We’re working our way through Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony
American church was said, by commentators like Martin Marty, to consist of two types—the “public” church and the “private” church. The “private” church were those conservative evangelicals who thought that the business of the church was to stick to saving souls and to concern itself with the purely private world of religion. The “public” church (including our denomination) felt that Christians were obligated to go public with their social agenda, working within given social structures to make a better society.
American ecclesiology, however, is not adequately described as a dichotomy between private and public. This is true not only because, since the seventies, increasing numbers of evangelicals have gone public with their social agenda, but because both conservative and liberal churches, left and right, assumed a basically Constantinian approach to the issue of church and world. That is, many pastors, conservative and liberal, felt that their task was to motivate their people to get involved in politics. After all, what other way was there to achieve justice other than through politics? (p. 31).
(Emphasis mine.)
Remember the Moral Majority? During the 1970s, conservative Christians became very active in America’s national politics — as Christians. Few Americans knew or cared where or even whether Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon went to church. But Jimmy Carter was a Baptist from south Georgia — a Southern Christian! And many, many evangelicals and fundamentalists voted for Carter because he was a practicing Baptist, even a Sunday school teacher.
But Carter proved to be an ineffective, unpopular president and very left wing. The evangelical community decided they would vote Republican the next time around — and were led in their effort by Jerry Falwell, a Baptist pastor. Falwell organized the Moral Majority and successfully motivated conservative Christians to vote against Carter and in favor of Reagan. Now, Reagan was a conservative Republican but hardly a devout, church-going Christian in the Southern, evangelical mold. But he was opposed to abortion and reflected many other conservative values that resonated with Christian voters.
Voter registration drives, sample ballots, and political sermons soon became common fare in evangelical churches.
We believe both the conservative and liberal church, the so-called private and public church, are basically accommodationist (that is, Constantinian) in their social ethic. Both assume wrongly that the American church’s primary social task is to underwrite American democracy. (p. 32).
In other words, both the conservative evangelicals and liberal mainline churches got involved in politics because they figure that the best way to bless the world is through the federal government. Do we have an abortion problem? Elect the right politicians. Do we have a poverty problem? Elect the right politicians. If you want to see the world blessed through the church, well, the church will bless the world through lobbying for the right laws and voting for the right candidates.
The primary entity of democracy is the individual, the individual for whom society exists mainly to assist assertions of individuality. Society is formed to supply our needs, no matter the content of those needs. Rather than helping us to judge our needs, to have the right needs which we exercise in right ways, our society becomes a vast supermarket of desire under the assumption that if we are free enough to assert and to choose whatever we want we can defer eternally the question of what needs are worth having and on what basis right choices are made. What we call “freedom” becomes the tyranny of our own desires. We are kept detached, strangers to one another as we go about fulfilling our needs and asserting our rights. The individual is given a status that makes incomprehensible the Christian notion of salvation as a political, social phenomenon in the family of God. Our economics correlates to our politics. Capitalism thrives in a climate where “rights” are the main political agenda. The church becomes one more consumer-oriented organization, existing to encourage individual fulfillment rather than being a crucible to engender individual conversion into the Body. (pp. 32-33).
Read this last quotation very carefully. Democracy is about individual rights. We vote our individual desires. Parties push us to demand higher taxes on others and lower taxes on ourselves. Politicians get elected by giving subsidies to one group, funded with taxes imposed on other groups.
We assert our individual rights even when our rights are destructive to society and others. We have the right free speech and thus we have the right to topless bars, even if topless bars are bad for marriages and society. And because the courts defend individual rights (this being the nature of the Constitution), we citizens think we have a right to rude, hateful, unconcerned, inconsiderate, and selfish. And, indeed, under the laws, as a rule, we do.
The result is that churches become consumer-oriented organizations, competing for customers against other churches — perceiving the other churches in town as competitors and the lost and straying Christians as consumers to be catered to and competed for. Somewhere in all that, Satan and damnation cease to be the enemies. We’re too busy developing a better worship service than the Baptists to have time to worry about him.
The authors quote Lesslie Newbigin —
Once the concept of “human rights” has established itself as an axiom, the question inevitably arises: How and by whom are these rights to be secured? With growing emphasis, post-Enlightenment societies have answered: by the state. The nation state, replacing the old concepts of the Holy Church and the Holy Empire, is the centre-piece in the political scene in post-Enlightenment Europe. … If there is any entity to which ultimate loyalty is due, it is the nation state. (pp. 33-34).
You see, we perceive our rights as coming from the federal government. Therefore, our highest loyalty is to the government. The original notion was that rights come from God — “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” But we now see rights as granted by the government because the federal courts defend our rights. Congress passes new laws giving us even more rights. And we respond by giving our highest loyalty to the government.
Do you doubt this? Newbigin continues —
In the twentieth century we have become accustomed to the fact that—in the name of the nation—Catholics will fight Catholics, Protestants will fight Protestants, and Marxists will fight Marxists. The charge of blasphemy, if it is ever made, is treated as a quaint anachronism; but the charge of treason, of placing another loyalty above that to the nation state, is treated as the unforgivable crime. The nation state has taken the place of God. Responsibilities for education, healing and public welfare which had formerly rested with the Church devolved more and more upon the nation state. In the present century this movement has been vastly accelerated by the advent of the “welfare state.” National governments are widely assumed to be responsible for and capable of providing those things which former generations thought only God could provide—freedom from fear, hunger, disease and want—in a word: “happiness.” (p. 34).
Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984: Questions for the Churches [Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1983], pp. 13-15.
Oww …
When we go to war against Iraq, we ask how much it costs us and how many American lives might be lost and whether they really had weapons of mass destruction. We don’t ask how many Christians live in Iraq or how many innocent Iraqis might die. We don’t ask whether the cost in Iraqi lives would be worth the possible benefits of the war. I’m not a pacifist, but I do believe Iraqi lives have value. Surely we should at least ask the question.
Most of our social activism is formed on the presumption that God is superfluous to the formation of a world of peace with justice. Fortunately, we are powerful people who, because we live in a democracy, are free to use our power. It is all up to us. The moment that life is formed on the presumption that we are not participants in God’s continuing history of creation and redemption, we are acting on unbelief rather than faith. Does not the Bible teach that war and injustice arise precisely at the moment we cease testifying that our world is in God’s hands and therefore set out to take matters in our hands? (pp. 36-37).
When we believe that peace and justice come from ourselves — that is, our government — we have dethroned God and become functional atheists.
American Christians, in the name of justice, try to create a society in which faith in a living God is rendered irrelevant or private. For some, religion becomes a purely private matter of individual choice. Stick to saving souls and stay out of politics, it is said. On the other hand, activist Christians who talk much about justice promote a notion of justice that envisions a society in which faith in God is rendered quite unnecessary, since everybody already believes in peace and justice even when everybody does not believe in God. (p. 37).
Do you see the problem? If the means of peace and justice will be found in the halls of Congress, we don’t need God. Moreover, we can join with atheists and Muslims to lobby for peace and justice. God is just a convenient tool to motivate people to vote and support the right candidates, but God does not really set the agenda because no one expects God himself to do anything. It’s the government that gets things done.
Thus, we see the solution to “hate crimes” in legislation, not the church and certainly not prayer. The solution to poverty is Congress. When protesters choose to occupy Wall Street to demand justice, they go to Wall Street and petition Congress. They don’t expect the church to do anything. We should be disappointed that they see the church as too impotent to be worthy of protest.
But God has chosen his own solution, and it’s the body of Christ on earth — the church.
We argue that the political task of Christians is to be the church rather than to transform the world. One reason why it is not enough to say that our first task is to make the world better is that we Christians have no other means of accurately understanding the world and rightly interpreting the world except by way of the church. Big words like “peace” and “justice,” slogans the church adopts under the presumption that, even if people do not know what “Jesus Christ is Lord” means, they will know what peace and justice means, are words awaiting content. The church really does not know what these words mean apart from the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, Pilate permitted the killing of Jesus in order to secure both peace and justice (Roman style) in Judea. It is Jesus’ story that gives content to our faith, judges any institutional embodiment of our faith, and teaches us to be suspicious of any political slogan that does not need God to make itself credible.
This is a much bigger point than at first appears. It’s no mere philosophical nuance. When we define “peace” and “justice” based on what we want — democracy style — we fail to participate in a truly Christian worldview. Rather, we have to find meaning in Christ. If we need Congress to tell us what’s fair, well, we’re worshiping the wrong god.
But in reality, most Christians and most denominations take their political views from one political party or the other.
People often complain that the political agenda of conservative Christians looks suspiciously like the political agenda of conservative secularists—the Republican party on its knees. And it seems inconceivable that an agency of any mainline, Protestant denomination should espouse some social position unlike that of the most liberal Democrats. The church is the dull exponent of conventional secular political ideas with a vaguely religious tint. (p. 38).
If a Church of Christ member can find no difference between the Republican Party’s positions and those of Christ, then he likely doesn’t understand either very well. The same applies equally well to Presbyterians and the Democratic Party.
The church does not exist to ask what needs doing to keep the world running smoothly and then to motivate our people to go do it. The church is not to be judged by how useful we are as a “supportive institution” and our clergy as members of a “helping profession.” The church has its own reason for being, hid within its own mandate and not found in the world. We are not chartered by the Emperor. (p. 39).
In other words, we do not set our agenda based on what the government needs help doing. Nor is our agenda set by the “felt needs” of those outside the church. The purposes of the church aren’t defined by the larger society in which we live.
We think that we could argue that being in the world, serving the world, has never been a great problem for the church. Alas, our greatest tragedies occurred because the church was all too willing to serve the world. The church need not worry about whether to be in the world. The church’s only concern is how to be in the world, in what form, for what purpose. (p. 43).
The church serves the world all too well at times. We help the state pursue its agenda. We help the political parties pursue their agendas. And rather than being the Kingdom of God on earth, we lower ourselves to be a special interest group to be mollified and manipulated to elect candidates and gain worldly power for parties.
A very surprizing statement in the light of our discussions on worship styles and CCM … Did you put on a different coat when writing this? Or don’t you realize the connection?
But aside ofthat this series is very very good and necessary:
Alexander,
It’s entirely fair to ask how we can avoid being a consumer-driven church and yet want to have music that appeals to the immature. I respond with a parable.
It came to pass that there was once a church with a children’s worship service. The music was childish — with simple tunes and simple lyrics. The classes were taught at a level suitable for a four-year old.
The church hired a new preacher who visited the class. He was upset. This is consumer-driven Christianity at its worst! We’ve dumbed down the gospel! We’ve ignored the old hymns! How will the children learn to sacrifice for others if they don’t begin now! And so the teachers sang A Mighty Fortress and taught propitiation to the four-year olds.
Their parents were pleased, because the classes were no longer so boring and childish. Even a few members who had no children visited the classes due to the excellence of the teaching and the respectful singing of ancient hymns. The class was declared a huge success. The preacher got a raise.
But the children understood not a word of the new lessons and new songs. They just waited for class to end. In fact, many cried when they had to go to class, because the preacher banned Tonka trucks and other toys, and they were bored and miserable and learned nothing. Four year olds enjoy learning. Their brains are wired for learning. And they hate being bored.
And so they cried and screamed and fussed and fumed. Soon, they were placed in a nursery with paid attendants, where they played with Tonka trucks. And the parents sat in the four-year old’s class and learned about the Bible and sang the great old hymns of the church, listening to lessons by the preacher on how great it is that they were not catering to the children’s immature whims. And, indeed, they were not.
14 years later, when the children were graduated from high school, they left church because they considered it irrelevant and boring. They’d never learned about a Jesus who sacrificed for others. Church was all about getting your own way — the old people getting their way and the young people not. They wanted none of that. They went exploring, hoping to find a religion about sacrificing for others. They didn’t know it, but they were looking for Jesus.
There is but one way to teach Jesus — and that is by becoming an example of sacrifice. Does that make those sacrificed for consumers? Well, it depends on what they’re taught when they get there. If they are taught sacrifice and shown powerful examples of sacrificial living, that’s what they’ll become. If they are taught sacrifice and shown examples of selfish lording it over others, they’ll become overlords — or leave.
I work in the political world, I deal with it every day, It is my profession. And from that perspective I can tell you I think Cal Thomas was right when he said “Whenever the church cozies up to political power, it loses sight of its all important mission to change the world from the inside out,”
Government has it’s role, it sets a framework of law needed for public safety and business to do contracts. It is effective in protecting a country from external enemies, and punishing violent criminals.
Government can not change hearts, it is not the moral conscience of a nation. It can put murderers in prison but it can not change a heart that hates, it can regulate business but it can not eliminate a love of money that leads one to break those regulations.If can provide social services but it fails in changing the behavior that so often leads to poverty. In short Government like the law can restrain, but it can not change human behavior for the good.
There was a time I though that Christians could change Government, and by doing that change our society. I have no faith in that anymore. I love when Christians serve in Government, their faith can be a influence to those around them, but society is changed one heart at a time, and only Christ can do that, not the Republican or Democrat party
After reading Jay and aBasner’s comments on the last couple of posts, it seems as it they are both talking past each other. Could it be that both are right but in different ways?
aBasner continually returns to the idea of the Church as against and apart from the world, not to conform to its patterns or habits. Jay continually returns to the idea of the willing sacrifice of the mature for the sake of the immature. Are not both stances correct?
Shouldn’t the discussion, then, be how to achieve Jay’s goal, which is right, from aBasner’s perspective, which is also right?
Said a little more formally – “How can we, as mature Christians conformed/being conformed to the sacrificial, relational reality of Christ our Lord, invite and embrace those most in need of Christ’s love without falling victim to pure nostalgia on one side, and pure consumerism on the other?”
Actually, Jay’s offered panacea addresses Adam’s last question rather reasonably. The problem is that, with specific and localized exceptions, we have never seen this really tried. We are afraid to do it. We are deathly afraid that if we defer to those less mature than ourselves, the church will become a carnal social club. If we defer to those more traditional, it will become a cemetery waiting room. If we defer to those more liberal, our bibles will be discarded, and if we defer to those more conservative, we will be slowly strangled by legalism. We are afraid to lay our lives down for fear that someone will take us up on the deal.
As long as we hold to the unspoken idea that the church should be like I think it should be, this tension will continue. When we find ourselves in the strange place where we can have fellowship with believers who do things entirely differently than we would prefer, without reservation, then we will be far along toward our answer. Why? Because we will have been forced to commit the future and direction of the body of Christ to its Head. Who, strange as this may seem, is still quite competent to handle the job.
Johnny’s comment was excellent.
Adam,
It’s tough question for the reasons you note. There is the command to submit as Jesus submitted And there’s the command to “come out from among them.” But commands, as true as they are (and they are certainly true), only get us so far. We have to go deeper.
We submit to one another, especially to “the least of these” and to the “last” among us, because that is the nature of Jesus (and of God) and because we’ve been redeemed to be restored to God’s image. It’s a core principle.
“Come out from among them” is true but it’s a contextual truth, that is, we aren’t called to leave the world but the sin in the world. We don’t become monastics or hermits. Rather, we separate ourselves from the sin of the world but not from the world entirely. We don’t refuse to enter buildings through doors just because the world uses doors to enter buildings! Therefore, we don’t reject the music of the world just because it’s the world’s music. Neither do we reject the use of automobiles (although the Amish would disagree) just because the world uses automobiles.
The separation is ultimately from sin. Indeed, the scriptures often speak of “worldliness” as a synonym for sin, even though not all the the world does or thinks is sinful.
Hence, as I’ve noted before, Paul could preach from worldly philosophers, such as the Stoics, because some of what they said is actually true.
Therefore, we reject the world when the world is contrary to Christ, but we don’t flee the world in its entirety.
Now, that doesn’t fully answer the question, but it’s a critical first step. We don’t sing hymns to be unlike the heathen. We sing hymns to worship God. And if that makes us unlike the heathen, so be it, but the goal isn’t to be counter-cultural — it’s to be faithful. And those aren’t always the same thing. Being faithful requires us to be counter-cultural, but not to counter all culture.
To me, the much harder question is how to avoid becoming consumerist. And that’s a much bigger question than what we’re discussing here. I think the ultimate answer is simple enough: the mature and leadership within the church set an example AND teach the necessity of the next generation doing the same thing for the generations that follows them. Indeed, how on earth could it be done but by example?
I suppose the alternative is for everyone to be miserable from beginning to end, but that seems pointless and contrary the scriptures. Rather, we should enjoy singing today’s Christian music because we enjoy seeing visitors and converts — and our own children! — light up and enjoy God as experienced in our worship. We delight, not in our nostalgia or our purity from the “world,” but in the greatness of God as seen in today’s church as our children learn to love God as we did. It’s the same reason we enjoy singing “Jesus Loves Me” with the 4-year olds. We delight in their smiles.
And we remember — and teach — that the music we enjoyed as children was once anathema to our ancestors. The Catholic Church was outraged by Luther’s music: too common. Isaac Watts was perceived as a radical singing cheap tunes. Charles Wesley offended the sensibilities of the Anglican leadership. Trust me: Watts and Wesley wouldn’t have liked Stamps-Baxter, which was written for gospel traveling quartets (which evidently had a taste for alto leads).
Therefore, our children and grandchildren must give up their preferences for the sake of the generations that follow them — just as people my age should.
I am completely with you on this, Jay, and think you are right on. I do think, though, that aBasner’s critique should be given a little more weight, though I am not sure how that would look.
I don’t want to speak for aBasner, but it seems to me that, at core, it is the consumerist mentality against which he is speaking, though not specifically in those words.
I don’t know if you have seen lesson 1 in the current Vanderland series, but he talks of the Godly re-imaging of cultural symbols, stripped of their paganism, and then repurposed for God. Specifically, the Pharonic war camp tent for the Tabernacle. Throughout history God and the Church have always taken local pagan symbols and reused them for His purposes (Easter and Christmas to name 2). Obviously, contemporary cultural music can (and should!) be one of those things as well – as long as, like you suggest, the “paganism” is stripped and God is placed at the center – what you are calling “fleeing the sin in the world”.
And, again, you perspective is spot-on – it is the most mature Christians who willingly submit their desires for the immature. I would suggest that in some situations (maybe more than we would like to admit), the most mature are not the oldest, and that can/should have some profound implications for our corporate meetings.
Maybe the tension arises when the oldest members are not the most Spiritually mature, thereby making the submission of the more spiritually mature (the younger) lead the church into not just a counter-cultural society that exists as an invitation and model to and for the world, but to a “club” that neither invites the other into the fold nor models right Christian living to the world.
This creates a very, very difficult situation, for the structure of the church now becomes a hindrance to the other, but a change in the structure creates disunity in the body. That is a deep conundrum, and one that I have no idea how to solve. Unfortunately for you (and all the other eldars out there), this is often the conundrum with which their churches are faced.
To think that Democracy would be against a King-ocracy (the correct word escapes me) should be no suprise to anyone.
The King’s law is supreme and not to be contradicted. Seeing stories of this in Daniel and Esther confirm the absolute power of the King and while we tend to think that this is Despotic and Dictatorial, when you have a good King (or should I say “Good” captial G?) then what do you have to fear. Kiss the son….Psalm 2
it is interesting that the Freedoms sought to servce God which had some effect in the forming of this country are now leading to it’s destruction. Not so much interesting but sad.
When you see congregations being run by majority rule rather than Christ rule….or to the other extreme when Elders become pharisees and not shepherd, then you have problems in the congregation.
What then is the job and purpose of a Christian? What is the purpose of the church? If you think of Paul’s admonition to Timothy (1 tim 3:14) how one OUGHT to behave in the church of God….the pillar and support of the truth, you might come away with the idea that our highest calling is support the truth ( Wich is not a polictical party starting either wirh R or D).
The TRUTH (which incidentally will make you free) is that Jesus is the Son of God and died for your sins, believing in His name and dying to your self and following Him will lead you out of this world into the promised land.
Who else but the church can teach that? What organization, what club, what philosophy? NONE. The Church is the support of the truth.
Therefore, we should make it our highest calling to call people out of the world, to praise God and to live lifes worthy of that calling. We look not to our own needs, if called as a Doctor, serve, if called as a McDonald’s fry guy, serve. Our lifes and our possessions, such as they are should be used for furthering this message of the Truth.
Jay said, “. I respond with a parable” Speaking of parables.
I knew a man once who was appointed elder at a young age, he worked hard reading the gospel so he could be prepared to answer any, and all questions of the congregation, he was respected in the community for his knowledge and dilegence. All the while this young elder was sheparding the congregation, he was raising up a family of boys, young men he hoped would follow in his footsteps, But as nature would have it one or more of his sons found their owh path, this elder by this time was not so young, and doubt began to set in whether he had taught the correct doctrine all these years, if so why would one or more of his sons, who he had taught was indwelled by the holy ghost, go their own way, down their own path. Come to find out it was nothing the father had done, it was something God had done, given self determination to all humans.
The problem I see is that a church is not that “monolthic”, we have to deal with multiple generations. But that’s not the point.
I object to
a) Seeker oriented worship. That’s not the way I see it in the scriptures
b) serving preferences of ANY group (this includes the older generation)
Understanding that we are not of this world is crucial, and I have to disagree with Adam (in spite of his very kind approach) that the tabernacle was patterned after pharaos war tent. It was patterned after a heavenly original God showed to Moses on the mountain!
And that’s important: worship is not fashioned after worldly patterns, but after heavenly patterns.
Therfore our first questions MUST be: What is heaven like? What is angelic worship like? How is pour worship connected with the one of the spirits ofthe perfected saints?
But these questions don’t get asked at all! We ask what is preferred by our generation! what is “up to date” and not older than 5 years? What attracts the unchurched? Or the youth? Or what serves MY needs?
Have you ever wondered what my musical preferencs are, Jay? I never mentioned them. But I sacrifice them, I submit them to the first and foremost questions! I LEARNED to like a-cappella singing after having been an IM-worshipper for almost 20 years! But the way to this was a search for … the heavenly priorities.
I don’t believe in changes and changes and adaptions after adaptions. I think the Kinbgdom iof God is best represented by no outward changes at all! But by growth in love and knowledge! But this has become substituted by the stirring up of emotions! There is a lot of confusion about spirit-fileld worship today!
Again: We need to ask the right questions, and they will lead us out of this rat race of runing after every new fad and fashion!
That’s why I am so covinced of the approach of our Restoration Movement: Back to the beginnings, how it was in the beginning! The first love and the first works! Because God does not change! Because the worship in Heaven does not change! And we are patterned after this worship not after MTV and American Idol!
Understanding this difference is to understand the difference between worship in Spirit and Truth and worldly worship.
Alexander
I agree with Terry — I think Johnny has it right. Further, my understanding is that that is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when writing the first amendment, the reason for the wall of separation between church and state.
Alexander objects to:
a) Seeker oriented worship. That’s not the way I see it in the scriptures
>>>
At the risk of sounding blythe, I would say, “So?” I still don’t see the requirement for this literal modeling of biblical anecdotes which you seem to find necessary. I don’t even find the concept of “gathering to worship” in the NT references to meetings. In fact, the simplest reading would suggest that these meetings were about encouraging and reminding one another, not about worship directed at God. I don’t find NT meetings referred to as worship at all. But I, for one, am all for people doing it. Even if that’s “not what I find in the scriptures”.
>>>
And Alexander objects to: b) serving preferences of ANY group (this includes the older generation)
>>>
Al, are you really suggesting that our actions are so disconnected from humanity as to not reflect ANYONE’s preferences? I’m sorry, but that’s simply not reasonable. Why should we not meet all night, like the Troas folks did? We have biblical example by a real live apostle for that one! Are we rejecting Paul when we go home early? No, the preference of some is to get together for an hour or two and then sleep at night. Why don’t Americans have Sunday meetings after lunch instead of in the morning? Preference. Why don’t we meet outdoors or strictly in homes? Preference. Why do we sing in melody rather than in unison? Preference. Why do we sit in meetings, rather than standing, like our Orthodox brothers? Preference. I could make this a very L-O-N-G list. But to cut it short, it is obvious that we do serve human preference in ALL our religious activities. And we are serving the “preference of a group” even if that group is 100% of our little congregation.
I would observe that we generally don’t raise objections to serving human preference as long as the preference served is our own.
aBasner,
Not to create an arguement, but the tabernacle with it’s exact proportions, both for the exterior fence and the interior “sanctuary”, with alter and supplicants, exists all over the carvings of Egypt as the Pharaoh’s place of residence within his army’s encampment.
I think you are right that it is a pattern from God, but, as happens over and over throughout history, the “pagan” approach gets close to God’s truth, but ultimately misses the main point, ie the relational, sacrificial God is at the center, not man.
The fact that God used a pre-existing form is, for me anyway, a comfort. For if he can recreate and re-imagine something as evil as a war encampment to be his dwelling with men, then how much more so can he use my body (an evil war encampment in and of itself) for his dwelling with men as well?
No, but it is about first and second questions. I used my wording in contrast to self-centeredness.
Not this phrase, that’s right; but the adaption of temple imagery and language into the NT is exactly about that. Bringing spiritual sacrifices, being a proesthood, a temple of living stones, enbtering through the veil, coming to Mout Zion in Heaven … all these passages speak of worship.
But I do agree that what we call worship today is a far cry from Nt assemblies.
Alexander
@ Adam
I have no idea to which degree the tabernacke resembled pharao’s war tent. I doubt it had a brazen altar right after the entry for instance. Do you have web-link to let me see?
Alexander
Alexander, Abasnar wrote,
First, Heb 8 – 9 plainly condemns worship based on copying heavenly patterns. One of the major themes of those two chapters is that the Law of Moses is proven inadequate and in need of replacement by the fact it’s built on replicating a heavenly pattern. For example —
You are right that the tabernacle was based on a heavenly pattern, but this is a point of criticism in Hebrews, not an example to follow.
Alexander/abasnar also wrote,
How on earth do you avoid serving the preferences of all groups? I see but two choices —
* Pick a musical style equally disliked by all (In a large, multigenerational church, you aren’t likely to find a style everyone likes)
* Rotate the styles — as Cathy has mentioned. Sing Stamps-Baxter one week, A Mighty Fortress the next, and then Chris Tomlin the next.
But if I’m understanding you, you are opposed to CCM at all times, which means the CCM guys never get a turn. So how is the musical style selected?
Alexander,
In re Adam’s point, see http://www.worldviewpublications.org/outlook/context/article.php?IDN=200504
Hmm… great post. Sad to see that the comment thread got so far away from the point.
I’m thinking it was this book that coined the phrase “the idolatry of religious freedom.” Great phrase. So many things are advocated just for us to be able to keep our freedoms, especially freedom of worship.
God gives me freedom, not a political system, not even soldiers who die on a battlefield.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I beg your pardon? You mis the point completely, jay!
the problem was nt that there ws a heavenly origin, but that the Israelites traeted the sahedow as if it were the original!
Sabbaths, newmoons and the like are also shawdows of something bigger! And of course we insists, that we are to look and focus on the body, not on its shadow!
Come on. Jay! reread the NT in its references to the temple, tabernacle, sacrifices … and their conenction to the church and its worship! It’s crystal clear! … and one side aspect: Instruments are a shadow atht has to be removed for the Spirit’s sake … we went through this over and over, jay: It has to do with typology, something you simply don’t seem to grasp.
Alexander
Sorry, Jay for having been so emotional. Let me try it again; you write:
First. it is certainly true that God commanded Moses to build everything according to the pattern He showed Him.
On the other hand – as Salomo pointed out in the dedication-prayer forthe temple – what is seen on earth, although built according to the pattern, is just a poor reflöection oft he heavenly reality.
Nonetheless the heavenly reality is what we are connected with in Heb 12, and what still is the pattern “on earth as it is in heaven”. The shadows are not to be criticized, but they were done away with when the Body came. The Body is Christ, The old covenant was done away with when the New Covenant came.
But this does not mean, e.g. that today there is no temple, or today there are no laws. There is a temple of living stones, and a royal priesthood serving God therein. Now, how shall we understand all of this? Only by looking at what the OT-shadows reveal about the heavenly realities! Why? Because the NT is as well a reflection of the same heavenly realities! Think about this for instance: How can you understand the following passage without having first understood the temple and all of its regulations?
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
Heb 10:21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
Heb 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Therefore we need to study these shadows in order to grasp what God had in mind with His church when He called her to be a holy priesthood and to offer spiritual sacrifices.
Or look at this one:
It’s the same house, isn’t it? The same house of God, only that now we deal the the builder and ownder and not a servant of this house. Therefore the OT and the NT are closely connected by the same principles and patterns, that are being lived out on two different levenls according to the different dispensations. But nonetheless our worship is based on the very same pattern as the OT worship.
Because modern churches typically show little interest in such valuable books as Leviticus, and churches of Christ especially focus almost exclusively on the NT, they all follow “traditional church patterns” or “contemporary church patterns” – and by this they miss the point. Had we understood what it means that the uncircumcised may not partake of the Passover-Meal, there would be no discussion about open or closed communion for instance.
Scripture commands not condemns worship based on the heavenly pattern, Jay.
Alexander
Alexander,
I was entirely with you until you got to —
1. I have to first take exception to the “only.” Yes, we can learn much from the OT (as I’ve try to show here many times). But “only” is too strong. We need both OT and NET, and we need books as Hebrews to help point us to a right understanding of the OT.
2. The new covenant is not a copy or shadow of the heavenly realities in the same sense that the tabernacle was. The author’s point is that the fact the tabernacle is a copy of a pattern demonstrates it’s inadequacy and need for replacement. Why replace one copy or shadow with another? No, the NT is radically different.
Thus, the key, as you’ve noted, is the typology, which we need to carefully get right. And the assembly (which is discussed explicitly in Heb 10) is NOT a type of worship in the assembly. Rather, the temple is now in heaven (per Heb 8-10) but also on earth (in the form of the body of Christ). There’s a mystical union because the Messiah dwells in heaven and also on earth through his body. We are baptized INTO the Messiah.
Just as Jesus is both in heaven and, mystically, through the church, on earth, the temple is in heaven and, mystically, through the church, on earth. I just finished a book Jesus the Temple, by Nicholas Perrin, which argues that Jesus himself is now the temple — which makes a lot of sense.
Now, therefore, the church is the temple, but only because of its mystical union with Jesus. And that unity exists 24/7 and we offer our bodies as living sacrifices 24/7.
The type of the Levitical atonement sacrifices is thus Jesus himself — once for all and never to be repeated. Our sacrifices are not for atonement but for thanks offerings — acts of gratitude toward God — and we can certainly make such thanks offerings in the assembly but the assembly is by no means a limitation. Rom 12 is quite clear on this point, as is Heb 8 – 10.
You see, the contrast to OT tabernacle worship the author insists on is found in Jeremiah 31 — quoted in Heb 8 and again in Heb 10 — which is God living in us through the Spirit to write his laws on our hearts and minds. That is in opposition to “external regulations” —
— which quickly follows the first quote of Jer 31. The author is drawing a contrast between old and new covenants, and a weakness of the old is “regulations for worship” in contrast to God himself transforming our hearts.
The point of Jeremiah and Hebrews is that the new worship is now radically redefined — “worship in Spirit and in truth.” It’s not about ritual and rite. It’s about the gospel and Holy Spirit. It’s living the gospel as empowered and led by the Spirit. It’s Romans 8 and 12 (as we’ll consider in future posts soon).
The assembly, therefore, is not a type of the tabernacle but, as the Hebrew writer says, a place of encouragement, a gift from God to help us make it to the end, to hold on to the hope we have “unswervingly.” Or as Paul says in 1 Cor 14, it’s a place of edification, encouragement, comfort, and strength.
Does worshiping God in song do this? It can. Does preaching? It can. Do the announcements? They can. But so do countless other things.
Yes, the “only” is a bit strong; but how will you explain your congregtion that they are a temple and a priesthood without opening the OT to study first: “What the heck is a temple?” – especially for us who have nver witnessed OT wirship in Jerusalem as did the NT church in the beginning. They also basically mainly read the OT, since the NT was just in the process of being written.
Of course our NT is the key for understanding the OT types.
Now, isn’t that marvellous? But this also includes that we walk by faith and not by sight – it’s challenging to sit e.g. in a living room knowing that we are in the heavenly presence of God and his angels. But that’s the perspective we should cultivate.
Yet, when in the NT heaven is described – as in Revelation – or the church is described as a temple, the authers use this OT-language. The same types of OT worship are used to descrobe heavenly worship – because we lack the words for grasping and describing these unspeakable glories.
In a sense, we do reflect the heavenly reality by following the same principles as in the OT, but from a NT persepective. The veil that was on the reading of the OT has been done away in Christ, but not what the OT is about. THe deeper meaning and significance of hat the Law contains is revealed in Christ, the essence. The letter has put away, but the spirit of the Law is revealed and even more binding.
Therefore I think there is a need to reflect on such issues like coming to worship cleansed, or being circumcised in our hearts in order to be admitted to the temple, or being a priest uin order to eat from the sacrifice … Think about this one:
How do you make this verse dear to your church? How do you apply it? Unless you understand the tabernacle and the essence of the Laws concerning it, you won’t be able to grasp the meaning of texts like these.
No, the assembly is not a Type of the tabernacle – but is follows the same principles that are presented in the tabernacle.
Alexander
Alexander,
Again, I’m in agreement until we get toward the end of your comment.
Absolutely, except the typology here does not point to the assembly but to the church. We are cleansed by Christ “once for all” —
This happened at our baptism by action of the Spirit. We were cleansed by the sacrifice of Jesus.
Just so, our hearts were circumcised when we were saved.
Just so, we joined the “holy priesthood” when we were saved.
I entirely agree that the Law of Moses is a type of great importance to the church. I just don’t think the temple service is the type for the assembly. The tabernacle and temple speak of the church and Christ. All these examples you give aren’t about the assembly but about our salvation in Christ. In fact, they are very much about Spirit and truth. You have very ably demonstrated what I believe to be worship in Spirit and truth.
There is “once-for-all”-side to salvation and a “continuous”-side. As for cleansing: Yes we are “bathed” – but our feet will always need washing – also our hands and even our hearts:
Now read this from the tabernacle:
That was once for all, when they were appointed and anointed to be priests in God’s temple.
That’s the ongoing side of cleansing, and note: It is about washing the hands and the feet! Significant, isn’t it?
True repentance also in the OT was a purification of the heart, as described in Psalm 51:
So we got all three “areas” of cleansing spoken of in the New Testament (hands, feet, heart) in the OT, in fact: It is OT-language repeated in the NT.
So far we maybe agree.
But I cannot disconnect the worship in Spirit and Truth from the assembly of the church. Such a distinction is “artificial”, because even the Israelites as a whole were called to be a priesthood to God, and the Levite prietshood was representative of the whole nation. And all the holy assemblies of the Israelites were also times of priestly worship and sacrifices.
Therefore I don’t see Heb 10:19 as speaking of “joining the church” (if it’s that what you mean), but of meeting in an assembly – this is clear from the broader context:
“Let us draw near” is present tense and spaks of something we do repeatedly; it’s not “once-for-all”-tense (which would be aorist). Then he speaks direkty about our assembling together.
But – based on the OT-Types – he speaks of two kinds of cleansing: Bodies washed (once for all), hearts sprinkled (continous purification).
When I sum all of this up: We should not approach the Lord’s table with uncofessed sin (of which we are aware of). And of course we need to be part of the anointed priesthood to do so. These connections require closed community in the sense that we declare openly that the Lord’s Supper is only for those who have been baptized and who walk in the light (= ongoing purification 1Jo 1:7).
Worship in Spirit and Truth is part of our assemblies, but not limited to the assemblies; it encompasses all of our lives. But in the assembly the church becomes visible and relational. The same way as in the temple Israel’s calling to be a priesthood became visible. This does not lower the stadards of purity but stresses them, puts them before our very eyes! The way we sing, teach, partake of the Lord’s Supper as the altar (!) where Christ has been sacrificed (once for all) where we may eat from as priests … all of this cries out “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord!” And as the angels cover themselves so the women ought to do as well, since they signify the church showing submission to Christ.
Jay, these themes are among my favorite ones in the scripture! I can dive into them like into a river of life! Because they give me pictures and words for what otherwise can neither be imagined nor described. They speak of Glory … and that’s what the church should do.
Alexander
Alexander,
Without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your particular conclusions (open or closed communion, for example), let’s consider the interpretation of the Hebrews, as you raise some challenging points. You’ve forced me to look at the Greek, because the English translations are very inconsistent.
The question that challenges me is whether, in Heb 10:19, the “holy places” is a reference to the assembly/communion or a reference to heaven itself. And so I looked up the usage of the Greek words in Hebrews (having found the English translations very inconsistent, but the ESV seems the most precise).
“Holy places” here is plural in the Greek and refers to heaven itself. Why? Because the place of atonement in the tabernacle was the “holy of holies.” Thus, the author refers to the tabernacle as the “holies” or “holy places” and the certain of atonement as the “holy of holies” or “holy place” or “place of holiness.”
In v. 2, “the Holy Place” is literally “the holies.” In v. 3, the “Most Holy Place” is literally “Holy of Holies.” That is, the Holy of Holies is pictured as being amidst many other holy things in the tabernacle. The tabernacle is “the holies.”
“The holy places” (or “holies”) here is the heavenly tabernacle.
Once again, “holy places” is a reference to the tabernacle in heaven.
Here, “holy places” is the earthly tabernace in contrast to “heaven itself.”
And here “holy places” refers to the earthly tabernacle.
Therefore, in 10:19, “holy places” is surely the tabernacle in heaven. Now, it’s a little hard for us to imagine how we “have confidence to enter” and “draw near” the heavenly tabernacle now, since we are living on earth, but that’s the image we are given to dwell on.
I can see it in a few different ways. In one very true sense, we look ahead in hope to the day when we’ll actually be with Jesus. We “draw near” but don’t yet enter — that awaits the resurrection — but we have “confidence to enter” — we are certain we’ll one day be there with Jesus.
But we also enter those places today because the Holy Places is where atonement occurs. We enter through the agency of Jesus. As the high priest did on the Day of Atonement, Jesus enters for us.
And as we’ve been baptized into Jesus, and are his body, we enter where he enters. Therefore, “we have confidence to enter the holy places” because we know Jesus is clean and therefore we are clean.
An unclean priest entering the tabernacle would die. We cannot be confident of our entry unless we are confident that we are clean — and we’ve been cleansed by water and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus — the like high priests of old. We can enter certain God will approve our cleanness.
One of the author’s themes in chapters 8 – 10 is that our consciences are cleansed from guilt, that is, that we should no longer feel guilty because our confidence is in Jesus.
We therefore should have an unwavering hope because our confidence is in Jesus, not ourselves.
Now, up to this point, the assembly is not even in mind. It’s the OT tabernacle versus the atoning work of Jesus in heaven and the confidence that should produce in us.
The author finally gets to the assembly, but the assembly is not at all one of the “holy places” — it is, rather, a very practical caution to support one another so we don’t turn from our hope. It’s recognition that we can fall away (as stated in 10:26ff) and that, to not fall away, we have to help each other.
The passage parallels —
It’s a reference to the assembly, for sure, but not just to the assembly. We should encourage each other daily so we do not fall away — and the assembly is a particularly important opportunity to support one another as we all strive to remain true to our calling.
Therefore, I don’t see any typology connecting the assembly to the temple or tabernacle. Indeed, the NT seems to go out of its way to avoid any suggestion that there is a particular time, event, or place that is comparable to the temple, other than the sacrifice of Jesus and our lives in Jesus while we emulate Jesus in his self-giving.
You are right that exhorting one another is not exclusiveley tied to the assembly, but should be a daily practice – yet one the other hand the Jerusalem church assembked daily. So for me this is hard to separate from one another.
Also I still think that we enter the holy places in our assemblies, because we come together as a priesthood. And what does this priesthood? Offer up sacrifices, and these sacrifices are now spiritual, not bloody. What are these sacrifices?
Praise
Sharing material goods
Teaching and obedience to taching
Prayer
Aren’t these the typical “acts of worship”? I am not an “act-ivist”, but I do rcognoze that some elements are part of the assembly. The “fifth act” BTW was mentioned in verse 10 (the Lord’s Supper).
Before i show you the parallel passage in 1st Peter, another verse on prayer in Hebrews, and another confirmation of our assemblies being in heaven:
The same theme: We have a high priest who serves in the heavenly tent – and there the “ark of the covenant” is as well og which the “throne of mercy” speaks. So when we pray – individually or as an asembly – where do we go for prayer? We draw near the “throne of mercy” where also Moses went when he conversed with the Lord. After he had washed his hands and feet before the tent.
Here, BTW we have the perfect tense ofthe same word as in Heb 10 and 4 (proserchomai): “You have come”, this is where we are admitted to, this assembly; this is where we belong to in Christ. This started at the time of our conversion and continues on 24/7 – yet it becomes a “visible reality” when the church assembles. Intersting question: Where does th church assemble? The answer is: In heaven, in the most hioly place.
This is the meaning of worship in Spirit and Truth! Not Mount Garizim and not Jerusalem, but Mount Zion in Heaven!
proserchomai – come, draw near; really means come into His presence, enter heaven! Not physically but spiriitually – that’s BTW why the reference to angels in 1Co 11:10 is important.
Now to Peter:
Here the theme is very similar, but Peter speaks of US being a temple as well as the priesthood). this mans, while the real temple is in heaven, the assembled church is a reflection of this temple and the worship therein here on earth. We are always God’s temple (24/7), but we are only visible as a temple when we are together.
Therefore no profanity should be allowed among us; yeah we should be as holy and separated from the world as behoves God’s temple which leads to Paul:
That’s about our 24/7 conduct, but it also applies to our assemblies. Even more so as in these meetings we are encouraged to live out God’s holiness. Paul uses OT language here in order to make us understand. And he does this very often.
One last example, again from the “most holy place”:
But what boldness! We enter a place of Glory that the Israelites could not bear! How? Only because we are cleansed in Christ, and strive for holyness. We cannot “come as we are” because there is this basin at the entrance to the tabernacle: Not even Moses was allowed to enter without having washed his hands and feet, and he had to be admitted in general in the first place. Though he was chosen and a friend of God, he still had to wash before he entered.
But we are in the same, yeah even a better position than Moses. Again Paul, because it is so important:
Again it’s “temple language”, and again the focus is more on the church being (a reflection of) God’s havenly temple on Earth. Through the Spirit and in Christ we may approach God without any other mediator. And note the parallel to Heb 12: We are fellow citicens with the saints and the household of God.
I simply have to stop now, but I think yopu get the idea.
Yes, it is a 24/7 reality that we are God’s temple and His priests, but I do maintain that the assembly of the church is to reflect this heavenly reality in corporate worship and spiritual sacrifices. This surpasses everything we see and understand under “church” as we commonly know it, THIS ends all denominationalism, because here we are united with all Christians who do the same! We enter the same place where other congregations enter also, and therefore there are no divisions.
The only question is whether we really enter there or are being shut out because of our uncleanness. The Temple in Jerusalem was still in operation after Christ fulfilled the sacrifices – but God was not there anymore. Doing Christian “things” or “playing church” does not mean that Christ is present or we are in God’s presence. Neglecting the lessons from the Tabernacle certainly does not help …
Alexander