Worshiping Christ in no particular place

Leonhart: Where do you worship Christ?
Hans: Not at any one particular place. . . . I worship him seated at the right hand of his heavenly Father; there he is my only intercessor, mediator, and reconciler to God."

I wonder if the way we use worship terminology these days undermines this very important concept?

From: Balthasar Hubmaier, "A Christian Catechism," in Balthasar Hubmaier, Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism, Classics of the Radical Reformation, vol. 5, trans. H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 355.

Camillo Renato on Scripture

... Scripture, which having survived until now by the providence of God and by the movement of the Holy Spirit and through the work of the apostles, is a weapon sufficient to save us and to inform us all the necessary things, useful and central and final things of the christian doctrine and customs. It is sufficient to defend ourselves from the bad doctrines of Satan and the Antichrist and does not need new voices, or new discourses, or deductions, or other curiosities, which give birth to contentions and schisms in the company of Christ. It is founded on the word and doctrine of its head and prince Jesus Christ our lord and does not try to extend beyond the designated terms so that, if lost, it would not be pulled into error by Satan.

This is my quick translation of a quote found in Camillo Renato, "Trattato del Battesimo e della Santa Cena," in Camillo Renato and Antonio Rotondò, Opere: Documenti e Testimonianze, Corpus Reformatorum Italicorum, edited by Luigi Firpo and Giorgio Spini (Firenze: G. C. Sansoni, 1968), 108.

While Renato is usually identified as a spiritualist, I thought this was a very good quote on Scripture.

Jerome and Baptism

First they teach all nations. Then they baptize those they have taught with water, for the body is not able to receive the sacrament of baptism before the soul has received the truth of the faith.

found in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 4.28.18-20, in Manlio Simonett, ed, Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. NT 1b. Edited by Thomas M. Oden (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002), 313.

I personally found this very interesting, especially due to the fact that Jerome was 4th / 5th century and that there are traces of infant baptism as early as the 2nd century.

Church Buildings - Francis Wayland

We assemble to offer spiritual sacrifice. We meet to hear the word of God explained and brought home to our consciences and our hearts, and to bring under the sound of the gospel as many as we are able. Christ came to preach the gospel to the poor, and to the end of time, the evidence of the truth of his religion is, that "to the poor the gospel is preached." Hence we need a neat, convenient audience-room, well ventilated, well warmed, and also perfectly adapted to the wants of both speaker and hearer. We want this to be provided at as small expense as possible, for two reasons: first, we wish to bring the gospel within the reach of the poor, and of those of moderate means; and, secondly, we need a great many such houses, because, if we are faithful to Christ, we expect an abundant increase.

found in Francis Wayland, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches (New York: Sheldon, 1857), 155-56.

Wayland is more institutional than I am, but I think that he has the right emphasis: not on the building, not on the cult of personalities, but on the people. Would that more churches honestly look at where their efforts and finances are spent and say like Wayland: "We want this to be provided at as small expense as possible."

Majority rule in the church? - A. H. Strong

Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together.

found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903. repr., Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 905.

It reminds me of the numerous NT passages where we are told that the disciples were all in one accord. May we all take this attitude in our churches!

Possible roots of Baptist Baby Dedication - A. H. Strong

In Key West, Florida, a town of 22,000 inhabitants, infant baptism has a stronger hold than anywhere else at the South. Baptist parents had sometimes gone to the Methodist preacher to have their children baptized. To prevent this, the Baptist pastors established the custom of laying their hands upon the heads of infants in the congregation, and 'blessing' them, i.e., asking God's blessing to rest upon them. But this custom came to be confounded with christening, and was called such. Now the Baptist pastors are having a hard struggle to explain and limit the custom which they themselves have introduced. Perverse human nature will take advantage of even the slightest additions to N. T. prescriptions, and will bring out of the germs of false doctrine a fearful harvest of evil.

found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903. repr., Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 957.

I have often wondered where the concept of Baptist baby dedication came from ... could this be it?

The Tripartite Law - N. T. Wright

Precisely because of the emphasis on the unique accomplishments of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament could not continue to have exactly the same role within the Christian community that it had had before. . . . From the start, in the ministry of Jesus and the work of Paul, we find constant reference to the fact that with the fulfillment comes a new moment in the story, a new act in the play. Heavy-handed schemes such as those of Marcion and the theologically cognate ones of some Reformers do no justice to the sophisticated early Christian sense of continuing to live under the whole scripture, albeit in this multi-layered manner. Nor, for that matter, do the pragmatic, rule-of-thumb conclusions of some other writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who saw the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws being abolished while the "moral" ones remained, ignoring the fact that most ancient Jews would not have recognized such a distinction.

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 56-7.

As I have been reading N. T. Wright, I came upon this quote and it reminded me of a series I did back in 2008. Here is a link to the "Final thoughts" post which has links to all the posts in the series. Hope it is helpful.

Systems Enslaving Scripture - N. T. Wright

"Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion. It is no longer "authoritative" in any strict sense; that is, it may be cited as though in "proof" of some point or other, but it is not leading the way, energizing the church with the fresh breath of God himself. The question must always be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve an existing theology or vice versa."

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 70.

Unfortunately he describes here a phenomenon which has been far too common for far too long. There are many cherished systems out there, and too many people holding on to their system more tightly than they hold on to Scripture. What if we pledged not to allow our systems to "tame" Scripture, but for our understanding of Scripture to be system free? What if we questioned everything and looked at Scripture with a fresh eye, allowing it to shape our theology, instead of trying to use it to prove our theology? Then we would allow Scripture to energize "the church with the fresh breath of God himself." Will you be the vessel for that breath of fresh air?

Authority: Scripture vs. System - N. T. Wright

I have been reading N. T. Wright's book to prepare for my PhD comprehensive exams (which I will take in 2012 or so), and have been really enjoying it. In Chapter 5, The First Sixteen Centuries, Wright looks at how the use and understanding of Scripture changed over the centuries. Starting with allegory, he sees a tension developing: a tension "between authority and interpretation." Here he asks a very good question:

At what point in this process are we forced to conclude that what is really "authoritative" within such an operation is the system of theology or devotion already believed or embraced on other grounds, which is then "discovered" in the text by the interpretative method being used?

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 66.

So what do you think? How often have I committed that same mistake? How often have you? What can we do, as Wes asked in the comments to another post, do guard ourselves from that mistake?

A surge of interest in Bible study and private devotion - Craig Blaising

"The Brethren Movement ... rejected the special role of an ordained clergy, which perpetuated such ecclesiastical divisions, and stressed instead the spiritual giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under the Spirit's guidance, to teach and admonish each other from the Scripture.

By enhancing the integrity and responsibility of the laity, Brethrenism witnessed a surge of interest in Bible study and private devotion."

found in Craig A. Blaising, and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism: An up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1993), 10.

Obviously, this is not the topic of the book. Blaising mentions the Brethren movement because he sees that "dispensationalism first took shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century Britain." Yet, it is an interesting thought ... could the concept of clergy be hindering Bible study and private devotion?

Community Mentoring - David Nelson

". . .[I] note that it was a variety of members of God’s church who formed my life as a disciple of Jesus. And among those examples, some of them influenced me concurrently – the body of Christ was used by the Spirit to shape my life. . . . life in the community of faith, the cultivation of a liturgical life, and the enactment of faith as a way of life is the stuff of real discipleship. And the church should be diligent and intentional about shaping the life of the community to allow for relationships that form mature disciples. . . .And I’ll note that this is what happened to me the past month while joined together to learn with my friends from overseas. We together, in community – studying together, arguing together, eating together, living together – helped to form one another in Christ."

These are but a few sentences from David Nelson's blog post entitled I Was Never “Mentored”: A Report from the Field, Part 3, where he opines on the appropriateness of community mentoring versus one-on-one mentoring, or the Paul/Timothy model, as some would call it. It is nice to see yet another great theologian (for another example see Community of Theologians - Malcom B. Yarnell III) point believers to the importance of the community. Now, what are we going to do about it?

Going to Church: a great impropriety - John Gill

The word church has various significations, which it may be proper to take notice of, in order to settle the true sense of it, as now to be discoursed of. Some take it for a place of worship, and call such a place by that name; but wrongly, at least very improperly: it is a remarkable saying of one of the ancients, even of the second century, Not the place, but the congregation of the elect, I call the church. . . . The papists, indeed, call an edifice built for religious worship, a church; and so do some protestants, I might add, some dissenting protestants too; who call going to a place of public worship, going to church; though with great impropriety.

found in John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, new ed., vol. 2 (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1839), 559.

... Hum ... terminology. So what do you think, does our use of terminology matter? When many Christians use the terminology "going to church" are they really committing a great impropriety?

Union in the Body - John Gill

This union of saints in a church-state is signified by their being joined, and as it were glued together; it is an union of spirits so close, as if they were but one spirit; so the members of the first Christian church were of one heart and one soul, being knit together in love; and it becomes members to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Acts iv. 32, Col. ii.2, Eph. iv. 3.

found in John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, new ed., vol. 2 (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1839), 565.

... Hum ... unity. So does this look like your body of believers?

Community of Theologians - Malcom B. Yarnell III

In Clear and Useful Instruction, [Pilgram Marpeck] promoted the idea that all Christians receive spiritual gifts and are empowered by Christ to fulfill the Great Commission. Their belief that the Spirit spoke to the entire community as it read the Scripture together encouraged the Anabaptists to seek conversation with other Christians. Theology, for them, was always done best in communal Bible study. This helps explain one of the most poignant facts of the Continental Reformation. The Anabaptists seemed more than willing to enter debates with the state church theologians, even when it led to persecution. What surprised their opponents repeatedly was the intricate knowledge of Scripture that even illiterate Anabaptists expressed, a knowledge learned in church.

found in Malcom B. Yarnell III, The Formation of Christian Doctrine (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 102.

I keep on thinking about that last sentence and am reminded of the account found in Acts 4:13 (NKJV):

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.

Could it be that the Anabaptists' ecclesiology really impacted their Christian walk as Yarnell seems to imply in his book? Could it be that during their communal Bible studies, they too had been with Jesus instead of only hearing about Jesus?

community of believers - R. T. France

While commenting on Matt. 18, R. T. France states that:

The portrait of the church which thus emerges is an attractive one. Status-consciousness and formally constituted authority have no place. The focus is on the relationship and mutual responsibility of all members of the community, each of whom matters, and yet all of whom must regard themselves only as 'little ones.' The resultant pastoral concern and action is not the preserve of a select few, but is the responsibility of each individual disciple, and, where necessary, of the whole group together. The structure is informal, but the sense of community is intense. And overarching it all is the consciousness of the presence of Jesus and of the forgiveness and pastoral concern of 'your Father in heaven.

found in R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 674-5.

France, in his footnotes, also directs the reader's attention to the formulation of a similar idea by E. Schweizer, who in G. N. Stanton (ed.), Interpretation, 161, states that Matt. 18 shows "a community which seems to know neither elders nor bishops nor deacons," in which "everyone is involved on a par with everyone else."

How does this view of the church compare with your body of believers?

judging people - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

from I Have a Dream - August 28, 1963, found on http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html.

How are you judging people? Are you judging them by their appearance? Are you judging them by their ideas? Or, are you judging them by their character?

Building the Church - Charles H. Spurgeon's

I want you to notice this, that they were breaking bread from house to house, and ate their food with gladness and singleness of heart. They did not think that religion was meant only for Sundays, and for what men now-a-days call the House of God. Their own houses were houses of God, and their own meals were so mixed and mingled with the Lord's Supper that to this day the most cautious student of the Bible cannot tell when they stopped eating their common meals, and when they began eating the Supper of the Lord. They elevated their meals into diets for worship: they so consecrated everything with prayer and praise that all around them was holiness to the Lord. I wish our houses were, in this way, dedicated to the Lord, so that we worshipped God all day long, and made our homes temples for the living God...

Does God need a house? He who made the heavens and the earth, does he dwell in temples made with hands? What crass ignorance this is! No house beneath the sky is more holy than the place where a Christian lives, and eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and praises the Lord in all that he does, and there is no worship more heavenly than that which is presented by holy families, devoted to the fear of the Lord.

To sacrifice home worship to public worship is a most evil course of action. Morning and evening devotion in a little home is infinitely more pleasing in the sight of God than all the cathedral pomp which delights the carnal eye and ear. Every truly Christian household is a church, and as such it is competent for the discharge of any function of divine worship, whatever it may be. Are we not all priests? Why do we need to call in others to make devotion a performance? Let every man be a priest in his own house. Are you not all kings if you love the Lord? Then make your houses palaces of joy and temples of holiness. One reason why the early church had such a blessing was because her members had such homes. When we are like them we will have “added to the church those who were being saved.” - Charles H. Spurgeon

found on The Assembly of the Church. According to Alan's post this is from a sermon entitled "Building the Church" (or "Additions to the Church") concerning Acts 2 which Spurgeon gave on April 5, 1874.

Is this the picture of your house?

love above everything else - Bill Clinton

"The reason we have to put love above everything else is because we see through a glass darkly and know in part. Therefore, it almost doesn't matter whether the Bible is literally true, because we know in part. We see through a glass darkly. Humility is the order of the day. The reason we have to love each other is because we might all be wrong." - Former President Bill Clinton

found in J. Gerald Harris, "Jimmy Carter aglow over New Baptist Covenant Celebration," The Christian Index 187, 4 (02/14/2008): 12-3.

Well, here is the epitome of Derrida's deconstructionist thought and postmodern relativism: it does not matter whether something is true or not because we are probably going to misunderstand it anyhow. The problem is that knowing in part does not mean not knowing at all; just because we cannot comprehend 100% does not make truth useless. I wonder if the former president would want his physician to think that anatomy almost doesn't matter because, after all, we don't really understand all that is going on in the body anyhow.

Don't get me wrong; humility, unity, and love are essential in our daily Christian walk. Paul teaches us to "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good" (Rom 12:9). Our very faith depends on the veracity of Scripture, and that is a "good" we should cling to. It does matter that the Bible is literally true. Our unity as believers is based on "walking in the light" (1 Jon 1:7) and following Him: the one who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6, emphasis mine).

authenticity - David F. Wells

The postmodern reaction against Enlightenment dogma will not be met successfully simply by Christian proclamation. Of that we can be sure. That proclamation must arise with a context of authenticity. It is only as the evangelical Church begins to put its own house in order, its members begin to disentangle themselves from all of those cultural habits which militate against a belief in truth, and begin to embody that truth in the way that the Church actually lives, that postmodern skepticism might begin to be overcome. Postmoderns want to see as well as hear, to find authenticity in relationship as the precursor to hearing what is said. This is a valid and biblical demand. Faith, after all, is dead without works, and few sins are dealt with as harshly by Jesus as hypocrisy. What postmoderns want to see, and are entitled to see, is believing and being, talking and doing, all joined together in a seamless whole. This is the great challenge of the moment for the evangelical Church. Can it rise to this occasion? - David F. Wells

found in David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow'rs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 315.

I would add that this is not a postmodern challenge, but it is valid for all times. As DC Talk sings of in What if I Stumble?: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Will you please live out your faith? If not, will you stop telling people that you are a Christian? (BTW - I'm not talking about perfection, I'm talking about submission.)

church and culture - David F. Wells

Ways of thinking and organizing in our society often become our ways of thinking about ourselves and organizing our lives. Thus, those who gaze at a computer screen by day and a television screen by night may well feel awkwardly obsolete in church if there is not another screen on which to gaze. The demands of efficiency, and the rational, impersonal workings of bureaucracy, are so much a part of who we have become that many of us also want our churches to have the feel of a smoothly run corporation. Our capitalism has been so virile and abundant, filling our lives with goods in quantities unknown in any previous age, that it seems only natural - at least in middle class, white churches - to expect the same range of choice in programs and services as we experience in the commercial world. The norms of the workplace so easily and so unknowingly become our own internalized norms. And this is true of most people. - David F. Wells

found in David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow'rs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 22-3.

Wells unfortunately points out that way too often, culture has transformed the church, but is that what is supposed to happen? No, as I stated a while back when I posted a short post called The kingdom of heaven, Christ calls us to transform culture, not for culture to transform us. So let me ask again: are we affecting the world around us?