The other day Bruce Ellingson (an elder at my church) explained to me his understanding of the origins of the term "personal relationship" with God. He believed that the term was a response to theological liberalism from the first half of the 20th century. The issue as he explained it was that the liberal church of the early 1900's was creeping towards a universalism (the belief that all people will be justified through Jesus). The evangelical/fundamentalists countered this belief by saying that a person must believe that Jesus Christ died for them personally. In other words, by using the term "personal relationship" they were implying that a person must actually understand Christ's death and resurrection in a real way. They must have personal faith and exhibit personal repentance. The phrase seems to have been popularized by 20th century evangelists like Billy Graham and others.
Well that sounds good to me but 80 years later; What does the term "personal relationship" with Jesus mean today? I never use the term because I sense a poverty in it. My mentor once said that he believed that when people use the term "personal relationship" today, they are thinking they are somehow doing what is right merely because they use the term. They somehow believe that using the term is the proper way to witness Christ to people because that is what they have been taught. Their belief, as he understands it, is that the use of the term "personal relationship" will awaken people to a need for Christ they never knew existed. In other words, they use it without any regards for its origin, implications, or propensity for misuse.
In 1948 a great writer named Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences (can't figure out how to underline). In the introduction Weaver points out the philosophy's of 19th and 20th century destroyed the intellectual vitality of the western world. He identified philosophy's like nominalism (no truth independent of man), materialism (only what is seen is real), psychological behavioralism, had left man in a state of "abysmality". One of his conclusions was that 20th century man was "in the deep and dark abysm, and he has nothing with which to raise himself. His life is practice without theory." Weaver described 20th century man as one who had a practice but no underlying theory to uphold him. He groped around for words and behaviors but nothing gave meaning to what he had done.
The same could be said about the church's practice today. We have our catch phrases like "personal relationship" and I am convinced that we are following a practice that has no current theoretical underpinning. We're wasting words but we believe that we are saying something poignant, life changing, and meaningful.
In part 2 I'd like examine the consequences that the idea of "personal relationship" with God has had on us and how we are spiritually poorer because of it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Why must I be committed to my local Church in membership? Part 2
I must be a member of my local church because....
1. the Scriptures imply that every believer must be committed to a local church. The epistles were written to churches/groups of churches. The epistle writers were utterly focused on the function of the local church. They believed that the church was instituted to represent Christ and display His glory to the world. They believed the church was the fullness of God. The writers of the New Testament had no thought of church hopping. They would have been disgusted by the idea of a "Christian" who had loose affiliations with a number of churches. They viewed the local church as the absolute center of the spiritual experience of the Christian. They viewed the local church as the physical representation of Christ on earth and separation from the local body meant separation from Jesus.
2. the Scriptures teach that the early congregations knew who was in and out of their particular fellowship. The first century church was an organized church. Sometimes they are painted to be a group of Neanderthals who were making up church life as they went along. No, even the Corinthian church knew who was in and out of their congregation beyond attendance and baptism. Paul commands the church in the 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians to "expel" from the congregation a man who is living in unrepentant sexual sin with his step mother. I don't believe that Paul was commanding that the man be shunned from every interaction with believers but rather that He be removed from the life of the church. In 2 Corinthians 2 a man is restored to the life of the church who had previously been removed. Many commentators believe this is the same man. 1 and 2 Corinthians give a grand picture of how restoration can take place in a Christian's life if individuals are committed to membership and repentance and their church is committed to follow the Scriptures directives on membership and discipline. (other pertinent Scriptures on membership Matt 18, Hebrew 10)
3. If I'm not a church member the leaders of my church have (most likely) never formally stated that they believe I am a Christian. It is possible that you have been examined by church leaders prior to your baptism but many churches (traditional and non) are less than aggressive when it comes to examination prior to baptism. At its core church membership is the leaders of your church examining your beliefs and your life and judging whether or not they believe that you evidence faith which is accompanied by new life by the grace of God.
4. if not I've never given anyone permission to lovingly discipline me. Elders are given a Scriptural mandate to "keep watch over (the) souls" of their people as those who will give and account. Church members are given the Scriptural mandate to "obey their leaders and submit to them" (Heb 13:17). I sense that these things are impossible to do without church membership. Without church membership elders cannot know who's souls they will give an account for. Will they give an account for every person who visits their church? Will they give an account for every person who calls themselves a believer? Will they give an account for those that they've decided to give an account for? No, they will give an account for those who have committed themselves to membership/commitment/accountability in the local church. Church members will give an account for how they have obeyed their leaders and leaders will give an account for the way in which they led their people. Were they faithful to the Scriptures in their leadership or did they allow the fear of man and the predominant culture to consume their leadership style?
5. those who don't practice church membership deny the sinful propensity of their own hearts. Without church membership we are convincing ourselves that we would probably never get off track spiritually. We're basically saying 'I'll never have need to be confronted by the members/leaders of my congregation.' 'I can't see myself going down a sinful track.' By forsaking church membership we may be setting ourselves up to never be corrected, disciplined, or truly loved by anyone. Real discipline is conducted out of love. "The Lord disciplines those He loves as a father the son he delights in."
1. the Scriptures imply that every believer must be committed to a local church. The epistles were written to churches/groups of churches. The epistle writers were utterly focused on the function of the local church. They believed that the church was instituted to represent Christ and display His glory to the world. They believed the church was the fullness of God. The writers of the New Testament had no thought of church hopping. They would have been disgusted by the idea of a "Christian" who had loose affiliations with a number of churches. They viewed the local church as the absolute center of the spiritual experience of the Christian. They viewed the local church as the physical representation of Christ on earth and separation from the local body meant separation from Jesus.
2. the Scriptures teach that the early congregations knew who was in and out of their particular fellowship. The first century church was an organized church. Sometimes they are painted to be a group of Neanderthals who were making up church life as they went along. No, even the Corinthian church knew who was in and out of their congregation beyond attendance and baptism. Paul commands the church in the 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians to "expel" from the congregation a man who is living in unrepentant sexual sin with his step mother. I don't believe that Paul was commanding that the man be shunned from every interaction with believers but rather that He be removed from the life of the church. In 2 Corinthians 2 a man is restored to the life of the church who had previously been removed. Many commentators believe this is the same man. 1 and 2 Corinthians give a grand picture of how restoration can take place in a Christian's life if individuals are committed to membership and repentance and their church is committed to follow the Scriptures directives on membership and discipline. (other pertinent Scriptures on membership Matt 18, Hebrew 10)
3. If I'm not a church member the leaders of my church have (most likely) never formally stated that they believe I am a Christian. It is possible that you have been examined by church leaders prior to your baptism but many churches (traditional and non) are less than aggressive when it comes to examination prior to baptism. At its core church membership is the leaders of your church examining your beliefs and your life and judging whether or not they believe that you evidence faith which is accompanied by new life by the grace of God.
4. if not I've never given anyone permission to lovingly discipline me. Elders are given a Scriptural mandate to "keep watch over (the) souls" of their people as those who will give and account. Church members are given the Scriptural mandate to "obey their leaders and submit to them" (Heb 13:17). I sense that these things are impossible to do without church membership. Without church membership elders cannot know who's souls they will give an account for. Will they give an account for every person who visits their church? Will they give an account for every person who calls themselves a believer? Will they give an account for those that they've decided to give an account for? No, they will give an account for those who have committed themselves to membership/commitment/accountability in the local church. Church members will give an account for how they have obeyed their leaders and leaders will give an account for the way in which they led their people. Were they faithful to the Scriptures in their leadership or did they allow the fear of man and the predominant culture to consume their leadership style?
5. those who don't practice church membership deny the sinful propensity of their own hearts. Without church membership we are convincing ourselves that we would probably never get off track spiritually. We're basically saying 'I'll never have need to be confronted by the members/leaders of my congregation.' 'I can't see myself going down a sinful track.' By forsaking church membership we may be setting ourselves up to never be corrected, disciplined, or truly loved by anyone. Real discipline is conducted out of love. "The Lord disciplines those He loves as a father the son he delights in."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)