This image is from ASBO Jesus.
This will be my short attempt to explain what I think about the Church. My ideas may be a bit different from many, but I would love to engage.
My introduction paragraph follows…. We are not under the Old Covenant but the New (Hebrews 8-9). Because of that, I don’t need to borrow anything, okay let me rephrase that, I shouldn’t borrow anything from the Old Covenant to shape my ecclesiology. There is radical discontinuity. Which simply means…. I don’t have to obey anything in the Old Testament unless it is transferred to the New, by Christ, the Apostles or other authors of the New Testament. Some may feel this is false, but I promise you, your theology drives you to that point, not the scriptures. In his book “All Old Testament Laws Canceled” Mr. Gibson says:
There is discontinuity in practice between the Old Testament vs the New Testament since they contain 2 separate laws (although many of the same commands are transferred). And, there is continuity in doctrine/faith between them since God never changes. (Also, there is continuity in God’s one, eternal plan in Christ which organizes all the covenants and the whole bible).
I believe this to be a key to interpreting the scriptures and what is to be practiced by the Church. We are not Jews, we have never been Jews and the Old Covenant was given to Israel and them alone. It has been abolished, it has ceased and has been replaced by the New Covenant Law of God (1 Corinthians 9:21).
Okay, with that out the way I want to bring up three points:
1. The Old Covenant had a mediating group.
To get to God you had to come through the Levites under the Old Covenant. Only they could light the lampstand, change the shew-bread, keep the incense burning, and offer sacrifices on behalf of the people. Today we are all priest (1 Peter 2) with one High Priest who is alive forever (Heb 9:11). Pastors and elders don’t replace or assume the responsibility of the levitical priest, THE ENTIRE Church does and our High Priest is Jesus. Not to mention Moses was the first mediator. A Senior Pastor doesn’t replace Moses. Jesus does, for he is a mediator of a “Better Covenant”. To try to use Moses instructions from Jethro to lead the Church today is a gross misinterpretation of those verses. We don’t see Jesus or the Apostles every condoning such a hierarchy as a matter of fact he tells us to stay away from such hierarchical structures (Matthew 23).
2. The Old Covenant Had a Place of Worship
The temple was the only authorized place to offer sacrifices and to hear from God. No one else was authorized to offer up sacrifices and no other place was authorized. Our church buildings do not replace the temple or tabernacle. The Church which is made up of every single building does. We now Worship the Father through the Son and that in spirit and in truth (John 4). We offer up sacrifices of praise (Hebrews 13:15) through Christ. And because He is always heard we don’t have to worry like they did in the Old Covenant if our sacrifice is accepted, because Jesus makes it acceptable by mediating for us perpetually (Hebrews 8).
3. The Need for a Professionalized Group
Finally the storehouse is gone, the need for a professionalized group is gone, and the need to pay that group is gone. Why? Because as New Covenant believers we are not under a Theocracy. That theocracy has been replaced with a gracious covenant where every nation, tongue and tribe is brought into relationship with God. The priest were commissioned by God to do a work and mediate on his behalf and they were commanded not to work, for they HAD TO be available for service to the people on behalf of God. Today we are priest and all hold the same mediating positions! Though we function differently due to our gifting doesn’t mean that there is a select class. The Church is not the storehouse, that is superimposing the Old, dead covenant unto the new living Church of God. There is no continuity between the two.
This is brief because I don’t want to lose you; however, we live under a New Covenant that is in opposition to what it is discontinued from. To take Old Covenant examples and superimpose them on the Church is to do a disservice to what Jesus purchased with His own blood. The Old Covenant was ratifed with the blood of bulls and goats “once Moses sprinkled the tablets he also sprinkled the people”. Today we are covered by the blood of the living God. He has created something new, and the last time I checked new really means new!
Lionel-
A common response to dialogue about the differences between Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology is: “What difference does it make?”
My contention has always been that no matter what name the doctrinal grid that one uses to interpret scripture, it will always have a lot to do with ones application of scripture.
I really believe that the errors we see in the traditional church structure are not just derived by following traditions added to scripture over the centuries, but also the overarching doctrinal camp that individuals and churches subscribe to.
For instance when someone finds themselves in a legalistic and authoritarian/abusive church leadership situation, it is almost always due to a groups misunderstanding of how the church is structured under the New Covenant. We know this since the actions being taken by such groups are always defended and supported with their understanding of the nature of the church and the structure of church leadership.
I have written this and stated it before that I believe the following to be the reasons for the rise in authoritarianism and “abusive leadership” in the professing church:
1) Unbiblical clergy/laity distinctions
2) An epidemic misunderstanding of the nature of true biblical authority
3) Ignorance of the structure of the church as presented in the NT scriptures
4) Error regarding what the work of the ministry is and who is to actually do the work of ministry-The priesthood of the believer
5) The widespread misunderstanding of a believers relationship to the Mosaic Law, The Law of Christ, and freedom in Christ that leads to true sanctification.
In the end I firmly believe that if it is just a intellectual exercise, discussing DISP, CT & NCT is relatively worthless, but when it is discussed in relation to believers more fully enjoying the benefits that Christ purchased for us on the cross and how we can more fully do the work of the ministry, build each other up and encourage one another in the faith, perhaps it then becomes a tool to help us arrive at a more biblical ecclesiology.
BTW: There is a “church” where they take the issue of submitting to “elder” authority to the extent that they have counseled a woman whose husband refused to submit to an elder in some area, to divorce her husbands as he was under church discipline and was to be treated like an unbeliever.
Never mind that treating someone like an unbeliever should mean that we treat them with love, gentleness and with a view to present them with the gospel. And never mind the fact that Jesus told men to not separate what God has put together.
These so called elders are doing the work of the enemy but they defend it with their erroneous view of authority and ecclesiology from Old Covenant principles contain in CT.
What difference can it make? All the difference in the world!
Make that husband singular.
Hutch,
You said a mouthful brother. I don’t want to get to technical but how you view the Law, the way Old Covenant Israel was structured under that law, that nothing in the Old Covenant is normative for the Church and that the New Covenant is realized fully today as we await the Lord’s return.
I guess what strikes me as odd is when my Disp brothers take Old Covenant examples and superimpose them on the Church. Given their discontinuity and dispensations.
Lionel,
I am learning more from your posts on this issue than I had originally thought. I came from the Catholic religion and into the traditional/charismatic into a semi charismatic/baptist setting. Now I am in a house church and also now that I am on the outside looking in I have been noticing more of what you are talking about.
Especially when it comes to the tithe, rituals (catholic) and also how the protestant reformation held onto a lot of the old testament. I truly see God reforming us back to the way He intended His church in the New Testament.
I really appreciate what your talking about as it is putting words to my thoughts concerning why we have done and are doing the things in the box churches.
Steven
Lionel-
Its no big thing-unless it lands on top of you!
Lionel,
Great article! Dear brother! You remind me of Crocodile Dundee comes when he was being mugged in New York His assailant pulled a knife on him.
There is that long pregnant pause as Dundee looks at the knife, and with a grin on his face he says to the attacker, “that’s not a knife”, as he pulls out an enormous, almost machete sized one, “now that’s a knife”.
Lionel! That truly is a knife! Thankyou for being a true Berean!
Thank you Sir!
Question for Lionel, Hutch, or whoever else….
I was reading through a copy of a discussion between Frank V. and somebody about the various things discussed in Frank’s books, and one thing that Viola mentioned was how, (similar to the many underlying doctrinal things you mentioned Hutch), a person’s concept of how the trinity functions effects their understanding of how the church functions. Basically he said that many people who defend a church with a hierarchy point to the Trinity itself as an example of it (hiearchy), and so it’s only natural that the church would function this way too. Frank goes on to explain that the Trinity is in fact NOT hierarchal, but instead consists of relationships that mutually exalt one another…. I’d never actually thought about this before, and it made a lot of sense to me. Just wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on that…
Daniel-
I agree completely. I have been following some blogs put out by the hyper-patriocentrists and they use a doctrine they call the eternal subordination of the Son to defend not only subordination of women, but eternal subordination of women! Yes, they teach that women are subordinate to men not just now but even in the eternal state!
I obviously disagree with both conslusions but it is very much derived by their doctrine of the Trinity and an interpretation of Genesis 3 that concludes that the curse on the women is an eternal commanded subordination and not a result of man’s fallen sinful nature to attempt to dominate others.
Daniel, a couple thoughts from a “whoever else”,
I agree with you that our view of the Trinity affects how we think, live, and view church.
The word “hierarchy” can mean so many things, good and bad. There is certainly no bossiness or coercion (bad hierarchy) in the Trinity, but there is a certain order, or asymmetry. The Father begets the Son, not vice versa. The Father sends the Son. There is no suggestion that the relationships are ad hoc, or interchangeable. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father is described as the source of everything, in a way the Son and Spirit are not.
Also, the Father loves the Son, and glorifies Him, and the Son loves and glorifies the Father. “Mutual exaltation” and “hierarchy” (the good kind) co-exist among the Trinity. It really is beautiful, and invites worship and joy.
But is there a connection between ordered relationships among the Trinity, and church leadership? Ignatius (c. 110 AD) thought so: “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father.” But where is this idea in the NT? The only human relationship that has a direct parallel in the Trinity, is man and wife (1Cor11:3); just as God is the “head” of Christ, so too the man is the “head” of the woman (the parallel is there irrespective of what is intended by the Greek word kephale). There is no similar connection between church leadership and the Trinity.
There was an interesting discussion between Frank Viola and Ben Witherington, that went something like this:
Ben: hierarchy in the Trinity, therefore hierarchy in church.
Frank: no hierarchy in the Trinity, therefore no hierarchy in church.
As I read it, there are ordered relationships (good hierarchy) in the Trinity, but we have to look elsewhere for guidance on church leadership.
Lionel, thanks for hosting such good discussions!
Lionel you already no how i see it on these subjects. So i don’t need to say anything because i agree with the post 200% it’s all going to change down the road. Me and you and the rest most likely will be dead and gone when this becomes the norm in teaching. Hold your ground and keep the faith in what you believe in no matter what happens. As long it is not outside of the bible great post again. You no these topics get me totally charge up lol.
Daniel,
I agree also with Viola on this point. I don’t agree with the eternal subordination and as it relates to that in 1 Corinthians 11, I believe Paul is talking about Christ in the flesh, not in His eternal state. Christ subjected “himself”. Christ is taking the roll of submission to the Father in order to bring redemption to mankind. This was a temporary role of Christ in the flesh. Because I would have to ask who then is the Spirit subject to? The Son? I can’t deduce that biblically.
John,
Long time no hear brother. How are things in the North East brother? I was re-reading a post I posted for you a couple months back.
DTG,
Yeah man I appreciate you standing your ground, now lets stand together brother.
Bro. Lionel,
I have an honest question about the Spirit’s subjection. Now I will start off by saying that I may have the definition of subjection wrong as it relates to the inner-Trinitarian relationship. So forgive me in advance. Here are the verses:
John 16:7,12-15 (NASB) “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will declare it to you.”
Now I want to make a few observations. I realize that this is one passage of perhaps many. So I don’t mind if other verses are brought in to explain it. I would like an honest assessment of what seems to be here though, first. Here we go:
1. The Helper is sent by Jesus. I realize this could be the result of a cooperative relationship and not of any type of hierarchy. But stay with me here.
2. The Helper will guide into all truth but Christ’ explanation of that statement seems to be that the Helper will NOT speak on His own initiative. Now, does that statement imply that Truth itself is under the sole rule of someone other than the Helper? I’m not saying that the Helper would lie or that He would have a seperate truth but it seems that Christ connects Him not speaking on His own initiative and Him guiding into all truth. What am I reading into this or missing? I realize that it is possible.
3. The Helper glorifies Christ. No problem there. But He glorifies Christ by disclosing what Christ refers to as “Mine”. Christ then says that it belongs to the Father and Himself. However, He doesn’t say that it also belongs to the Helper and if it does, then it is at least apparent that what the Helper discloses is controlled because the Helper will not speak on His own initiative. (Man I feel like a heretic right now, LOL!!!)
I honestly don’t know what the solution is. I am not trying to redefine the Trinity. I do sense the wood and coals burning on the stake though, lol.
Help a brother out!
BLD,
You bring up some good questions. I will work through this a bit. However, my initial thought is this is still surrounding redemption and in redemption there is a bit different outworking. Ephesians 1 gives the cooperative work of the Godhead in redemption with each playing unique roles.
When it says initiative it is saying he will not speak of “himself” I don’t know why the translators used “initiative”. The role of the Spirit was to glorify the Son not to point to His own ministry. This isn’t subordination but function. The Spirits function is to place the truth of the Gospel on the hearts of the redeemed in order for the work of God in the Son on the cross will be brought to fruition. Let me know what you think.
Let me ask do you see the word “subject” or “subordinate” or “submitted” in relation to the role of the Spirit to the Son?
Thanks for the feedback everyone, these are really interesting points all around….
Bro. Lionel,
I would have to say no I don’t see any of those words perse. But we all know the “word doesn’t have to be there” argument. I do think that in that text it appears that the Spirit is subject to the preordained ministry that belongs to the Father and the Son. If the doctrine of the Trinity describes them as co-equal, then how come the Spirit doesn’t have ownership as well? I know I am missing something. It may be that I am thinking too much in human terms as to ownership. I can stomach that charge.
So you see the Spirit’s “own” as refering to His ministry? That’s interesting. I’ve never heard that before. But we do know something of the ministry of the Spirit from, well, the Spirit inspired writers. So in a way, He does disclose His “own” ministry to them. That’s how we know what it is. So I’m back to square one in a way. I don’t think, for this logical reason alone, that His “own” could be refering to His ministry.
I don’t know. I hope I’m not just refusing the answer. But thanks for working this out with me. Lately there are some other things that I have been reexamining that I would like to get a better understanding on.
Lionel,
I think that sometimes the words we use are open to interpretation. Theologians are quite adept at not being careful enough in this matter. We are quite adept at jumping to conclusions when we hear someone use a word, and offer our own expert opinion. So, for what it’s worth, here’s my decidedly UNexpert opinion.
We know there are many senses in which words can be used. The English language is famous for not being careful with its use of words.
The USA/Australian use of the English language is likewise very ambiguous at times. No doubt you have to decipher what I say, and believe me, likewise.
The word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, but, there can be no doubt that the concept is very clearly declared. The same can be said for the general idea conferred by many theological words such as the “three oms”: “omniscience,” “omnipotence,” “omnipresence” . Never-the-less, we have no trouble using these words to conceptualize the unique attributes of God.
In my very limited way, the same applies to the word “subordination” in the Godhead. It depends very much on what we, in our feeble minds, understand what is meant by “subordination”.
It seems to me that the word is quite legitimate when we use it in terms of formal association or order. I DO NOT believe it is legitimate if we understand “subordination” to mean substance or essence. Subordination certainly DOES NOT mean that one or the other is greater or lesser than the other in divinity or authority
God the Father is not begotten, but the Jesus, the Son is (John 3:16). The Father sent the Son (John 5:26) . The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26).
We need to be very careful how we articulate the issue because we can very easily slip into the heretical trap of denying, either implicitly or explicitly, the truth of the divinity of both the Son and the Holy Spirit .
As we contemplate the matter, we need to heed Moses words, when he declared, “”Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is ONE!” (Deut. 6:4), whilst being careful to listen to Jesus when He said, “I and the Father are ONE”(John 10:30), and remembering that this same “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”(Heb.13:8).
As we intellectually struggle with concepts such as “subordination” we need to always keep in mind, as Jesus spoke about His New Covenant mission at that last supper, it was a reminder that HE is all of these at the same time; THE agent, THE purpose, and THE goal of creation! ALL of God’s purpose, from end to beginning, revolves around HIM.
It is HE “who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. It is HE who has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we
have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. It is HE who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn over all creation. For by HIM all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. ALL things were created through HIM and for HIM. It is HE who is before all things, and in HIM all things consist. And it is HE who is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead, that IN ALL THINGS HE HAVE FIRST PLACE IN EVERYTHING.
Why? “For God was pleased to have all of his fullness live in HIM. Through HIM he also reconciled all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, thus making peace through the blood of his cross.” (Col. 1:19,20)