I'm Moving My Blog Over to Wordpress

For those of you who actually visit my blog, I will be moving my blog over to WordPress. Mainly because it is a much more advanced blogging system and makes Blogger look like a dinosaur. I'll post when everything is moved so you can update your links

The web address is natepaschall.wordpress.com (basically the same as now, but with "wordpress" instead of "blogspot")

John Piper - Courage and the Gospel

The following is a quote from John Piper's sermon from the Gospel Coalition this year. This was probably the most personally significant message I have ever heard from Piper. I encourage you to go watch it online or download it and listen to it.

Your salvation, your calling into a life of courage, and speaking, and suffering is not based on, according to, anything you think, feel, do or act. Now the reason I say it so radically and rule out everything he thinks, everything he feels, everything he does because... he rules out that it is not according to works but according to God's grace - the contrast is, "Timothy, I want to strip you of every possible reliance for salvation, calling, power, grace, boldness, courage, shamelessness, speaking - I want to strip you of every expectation that those things are ultimately dependent on you, in any sense at all... When Christ died for you, Timothy, to become your punishment, and your perfection, and rose again and abolished death and brought everlasting life to light, he manifested in that, that gospel... that his eternal purpose was to be gracious to you, from all eternity."

Home Church - Part 2

What the biblical evidence demonstrates is not that there is a "better" method of doing church. The biblical evidence, if I may be so bold, is "amethod", that is to say, it fails in any sense to provide a "method" for how church is to be done. This must be distinguished from "anti-method" that some may think I am implying. I am not "anti-method, nor would I say that I myself am amethod. But as far as the scripture demonstrates, it does not directly bear witness to any "favored" manner of doing church. The NT has no comment on whether the Home Church structure is good or bad. Even the existence of a Home Church structure is at best implied and almost all of our evidence for it comes from later sources.

I use amethod and anti-method to help make a distinguishing mark that is often muddied in discussions about church structuring, especially when it comes to Home Church proponents. The bible is not anti-method, for their are basic and fundamental contours demonstrated in the NT that help give shape to what forms a healthy gathering of believers. Structures such as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds, Pastors, Elders, Teachers, and so on, in order to build the church. There are other structures I do not wish to elaborate, for this is outside of my current purpose. But what must be clear is that when "doing" church, there certainly must be structure and organization. Paul argues against and exhorts the Corinthian church for their disorganized worship services. The NT is not anti-method.

There are many who believe that simply meeting in a home and talking about Jesus is "church". Certainly Christians spending time together do constitute those in the CHURCH, or the Bride of Christ, but this is a categorical mistake to say that they are "having church". There is certainly something altogether different about Christians meeting intentionally together to celebrate Christ himself, not simply to hang out and have a meal. Many confuse this anti-method and believe almost to a degree that church must instead be spontaneous and even unorganized, for this is an attempt, they would argue, to place constraint upon the work of the Holy Spirit. They take the bible's amethodological standpoint and conclude that since no sincere, outlined method is offered in the bible, therefore any and all method or structure is bad or negative. That is, they concluded that the bible must be then anti-method. Rejecting structure, they become anti-method and thereby condemn any structure unlike their own. If professed believers meet together in an institutional organization, it is at once denounced and refuted as even anti-scriptural. What has happened with these forms is that they themselves have committed the very fallacy that they condemn other believers for doing themselves. In condemning other believers for committing themselves to an institutional structure (e.g., church membership) and moving toward anti-method or anti-structure, they become themselves anti-scriptural, in an ironic twist.

What must be held in tension is that the bible does not prescribe any "set" method for doing church, outside of basic structuring. There were other forms that existed at the time of the early church, both home and institutional, and neither must be appealed to as the divine mandate for doing church.

The tables also must be turned in the other direction, towards a more organized or institutional type structuring. It must be noted that it is scarce that any of a more organized or institutional type would appeal directly to the Early Church or the book of Acts itself for defense. More organized and institutional churches look for support elsewhere. Whether this is good or bad must be weighed on other factors. It is not my concern to discern whether this is so, but only my concern to show that the current appeal to the "Early Church," especially as found in the book of Acts is not fundamentally what we should "model" ourselves after, at least not in an organizing fashion. There are other central components that all churches, whether in a home, a building or even institution, must hold on to. Their commitment to those central components must not be surrendered, and when a church, whether it be in a home or institution, commits and lives out those central components, its healthiness will be apparent.

What must be kept in mind when doing and participating in a church environment is that the Early Church serves as a guide but not a model. We cannot model ourselves directly after the Early Church, for in doing so we become anachronistic, neglecting the current context of our time, where different needs (though ultimately the same) are to be met. We cannot assume that what worked in the 1st century will necessarily work in the 21st century, and vice versa. The Early Church had a specific context and needs that needed to be met and we have a specific context and needs to be met. The church of the 21st century must constantly be aware of these needs. This is not to say that the church must be a constantly morphing entity, as many in the postmodern movement are suggesting. At the rate that things are changing today a church may become outdated in a matter of years. There certainly needs to be constants that are maintained regardless of time and cultural changes. Culture must not determine structure. But Structure must adapt to culture. A church in America is certainly going to look different in some respect than a church in China, but these differences must be minimal at best. Scripture is the same in all cultures, Jesus is the same in every human situation, though his application may vary. Some contexts may need certain emphases. Paul emphasized different things to the Jews than to his Roman and Greek worshipping audiences. So also must we reflect this on some level.

What must contribute to the shape of the church is the necessities of that situation. As a church in a persecuted region might necessarily be forced to go underground and meet in house-churches, a church in a free society like America or Europe may be much better suited to a public congregational meeting. What must guide these decisions is the needs of the situation. It is the goal of those who create and implement church structures to correctly apprehend these needs and focus church praxis to meet those needs.

Home Church - Part 1

Many believe that we should follow the NT teaching about how the church is to be structured in a highly literalistic sense. It is not any wonder that many Pre-Millennial advocates are trending towards this direction. The often highly-literalistic sense with which the scripture is read is consistent with their methodology. These proponents believe that a more "organic" church model is what is best (good luck trying to understand "organic") and that churches should be highly localized cell-groups (a.k.a., the Home Church). They argue this based upon the fact that this was the model of the early church.

A presupposition of this mindset is an idealization of the "Early Church". That is to say, that if things are brought back to the "Early Church" model then church has a higher probability of functioning healthier. Never mind that this is a "model", which might very well be the latest spinoff of the well known and loathed "business-as-church" approach. Methodology has been the central components of what drive these movements, not necessity (I will explain what I mean by "necessity" in a moment). What may very well be driving this movement is the very same thing that drove the previous movements: success -  though, albeit, in a healthier model. What seems to be motivating much of the current discussion around the Cell-Group model is its affinity with the Early Church. The Early Church functioned as an efficient mode of worship, evangelism, teaching, preaching, encouragement, exhortation, need-meeting, etc., and is what is understood to be used in the NT. But I believe there is something that can very easily undercut any notion that this should be "The Model" to be used for church.

The very fact that we have New Testament Epistles should argue and show that even this Cell-Group model has its pitfalls and dangers. In fact, the Cell-Group model itself could not prevent any of the disasters that  plagued the Church in its infancy and we should not expect the Cell-Group model to prevent any of these disasters today. 1 Corinthians and the Epistles contained within Revelation (i.e., the letters to the 7 churches) should demonstrate that church government/structure has about as much efficacy in preventing false-teaching, apostasy and sin from entering the church as setting up a chain-link fence around a military base in enemy territory. Not to downplay the strengths of such an approach to church structuring. But I do believe we mustn't be naive about how we approach church, thinking that, "Well that's how they did it in the bible, so that's how we should do it."

Behind every church structuring and ordering their lies people. The problem that has plagued our generation in church governing is not its structure. The problem that has plagued our generation is those who have been appointed. If there is a weak church, I dare suspect that it is not due to an insufficiency in programs or structuring (though I mustn't commit the same fallacy in the opposite direction, of saying structure is irrelevant). The majority of the time (not always) poor church praxis is often attributable to those who rule in the church. Poor leadership in the Pastoral, Elder, Clergy or any other type for that matter will inevitably result in an unhealthy church dynamic. Poor leadership will often result in many of the dilemmas that the modern church faces.

Early I stated that what drives much of the movements we see is methodology, not necessity. The mentality is that if something fails, then what needs change is the method in which things are done. People aren't being reached? New method. Needs aren't being met? New method. Poor teaching? New method. Lack of involvement in church? New method. How this methodology/necessity contrast plays out is that what must be seen is that the environments in the NT for church, i.e., Home Churches, were created out of necessity. It was not after long, deep reflection on the failure of the Sanhedrin and Temple to facilitate and meet the needs of the people that the Christian church reacted and the "Home Church Movement" grew. I believe this is a failure to understand the context and situation of what was really occurring in the conception of the church.

There are 3 primary factors that I believe led to the Home Church "model" (if that's what you would like to call it). I have not done sustained reflection on this in the NT, so these may very well be naive as well, but I believe there is some validity to the arguments. 

1) Rapid Growth: one of the primary markers of the early Christian church is its explosion onto the scene. Within a matter of decades, Christianity became one of the dominate and influential religions in the Roman Empire. From a miniscule origin in the corner of one of the greatest world-superpowers that have ever existed, the Christian faith spread from Jerusalem to Rome in a matter of 3 decades. This is unheard of in history. Never at such a pace has any ideology taken root and influenced such a vast area, especially given the hostility towards its advancement (see point 3). Christianity explosion can be see in that it began affecting entire economies within its second decade (see Acts 19:23ff). Because of this rapid growth, there had to be some way of meeting together and facilitating what was occurring. This growth was occurring across national, cultural, economic, and social boundaries. In order to best facilitate this growth, cell-groups (home churches) were the best mode of managing this growth. A home church could be multiplied at unhindered rates, expanding into other homes in the nearby area, not limited by static buildings which could be outgrown within a few years. The difficulty posed by obtaining a static building was apparent in the persecution (point 3) and also in that such an action would be difficult in itself to accomplish in the Roman world (point 2). Having church at a house was a necessary move, not a "strategic" or "methodological" move.

2) Location: What one must consider is that the environment of the 1st century church was not the same of the 21st century. Many do not consider that during this time, the ability to obtain a meeting location such as a building solely dedicated to a church was not as simple as it is today. This is, I believe, a common oversight in our modern situation. We fail to consider that many, if not all, of 1st century Christians were converts. That is to say, they had a previous location of worship, often in a pagan temple, but now they were left without a "place" to worship, or at least a central location. If there was no place built for people to go worship, then they naturally would have to meet in homes. Building a church building was not as simple as raising funds and hiring a contractor. Nor was it as simple as renting out a school or hotel building. Either you worshipped in the fields or you went to someone's house, often one of the wealthier converts (cf. Lydia or Aquila and Priscilla). Location of church establishments in homes was done out of necessity, not because it was necessarily the best way to meet peoples spiritual and physical needs. People needed a place to meet and since they couldn't meet in public places (because there were none) they met in homes. Again, having churches in homes was done out of necessity, not a "strategic" or "methodological" move.

3) Persecution: I do not need to give examples of this from scripture. Just read the NT and you will see that the early church, from the moment of conception, was persecuted. Because of this persecution, public meeting was dangerous and even deadly. Christianity was often perceived and condemned for being anti-Caesar/Rome and even atheistic (because they did not acknowledge the Roman gods or other gods). Public meeting, at least in a fashion similar to what may be done at a pagan temple, could be considered as a subversion of Roman authority, since Christianity proclaims a different King than Caesar, a different Kingdom than Rome, and even a different Law. Meeting in homes was a necessary move in order to minimize persecution. Open and public meeting often led to scattering and dissemination of the church, so Home Churches were established out of necessity. This was not always the case and not every location was hostile to Christianity, but by and large, this is what I believe to be the primary reason that Home Churches were established.

These are just a few reasons of the necessity for the early church meeting in home churches. There is no evidence for long reflection on Church methodology (insofar as we may attribute modern structuring methodology). Instead, we see basic elements of structuring and organization in the NT, but little, if any beyond that. The discussion upon whether Acts is normative or not misses the point. To read Acts as a model for doing church misreads Acts. If we are to look for church-structuring, we are better off reading Paul who outlines and discusses church matters in much more detail.

There are other things that are frequently neglected as well when considering the early church. Not all of the meetings were Home Churches. In fact, one may argue that the church in Jerusalem was much more like a 3rd or 4th century "high-church" structure, based upon scriptural evidence, than a home church. The Home-Church structure was not the only model in existence at the time of the writing of the NT. This is an often overlooked fact.

A second consideration is one much more inconspicuous. It has to do with fundamental dynamics of human relationships. Society and human interaction is often structured and organized hierarchically. This is due in part from the fall. Unless there is a clear structure of organization and authority, sin is able to run unabated. Clear (though not necessarily complex) structure, organization and authority is part of how God has designed the world and is stamped upon not only how natural creation has been made, but also is central to human interaction. Government is not simply a product of the fall, but is part of human nature. The fact that there will be a City in the end should argue that, even in heaven, there will be clear delegation of authority and structure.

Sobriety in Judgment - By William Perkins

“Sobriety in judgment, is, when a man either suspendeth his opinion of his neighbors sayings or doings, or else speaketh as charitably as he can, by saying as little as may be, if the things be evil: or by interpreting all in better part, if the speech or action be doubtful. Therefore do thus: despise not thy neighbor, but think thy self as bad a sinner, and that the like defects may befall thee. If thou canst not excuse his doing, excuse his intent, which may be good: or if the deed be evil, think it was done of ignorance: if thou canst no way excuse him, think some great temptation befell him, and that thou shouldest be worse, if the like temptation befell thee: and give God thanks, that the like as yet hath not befallen thee. Despise not a man being a sinner, for though he be evil today, he may turn tomorrow"

The Economy of Heaven

3 notes

1) I did not proof read this

2) I've been reading Puritan writings, so excuse the "old-english" flavor. It helps me think.

3) This is a sort of continuation/digression of my previous post, "Treasures in Heaven"

Heaven will surely have an economy, but its trade will look much different that what we find on earth. There will be the poor in heaven, that is, those who spent their life on earth in a manner that was often contrary to the gospel and inconsistent with their Lord's demands, and so when they arrive at heaven to receive their reward, it will surely be smaller than other men who lived faithfully to the Lord.

There will also be the rich in heaven, those who while upon earth honored the Lord as best they could and sought to promote him in all their ways, thoughts and duties. They will come to heaven and will certainly receive a greater reward than those who lived unprofitably and unfaithfully.

But this is where the economy of heaven will be so unlike that of what is on earth. On earth, being poor is despised for two reasons: 1) because you depend on others; 2) because you cannot enjoy the fruits of the earth. The reason these two are despised are because, as the first - because man in sin is autonomous and loves only himself and so to be in dependence upon another is loathsome; there is nothing more desired than to be free of other men and live by your own rules and own dictates. The poor are not so - they are the slaves of those who pay them. As the second, man only loves their own pleasure and seeks it for themselves alone to enjoy. All their profit and goods are accumulated for themselves, they spend on themselves and hoard to themselves. The fruits of the earth are only used in light of their own persons. And so poverty is a hated thing.

But heaven is of another sort. In heaven there surely will be an economy and graduation of gifts and blessings. This has always been so among God's creation: the angels, the plants, the animals, and even among spiritual gifts. Here, we long for prestige and position. There we will long for grace. The rich man in heaven will have no account in the things themselves that God blesses him with, for they are only given that he might share with him who has less. And so those who are rich will see that the good things given are to be used to be shared. It will not be otherwise. It wouldn't even enter into a heavenly man's mind to use what God has blessed him with only for himself. In heaven, if a man has an apple and another man has none, it will be beyond instinct to share. And the man who has less in heaven is the recipient of grace and goodness from those whom God has blessed more for their faithfulness.

But it is more than this. Those whom God blesses richly will be delighted in sharing because this is the center of the likeness of God. God's goodness consists in the giving of himself, that is, in pouring out himself for others at whatever cost to himself. So it can be said that "God is good" and furthermore, that "God is Love" - because all of what God does is itself good: it is the outpouring of himself upon his creatures, in his Son and Spirit. And so the rich will feel it the greatest pleasure in all of heaven to share those gifts which God has given to them. Whatever knowledge God has revealed to them they will see it of greatest pleasure, not to dwell on those thoughts alone, but to share them with his companions.

And the poor in heaven, if they may be called such, will be the recipients of grace, and so they will ever be humbled by the greatest gifts that are shared and given to them. Their joy will be that God has so graciously allowed and permitted them to receive from others of what God has given. And their receiving of grace will be a parable and a story to the rich, that is, it will be the gift of the poor to the rich that all are under the grace of God; the rich will see by their sharing with the poor that they are the same as the poor, that they all are alike beneficiaries of God's grace. And so the poor will be like the rich, that they have shared by their poverty with the rich, and all will be rich, and so full of God's grace.

This whole economy is founded and rooted in the person and nature of God, which is clearly seen in Christ, "who thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Why God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name"

Christ, being the clear expression of God, teaches us what it means to be God. It is not that God is self-hoarding, as we sinners are, but self-giving, even to such a degree that he would give his most valuable possession. And Christ, who is this possession, teaches us even more what it means to be God. Christ gave of himself infinitely to sinners, withholding not even his own life for us and instead was spent for our sakes. In this God is seen and this is the nature of what heaven will mirror. There must be degrees of order in heaven among men or else there would be no sharing among us, which is to mirror God. And because we are created in his image, this may very well be the center of what it means to be made in his image, that is, to share what good things God has bestowed upon us with others who have not what God has bestowed upon ourselves

(Digression: this is contrary to modern understandings of the imago dei, where by it we understand our freedom. Instead, I would see that the imago dei means that we are not free, but instead slaves of each other but not slavery in a negative sense. We are slaves in that, when correctly oriented to God, we cannot but help give ourselves to others - we are a slave to them, we serve them at every opportunity that we might. And in this we find our freedom, in our slavery to each other. It may even, in some sense, be said that God is our slave, that is, that he cannot but help to pour out himself and serve us at every opportunity. Christ said as much when he said, "the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve and give his life a ransom". Freedom then consists not in what we are able to choose for ourselves and the exercise of this power and faculty, but instead, freedom consists in the "death" of ourselves, that is in free abandonment of all our goods for the sake of others.)

And so the economy of heaven will be one of perpetual growth towards God, in and through the Church, who through the gradation of roles and gifts will still yet ever expand into the infinite expanse of God, the rich building the poor, and the poor building the rich. And so our joy will ever be increasing because, through one another we experience the grace and goodness of God. Our joy will be endless yet expanding infinitely, each moment better than the last, yet more humbling than the last, for what ever we have received we will share.

It is through this that God will be glorified in his Church. It will be the demonstration of his grace to all his heavenly hosts of his grace, mercy, love and goodness. And the Church, which will every increase in its joy, will fill heaven even more with the praises and glory of God, and we will be the delight of heavenly creatures, the ones  in whom "angels long to look" because in us, they see the grace of God poured out in such a unique fashion and manner that it fills their eyes with wonder. And the Church, the sinners made saints, will become the central dwelling place of God and all heaven will stand in wonder and awe at this wondrous dwelling place that God has created for himself.

Blaise Pascal on "The Theatre"

11. All great amusements are dangerous to the Christian life; but among all those which the world has invented there is none more to be feared than the theatre. It is a representation of the passions so natural and so delicate that it excites them and gives birth to them in our hearts, and, above all, to that of love, principally when it is represented as very chaste and virtuous. For the more innocent it appears to innocent souls, the more they are likely to be touched by it. Its violence pleases our self-love, which immediately forms a desire to produce the same effects which are seen so well represented; and, at the same time, we make ourselves a conscience founded on the propriety of the feelings which we see there, by which the fear of pure souls is removed, since they imagine that it cannot hurt their purity to love with a love which seems to them so reasonable. 

So we depart from the theatre with our heart so filled with all the beauty and tenderness of love, the soul and the mind so persuaded of its innocence, that we are quite ready to receive its first impressions, or rather to seek an opportunity of awakening them in the heart of another, in order that we may receive the same pleasures and the same sacrifices which we have seen so well represented in the theatre.

- Blaise Pascal, Pensees, § 1.11