[Subversive Underground]
FOR THE RECORD
by Keith Giles
I am the victim of my own convictions. I hold opinions that most do not agree with. I am often insulted and ridiculed for my positions and attitudes.
Do not feel sorry for me. I have made my own bed and so I must lie in it. I fully understand that if I write the things I write and if I say the things I believe that many will not like what I have to say. I say these things anyway.
Still, I do struggle within myself on many of these issues. It seems the more I learn about church history and the more I discover about God's Word the more painfully I suffer outside in the cold.
The other day I was having coffee with a friend and I told him that, in my opinion, I am a fundamentalist. The things I believe about Church and the Gospel and God's heart for the poor are the most foundational and Biblically supported views possible. For me it's everyone else who is "emerging" or "creative" in their practice of faith. Yet many look at me, and at our house church, as if we were the "new" form of Church. To me we are the most ancient and Biblically authentic form of Church possible.
My struggle comes mostly when I consider how many good friends and family members are still involved in traditional church. Not because I feel that they're wrong and need correcting, but because I don't want to damage my relationship with them because of my views. In other words, I hope that they will love me even if I don't agree with them.
Yesterday I had coffee with a local Presbyterian minister. He was writing a book on the emerging church and he wanted to interview someone who was doing the new "house church" thing. As we spoke together and shared our different viewpoints he said something to me that blessed me deeply. He said, "You and I have very different opinions about Ecclesiology. You think you're right and I think I'm right, but that shouldn't prevent us from being friends or loving one another as brothers in Christ."
I wish that everyone felt the same way as this man did. However, I am also cognizant that many who hold me in contempt do so because of the articles that I write. I suppose if I stopped being so vocal about my convictions they might accept me. Or if I kept quiet about what I've learned they might embrace me more as a brother in Christ and love me. Maybe. Maybe not.
As I have affirmed numerous times in this weekly newsletter, and on my main blog (www.KeithGiles.com) the traditional church is still a place where God's Kingdom is advanced, the Gospel is preached and lives are transformed by the Holy Spirit. Many who criticize my articles respond to me by itemizing for me all of the wonderful things that their traditional church is doing for the Kingdom. These are all awesome works of God and I take nothing away from the ways that these Churches are reaching out and using their resources for the good of others. I also have no contempt for pastors who have responded to God's call on their lives and serve faithfully seven days a week.
However, just because those churches and those pastors are filled with love for others and are motivated to share their resources with the poor and serve the Body faithfully (all very good things), says nothing about how much better their ministry could be if they empowered every believer to be a priest of God and allowed every member to fully use their spiritual gifting for the entire Body, and disposed of the professional clergy who is expected to do most of that work in their place.
Again, these are not my ideas. If they were I would fully expect everyone to dismiss me and turn away and have nothing more to do with me. However, these grand ideas are not my ideas. They are God's ideas. It was God who created Adam and Eve to walk in fullness of fellowship with Himself. It was God who spoke directly to the people of Israel out of the cloud. It was God who told Israel that He would be their King. It was God who told Isaiah and David that no man could build a house for Him, but that He would build a house for Himself and that it would be the heart of man.
It was Jesus who destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. It was Jesus who tore the veil of the Temple. It was Jesus who became the ultimate sacrifice so that no further blood sacrifice would be required.
Jesus made each of us His Holy Temple. Jesus called each of us to be priests of God. Jesus called each of us to become the daily, living sacrifice. Not me.
So, when I see us rebuilding the Temples, and I see us reconstituting a priesthood, and I see us returning to an Old Covenant system of tithes to pay for a place of worship and support a priestly hierarchy I cannot help but scream and cry and shout - "This is not what God wanted for His Church!"
Because it's not.
So, I will continue to speak and to shout and to cry and to write these messages to God's Church, for as many who will listen, that God's plan for His Church is something radically different and profoundly more astounding than anything mankind has dreamed up on its own over the last few thousand years.
God has a plan for His Church. It's a good plan. It's the best plan. It's the only plan that fully realizes His long-standing dream for His people to encounter Him personally and know Him intimately and relate to Him as a Father and to one another as brothers and sisters in the Family of God.
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." - 1 Peter 2:9-10
-kg
**
THE END IS COMING. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
We'll all find out on 8/28/09
**
[END TRANSMISSION]
Showing posts with label Ecclesiology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ecclesiology. Show all posts
Friday, December 05, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
What Is An Apostle?
[Subversive Underground]
What Is An Apostle?
by Keith Giles
As I've been studying the early church the question came to me, "Where did the word 'Apostle' come from?" Looking at the New Testament the word simply appears out of nowhere as the twelve disciples are suddenly, without explanation, referred to as apostles. I started to wonder, "What was the origin of this word? What did it mean to those first century followers of Jesus who heard the word? Was it foreign or strange to them? Did it carry the same meaning for them that it does for us today?"
A quick search online revealed the following over at Wikipedia:
Apostle - Ancient Greek: (ἀπόστολος) or "apostolos", which is translated as "someone sent out", or "missionary".
According to the Bauer lexicon, Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT: "Judaism had an office known as apostle (שליח)". The Friberg Greek Lexicon gives a broad definition as one who is sent on a mission, a commissioned representative of a congregation, a messenger for God, a person who has the special task of founding and establishing churches. The UBS Greek Dictionary also describes an apostle broadly as a messenger.
With this we can understand a little more about how the early church viewed the apostles. They were church-planting missionaries who preached the Gospel of the Kingdom and continued the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah.
When we look at the New Testament we see plenty of evidence to support this. Peter, James, John, Paul and the other apostles were primarily concerned with traveling to share the Gospel, plant churches and establish a framework for what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.
Christians today seem to hold the apostolic gifting as one above and beyond the common persons of Christendom. Many even go so far as to suggest that there are no apostles in today's church Bbody, which is to suggest that there are no longer church planters or missionaries who are called by God to evangelize the nations and establish the Church of God in the community.
When we read passages like Ephesians 4, verse 11-13 with this in mind it should give us a new perspective on the term "apostle" and the way the early church thought of these people within the Body itself - "It was he (Jesus) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
Apostles (church-planting missionaries) were necessary to communicate the Gospel of the Kingdom and establish the Church in Jerusalem, and Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the Earth. They were "first" in a chronological sense because, unless there is someone to go out and preach the Gospel and do the work of an evangelist or missionary, the Church couldn't be established. Once the Gospel is preached, people respond, groups are formed and the Church is established within a community, THEN the Holy Spirit provides for some to become their teachers, their shepherds, and to do the works of service.
NOT A HIERARCHY
I've been involved quite a bit lately defending the idea that the early church had no hierarchical form of leadership and this practical understanding of an apostle further solidifies the position that hierarchy wasn't part of the original Christian experience. Instead, we see Jesus commanding the disciples (future apostles) not to be like the secular Romans or the religious Pharisees who love to "lord it over" their followers. Instead, Jesus both commanded and modelled a bottom-up form of servant leadership, not a top-down form of CEO leadership. (SEE NOTE BELOW FOR MORE)
MORE THAN 12 APOSTLES
Another surprising discovery in the New Testament is that the apostles are not limited to just "The Twelve" we usually hear about on Sunday morning. These additional Apostles (or "Missionary Church-planters") include Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), Silas and Timothy(I Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6, Acts 15:40), and Apollos (1Corinthians 4:6; 4:9; 3:22; 3:4-6).
It's quite fascinating also to consider that many scholars believe that the apostle Junia was female (see Romans 16:7) which gives further weight to the idea that the apostolic gifting was simply about doing missionary work and planting churches.
Even more interesting is that Jesus himself is named among the apostles in Hebrews 3:1 where he is referred to as the "apostle and high priest of our professed faith". In this passage Jesus is identified as the first missionary church-planter who called the twelve disciples to follow him so that he could teach them to be "fishers of men".
While there is a special and unique connection between the original twelve disciples who walked and talked with Jesus personally, and even Paul who encountered the risen Christ in a vision, the actual functional position of an apostle is nothing special. Apostles were very simply and practically the ones who did the work of missionary evangelism and planted churches, and God is still calling His people to be missionaries into the community and plant churches that interact with the culture.
Apostolic succession, then, is simply a continuation of the traditional preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom, making disciples, planting churches within the community and raising up others who will continually do the same.
-kg
www.KeithGiles.com
**
NOTE: For an extensive exploration of the subject of church hierarchy please read the following articles and the resulting commentary found within.
Here:
"Where Are The Pastors?"
Here:
"First Century Pagan Talks to First Century Christian"
and Here:
"Biblical Scholarship in Support of Non-Hierarchy in the Church"
**
RUNNING THE NUMBERS
The PDF version of my book "The Gospel:For Here Or To Go?" has been downloaded 506 times so far, and my second book, "Nobody Follows Jesus (So Why Should You?)" has been downloaded 424 times.
You can still get them both free of charge
RIGHT HERE
**
THE END IS NEAR?
Stay tuned to this channel for news and updates.
**
[END TRANSMISSION]
What Is An Apostle?
by Keith Giles
As I've been studying the early church the question came to me, "Where did the word 'Apostle' come from?" Looking at the New Testament the word simply appears out of nowhere as the twelve disciples are suddenly, without explanation, referred to as apostles. I started to wonder, "What was the origin of this word? What did it mean to those first century followers of Jesus who heard the word? Was it foreign or strange to them? Did it carry the same meaning for them that it does for us today?"
A quick search online revealed the following over at Wikipedia:
Apostle - Ancient Greek: (ἀπόστολος) or "apostolos", which is translated as "someone sent out", or "missionary".
According to the Bauer lexicon, Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT: "Judaism had an office known as apostle (שליח)". The Friberg Greek Lexicon gives a broad definition as one who is sent on a mission, a commissioned representative of a congregation, a messenger for God, a person who has the special task of founding and establishing churches. The UBS Greek Dictionary also describes an apostle broadly as a messenger.
With this we can understand a little more about how the early church viewed the apostles. They were church-planting missionaries who preached the Gospel of the Kingdom and continued the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah.
When we look at the New Testament we see plenty of evidence to support this. Peter, James, John, Paul and the other apostles were primarily concerned with traveling to share the Gospel, plant churches and establish a framework for what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.
Christians today seem to hold the apostolic gifting as one above and beyond the common persons of Christendom. Many even go so far as to suggest that there are no apostles in today's church Bbody, which is to suggest that there are no longer church planters or missionaries who are called by God to evangelize the nations and establish the Church of God in the community.
When we read passages like Ephesians 4, verse 11-13 with this in mind it should give us a new perspective on the term "apostle" and the way the early church thought of these people within the Body itself - "It was he (Jesus) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
Apostles (church-planting missionaries) were necessary to communicate the Gospel of the Kingdom and establish the Church in Jerusalem, and Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the Earth. They were "first" in a chronological sense because, unless there is someone to go out and preach the Gospel and do the work of an evangelist or missionary, the Church couldn't be established. Once the Gospel is preached, people respond, groups are formed and the Church is established within a community, THEN the Holy Spirit provides for some to become their teachers, their shepherds, and to do the works of service.
NOT A HIERARCHY
I've been involved quite a bit lately defending the idea that the early church had no hierarchical form of leadership and this practical understanding of an apostle further solidifies the position that hierarchy wasn't part of the original Christian experience. Instead, we see Jesus commanding the disciples (future apostles) not to be like the secular Romans or the religious Pharisees who love to "lord it over" their followers. Instead, Jesus both commanded and modelled a bottom-up form of servant leadership, not a top-down form of CEO leadership. (SEE NOTE BELOW FOR MORE)
MORE THAN 12 APOSTLES
Another surprising discovery in the New Testament is that the apostles are not limited to just "The Twelve" we usually hear about on Sunday morning. These additional Apostles (or "Missionary Church-planters") include Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), Silas and Timothy(I Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6, Acts 15:40), and Apollos (1Corinthians 4:6; 4:9; 3:22; 3:4-6).
It's quite fascinating also to consider that many scholars believe that the apostle Junia was female (see Romans 16:7) which gives further weight to the idea that the apostolic gifting was simply about doing missionary work and planting churches.
Even more interesting is that Jesus himself is named among the apostles in Hebrews 3:1 where he is referred to as the "apostle and high priest of our professed faith". In this passage Jesus is identified as the first missionary church-planter who called the twelve disciples to follow him so that he could teach them to be "fishers of men".
While there is a special and unique connection between the original twelve disciples who walked and talked with Jesus personally, and even Paul who encountered the risen Christ in a vision, the actual functional position of an apostle is nothing special. Apostles were very simply and practically the ones who did the work of missionary evangelism and planted churches, and God is still calling His people to be missionaries into the community and plant churches that interact with the culture.
Apostolic succession, then, is simply a continuation of the traditional preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom, making disciples, planting churches within the community and raising up others who will continually do the same.
-kg
www.KeithGiles.com
**
NOTE: For an extensive exploration of the subject of church hierarchy please read the following articles and the resulting commentary found within.
Here:
"Where Are The Pastors?"
Here:
"First Century Pagan Talks to First Century Christian"
and Here:
"Biblical Scholarship in Support of Non-Hierarchy in the Church"
**
RUNNING THE NUMBERS
The PDF version of my book "The Gospel:For Here Or To Go?" has been downloaded 506 times so far, and my second book, "Nobody Follows Jesus (So Why Should You?)" has been downloaded 424 times.
You can still get them both free of charge
RIGHT HERE
**
THE END IS NEAR?
Stay tuned to this channel for news and updates.
**
[END TRANSMISSION]
Friday, September 05, 2008
HARD QUESTIONS
[Subversive Underground] Presents
Hard Questions by Keith Giles
As I continue to study God's Word on the subject of the Church, I find myself confronted often by the genius of God's design for His Body and His plan for His Church. I can't deny that God had a specific plan for His Bride and He clearly communicated this to His Apostles and they clearly communicated and modeled this from the very beginning. We can see, in the book of Acts and in the Epistles, the way they loved and lived and worshipped. There really is no mystery as to what God had in mind when He breathed on His Apostles and sent them out.
"They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." - Jesus, from Matthew 23:5-12
The Doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer begins here, with Jesus. It's also evident when Jesus stoops to wash the disciples' feet, taking on the role of a servant. He humbled himself before them, served them as a slave would serve his master, and then said, "'Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them."You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.." (John 13:12-17)
This instruction by Jesus was intended to teach them the principle of humility and brotherhood among them as equals. It's not just for those who are in leadership, it is for anyone who has made a decision to be a follower of Christ.
ORGANIC EQUALS
Paul gives us an amazing picture of God's Church in 1 Corinthians 12 as a relational, interconnected organism empowered by the Holy Spirit and gifted to administer healing and encouragement and everything the Body would need as it lives out its mission. The only head of this Body is Christ Jesus.
The problem is that our traditional structures inhibit this design and render it useless. In the traditional church we have set up one designated person through whom all the gifts are expected to flow. If we have a need for counseling we call our pastor. If we need spiritual advice or teaching we look to our pastor. If we need prayer or encouragement or anything else we call our pastor. We do not expect that these things might come from the rest of those alongside us in the Body, which is what God intended.
DRAWING THE LINE
This week I discovered a book written in 1956 by a theologian by the name of W.C. Ketcherside called "The Royal Priesthood". It has challenged me and rocked me in unexpected ways. One of the strongest quotes refers to God's DNA for His Church as found in the New Testament and concludes, "Any system which operates to forbid or render impossible the functioning of every priest according to ability is subversive of God's whole system...We are not left to test and experiment with other forms and ideas. God has established a system which is the climax of all his creative genius. The inferior priesthood of the past pointed toward this sublime age of universal priesthood. We are not to go back to the literal and limited ministry of the previous dispensation, but we are to implement and utilize the spiritual and comprehensive priesthood made possible by the one who first became both sacrifice and priest. God's plan will work for us, if we will work his plan for him."
*Read the entire book HERE
To be honest, this quote is stronger than anything I would ever feel comfortable saying out loud. But as I contemplate the quote I can't find a way to refute it.
Ketcherside goes even further to say, "When God had a limited priesthood, (in the Old Testament), Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sought to make it inclusive of the whole congregation, and perished for their evil attempt. Of what punishment shall he be thought worthy who now seeks to install a limited priesthood for the universal one which God has revealed?"
A NEW TEMPLE FOR A NEW COVENANT
God's plan for His Church was radical. He would remove the Temple, and tear the veil separating Himself and the common people. He would fill each disciple of the Messiah with His Holy Spirit and empower them to live transformed lives of extravagant love, communicating the Gospel of the Kingdom with anyone in their path.
In God's new design the people are the new temple of God. The people are the new priesthood. The people are the carriers of the Kingdom message to the World at large.
The Doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer originates in the New Testament and was a foundational element in the development of the Protestant Church when Martin Luther argued against the medieval belief that Christians were to be divided into two classes: "spiritual" and "temporal" (or non-spiritual). Luther put forward the idea that all baptized Christians are priests and spiritual in the eyes of God.
*See Wikipedia entry on the Doctrine HERE:
"That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2:9 says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation 5:10, "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings." - Martin Luther, from "To The Christian Nobility of the German Nation" (1520).
Two months later Luther would write in his "Babylonian Captivity of the Church":
"How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry and consented to by us? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."
IN SPIRIT OR IN TRUTH?
Most Protestant Churches affirm this Doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer in some way. However, in practice the story is quite different.
In much the same way that Southern Baptists affirm the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit on paper and yet forbid the practice of public healing ministry, or speaking in tongues, or raising your hands over your head during worship, the traditional Protestant Church pays lip service to the Priesthood of Every Believer but in practice forbids the full exercise of this doctrine in their midst.
Essentially, Traditional Churches are uncomfortable with the Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer because at face value it threatens their structure and their clergy/laity division. It especially threatens pastors who support their families based on the salary they receive from their Church. Even the Wikipedia entry above affirms this point when it says: "This doctrine stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity."
MY PERSONAL STRUGGLE
So far I have done my best to avoid this controversy. In my articles and in my public speaking I've gone out of my way to be gracious to the Traditional Church and to point out that God loves His entire Bride, not just those in the House Church. I really do believe that, by the way. God has shown me time and again that the Gospel is preached and the Kingdom is advanced through the Traditional Church. I cannot deny that, and I have no personal grudge against my brothers and sisters in the Traditional Church.
In fact, God has also made sure to place me in several ongoing relationships with traditional churches and pastors. For example, every other week I meet at 6am to pray with the pastor of a large, local Lutheran church. He's my friend and my brother in Christ and I have been very blessed to pray with him and I am honored to know him.
For the last year I have also been invited to preach once every quarter at a local traditional church. This is a church I love dearly. I love their pastor and I love those people very, very much. I am honored to know them and to cheer them on as they follow Christ and advance the Kingdom and live out the Gospel in their daily lives. Many of them are personal heroes of mine, in fact. They are a church full of remarkable men and women who live incredible lives of service and devotion to God and to the Kingdom of God.
So, when I say that there is a tension between the house church and the traditional church, I am speaking very personally. I am sharing with you that I am the one who is feeling pulled in two directions at once. This tension is painful to me, and it threatens to harm my friendships with people I love very, very much. This is not easy for me to talk about. Not at all.
REFORMATION, REVOLUTION, OR RECONCILIATION?
So, honestly, what am I to do with this? How do I respond? What do you think the implications are for us as believers if we willfully ignore God's clear intention for His Bride to operate as a family of equals with every member a priest, and every priest a member?
On one side we could say that we need to repent and to make every effort to reform the Church from within. Others might suggest that we should simply "Be the Church" as God intended and let God sort out everyone else in His own time and in His own way.
TWO EXAMPLES FROM HISTORY
If we look at Martin Luther we see a man who publicly opposed and confronted the established Church of his day in order to bring a reformation whereby each Believer could have a Bible and study God's Word without the permission of a priest. He also condemned the selling of indulgences (forgiveness of sins) by the clergy. Without Luther's actions we'd never have known the religious freedoms brought about by the Protestant Reformation.
Should we follow his example in this case? Should we raise our voices and publicly debate and defy the established Church of our day as well?
What about St. Francis of Assisi? He felt a strong compulsion to embrace the plight of the poor and gave away everything he owned in order to follow Christ in radical poverty and service to others. His reaction to the extravagant, excessive wealth of the Catholic Church in his day was to simply embody the change he longed to inspire in others. Rather than write letters to the Pope condemning the excesses of the Church, or standing on the street corners shouting sermons against the Catholic leaders, he simply and quietly lived out his convictions and inspired a movement.
Granted, Francis didn't change the excesses of the Organized Church in his day, or in ours, but he did model another way of following Christ that involved embracing the poor and touching the least in our community. To this day people are discovering his story and following his radical example of Christian compassion.
Perhaps our best course of action in this situation would be to live out the convictions we have in full view of those we love, whether they agree with us or not?
Do we need a public reformation or a quiet revolution? Or maybe just a softer reconciliation within God’s Family where Brothers and Sisters in Christ embrace one another in love?
What do you think?
-kg
**
TO REPLY PLEASE COMMENT ON THE BLOGSITE OR EMAIL ME DIRECTLY AT
"ELYSIANSKY" (AT) HOTMAIL (DOT) COM
**
LAST CHANCE: Take the [Subversive Underground] Survey before it's too late!
You'll kick yourself if you don't answer these 10 questions before time runs out.
TAKE THE SURVEY NOW
Thanks!
**
THE PARADOX OF FREE WILL (article)
At TheOoze.com HERE
**
[END TRANSMISSION]
Hard Questions by Keith Giles
As I continue to study God's Word on the subject of the Church, I find myself confronted often by the genius of God's design for His Body and His plan for His Church. I can't deny that God had a specific plan for His Bride and He clearly communicated this to His Apostles and they clearly communicated and modeled this from the very beginning. We can see, in the book of Acts and in the Epistles, the way they loved and lived and worshipped. There really is no mystery as to what God had in mind when He breathed on His Apostles and sent them out.
"They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." - Jesus, from Matthew 23:5-12
The Doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer begins here, with Jesus. It's also evident when Jesus stoops to wash the disciples' feet, taking on the role of a servant. He humbled himself before them, served them as a slave would serve his master, and then said, "'Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them."You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.." (John 13:12-17)
This instruction by Jesus was intended to teach them the principle of humility and brotherhood among them as equals. It's not just for those who are in leadership, it is for anyone who has made a decision to be a follower of Christ.
ORGANIC EQUALS
Paul gives us an amazing picture of God's Church in 1 Corinthians 12 as a relational, interconnected organism empowered by the Holy Spirit and gifted to administer healing and encouragement and everything the Body would need as it lives out its mission. The only head of this Body is Christ Jesus.
The problem is that our traditional structures inhibit this design and render it useless. In the traditional church we have set up one designated person through whom all the gifts are expected to flow. If we have a need for counseling we call our pastor. If we need spiritual advice or teaching we look to our pastor. If we need prayer or encouragement or anything else we call our pastor. We do not expect that these things might come from the rest of those alongside us in the Body, which is what God intended.
DRAWING THE LINE
This week I discovered a book written in 1956 by a theologian by the name of W.C. Ketcherside called "The Royal Priesthood". It has challenged me and rocked me in unexpected ways. One of the strongest quotes refers to God's DNA for His Church as found in the New Testament and concludes, "Any system which operates to forbid or render impossible the functioning of every priest according to ability is subversive of God's whole system...We are not left to test and experiment with other forms and ideas. God has established a system which is the climax of all his creative genius. The inferior priesthood of the past pointed toward this sublime age of universal priesthood. We are not to go back to the literal and limited ministry of the previous dispensation, but we are to implement and utilize the spiritual and comprehensive priesthood made possible by the one who first became both sacrifice and priest. God's plan will work for us, if we will work his plan for him."
*Read the entire book HERE
To be honest, this quote is stronger than anything I would ever feel comfortable saying out loud. But as I contemplate the quote I can't find a way to refute it.
Ketcherside goes even further to say, "When God had a limited priesthood, (in the Old Testament), Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sought to make it inclusive of the whole congregation, and perished for their evil attempt. Of what punishment shall he be thought worthy who now seeks to install a limited priesthood for the universal one which God has revealed?"
A NEW TEMPLE FOR A NEW COVENANT
God's plan for His Church was radical. He would remove the Temple, and tear the veil separating Himself and the common people. He would fill each disciple of the Messiah with His Holy Spirit and empower them to live transformed lives of extravagant love, communicating the Gospel of the Kingdom with anyone in their path.
In God's new design the people are the new temple of God. The people are the new priesthood. The people are the carriers of the Kingdom message to the World at large.
The Doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer originates in the New Testament and was a foundational element in the development of the Protestant Church when Martin Luther argued against the medieval belief that Christians were to be divided into two classes: "spiritual" and "temporal" (or non-spiritual). Luther put forward the idea that all baptized Christians are priests and spiritual in the eyes of God.
*See Wikipedia entry on the Doctrine HERE:
"That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2:9 says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation 5:10, "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings." - Martin Luther, from "To The Christian Nobility of the German Nation" (1520).
Two months later Luther would write in his "Babylonian Captivity of the Church":
"How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry and consented to by us? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."
IN SPIRIT OR IN TRUTH?
Most Protestant Churches affirm this Doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer in some way. However, in practice the story is quite different.
In much the same way that Southern Baptists affirm the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit on paper and yet forbid the practice of public healing ministry, or speaking in tongues, or raising your hands over your head during worship, the traditional Protestant Church pays lip service to the Priesthood of Every Believer but in practice forbids the full exercise of this doctrine in their midst.
Essentially, Traditional Churches are uncomfortable with the Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer because at face value it threatens their structure and their clergy/laity division. It especially threatens pastors who support their families based on the salary they receive from their Church. Even the Wikipedia entry above affirms this point when it says: "This doctrine stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity."
MY PERSONAL STRUGGLE
So far I have done my best to avoid this controversy. In my articles and in my public speaking I've gone out of my way to be gracious to the Traditional Church and to point out that God loves His entire Bride, not just those in the House Church. I really do believe that, by the way. God has shown me time and again that the Gospel is preached and the Kingdom is advanced through the Traditional Church. I cannot deny that, and I have no personal grudge against my brothers and sisters in the Traditional Church.
In fact, God has also made sure to place me in several ongoing relationships with traditional churches and pastors. For example, every other week I meet at 6am to pray with the pastor of a large, local Lutheran church. He's my friend and my brother in Christ and I have been very blessed to pray with him and I am honored to know him.
For the last year I have also been invited to preach once every quarter at a local traditional church. This is a church I love dearly. I love their pastor and I love those people very, very much. I am honored to know them and to cheer them on as they follow Christ and advance the Kingdom and live out the Gospel in their daily lives. Many of them are personal heroes of mine, in fact. They are a church full of remarkable men and women who live incredible lives of service and devotion to God and to the Kingdom of God.
So, when I say that there is a tension between the house church and the traditional church, I am speaking very personally. I am sharing with you that I am the one who is feeling pulled in two directions at once. This tension is painful to me, and it threatens to harm my friendships with people I love very, very much. This is not easy for me to talk about. Not at all.
REFORMATION, REVOLUTION, OR RECONCILIATION?
So, honestly, what am I to do with this? How do I respond? What do you think the implications are for us as believers if we willfully ignore God's clear intention for His Bride to operate as a family of equals with every member a priest, and every priest a member?
On one side we could say that we need to repent and to make every effort to reform the Church from within. Others might suggest that we should simply "Be the Church" as God intended and let God sort out everyone else in His own time and in His own way.
TWO EXAMPLES FROM HISTORY
If we look at Martin Luther we see a man who publicly opposed and confronted the established Church of his day in order to bring a reformation whereby each Believer could have a Bible and study God's Word without the permission of a priest. He also condemned the selling of indulgences (forgiveness of sins) by the clergy. Without Luther's actions we'd never have known the religious freedoms brought about by the Protestant Reformation.
Should we follow his example in this case? Should we raise our voices and publicly debate and defy the established Church of our day as well?
What about St. Francis of Assisi? He felt a strong compulsion to embrace the plight of the poor and gave away everything he owned in order to follow Christ in radical poverty and service to others. His reaction to the extravagant, excessive wealth of the Catholic Church in his day was to simply embody the change he longed to inspire in others. Rather than write letters to the Pope condemning the excesses of the Church, or standing on the street corners shouting sermons against the Catholic leaders, he simply and quietly lived out his convictions and inspired a movement.
Granted, Francis didn't change the excesses of the Organized Church in his day, or in ours, but he did model another way of following Christ that involved embracing the poor and touching the least in our community. To this day people are discovering his story and following his radical example of Christian compassion.
Perhaps our best course of action in this situation would be to live out the convictions we have in full view of those we love, whether they agree with us or not?
Do we need a public reformation or a quiet revolution? Or maybe just a softer reconciliation within God’s Family where Brothers and Sisters in Christ embrace one another in love?
What do you think?
-kg
**
TO REPLY PLEASE COMMENT ON THE BLOGSITE OR EMAIL ME DIRECTLY AT
"ELYSIANSKY" (AT) HOTMAIL (DOT) COM
**
LAST CHANCE: Take the [Subversive Underground] Survey before it's too late!
You'll kick yourself if you don't answer these 10 questions before time runs out.
TAKE THE SURVEY NOW
Thanks!
**
THE PARADOX OF FREE WILL (article)
At TheOoze.com HERE
**
[END TRANSMISSION]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)