in the world.

[1] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, (
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 290.

[2] Peter T. O’Brian, Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians, Philemon, (Waco: Word Book Publisher, 1982), 49.

[3]Richard R. Melick, Jr., The New American Commentary: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991), 221.

[4] Andrew T. Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, (Dallas: Word Books, Publishers, 1990), 80.

[5] Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology o f the New Testament, (New York: Harper, 1958), 254,255.

[6] Aldrich, Lifestyle Evangelism, 31-32

[7] Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches (
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 2.

[8] Coleman, The Master Plan of Evangelism, 92.

[9] Ibid., 19-20.

02/28/2007

The Nature of the Church: The Ekklesia

There are many Christians who have erroneously come to understand that most of Christianity can be summed up by what happens inside of a building that has come to be known as “the church.” Christians in America have come to see “going to church” or their ministry “in a church” as the biggest part of what it means for them to be a disciple. The only way we will have a greater impact in America with the gospel message is for all disciples to understand that “church” is not a place, but a people.

The Ekklesia

The Greek word for church is ekklesia. It literally means “the assembly” or “the called out ones.” W.A. Criswell points out that in Greek usage, “the word referred to an assembly of the citizens summoned by the town crier… It was a term to describe the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the right of citizenship for the transaction of public affairs.”[1] In the New Testament the word church is used one hundred fifteen times. Ekklesia is the predominate term used to identify those who have accepted Christ Jesus as their Lord and who band together to carry out His mission and ministry on earth. The church is literally the assembly of people who hear Christ’s call to salvation and service. Of this assembly Jesus declared, “…on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). From this verse we know that Jesus founded the church and that it is His desire is for it to continue His mission on earth.

One of the greatest hindrances churches in
America face today is the lack of understanding that the average Christian has concerning the biblical term ekklesia. Many Christians think of “church” as the place they attend worship on Sundays or the institution that they have become members of. This kind of thinking causes Christians to unknowingly abdicate their personal responsibility to participate in, and personally identify with the gospel-mission.
Mission becomes an institutional goal but not necessarily one that each member of the church identifies with.

Subsequently, many Christians do not possess a personal sense of being “sent” by the Lord Jesus (John 20.21). Evangelism in their mind has become a ministry of the church in which they belong. Being on mission is an activity that has come to be seen as optional and something that some Christians choose to do as they go on organized mission trips, engage themselves in evangelistic programs, or attend weekly outreach/visitation nights. The “church” may have a mission or an evangelistic component, but many Christians who comprise a local church do not have a personal identity with or sense a responsibility for the gospel-mission. The gospel-mission is something left for others to fulfill. This attitude could be corrected by leading Christians to come to a biblical understanding of the term “church.”

In the context of the ancient world, the term ekklesia was used to describe a gathering of a group of people. An ekklesia is not an inanimate structure made by human hands complete with stained glass windows and a steeple. A Christian ekklesia or church is made by the work of the Holy Spirit and is comprised of all the disciples who identify with it. When this truth is properly understood, each individual disciple should come to understand that they do not simply “go to church” but that they are the church. The gospel-mission is not a program or a special training class; it is forever to be the lifestyle of each and every Christian.

[1] W.A. Criswell, Criswell’s Guidebook for Pastors (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1980), 97.

3 Comments

Filed under Ecclesiology, Missional

02/20/2007

The Four Missional Mandates!

Four Missional Mandates

The gospel-mission of Christ’s people was clearly made known as seen in some of the final words of our Lord. Before the Lord Jesus ascended to be with the Father, He gave clear and consistent direction to His followers that they were to continue His mission of redemption by proclaiming the gospel to the world. The ultimate object of every church should be to come to an understanding from the Scriptures of Christ’s instructions concerning its purpose and mission. The will of our Lord concerning the mission of His people can clearly be seen in the following 4 missional mandates.[1]

MATTHEW 28.18-20.

This passage of course, is known as “The Great Commission.” Christ clearly reveals here that it is His desire and command for His followers to continue His mission in the world. Coleman points out that, “On a mountain in Galilee He gave His great commission to, not only the eleven disciples (Matthew 28.16), but also to the whole church numbering then about 500 brethren (1 Corinthians 15.6).[2]:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28.18-20)

From this passage we are able to discern an important aspect of what it means to be engaged in Christ’s mission. At the heart of this “commission” is the imperative commandment to “make disciples.” This task is the main emphasis of this passage. The formation of disciples in all nations is the will of Christ. Mission here is “making disciples.”[3] I will address this task of the mission of the church in greater detail later.

From examining the book of Acts, it is clear that the early church set out to fulfill the commands that are included in this charge. In the story of the first church we see people being baptized and subsequently being taught the doctrines of the Christian faith (Acts 2.41-42). We also see the expansion of the Gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles and from Jerusalem to the outer reaches of the known world. As the church made disciples who in turn made disciples, the known world was being penetrated with the gospel, (Acts 17.6). Certainly the early church understood its mission in the world.

LUKE 24.46-49

In this passage we are told that just before the ascension, Jesus gave the disciples further direction concerning what their ministry would be composed of:

Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high. (John 24.46-49)

Luke provides for us another aspect of the mission. In this passage the mission is the proclamation of what is in essence the gospel. We are given the mission to proclaim or literally “to preach.”[4] The verb “be preached” is the Greek kerrusso. It has the meaning of one who proclaims like a herald. The disciples were to be Christ’s official heralds of the gospel to the ends of the earth.[5]

We are also given the content of that message: Christ suffered and rose from the dead so we must respond with repentance for the remission of sin. It is significant that our proclamation should be done, “in His name.” This will be a major them in Acts. “In His name,” in the Old Testament indicated Yahweh’s authority. Authority has now been transferred to Christ Jesus.[6] By that authority His church is sent out.

It is clear that this command was fulfilled in the ministry of the first disciples, for in the first documented proclamation of the first church we see Peter proclaiming, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” (Acts 2.38). Christ certainly gave the church a gospel-mission and the first disciples clearly accepted it. This is the same mission that should not be a part of a churches ministry but at the heart of its ministry.

JOHN 20.21

Each of the previous mandates revealed that Christ’s will is for the church to make disciples by proclaiming the gospel to all people. This gospel was to be a proclamation of repentance, forgiveness, and the remission of sin in the name of Jesus. In John’s gospel we are able to understand a different but extremely important nuance concerning the nature of the mission of the church. It is here that Christ is recorded as saying:

“Peace be with you.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” (John 20.19-21)

Jesus reminded them that He came to the world as a “sent” one. The term the Lord uses is the word commonly translated “apostle” and literally means messenger. Christ was sent as the official apostle/messenger of God the father. Now Christ through this commission is drawing his followers into the unity and mission of the Father and of the Son.[7] Here mission is clearly seen as “being sent out.”

Jesus lived in the world as one who was on a mission. As a “sent” one, Jesus came to fulfill the Father’s will. Jesus spoke the Father’s words. Jesus lived among people so that He could teach and reach them. Now Christ instructs His disciples that just as He was “sent” by the Father that they also must understand and recognize that they are being “sent.” The followers of Jesus have clearly received the responsibility of continuing the gospel-mission and ministry of Christ Jesus in this world.

It is important for the modern church to understand that they are to dwell in their communities as “sent” ones. Often the established church begins to view itself as being a sending body. When this happens there is a danger that the church becomes disconnected from its own mission in its own community. If the church is going to effectively reach their communities for Christ, it is important that they maintain as their corporate identity that they are missionaries to their community. Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit is still sending them to reach their neighbors for Jesus.

ACTS 1.8

The fourth missional mandate for the church is found in the opening verses of the book of Acts. It is the key verse in understanding the expansion, growth, and power of the church as chronicled in the rest of the book of Acts. Here Jesus declares:

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1.8)

We see here the same reference to the power of the Holy Spirit as recorded in Luke and John. In this passage, the Lord makes it clear that the Holy Spirit was going to give His disciples power to be witnesses and missionaries even to “the end of the earth.” The Lord specifically called the disciples “my witnesses.” The word is martures of which we get our word martyrs.[8] In a literal usage it means to simply be an eyewitness. For each of these men and countless disciples to follow, the name took on a new meaning as so many of Christ’s followers would maintain their “witness” even unto death.

The theological truth found in this passage is that not only is the triune God sending the church into the world to be on a gospel-mission, but that this same God would by the presence of the Holy Spirit, be with them and empower them in carrying out this great task. “The disciples were to be the true, ‘restored’ Israel, fulfilling its mission to be a ‘light for the Gentiles’ so that God’s salvation might reach ‘to the ends of the earth’” (Isaiah 49.6).[9] Mission in Acts is being a witness of the gospel.

So we see a clear and consistent record of Christ giving missional mandates to His followers. From these verses at least 4 aspects of what it means to be on mission can be discerned:

1. Mission is making disciples of all nations (Matthew).

2. Mission is proclaiming—making known the gospel (Luke).

3. Mission is being sent out (John).

4. Mission is being a physical witness of the Lord Jesus (Acts). [10]

Christ left His followers with the task of continuing the mission that was given to Him by our Heavenly Father. Christ’s mission was to make possible, by His substitutionary death for sin, and His glorious resurrection, the redemption of a people for the glory of God. The preeminent mission of the church is to embrace Christ’s mission and work to see, as the first Moravian missionaries would say, “May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!”[11] Every church has as its primary mission the task of taking the gospel to their world; to understand that they have been sent on a gospel mission!

When I played football in high school I understood that the purpose of our team was to play and win games each Friday night. Every member of the team knew that the team existed to play and win games. As a member of the team, there was no question or doubt in my mind that everything that we did as a team revolved around playing and winning games. Without games the hours of learning, memorizing, and practicing plays would have been senseless activity. Without the game the countless hours of off-season, physical conditioning and weight lifting would have been good for nothing more than personal edification. The games that were played each Friday, on those fall nights, gave purpose and meaning to all our activities as a team.

Every church needs to have a clear understanding and a full acceptance of what is their “game.” The “game” for the church is the fulfillment of these missional mandates that have been given by Christ Jesus our Lord. Furthermore each disciple must be led to understand and accept that because they are a member of the church that they too are to live as “sent ones;” on mission to reach people with the gospel.

[1] Stetzer &Putman, Breaking the Missional Code, 30

[2] Robert E. Coleman, The Master Plan of Evangelism (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1987) 91.

[3] Johannes Nissen, New Testament and
Mission: Historical and Hermeneutical Perspectives, (Frankfort: Peter Lang, 1996), 22.

[4] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 1939. [5] Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 58. [6] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 1939.[7] Andreas J. Kostenberger, John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 573.

[8] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the SBC, 1930), 10.

[9] John B. Polhill, The New American Commentary: Acts, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 85.

[10] Johannes Nissen, New Testament and
Mission, 18.

[11] John Piper, http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper89/05-07-89.htm

7 Comments

Filed under Missional

02/16/2007

The Mission of the Church

There is much talk about the mission of the church and why it exists. There are probably few pastors that could not name Rick Warren’s 5 purposes of the church.[1] Churches and its leaders struggle to hammer out mission, vision, and purpose statements. In all of the effort and desire to formulate nice, neat statements that describe the mission and strategy of the local church, I think that many have lost sight of and may have obscured the clear preeminent mission that every church has already been given. That mission is what I call the “gospel-mission.” There are many activities, ministries, functions and purposes that a church may have, but the number one mission of every church is the gospel-mission: to carry out the redemptive plan of God on earth.

There is a tremendous need in the typical church for a fuller understanding of the mission that has been given to it by its founder, Christ Jesus. When one looks at the book of Acts, you cannot help but to sense the excitement and the passion the early church had in sharing the gospel with the world. Christ had risen from the dead and they went with power to make this truth known. Amberson is correct in his assessment that, “We, today, need to recapture the note of spontaneity which existed in the New Testament and, therefore, produced churches as the believers witnessed to the Lord Jesus Christ.”[2] As you read the pages of Acts, you come to understand that the spread of the gospel was the natural, powerful product of Christians living out Christ’s gospel-mission in the world. The early Christians understood and embraced the gospel-mission that Christ had given them.

There is no doubt that Christ’s desire was for His church to see itself as being a “sent” people. Christ was sent by the Father on a mission, and Christ has clearly sent His followers to continue the fulfillment of that gospel-mission.[3] Christ’s plan was to leave a community of people who would carry out His mission to the ends of the earth. The three years of Christ’s earthly ministry was in part filled with the training and mentoring of disciples that would one day be left with the task of perpetually proclaiming the gospel to the world. Christ prepared and trained His followers for the eventuality of His departure and their inheritance of this gospel-mission.

Matthew chapter 10 records Christ’s instructions to the 12 in correlation to their being sent to proclaim the “kingdom of heaven.” This mission was preparatory training for the day that they would eventually be left by Christ, and empowered by the Spirit to take the gospel to the world. Immediately before the disciples were given this mission, the Lord told them that “The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest,” (Matthew 9.37-38). Interestingly the word for “send out” is ekballo which could be translated as “thrust out.” It could refer to workers who are already in the field but need to have a fire lit under them to thrust them out.”[4] What a fitting description for the church that already resides in the “field” but need to rediscover their biblical mission.

We know that this gospel-mission was not to be confined to just the twelve because the gospel of Luke tells us that at another time Jesus sent 72 disciples on a similar mission:

After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He himself was about to go. Then He said to them. “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.” (Luke 10.1-2)

A significant lesson to be taken from this passage is that mission and ministry is not confined to a select few. Jesus expanded the ministry beyond the 12.[5] The mission of the church is to be shared by all the members of the fellowship. Sharing the gospel can and should be the ministry of everybody. The problem of too few “laborers” is once again the message given in Luke. The mission must be carried out by more and more disciples. Of this passage Bock perceptively points out that:

Part of the mission’s goal then is to expand the number of disciples, so that the number of those who can engage in the missionary task can grow. In other words, if people receive the message, they will help deliver it…Luke is saying that one of the results of the mission is that more take responsibility for it.[6]

Christ Jesus was on a mission to redeem the world through His sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection and also to prepare a people to continue His mission by proclaiming the gospel to the world. This mission was not intended to be just for the twelve.

[1] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995)..

[2] Talmadge R. Amberson, “The Foundations for Church Planting,” in The Birth of Churches, ed. Talmadge R. Amberson (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), 45.

[3] Joe Aldrich, Lifestyle Evangelism, (Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1993), 30-31.

[4] Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 167.

[5] Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke 9:51-24:53, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 994.

[6] Ibid., 995.

4 Comments

Filed under Missional, Uncategorized

01/19/2007

Missio Dei Part 2

The Mission of God

Mission refers to that action of one being sent to fulfill the will of a superior. In the Bible, it is God who commissions and sends His servants to perform His will. The mission of God has been from the very beginning of time His plan for worldwide redemption. God has, “a divine program to glorify himself by bringing salvation to all on planet earth.”[1]

Mission in the Old Testament

From the first pages of God’s Word we are able to see God’s redemptive nature. The concept of mission and redemption is certainly not germane to just the New Testament. The New Testament continues the story that began in the Old Testament. God from the very beginning of His self-revelation has made Himself known as a God who reaches out redemptively to make a people for His very own.

One of the first and greatest examples of the mission of God is found in Genesis 12. The Lord came to Abram and said:

Get out of your country, from your kindred and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make you name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 12.1-3)

Kaiser identifies this passage as the Old Testament “Great Commission:” “This is the earliest statement of the fact that it will be God’s purpose and plan to see that the message of his grace and blessing comes to every person on planet earth.”[2] Abraham, who is known as the father of the Jewish nation, was given a covenant that had included in it a blessing to, “all the families of the earth…” The goal of the Old Testament was to show that one day both Jews and Gentiles would come to a saving faith in the Messiah: Christ Jesus. The plan of God from the beginning was to redeem people from every tribe and nation. God’s eternal plan was to make salvation possible for all people.[3]

Certainly God called Israel to be His special people. What is sometimes obscured is the fact that from the very beginning God intended for the Jewish people to be a light and a blessing to all the peoples of the earth. The purpose of God was to bless
Israel so that He could work through them in such a way that all the nations of the earth would be able to know the one true God and experience the gift of redemption.[4]

Another passage that reveals God’s mission to bless all the people of the earth is revealed in the prophetic message found in Isaiah 42.1,6; 49.6

Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, my elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles…

I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles.

Indeed He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.”

These messages to the prophet Isaiah reveal that God intended to use Israel to be a blessing to all people. God’s covenant with Abraham included his immediate offspring but it also included the nations that would see the “light” in God’s relationship with
Israel. Isaiah’s message concerned the futility of believing in other gods. There is only one God. The word “justice” in 42.1 is the Hebrew word mispat.[5] It is a judicial term that literally means a “judgment.” God is going to make His judgment known. “Once the ‘gods’ of the nations are shown to be nothing and a delusion, the coastlands, and the wider earth are placed in a position where they might see and receive the mispat that the One God means to be theirs, as offspring of servant Abraham.”[6]

In these revelations to Isaiah, the Messiah is clearly presented as a “servant” who has a mission to save not only the Jew but also the Gentile. The Messiah was going to bring “salvation” to the Gentiles as well as to the Jew. Hanson points out that, “Since the compass of God’s redemptive activity is the entire created world and its scope is the restoration of all that exists to wholeness, the nations are included in God’s plan.”[7]

Mission is not just a concept of the New Testament, it has always been part of the nature and heart of the triune God. The mission of the New Testament is grounded in the teachings of the Old Testament. The mission that God had revealed in the Old Testament has continued in the New Testament first, in the incarnation of Christ and secondly in the continuing mission of Christ Jesus’ church.

Mission in the New Testament

The Bible is the revelation of God’s mission to redeem a people for Himself. At the heart of this message is the person introduced to us in the New Testament: Jesus Christ. Jesus is presented to us as none other than the eternal God incarnated as a man (John 1.1,14, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1). He came to the world which He made, to live without sin, and to die as a substitute for sinners, (Romans 5). He was resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit in power and glory and given a name that is to be above all names: Jesus Christ, the Lord! (Acts 2.24-36, Philippians 2.10-11). In His death and resurrection Jesus was victorious over sin, death, and Satan. Jesus is now exalted as King of kings and Lord of lords and is going to come again to judge the living and the dead, (Acts 2.33, 2 Timothy 4.1). It is by the name of Jesus that all peoples must come before God in repentance and faith to receive the gift of eternal life, (Romans 1.16). Those who are unrepentant are already condemned and will be punished for their sin and unbelief in a fiery hell (Revelation 20.11-15). This story of God’s redemptive mission through His Son Jesus, in the language of the New Testament, is called the euaggelion or literally “the good news.” [8] We commonly refer to the mission of God as seen in the New Testament as the “gospel.”

This gospel needs to be continually taught and grasped by the local church. Certainly one can be saved with a simple faith in Christ for the Scriptures teach us, “For ‘whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’” (Romans 10.13). But if the church does not understand the gospel in the context of God’s missional plan for His church, then it will lose vision of its purpose in the world. Mark Dever and Paul Alexander aptly warn:

The gospel and its required response, therefore, are the very last things we want to assume that people know—even if some of them insist otherwise. The human heart is astoundingly deceptive (Jer. 17.9), nominalism (being a Christian in name only) has spread like gangrene, and misunderstandings about the Gospel abound among professing evangelicals, especially regarding its relationship to other religions and its implications for our everyday lives. People need to hear the Gospel—whether they’re professing Christians or not.[9]

An ignorance and lack of understanding of the gospel as it fits into the context of God’s mission has produced Christians and churches that have certainly become “nominal” in our world today. People may know enough of the gospel to have attained their own salvation, but they are ignorant of God’s purpose and plan to reach the world through everybody that has already been reached. To fully understand the gospel means to also fully understand the means by which God has designed to make the gospel known: the gospel-mission of the church, His people.

[1] Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Mission in the Old Testament, (
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000),12-13.

[2] Ibid., 7.

[3]Ibid., 10.

[4] Ibid., 20.

[5] Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1969), 95

[6] The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VI (
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 362.

[7] Paul D. Hanson, Interpretation: Isaiah 40-66, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1995), 130.[8] James Strong, Strongs Concordance,(
Virginia: McDonald Publishing Company), 33.

[9] Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel (
Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2005), 43.

1 Comment

Filed under Missional

01/11/2007

Don’t Label Me! I Will Do that Myself; Thank You So Very Much!

While I sit here at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, attempting to get some writing completed, I just read a tremendous editorial in the
Louisville paper, written by the Rev. John Yates the rector and Os Guiness a parishioner of The Falls Church. This church is one of several
Virginia churches that voted last month to sever ties with the Episcopal Church.

The main reason given for the break-away was because:

“Episcopal revisionism negates the authority of faith. The sola scriptura doctrine of the Reformation church has been abandoned for the sola cultura (by the culture alone) way of the modern church.”

This insightful observation is both a prophetic indictment of the tendency of too many churches in America, and at the same time a warning to all others! I have posted the column in its entirety below.

LISTEN UP.

Before I release you to the editorial of Rev. Yates and Mr. Guiness, I want to point your attention to one other powerful claim these men have made that is extremely pertinent to all of us. This claim has caused me to rethink some of my own posts which I intend to edit.

In the course of giving the reason for their departure from the Episcopal Church, Yates and Guiness confront their opposition with this charge and challenge:

Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.

The more I reflect upon this statement, the more convinced I am that it is right. We should not label others. We should not tell others who they are or what they are. Out here in blog-world labels fly: liberal—conservative, cessationist—continualist, inerrantist—non-inerrantist, traditional—contemporary, historical Baptist—Charismatic, Landmark—cooperative ….

How tragic and exasperating it is to be labeled something that in your heart you know not to be true. We should leave the labeling and defining to the individual and then respond to their own definitions and terms.

GUIDELINES

Here are some new rules we should follow, not only in the blog-world, but also in all of life:

Why don’t we refuse to label anybody unless they approve the label?! We should “Honor the freedom of others to define themselves.” Unaccepted labels are always pejorative.
It is appropriate to request individuals to clarify their views and to ask them to identify their positions, but it wrong and “dehumanizing” to unilaterally do this for them!
When we attempt to “define” others there is a grave danger of “distorting” their view. To keep distortions to a minimum: May we all seek to understand the view of others so that we do not become guilty of blasting nothing more than our distortions of their views.

Having had the recent opportunity to visit the Crimes Against Humanity section in the Imperial War Museum in London, I learned that this is one of the first tactics/characteristics of all persecutors and destroyers of other humans throughout history…

Label and define your opponent,

Beat up the straw-man,

Raise a movement against them: regulate, marginalize, rally, and even riot

Remove them…

This was the treatment that Christians received from the Romans.
This was the treatment that early Baptists received from the Roman Catholics and even some of the Reformers.
This was the treatment that the Jews received from the Nazi’s.

My warning to myself and all other; in the midst of the spirit of debate CHECK YOUR HEART…God forbid that we would share in the spirit of such evil ways…

“By this all men will know that you are my disciples; by your love for one another.” JESUS

Washington Post Op-Ed, Rev. John Yates and Oz Guiness

When even President Gerald Ford’s funeral at Washington National Cathedral is not exempt from comment about the crisis in the Episcopal Church, we believe it is time to set the record straight as to why our church and so many others around the country have severed ties with the Episcopal Church. Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.
The core issue in why we left is not women’s leadership. It is not “Episcopalians against equality,” as the headline on a recent Post op-edby Harold Meyerson put it. It is not a “leftward” drift in the church. It is not even primarily ethical — though the ordination of a practicing homosexual as bishop was the flash point that showed how far the repudiation of Christian orthodoxy had gone.
The core issue for us is theological: the intellectual integrity of faith in the modern world. It is thus a matter of faithfulness to the lordship of Jesus, whom we worship and follow. The American Episcopal Church no longer believes the historic, orthodox Christian faith common to all believers. Some leaders expressly deny the central articles of the faith — saying that traditional theism is “dead,” the incarnation is “nonsense,” the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, the understanding of the cross is “a barbarous idea,” the Bible is “pure propaganda” and so on. Others simply say the creed as poetry or with their fingers crossed.
It would be easy to parody the “Alice in Wonderland” surrealism of Episcopal leaders openly denying what their faith once believed, celebrating what Christians have gone to the stake to resist — and still staying on as leaders. But this is a serious matter.
First, Episcopal revisionism abandons the fidelity of faith. The Hebrew scriptures link matters of truth to a relationship with God. They speak of apostasy as adultery — a form of betrayal as treacherous as a husband cheating on his wife.
Second, Episcopal revisionism negates the authority of faith. The “sola scriptura” (“by the scriptures alone”) doctrine of the Reformation church has been abandoned for the “sola cultura” (by the culture alone) way of the modern church. No longer under authority, the Episcopal Church today is either its own authority or finds its authority in the shifting winds of intellectual and social fashion — which is to say it has no authority.
Third, Episcopal revisionism severs the continuity of faith. Cutting itself off from the universal faith that spans the centuries and the continents, it becomes culturally captive to one culture and one time. While professing tolerance and inclusiveness, certain Episcopal attitudes toward fellow believers around the world, who make up a majority of the Anglican family, have been arrogant and even racist.
Fourth, Episcopal revisionism destroys the credibility of faith. There is so little that is distinctively Christian left in the theology of some Episcopal leaders, such as the former bishop of Newark, that a skeptic can say, as Oscar Wilde said to a cleric of his time, “I not only follow you, I precede you.” It is no accident that orthodox churches are growing and that almost all the great converts to the Christian faith in the past century, such as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, have been attracted to full-blooded orthodoxy, not to revisionism. The prospect for the Episcopal Church, already evident in many dioceses, is inevitable withering and decline.
Fifth, Episcopal revisionism obliterates the very identity of faith. When the great truths of the Bible and the creeds are abandoned and there is no limit to what can be believed in their place, then the point is reached when there is little identifiably Christian in Episcopal revisionism. Would that Episcopal leaders showed the same zeal for their faith that they do for their property. If the present decline continues, all that will remain of a once strong church will be empty buildings, kept going by the finances, though not the faith, of the fathers.
These are the outrages we protest. These are the infidelities that drive us to separate. These are the real issues to be debated. We remain Anglicans but leave the Episcopal Church because the Episcopal Church first left the historic faith. Like our spiritual forebears in the Reformation, “Here we stand. So help us God. We can do no other.”

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

01/08/2007

Missio Dei Part 1: The Church, Intentionally on Mission

This past week and all this week I am sitting in the library at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; attempting to get a big portion of writing done for my doctoral program. I have been completely away from the blogs. I am going to post some of the work I have been doing.

Recovering Our Mission

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life,” (John 3.16). This verse is possibly the most well-known and beloved verses of the entire Bible. Christ has taught us that God cares about the eternal destiny of people so much that He “sent” His son on a mission to redeem them. This truth is called the missio Dei; the mission of God. Through the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord, Jesus Christ, God has made a way for all people to have abundant and eternal life, (John 10.10, 14.1-6).

The Bible record is also consistent and clear in its recording of the fact that Christ Jesus taught His followers that they also were to be a missionary people. The missionary God sent Christ Jesus as a missionary to redeem the world. The missionary Christ has in turn left all who are His people with the mission of going into the world to make disciples; Christ-followers (Matthew 28.18-20).

The typical Christian needs to better understand the mission of God, the mission of Christ, and the subsequent mission of the church of which they consist. There is a great need to recapture a realization and understanding of the role that each Christian is called to have in fulfilling the mission of the Church. The pastors and church staff are not the only ones who are called to be on mission for Christ. In order for a church to have its greatest impact for the cause of Christ, it must recapture the vision of being a community of people who are joining the mission of Christ to redeem a lost people for Himself. Evangelism must become more than just a ministry of the church and be recognized as its preeminent mission. Evangelism must become more than just an activity of certain trained or gifted people in the church and be recognized as the ongoing mission that every Christian is empowered to participate in

The understanding that the church is called to be “missional” is a concept that is garnering much attention in
America. Jim Thomas has observed that:

On the one hand, missional hints at moving from church as a “club” for Christians, to church as Christ’s body, sent by God to reconcile the world to Himself. On the other hand, missional means moving from missions as an activity in which a few Christians are sent to foreign countries to convert unbelievers, to mission as God’s most basic purpose, intended for all believers.[1]

Various studies reveal that America is increasingly becoming an unchurched mission field. The percentage of people who identified themselves as Christians has dropped 9 percent from 1990 to 2001. George Barna has concluded that, “Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%. During that same period, the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million—a 92% increase.”[2]

If the mission of the church is to reach this country for Jesus, the statistics reveal we are losing ground. The condition of the typical church has much to do with the fact that Christianity is waning in influence in America. Sadly it is commonly reported that 80 percent of churches or either plateaued or declining. The majority of Christians in our churches do not share their faith with others. They are not engaged in the mission that has been left to us by our Lord. How true it is that evangelism is one of the highest values in the church but possibly one of the least practiced.[4]

The church needs to remember its gospel-message and that fact that its ultimate mission is to make known to the world this good news. In light of statistics that reveal the spiritual condition of our nation, it is appropriate for the church to begin to consider itself as a missionary entity and function accordingly. In this chapter I will address the Scriptural foundation for understanding that the heart of every church must be its connection to the mission of God. First we will look at the mission of God and then examine the subsequent mission of the church. Then we will examine the strategy and method that Jesus used to make disciples and reveal its relevance for the church today.

[1] Ed Stetzer & David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code (
Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006) 8.

[2] George Barna, www.barna.org

[3] Stetzer &Putman, Breaking the Missional Code, 17.

[4] Mark Mittelberg, Building a Contagious Church, (
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 20.

3 Comments

Filed under Missional, Uncategorized

12/28/2006

That Old Landmark Spirit…

There has been a great deal of discussion about the presence or lack thereof of a Landmark influence in the SBC. I for one do not think that there is an active Landmark movement today. But there are many in SB life that have beliefs that are either knowingly or unknowingly shaped by a Landmark influence.

THE FATHER OF LANDMARKISM

James Robinson Graves made Landmarkism popular through his writings in the Tennessee Baptist newspaper. In 1851, Graves called a meeting of everybody who held to the positions that he had made popular. They met at the Cotton Grove Baptist Church near Jackson, Tennessee. At this “Cotton Grove” meeting JR Graves submitted these questions:

1. Can Baptists, consistently with their principles on the Scriptures, recognize those societies not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem Church, but possessing different governments, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinances, doctrines and practices, as churches of Christ?

2. Ought they to be called gospel churches, or churches in a religious sense?

3. Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies as gospel ministers?

4. Is it not virtually recognizing them as official ministers to invite them into our pulpits, or by any other act that would or could be construed into such a recognition?

5. Can we consistently address as brethren those professing Christianity, who not only have not the doctrine of Christ and walk not according to his commandments, but are arrayed in direct and bitter opposition to them?

When I read these questions, I cannot help but to feel the spirit that is behind them. JR Graves and those first Landmakers were men that would only cooperate with those who agreed with them. They even went so far as to teach that we should not call Christians in Methodist or Presbyterian churches brothers and sisters in Christ. They brought a great amount of grief and division to Baptist Churches because of their sectarian spirit and their divisive attitudes.

Amazingly at the height of its power, the Landmark movement was able to force the resignation of the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, William Heth Whitsett, in 1899. Whitsett published a history of Baptists that did not coincide with the Landmark’s concept that Baptists can be traced all the way back to New Testament times.

LANDMARKERS IN OUR MIDST?

Again, I want to make it clear that I do not see a Landmark movement in the SBC, but there are still many who hold to positions that are derived from Landmark influence and teaching. The recent Baptismal policy instituted by the IMB definitely coincides with Landmark doctrine. What concerns me now, are aspects of the Landmark position and the spirit that Landmarkers had, that is creeping back into our convention.

Look at the questions that Graves posed and see the arrogance that is behind them. Examine our history as Baptists and you will see that Landmarkers would split a church, association, state convention and even the SBC, in the name of their “Landmark” positions. These men did not know a “hill that they were not willing to die on.” They are like the men described in Jude, “These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit” vs. 19.

Leon McBeth, in The Baptist Heritage, observed, “Landmarkism became the main method by which Baptists convinced themselves that theirs were the only true churches and all others mere human societies without valid ministers or ordinances,” (447). He also stated that, “Though Landmarkers failed in their efforts to take over the SBC, they injected their viewpoints deep into the bloodstream of Southern Baptists. It would be impossible to understand Southern Baptists apart from Landmarkism,” (447).

Landmark Ecclesiology Still Around Today

Along with JR Graves, J.M.Pendleton was very influential in helping to establish Landmarkism in the SBC. His major contribution is the popular Pendleton’s Church Manual. I have not seen a Baptist preacher’s library that has not had this book on the shelf. It is still available at LifeWay to this day. Leon McBeth says of this Church Manual that it,“advances Landmark views of Baptist life on closed communion, alien immersion, and Baptist successionism. Through this manual, generations of Southern Baptist pastors have absorbed Landmarkism, often without knowing it,”(449).

Sadly I observe the same attitude and spirit of the Landmarkers today when:

1. There is “concern” over the fact that IMB missionaries might cooperate with other evangelicals on the field. It is sad when some are more concerned about propagating their denominational nuances rather than joining hands with others to win souls for Jesus.

2. When people would tell a person that was baptized by immersion as a testimony to their previous salvation and to identify with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, that their immersion was not valid because the church that baptized them did not believe in eternal security; are because they were baptized by an evangelist outside of the authority of a local church or because they were not baptized in a church service.

3. When the IMB tells a candidate that was baptized by a SBC pastor in order to meet their criteria, that even that baptism is rejected because although he may be an agent of the church, he did not baptize in a church service.

4. When Southern Baptists tell other Southern Baptists that they are not valid Southern Baptists because they may have different views concerning issues of Biblical interpretation that are not addressed in the BFM.

5. When there are attempts to discredit trustees and call for the removal of trustees because of their public dissent concerning issues that are not addressed in the BFM. Landmarkers have always been about refusing to cooperate with anybody that is not in agreement with them concerning all doctrinal issues.

6. When we are told that people should be baptized as a testimony to their acceptance of the “system of belief” that is held by SB. This denominational elitism brings to remembrance the arrogance of the Landmarkers of old who did not want to call fellow Christians “brother” or “sister” because they were not immersed.

CONCLUSION ( I have edited my previous conclusion because of the info that Ben Stratton provided in the comment stream)

Certainly there are tenets of historical Landmarkism that are not present in SB life today. Their total rejection of the growth of denominational mission organizations is one of them. But I certainly have observed in my personal ministry and from interactions with pastors, that aspects of Landmark ecclesiology are alive and well today. The IMB policy below, I believe, is evidence of this fact.

IMB BAPTISM POLICY

The “NEW” Policy Regarding Baptism for Missionary Consultants
POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS:
1.The Individual
a.Believer’s baptism by immersion
          Baptism by immersion follows salvation
b.Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.
          Baptism does not regenerate.
2. The Church
a.Baptism is a church ordinance.
         Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.
b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.
3.The Candidate
         The candidate is responsible for meeting this doctrinal commitment to the above points
4.The Consultant
        While the candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of many
denominational groups, he is not expected to investigate every church.
APPLICATION
1.This guideline is not retroactive.
2.Any exception to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Process Review Committee.

9 Comments

Filed under Ordinances

12/21/2006

Baptized Into the Body or Into the Church?

There is no evidence that the command to Baptize was given just/or exclusively to a local church. It certainly was given to the followers of Christ. It was given to all those who were present at Christ’s ascension. All through my life, all being a Southern Baptist, I have been taught and have taught that followers of Christ must be “Great Commission Christians.” We have always understood that the GC and ACTs 1.8 applied to all Christians. Acts 1.8 is somewhat of a parallel passage to the GC. We know from other passages that there were more then just the 11 present when Christ gave the command to “Go. ” It is an argument from silence to conclude that Baptism was given just to “the local church” as if it was given to an entity rather than the Body. Certainly it is an ordinance of the Church or a church. But ultimately it is the ordinance of Christ, as Baptists have a long history of understanding.

The term Church = Ekklesia, is literally the gathering of Christ’s people. In the New Testament it is used for specific gatherings, i.e. the church in ______ . Each gathering will have elders and deacons. Each gathering will baptize converts, and break bread. Each gathering encourages and disciplines one another. Why? Because these practices have been given to us by the command of Christ, the head of the Body of which all ekklesia’s belong. In our day, we emphasize the nature of the Ekklesia to the exclusion of a proper understanding of the Body of Christ. But Baptists at first had a different, I believe, more balanced understanding. Look at one of the first Great Confessions of the movement we now call Baptist:

1644 London Confession
Section XLI On Baptism.
The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance (of baptism), the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the Commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples. (Isa. 8:16; Matt. 28:16-19; John 4:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 26:26)

1646 FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION
The phrase, “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it reads, “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ.”

1742 PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST CONFESSION
The phrase “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it reads, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus.”

1858 ABSTRACT OF PRINCIPLES
The phrase “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it reads, “Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus.”

1925 BFM and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.
The phrase “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it says, “the ordinances of Christ.

Interestingly, the entire understanding of “authorized chuches” and “authorized administrators” that so many like to talk about today, has not been built by Biblical texts, but only by inference, presuppositions, and supposed implications. Certainly the ordinances are for the use of the ekklesia, and in the fellowship of the ekklesia, and under the guidance of an ekklesia, but not in a way that is exclusionary to the understanding of how any ekklesia fits into the greater Body of Christ. In heaven there will be no ekklesia of Corinth, St. Louis, but only the Body and Bride of Christ.

The use of Christ’s ordianances were given to bring a sense of unity and harmony and oneness to His Body. The application of these ordinances today are sadly used to further sectarian divisions in the Body of our Lord. As much as it is possible we should strive to avoid this!

There are two great issues concerning the ordinances that we will not and should not compromise, but short of these, we do not have Biblical authority to remove the ordinances from the authority of Christ, as given to His Body, and make them just the ordinances of a denomination or a local church. The two things that we must not compromise:

1. Believer’s Baptism. Baptism is only for those who have already been converted and regenerated. Baptism does not have regenerative power. Baptism is an identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, our Lord. Biblical baptism was and still is the immersion of the individual under water.

2. Regenerated Membership. The Lord’s Supper is only for those who have been converted and regenerated.

Now I would further add that the Lord’s Supper is for every person who is actually a member of the Body of Christ and not just members of a local ekklesia, See Here.

UNDER AUTHORITY NOT IN AUTHORITY

Baptism: 1 Corinthians 12.13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

There is a prevailing understanding in Baptist life that a person is Baptized by the Church and into the Church. But the Bible teaches that we are baptized by the Spirit into the Body and then become part of the ekklesia/church. We are certainly not intstructed in Scripture that Baptism is “under the authority” of anybody but Christ. Christ affirmed that “all authority” has been given to Him, then he says “Go Baptize.” To infer that the authority of Christ has been given to a church sounds stangely similiar to the papists. This is exactly why the first Baptist did not recognize such thinking and would revolt against it, because they lived under the tryanny of an entity that thought they had received and possessed authority rather than BEING UNDER the AUTHORITY of Christ.

Also we are never instructed that the person who baptizes has to be “authorized.” Baptists certainly did not feel this way at the beginning of our existence (see the 1644 London Confession above). Why? Because Baptists came out of the Separatist arm of the Reformation. If they had felt this way from the beginning, they would have stayed in the Church of England. But they understood the ordinances to belong to Christ and His Body and NOT under the authority or power of a formal entity, but under the authority of Christ and handed down to His Body, His Ekklesia. Baptists felt compelled to dissent, separate, baptize and break bread outside of the boundary of an authorized church and their authorized administrators.

Of course when one is Baptized by the Spirit, they enter into the Body of Christ 1 Cor 12.13. There is not a verse in the Bible that says they are baptized into the Church. They become part of the Ekklesia, the gathering of Christ’s followers. But they are baptized into the Body of Christ.

When one is water baptized, they are identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6.4 ) and then they become a member of Christ’s Ekklesia. Remember, they did not have all the options of which “church to join” like us. Certainly they were seen as a “member” but they certainly did not share our paradigm. Every person who became a Christian was automatically a part of the Ekklesia and expected to assemble together with all of Christ’s followers in a given city.

35 Comments

Filed under Ordinances

12/19/2006

Paige Patterson is (was) Right about Southern Baptists and PPL’s

Will the real Paige Patterson please stand up…(see below)

Alan Cross has posted what he calls “Blatant Baptist Ramblings” here. He is certainly not “rambling” but making salient points in light of the facts that:

1. There are Southern Baptists who are continualists.

2. There are Southern Baptists who have a PPL.

3. That there is no Scriptural support for excluding full cooperation with and allowing the full participation of individuals solely based on their being continualist or solely based on the practice of a PPL.

I fully agree with Alan Cross and his concerns regarding this issue! Please consider that our Baptist Faith and Message and a proper exegesis from God’s Word both stand in opposition of these exclusionary attitudes and actions!

The Baptist Faith and Message Speaks Against Forbidding PPL’s

It is a shame that many so called “People of the Book” are unwilling to let the light of God’s revealed Word be our sole authority concerning this issue. Certainly there are those who do not think that those practicinga PPL today are practicing the same phenomenom that occurred in Corinth, but neither can they find Scruputral authority to forbid the practice. Some have forgotten that our confession of faith states that:

1. The Scriptures are: the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. (pg.7)

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left if free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. (pg.20)

Paige Patterson Agrees that We Should Not Forbid the Speaking in Tongues!

Do you remember that fateful day when Dwight McKissic shocked the SBC with his bold confession of being a continualist but also went on to bare his soul and reveal that the Lord had blessed him in his prayer life by granting to him a PPL? Was he being disrespectful, he honestly says not. Was he ignorant of Dr. Patterson’s view on this subject? NO! It was precisely because he understood Dr. Patterson’s publishedview that he felt that he was not teaching in total opposition of the President’s position! Consider the following;

After the infamous or famous message, depending on your biases, McKissic referenced that he had read Patterson’s writings and did think that his message varied that much from Patterson’s stated views and interpretations. This is a reference to Patterson’s commentary: The Troubled Triumphant Church: An Exposition of First Corinthians, 1983, Criswell Publications, Dallas: Texas.

Well you read and judge for yourself: (emphasis mine)

1.He recognizes that the Corinthians were expressing ecstatic utterances! This is in clear opposition to those who want to deny modern PPL’s on the basis that Corinthians is describing simply “different languages” and that to say that they were speaking in ecstatic utterances would be misinterpreting the passage.

The legitimate gift of tongues is the one given to the apostles in Acts 2. The Corinthian effort to imitate that gift is under discussion in portions of Chapter 14, in which it is contrasted.

the authentic Acts 2 gift. Three things are affirmed concerning this Corinthian imitation. (1) Those who utilized the gift were speaking to God and not to men. This of course is precisely the opposite of the experience recorded in Acts 2, where the gospel of grace was preached to men. (2) The Corinthians did not speak to men, nor did man understand what was being said. This again is in startling contrast to the Acts 2 situation in which the inhabitants of Jerusalem at Pentecost were amazed at hearing them speak in their own languages. (3) In the Spirit, the speaker of Corinthian tongues spoke “mysteries.” This last affirmation has been taken as Paul’s tacit approval of the practice, based on the general New Testament usage of the word “mystery” (musterion). However, “mystery” may have good, evil, or neutral significances, depending upon the context. Here Paul was not suggesting that the man was speaking the “mysteries of God,” a phrase which implies the unveiling of truth that could not be ascertained except through revelation. If that kind of mystery were the subject in verse 2, then it would not be necessary for Paul to insist on an interpreter for the others who listened and apparently even for the speaker himself (v. 14). Consequently, Paul simply stated that whatever one who spoke in Corinthian tongues might have been saying remained a mystery in need of explication. This again is the very antithesis of the pentecostal experience in Acts 2 where clearly those who knew the language being spoken understood its meaning. (Page 246)

14.14 The reasons for Paul’s insistence upon such interpretation was now elucidated. “If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit may indeed be involved in the act of prayer, but the understanding is unfruitful.” Two things about this verse are important. First, it is clear that what was under consideration was not a known language but rather a rush of unintelligible sounds. Not even the one who uttered these sounds comprehended what was happening, and thus he needed interpretation first of all in order to explain some sense of the matter to himself. Second, Paul did not say that the spirit prayed, but there was no understanding; rather, he said the spirit prayed, but the understanding was “unfruitful.” Literally, the word “mind” (nous) employed here gives the meaning that “the mind is unfruitful.” In the Corinthian experience of tongues, the mind of the believer was completely disengaged and thus not even the whole man was involved in the act of worship. The mind, having been cut adrift, was simply neutralized and, hence was totally unfruitful or unproductive. This would have to mean that the experience was primarily an emotional one, loosely attached to reality and void of either intellectual or volitional significance.

2. Now for the most important part, Patterson clearly teaches that it is wrong to forbid one to speak in ecstatic utterances! On page 268-269, dealing with 1 Corinthians 14:39: (word for word)

14:39 Paul then arrived at the conclusion of the whole matter. The church was to covet the gift of prophecy and was not to forbid speaking with tongues. “Forbid” (Koluo) means to “hinder,” “restrain,” or “prevent.” The statement once again emphasizes the relative unimportance of tongues in comparison with prophecy. However, the Corinthians were not to prevent speaking with tongues. Precisely what Paul meant by this must be understood in light of the total emphasis of chapter 14. The Corinthian effort at tongues had been reduced in every conceivable way to a position of relative unimportance.
In addition to this, six principles governing the use of tongues in the Corinthian congregation have already been given, and a seventh will follow in the last verse. These principles effectively circumscribe the use of tongues altogether in the assembly of believers. Nevertheless, for two reasons Paul said that tongues are not to be forbidden. First, he had already allowed that if one engaged in ecstatic utterance in privacy, while there was no real significance, edification, or meaning to be found in it, it was not thereby evil or wrong. That private experience might be permitted to the person. In the second place, Paul knew that the Acts phenomenon of speaking the wonderful works of God in a language in which the speaker was untutored had really happened. Furthermore, Paul knew that under the right circumstances it might happen again. The necessity for the revival of these sign gifts such as tongues seems to be unlikely, but Paul did allow the possibility. ”

The NAMB, the IMB, and SWBTS, Have Adopted Policies that are in Violation of God’s Inerrant and Sufficient Word!

After closely reading Patterson’s response to our brother Dwight, after listening to Dwight’s sermon, and after reading Patterson’s exposition – a couple of things occur to me,

1. SWBTS, the IMB, and NAMB, according to Patterson’s interpretation of this passage as found in his book as written by his pen, are in violation of Scripture! Dr. Patterson should publicly disavow this published work or apologize to Dr. McKissic. If Dwight’s view was “dangerous” then you tell me how Patterson’s differs?

2. The only difference between Dwight’s theology on this matter and Patterson’s is that Dwight sees tongues as a Spirit-given gift and Patterson sees it as an imitation of the Acts 2 experience. This being said, Patterson in his own words has stated that according to Scripture, one must NOT be “hindered, restrained or prevented” from this exercise. Dwight and I would disagree with Patterson’s assessment that tongues has no personal edification, nevertheless from this writing, we are in agreement that this practice is not, as Patterson stated “EVIL OR WRONG.”

3.Again, is it not interesting that Patterson interpreted Paul as teaching that practicing ecstatic utterances is “not thereby evil or wrong?”

4. We must be people of the Book and practice what we preach!

YES I can see how Dr. McKissic, using Patteson’s own commentary as he prepared his sermon, would think that he was on safe ground. The problem was Dwight put a real human face to the practice and for some reason, for lack of a better word, it freaked people out.