Category Archives: Ecclesiology

The doctrine of the church

Preserving the Unity

Posted on by

Recently at Bible Study I had the opportunity to teach through Ephesians 4:1-3.  The verse reads, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” in the King James version.  What struck me about this was that I had failed to endeavor keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace on so many occasions that I was hardly qualified to speak on the topic from experience.  Instead I would have to humbly teach with examples of past failure: my life being an example of what not to do.  Without going into every failure, which could take far more time and introduce too much confusion, I abandoned unity because I had learned that doctrine divides and that good doctrine was to be prized above all and at the cost of anything.  While I’m still passionate about doctrine, the Lord has humbled me with the doctrine of Grace and its application in my own life.

You see Paul doesn’t start chapter 4 on its own, instead he starts it after a prayer that outline believers as family.  And before that he outlines who the individual is in Christ.  Nothing about the context of Ephesians allows for my radical and aggressive departures from various churches due to doctrinal differences.  Paul reminds the believer in 4:1 that he should be walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which he was called.  What calling is that?  The life of Christ being lived out through moment-by-moment relationship.  Each believer is called to this relationship with God first and foremost.  That way the life of Christ can be manifest in a daily walk.

Paul, not wanting to stop with the profundity that is a walk that is worthy of our calling, hits the believers up with an immense request in verse 2, “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;”  BAM!  Its as if Paul was shooting for the very foundation of the fleshly nature and goes in for the kill: no more pride.  Pride is what hits me and causes me to want to be right and dogmatic about things.  I have dear friends who have endured this pride and still love me (and my family) despite this intensity.  My parents told me growing up that I should consider being a lawyer because I loved to argue.  Over time my love for arguing has disappeared.  I’ve seen the arguments tear people down, destroy relationships and ruin church bodies.  It is not that the doctrine was not important, it was, but that the way that things were discussed rapidly escalated to the point of injured soldiers who were wounded from once friendly fire.

Paul writes that the believers should be lowly or humble, meek or gentle.  With patience the believers should forebear or tolerate with love.  Love!  I hate the term tolerance because it is so often used outside of the context of love.  We tolerate neighbors with house colors and decorations we don’t care for, but we don’t often love them.  Worse is that in the church we could ignore love and simply tolerate brothers and sisters whom we should know intimately enough that we could pray for them without ceasing (I Thes. 5:17), and as the Lord does things in the life of the body we never stop rejoicing (I Thes.5:16).  What wound can be caused between friends when they’re gentle and humble with one another?  What blow struck with the slowness of patience can be described as cutting and haughty?

It is with this attitude of moment-by-moment relationship, walking in a manner worthy of our calling, being humble, gentle, patient and tolerating in love that we are called to then endeavor or preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  If I were to say, “Hey brother (under the Father Eph.3:14-15), I have been walking with the Lord and meditating on His word and contemplating this doctrine for a while (in patience), and I think that we don’t see eye-to-eye and I would love to spend some time going over God’s word with you to see what He says about it so that we can preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” then you would say that I have come with a noble and yet humble attitude.  I didn’t come with a sledgehammer, but instead with graciousness and love.

Doctrine is critical.  It is the clear delineation of what should be God’s revealed truth.  But doctrine does not give us the right to depart or destroy others in the body at the onset of a disagreement.  Yes, there are biblical grounds for separation.  Yes, there are times when believers should part ways because one or more of the parties involved are not behaving in a manner worthy of the calling, but we don’t jump to that conclusion with haste.  We rest in Christ, we seek to preserve the unity.

The Greek for the word preserve or keep there implies a guarding or maintaining of something that is whole, to prevent the decay of that thing.  Unity is fragile, but in Christ it is not only positionally existent, but very easily possible for Him to preserve.  The Holy Spirit has preserved His word for thousands of years and there is not much of a chance that you or I could ruin that.  We’re called to a life that is rich and abundant together.  Consider that togetherness the next time you start to feel your blood pressure rise.  Consider tolerance in love.  Consider the opportunity you may have one day in the future where your failures could be offset by the illustration of God’s work in your life to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Extrapolation

Posted on by

One of the common points of division in the body of Christ, from my own experience, has been theological extrapolation. Calvinists don’t get along with Arminians because of the extrapolation from what is written in the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, logic is important, but it isn’t the be-all, end-all of hermeneutics. You see, if you have only some of the facts, content, culture, history, language understanding and you start to form doctrines you can come up with some errant ideas because you have started to fill in the ‘blanks’ [even if they weren’t blank, but you didn’t study] with something else that you have brought about by deduction. When you have some ideas that work for you, it is probably a great idea to pursue discussions with mature believers and seek out wisdom. Homogeny isn’t always the most important thing (truth is!), but others who have studied a topic may be able to point you towards some verses that will help you in your studies and find a fuller understanding of what the scriptures say on a subject.  Homogeny can also be dangerous because a whole group has agreed on something but not looked into it.  That being said, discussion with other believers is critical.

When you study God’s word there is a term for inserting your own meanings into a text, its called eisegesis (pronounced like ice o’ Jesus, which is probably what Martha was getting when she complained about Mary listening).  It is important to know what the scriptures say and to apply consistent hermeneutics for this very reason.  If you look at a text and are forcing your own modern context and ideas on the text, you’re not learning from God’s word, you’re changing it.  That’s not extrapolation, but its not useful time with the Bible.

The Church

Posted on by

I am starting to think about things that I haven’t thought about for a while: semantics. When people use the term ‘the church’ what do they convey? The word has various meanings in various contexts and I don’t want to try to force a singular meaning on it – that’d be just confusing and a lot of work for me to try to start an international campaign 🙂 Instead I want to take a brief look at the uses and then suggest care in using it in some contexts.

Meanings:

The Church
A building in which people of a Christian denomination come together (in contrast to a temple, mosque or Community Center)
The Church
A group of people that are gathered together in a particular building or that area associated with a particular denomination’s meeting place. Example: The Assemblies of God Church in Carson City is called Capital Christian Center.
The Church
The bride of Christ as defined by being a believer in Christ and not being associated with a denomination or meeting location.

It is this last definition that most concerns me. I recently read a statement wherein the person said [roughly], “The church has been judgmental in the past.” This is a sticky wicket and I wouldn’t normally even want to touch it. Here’s my concern though: by using the singular, universal term for Christians throughout history regardless of denomination or adherence to the authority of scripture you are painting with too broad a brush. Also, by doing this you’re actually defining the church differently compared to how the Bible teaches it to be on a doctrinal level. Practicioners of a religion do not necessarily represent the religion in its pure, ideal form.

I’m not suggesting that we white-wash church history so as to always appear as if all believers throughout history were abiding in the Holy Spirit and acting as God’s messengers in all things, but I am suggesting that we be careful how we use the church. The Bride of Christ has been made perfect by her redeemer/groom, Christ. We are sanctified in Him, perfected in Him and presentable to Him (see Ephesians 5 for this last reference). Let us not forget this when trying to interact with people and how we use the term ‘church.’ I’m sure I need to be more careful myself, but I do want to remind believers that by representing the church as anything but a redeemed group we short sell our savior.

Why Eldership is for Men

Posted on by

A reader of my I Timothy 1:3-7 post asked:

In reading this I do not see the interpretation that only men may lead the church and hold positions of leadership/elders.
This is a stumbling block in many churches, and in many cases [is] the reason some [choose] to leave the church. Not their faith but the church. How can it be explained that within the word of the Bible the intent of our Lord is as you describe here. I understand you to say that it is actions, faith and purity that makes a leader and gender isn’t specific in the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Can you help explain?

Gender is clear for the leadership of the church. However, teaching and growth are not gender specific in certain contexts. There are several parts to your question and I intend to address them seperately so that the issues don’t get blurred together. I would break them up as follows:

  1. Is this interpretation the only interpretation, and if not, is it the correct interpretation?
  2. Male only eldership causes people to leave the church [not meaning leaving the faith]. Does this make the doctrine wrong?
  3. Is this doctrine only derived from this passage or do other passages teach this? [What is the whole teaching of the word of God?]

Is this interpretation the only interpretation? If not, is it the correct interpretation?
No, the interpretation I hold to is not the only interpretation. However, using a consistent hermeneutic (interpretation process) as generally outlined in my article on hermeneutics I believe it is the most scripturally consistent view of the passage. I believe the most common views are

  1. That there should be plural elders when possible, these elders should be men [the view I hold]
  2. That there should be one elder, he is to be a man. This man is usually called the pastor or bishop
  3. That there are to be no elders, this is just something Paul was writing to Timothy about, but is not a doctrine applicable to the church today.
  4. Men or women can be leaders of the church and it is a good idea if they meet most of the requirements of this passage
  5. If the men don’t step up the women should step up to lead the church

This is hardly an exhaustive list of the various types of church leadership. Some of these ideas are based on this passage and some of these ideas don’t have any scriptural backing whatsoever. Alister Begg once shared in a message I heard that he visited a Baptist church in the south where the pastor was doing verse by verse exposition and then got to that section and declaired to his congregation that since they didn’t have elders there that this passage was not for them and so they’d skip it. I think that skipping a passage based on the ecclesiology (doctrines of the order of the church) of the church is really problematic because that passage may point out an area where your ecclesiology needs to change!

I am going to use some of the details that will be in the section about the whole teaching of scripture and these two sections will overlap some. I believe that since doctrine should be rooted in the clear teaching of scripture and that doctrines that are presented in multiple places should (generally) take importance to believers in comparison to doctrines that are more vague. This doctrine is clear throughout scripture. Being a dispensationalist, that is a believer who interprets the Bible literally but understanding that the scriptures written to the Jews are for the Jews and do not have a direct baring on Christians in the current time frame of scripture, I am going to quote heavily from the New Testament and only reference the Old Testament where Apostolic precedence does so. To put it simply: I don’t think that I can justify male eldership based primarily on Old Testament passages.

Passages that teach male leadership within the church or give a clear precedence

Acts Chapters 1 and 2
These two chapters show the beginning of the church. Prior to this time the Jewish system and Law were in place for all of those portrayed in these passages (estimates are that Gentiles were rather foreign to the church until about 15 yeas into the church age). Christ gathers the men (disciples) together and instructs them in what they should do: wait. Then the Holy Spirit elected a new disciple to take the place of Judas Iscariot. One of the requirements was that it be a man who had been with them the whole time.
I do understand that these are disciples and not elders, so this is taken as a weaker reference. However, it does set a precendence and hold as a principle that leadership for the church was to be male at its inception.
Acts 14:21-34
This passage shows the apostles at work and before they left they set up elders. It would seem hypocritical for Paul to set up elders that did not meet the requirements of his letters to Timothy. Again, this is not a direct statement that men should be the elders but works in concert with later verses.
Acts 15:22
This passage clearly says that from the group of elders (presumably men), men were chosen to go. I recognize that this one is slightly more direct than previous passages, but is still not saying, “Men Only.”
I Timothy 3:1-7
This is probably one of the foundational passages that outlines the male requirements for being an elder.

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

“If a man…” seems like a clear statement of gender in contrast to the roles of deacons (verse 8) and deaconesses (verse 11). The male elders shepherd the church while the deacons (male) and deaconesses (female) serve the church. The requirements for an elder are stringent and are too clear for all of the other details to ignore the masculine gender they start out with.

Titus 1:5-9
This passage too clarifies the male nature of the role of elder. The clarity in these verses is hard to ignore. Chapter 2 clarifies that in general older men are to instruct the younger men in godliness and that older women are to instruct younger women in godliness. The leadership of the body as a whole, however, remains to the men as set before in the earlier verses.

Other verses beyond this talk about elders, but like some of the verses in the list above do not specify gender.

I cannot find one instance of a female leader of the church body in all of the New Testament. It seems consistent with the Timothy and Titus passages to have male elders only.

What about culture? If the culture of that time allowed for only men, but todays culture allows for women, shouldn’t we just attribute this male only doctrine to being cultural?
The cultural argument is a toughy because there are things like women wearing make-up that are common in todays churches. Other issues like women wearing head coverings (see I Corinthians 11) and greeting each other with a Holy Kiss (I Peter 5) have gone to the wayside. I Timothy 2:9-15 points out that Paul recognizes an order for things within the genders. This gender order does not mean doormat, second rate citizen or inferiority. A difference here does not have to create bitterness and to that end Paul wrote Colossians 3:18-25. Specifically that women are to submit to their husbands, but that husbands are not to provoke their wives (or children). The order of the church should be already working in their homes: the men should be heads of their households.

Pages: 1 2 3 4