Category Archives: Theology

Did the Apostles Establish the Office of Deaconess?

Posted on by

A man once asked a famous nineteenth century preacher to weigh in on a controversial doctrinal issue that has divided Christians for centuries: “What do you hold concerning water baptism?”

The preacher responded evasively: “My mouth.”

Another issue today evokes the same urge to keep our traps shut: the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. For some denominations this matter was settled generations ago either for or against. For others the issue flares up periodically, unable to be finally resolved. Frankly, in some circles it’s simply not prudent or polite to even discuss this topic, because whatever one might hold concerning the ordination of women will inevitably cross somebody’s strongly-held beliefs. This has led many to simply hold their mouths whenever the question comes up.

Too often, an honest, fair, and civil discussion becomes difficult. Misogynists (men who hate women) will universally seek to limit the role of women in ministry, but limiting the role of women isn’t necessarily misogyny. Similarly, feminists will universally seek to expand the role of women in church ministry, but expanding the role of women is not itself feminism. (“All A = B” does not imply “All B = A”) Yet all too frequently those engaged in the debate over the biblical, theological, and historical understanding of the roles of men and women in ministry can’t separate facts from emotions or analysis from implications.

The following essay doesn’t presume to settle the question of women in ministry, and we can’t promise not to stir up strongly held emotions from either side of the debate. However, we do seek to contribute modestly to the discussion by asking the question, “Did the apostles establish the office of deaconess?” We seek to answer this through both biblical and historical lines of argument, seeking to read the Scriptures in a way that’s faithful to the text but also consistent with the historical-theological context. That is, what do we know about the actual practices of the early churches established by the apostles, and how does this picture affect the historical context in which we should read the apostles’ writings? [For a more comprehensive application of this historical-theological approach to New Testament interpretation regarding important issues related to the church, see Michael J. Svigel, RetroChristianity: Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith (Crossway, 2012).]

The Language of “Deacons”

In order to address the question of the potential presence and particular role of deaconesses in the apostolic era (the time period of the apostles and their disciples), a couple of things need to be understood about the nature of a “deacon.” The Greek word itself, diakonos, has a fairly broad range of meaning, such as “a generic servant,” “a waiter of food,” “an agent with a special mission,” or “an official minister in a church.” In the New Testament diakonos can mean a servant with a certain mission or task (Rom. 15:8; 1 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7); an assistant of a particular person (Matt. 22:13; 2 Cor. 6:4; Col. 1:7); or an official appointment, office, or position as a “minister” in a local church (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8–12).

Though all people were called to be diakonoi (servants), when Paul couples this title with the words for “elders” (presbyteroi) and “overseers” (episkopoi), he appears to use diakonos as an official title—a title that soon took on the sense of a distinct rank in church order (the diaconate) and still remains with us today in most ecclesiastical traditions as “deacons.” In fact, the present distinction between the general calling of all believers to serve and the specific “office” within church governance is so clear that the former are simply called “servers,” “helpers,” or “volunteers,” while the latter are called “deacons” or “ministers.” In Paul’s day the vocabulary itself was the same for both the general and the official: diakonos.

What does this technical discussion of the word “deacon” have to do with the issue of women holding ordained ministerial offices in the church? Well, in two New Testament passages it appears that the term diakonos in the official sense applies to women. In 1 Timothy 3:11 the context may include both men and women “deacons,” while Romans 16:1 refers to a specific woman, Phoebe, as a diakonos. Though these passages have been interpreted in different ways, we contend that when read in light of the early church’s actual practice of appointing deaconesses, the evidence for understanding these passages as referring to official “deaconesses” tips the balance away from alternative interpretations.

Phoebe—Servant, Assistant, or Minister (Romans 16:1)?

A greatly contested passage regarding the presence of official deaconesses in the apostolic age is Paul’s commendation of Phoebe (a woman) as a diakonos: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (diakonos) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well” (Rom. 16:1–2, ESV). On this occasion, Phoebe had been appointed to a specific task—that of bearing the letter to Rome on Paul’s behalf. But does her designation as diakonos go beyond her task as Paul’s agent and messenger?

Interpreters who understand the term diakonos to mean a general “servant” from Cencreae rather than an official “deaconess” often argue that the term was ascribed to other individuals who were not regarded as filling the office of “deacon” in their churches, such as Paul (Eph. 3:7), Epaphras (Col. 1:7), Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5–6), and even Timothy (1 Tim. 4:6). True, Paul could merely be placing Phoebe into the same general category of “helpful servant” as these other men, but this overlooks the two following important facts.

First, Paul describes Phoebe as a “diakonos of the church at Cenchreae,” specifying her function as diakonos to that specific church. This may seem insignificant until we realize that whenever the Greek phrase “________ of the church” is used in the New Testament and the earliest Christian literature (where “________” is a personal designation or title), the personal designation refers to an office, not just a generic function (Acts 20:17; Eph. 5:23; Jas. 5:14; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; Ignatius, Trallians 2.3; Philadelphians 5.1; Polycarp 1.1; Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.2.6; 2.4.3; 3.9.7; Martyrdom of Polycarp 16.2; 19.2). Therefore, if Phoebe is merely a “helpful assistant” of the church at Cenchreae in Romans 16:1, this is the only time the construction is used this way in the earliest Christian literature.

Second, in Romans 16:2 Paul describes Phoebe as “a patron (prostatis) of many and of myself as well.” The word prostatis means “helper,” or “benefactor.” In this way Paul describes Phoebe’s general function as an assistant with a “servant’s heart.” If he generalizes her service to “many” in verse 2, it seems more likely that her particular function as “diakonos of the church” in verse 1 had a more specific and official sense. Verse 1 identifies Phoebe and her official office in her home church (a deaconess), while verse 2 describes her character as a general servant beyond her local church.

Of course, when we call Phoebe a “deaconess” we must recognize that the actual responsibilities and authority associated with titles like elder, pastor, teacher, and deacon in the early church were still in the formative stages. New Testament scholar Douglas Moo writes, “It is very likely that regular offices in local Christian churches were still in the process of being established, as people who regularly ministered in a certain way were gradually recognized officially by the congregation and given a regular title” (Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 914).

Even if Phoebe is called a diakonos in a quasi-official sense, the actual meaning of the term could still be floating somewhere between “servant-hearted helper” and “official church minister.” However, it may also be that the official recognition and designation of the office of “deaconess” began to develop early in the apostolic period. After all, the church had already been established for about twenty-five years, and several titled offices had been well-known in the churches from the beginning (Acts 1:20; 11:30; 14:23; Phil. 1:2).

Deaconesses or Wives (1 Timothy 3:11)?

The second passage we need to consider closely is the mention of the gynaikes (“women” or “wives”) in the context of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11. Some understand the word to refer to the wives of the official deacons described in verses 8–10 and 12–13. That is, the men who fill the office of deacon should have “wives” (gynaikes) that are dignified, slanderer-free, sober-minded, and faithful (3:11).

It should be noted, however, that the word “their” often inserted in many English translations is not in the original Greek text. The Greek simply says, “gynaikes likewise.” It’s the same construction Paul used in verse 8 when he transitioned from the qualifications for elders to the qualifications for deacons: “Deacons likewise” (1 Tim. 3:8). This implies a “distinct, though similar, group” (I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 493). Also, if Paul wanted to clearly refer to the wives of the deacons, he could easily have inserted the possessive pronoun to indicate this, saying “their wives” rather than the simple generic word for “women.”

Yet some might object that Paul immediately returns to the obviously male deacons in the next verses (12–13), where deacons are to be “the husband of one wife,” suggesting that verse 11 was simply an aside to describe the character of the deacons’ wives. However, it seems that if deacons’ wives were really in view, Paul would have inserted the parenthetical statement after actually mentioning the “one wife” of each deacon in verse 12. Instead, it seems most reasonable that Paul mentioned the “women” in verse 11 (that is, “female deacons”) before mentioning that the male deacons could have one wife in verse 12 in order to avoid the identification of the women in verse 11 with the wives of the deacons in verse 12.

Another problem with the “wives of deacons” interpretation of verse 11 is that Paul makes no mention of the character traits expected of the wives of overseers, though he clearly mentions they were permitted to have “one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2). So, are we to conclude that the character of deacons’ wives was more important and needed special mention? Were deacons’ wives more likely to be undignified slanderers? Paul doesn’t mention the ideal character qualities of elders’ wives in Titus 1:5–9, either, making us wonder why he suddenly mentioned the virtuous qualities of deacons’ wives in 1 Timothy 3:11. However, if we interpret this text as referring to qualities expected of the female deacons or “deaconesses,” then the problem resolves itself.

Of course, the evidence here is far from crystal clear. Coupled with Romans 16:1, the sudden appearance of the “women” in the midst of qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11 seems to strengthen the possibility that the apostles had appointed both male and female deacons in the local churches. However, we must leave this possible reading of the biblical evidence and approach the question from another direction: the historical context of the early church.

Did the Apostles Leave the Early Church with Deaconesses?

Several historical arguments support the claim that deaconesses were, in fact, present and functioning in an official capacity in the early church—so early that it seems most reasonable that both men and women were among the original appointees to the general office of diakonos. In a section of an early Christian writing, Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 2.4.3), the leader of the church in Rome, Clement, is being commissioned to share the author’s message with those outside the city: “And you will write two books, and send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement will send it to the foreign cities, because it is permitted to him so to do, but Grapte will admonish the widows and orphans.” Early testimony informs us that a man named “Clement” was a prominent leader of the church of Rome in the late 90s—at the twilight of the apostolic era. One of his responsibilities at that time was to correspond with other churches. At the same time, Grapte (a female) was tasked with instructing “widows and orphans.” Later in the Shepherd of Hermas, we learn that looking after the widows was a responsibility given to the “deacons” (Similitude 9.26.2). Thus, at the very end of the apostolic period we have historical evidence of a female deacon, Grapte, functioning in an official capacity in a prominent church (Rome).

A second early testimony of the presence of deaconesses comes from a different region of the church: Asia Minor. Around 111 C.E. (a decade after the apostolic period), a Roman governor, Pliny the Younger, wrote a famous letter to the emperor Trajan (Lib. 10.96, Plinius Traiano Imperatori). In this letter Pliny consulted the emperor regarding the punishment of Christians, the beliefs and practices of whom Pliny had investigated. He learned details of Christian beliefs and worship by capturing and torturing two female Christians called ministra in Latin, a translation of the Greek “deaconess.” Thus, shortly after the end of the apostolic period we have additional historical evidence of female deacons in Asia Minor.

A third historical testimony relates to the practical need for women to assist the elders in the baptism of female converts to Christianity—filling a role parallel to male deacons for the baptism of men. In the daily ministries of the church, women were expected to minister to other women, especially when a home visit was required. This is attested in the third century Didascalia, which itself is based on earlier second century writings. That document urges “deaconesses” to minister to women in their homes, as it would be inappropriate for male deacons to do so (Didascalia 16). Likewise, both male deacons and female deaconesses were necessary for baptizing men and women in the early church, especially since they were baptized naked (Hippolytus, On the Apostolic Tradition 21.3, 5, 11). Thus, deaconesses would have been needed to assist in the baptism of women, just as male deacons assisted in the baptism of men. In short, the practical everyday needs of the Christian community strongly suggest that the early church would have required women ordained to a position in the church equal to that of deacons in order to minister to women in contexts that would have been impossible for men.

Finally, the transition from the apostolic period with both male prophets and prophetesses to the post-apostolic period leads to a strong possibility that just as temporary apostles were replaced by permanent elders (functioning as evangelists, pastors, or teachers), the prophets and prophetesses would naturally have been replaced by the deacons and deaconesses. Already during the New Testament period the church had women ministering in church as prophetesses (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5). It may be that the temporary first century role of the prophet, which was an office in the church occupied by both men and women, was replaced by the office of deacons, occupied by both men and women. This would create a consistency in transitioning from the apostolic period to post-apostolic period, when apostles were replaced by the pastoring and teaching elders while the prophets and prophetesses were replaced by the ministering and serving deacons and deaconesses by the beginning of the second century.

Conclusion: Summary of the Arguments

Clearly, both Scripture and the ancient church point to an incontestable fact: women were heavily involved in the ministry of the church both local and catholic. Exactly when the function of recognized “servants” of the church—both male and female—began to be identified as an actual office of “deacon” or “minister” is not so clear. Though it’s possible that the office of deaconess was established from the very beginning, it’s also possible that this office grew into its own over the course of the apostolic period (A.D. 35–100).

Already in the 50s, Phoebe was singled out for her patronage. She had helped Paul on more than one occasion (Rom. 16:2) and most likely carried his letter to the Romans. Around A.D. 65, Paul described the necessary qualities for “women” in the context of qualification for deacons (1 Tim. 3:11). In Rome around A.D. 95 a woman named Grapte was told to minister to “widows and orphans” by teaching them—a task assigned to those in the deaconate. Around A.D 110 two women ministra (“ministers”/“deacons”) were described as suffering for their faith in Asia Minor. As the second century progresses, we see female deacons assisting the elders in the work of the ministry, teaching, caring for, and even assisting in the baptism of women and children.

What does this evidence suggest? It suggests that by the end of the apostolic age the ordained church office of “deaconess” was in existence, having developed throughout the apostolic period and therefore endorsed by apostolic authority. This is by no means a case that can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, but the available evidence seems to tip the balance toward the establishment of an office for “deaconesses” as a biblical office. Such an office would involve training, testing, and ordination to this particular appointment. It would also involve real authority and responsibility as deacons and deaconesses worked together in assisting the elders in the work of church ministry, granted the title of “ministers.” In short, a truly “conservative” approach to the role of women in ministry that seeks to base their churches on the most likely post-apostolic model would include not only male but also female ministers assisting the elders in the work of the ministry.

However, a few caveats are in order. First, although there appears to us to be substantial evidence in the New Testament and early church for the presence of deaconesses in the churches, there is no evidence for the presence of female elders or pastors. Therefore, a modern iteration of this post-apostolic order would be composed of male pastor-elders assisted in the ministry by both male and female ministers.

Second, the role of deaconesses appears to have been limited to the care of widows and orphans—women and children, but it seemed to have included their catechetical instruction, baptism, and discipleship—all under the oversight of the church elders. Similarly, the role of male deacons was also generally limited to the catechesis, baptism, and discipleship of men. Therefore, a modern iteration of this post-apostolic order would involve ordained women ministers primarily focused on the women’s and children’s ministry.

Third, early churches appear to have exercised some sensibility regarding the compatibility between a woman’s “stage of life” and her responsibilities for church ministry. Married women in child-rearing years do not appear to have been primary candidates as deaconesses, who tended to be older women—often widows—who in any case had enough time and energy to commit to full-time Christian service. Similarly, unmarried women (“virgins”) also engaged in official ministry as “deaconesses.”

 

[This essay was researched and co-written by Michael J. Svigel and Kymberli Cook. Originally posted at http://www.retrochristianity.org on April 14, 2012.]

Rise of the Anti-Church: Online Virtual “Church”

Posted on by
The trend toward online church “campuses” as a legitimate option to live church must come to an end. If a church has started an onine or “virtual” church campus as an alternative to an “in the flesh” gathering of a church community, it must desist. If an eager, entrepreneurial church planter is thinking about launching a virtual church, he needs to stop. If an impressionable saint thinks that he or she can satisfy the mandate to assemble together (Heb 10:25) by logging into an online worship service, he or she needs to think again.

Why?

Because, simply put, virtual church is anti-church.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not talking about authentic local churches that provide their messages online in order to provide an inspirational or educational resource to those in the congregation or around the world. I don’t even mean those churches that broadcast or stream their services live for shut-ins or others who aren’t able to make it occasionally to the worship service. I’m talking specifically about churches that “meet” exclusively online or those that have a part of their “membership” participating in the church exclusively online. I’m talking about online-only “campuses” promoted by churches as viable, authentic church experiences among other options in their church campus repertoire.

I know that for some church leaders reading this, it’s too late. They rushed in without thinking this thing through biblically and theologically. They were so used to using the newest ever-changing technology to deliver the never-changing message that they simply took the next logical step. Or they got swept up in the “keeping up with the St. Jones’s” rat race and had to provide the same services that competing big-box churches were providing. Whatever the case may be, some churches have swallowed the virtual church model and see nothing wrong with it. In fact, this article already has them fuming.

To a certain degree, those who have fallen into the pit of the online church aren’t entirely at fault. Before any evangelical could end up careening over the cliff into legitimizing an exclusively online church campus, his or her evangelical tradition had to have taken four wrong turns in its ecclesiology. Without these four turns—of which most modern evangelicals are at least partially guilty—no right-minded Christian would ever imagine granting validity to a “virtual church” ministry. These are the turns toward “sermo-centrism,” “anti-sacramentalism,” “fan-ification,” and “neo-docetism.”

To help think biblically, theologically, and historically about the disastrous rise of the online anti-church, we need to examine these four false turns more closely.

Sermo-centrism: Reducing Church to the Message

Sermo-centrism is an error of reducing the entire worship service to the sermon. That is, instead of placing the preached Word in its proper place as a vital element of a full-bodied worship experience, the sermon becomes the most important thing—toward which everything points, around which everything revolves, and before which everything bows. In fact, in a sermo-centric church service, everything else but the sermon is detachable, optional, and flexible.

However, a well-rounded biblical worship service could never be reduced to the sermon. In the apostolic church, weekly worship also included confession of sins to one another, corporate prayers, singing of hymns with and to one another, the public reading of Scripture, a message exhorting believers toward love and good works, an offering of food or money for the poor, and the observance of the Lord’s Supper as a rite of personal and corporate spiritual renewal. In fact, neither the New Testament nor the early church ever regarded the sermon as the exclusive center, climax, or purpose of the Sunday morning gathering of the church.

When the purposes of “gathering together” as a church are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, they include the following: to exhibit unity of the community by properly observing the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–21, 33–34); to exercise spiritual gifts for the edification of the whole body (1 Cor 14:23–26); to pray for urgent matters (Acts 4:34); to report ministry endeavors (Acts 14:27); to discuss controversial doctrinal and practical matters (Acts 15:6); to read apostolic writings (Acts 15:30); to break bread and provide instruction in the faith (Acts 20:7); to exercise church discipline for the purification of the local congregation (1 Cor 5:4); to encourage one another toward love and good works (Heb 10:25); to confess our sins to each other (Jas 5:16). With this brief sampling, we see that the purposes of the physically gathered community and its leaders went far beyond the Sunday morning worship hour, and even that time could not be characterized as centering on a sermon.

From a historical perspective, the turn toward sermo-centrism occurred sometime after the Protestant Reformation during the age of revivalism, between about 1700 and 1900. During this time, itinerant preachers—often acquiring celebrity status—traveled from place to place, sometimes country to country, drawing crowds with dynamic evangelistic messages. They preached their fiery sermons from stages to filled fields or packed auditoriums. Everything centered on this proclamation. This revivalistic emphasis on the sermon soon made its way into our churches, which began to model their morning messages on the revivalist pattern—a lot of music to stir up the crowd followed by a long message designed to elicit responses from the hearers’ minds, hearts, and wills.

When many churches took the sermo-centric turn, however, all the other vital biblical elements of the gathered church were first diminished, then neglected, and eventually ignored or rejected—corporate prayer, church discipline, corporate confession of sin and forgiveness, and especially the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Today, the sermo-centric model of Sunday morning worship is virtually an unquestioned conviction of many evangelical churches. Our leaders and congregants simply lack the biblical and historical perspective to realize how far removed the sermo-centric model is from the worship experience established by the apostles and practiced by most Christians for centuries. (For an alternative to the Sermo-centric model, which I call the pulpit/altar-centered model, see chapter 10 of my RetroChristianity:Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith.)

By reducing the purpose of the gathered community to the delivery of the message, evangelicalism opened the door to delivering this core element of the church in ways that do not require the community to be physically gathered. Without the sermo-centric turn, the viability of online virtual church could not be entertained.

Anti-sacramentalism: Forsaking the Rites of Initiation and Renewal

When many evangelicals reduced the worship service to the sermon, they began to have trouble finding a proper place for the New Testament sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. As the church body was regarded more as an audience assembled to listen to a sermon, baptism began to lose its original meaning as the rite of solemn initiation into a covenanted community. If you review all the reasons for which the people of the church gathered in the New Testament, you’ll notice that they all emphasize a serious degree of corporate accountability and interpersonal fellowship. In a stage/auditorium mentality where bigger crowds in tighter seating simply meant more ears to hear the motivational message, the concept of covenant church membership lost significance. As a result, today many traditions simply do not emphasize the necessary role of baptism in the life of the church. When it is practiced, it’s often sporadic, tacked on informally before or after a Sunday morning service, or relegated to a special “baptismal” service detached from the real purpose of church: to rev up the audience for its keynote address.

The Lord’s Supper has suffered even more. There’s no question at all that the apostles and the early church observed the Lord’s Supper (or “communion” or “eucharist”) every week as an essential part of their corporate worship experience. It was a holy time of offering oneself as well as the gathered body as living sacrifices to God in humble consecration (Rom 12). The one bread not only represented, but tangibly manifested, the unity of the one body gathered to partake together (1 Cor 10:17). Members of the church were not merely gathered to hear the Word read and preached. They were called upon to come forward, having confessed the wrongs toward one another and toward God, bearing an offering of love for others, and consecrating themselves to live a life of righteousness in response to the Word read and preached. So when evangelicals neglected the biblical emphasis on personal and corporate renewal through weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, they lost a real, tangible, sanctifying experience of the faith designed to strengthen both individuals and the church.   

Both of these biblical sacraments of the local church functioned not only as necessary means of covenant participation (baptism as initiation, communion as renewal) but also as means of exercising discipline and maintaining holiness in the community. At the time of their baptism, members of the church both confessed their saving faith in the Triune God and pledged their covenant commitment to live the Christian life in the accountability of the church community. Having made this pledge, believers in good standing continued to renew their pledge of living a Spirit-led life of repentance from wickedness and growth in righteousness by participating in the Lord’s Supper. Those who strayed from the path of righteousness were physically excluded from sharing in this holy meal, of which Christ Himself was the divine Host through the power of the Holy Spirit.

By forsaking the physical corporate rites of covenant initiation (baptism) and covenant renewal (the Lord’s Supper), or by replacing these biblical ordinances with less formal and less physical processes for church membership and re-dedication, evangelicalism opened the door a little farther for a virtual church model. Virtual churches cannot really baptize. They can’t really partake of the Lord’s Supper from one bread to represent the spiritual and physical unity of the one body. They can’t really exclude those under discipline from the Lord’s table or hold individual members of the body to their baptismal pledge of discipleship. So, without the anti-sacramental turn, the viability of online church could not have been entertained.

Fan-ification: Converting the Congregation into an Audience 

We have seen that the gathered church engaged in corporate prayer, confession of sins to one another, mutual edification through hymns, teaching, reading Scripture, providing for needs, exercising spiritual gifts, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. If one were to express this kind of worship service in a diagram, it would take the form of a circle. As the members of the covenanted community focus together on the center of Jesus Christ’s person and work, they themselves manifested by their physical presence the gathered “body of Christ”—His physical corporate presence on earth.

However, especially in the twentieth century, the most influential, paradigm-setting, model churches could not be described as a circle, but as a pyramid. Atop this grand monument stands the celebrity preacher, the center and source of the entire operation. Oh, he points us to the Bible and to Jesus, but he does so in ways that necessarily keep our attention on the preacher himself. If he were to downplay his presence and shorten his message in order to re-instate the proper place of corporate prayer, observance of the sacraments, mutual encouragement and exhortation, reading of Scripture, and other less glamorous and less personality-driven activities of the church, the celebrity would necessarily lose his place in the limelight.

Let’s face it. The celebrity pastor has mostly displaced the table of the Lord’s Supper, which once focused the congregation on the incarnation of God the Son, His atoning death, His resurrection, and His abiding presence in the gathered community. Then the semi-biblical motivational messages, cleverly conceived and professionally performed, have turned the pulpit itself into a stage. The “service” is now a “production.” This production has become a brand. The church itself then becomes a franchise that can be packaged and distributed—marketed even. Branch campuses with piped-in productions eventually give way to streaming delivery of fast food spirituality that tastes sweet in the mouth as it sours the soul.

In the extreme form of this fake Christianity, the congregation is no longer defined as those covenanted members who gather frequently to commune with the Lord by communing with His corporate body on earth. Rather, the congregation has become a crowd of “fans” drawn to a brilliant preacher like dumb insects drawn to a shining light. And with the advent of live A/V feeds and online delivery methods, the growth of the fan base is almost limitless. With the fan-ification of the church, the congregation has become an audience focused on the latest evangelical luminary . . . or tuning in to hear from their gifted gospel-guru.

By converting the congregation into an audience, evangelicalism opened the door even farther to legitimizing the online church. Virtual church members are pure audiences, as their “participation” through online media is only observation. Even if the online watcher is prompted to pray, to sing, to eat a cracker and drink some juice, or to shout “Amen,” he or she is doing nothing more than what we all did when we answered Mr. Rogers’ questions or responded to kids’ shows like Blues Clues or Dora the Explorer. The difference is, the grown Christian should know better. So, without the fan-ification of the congregation, the idea of online church could never have gotten off the ground.

Neo-Docetism: Promoting a Non-Incarnational Church
Finally, evangelicalism has slipped deeper and deeper into ecclesiological docetism. Christological docetism was the early heresy that separated the real physical, bodily humanity of Christ from His real spiritual divinity, either rejecting or severely down-playing the physicality of Christ and exalting His status as a spiritual being. The result was that Jesus only “appeared” to be human and physically present.

When the church is understood biblically and theologically as the body of Christ, this language necessarily assumes an orthodox incarnational Christology—that Jesus is fully human, fully divine (not one or the other), embodied (not a ghost), physical (not a phantom), real (not apparent), among us (not remote). For the church to reflect this incarnational reality of Christ as a mysterious extension of His corporate body on earth, the church must be embodied, physical, real, locally gathered, in the flesh.

An authentic gathering of the body of Christ on earth must be able to describe its corporate life in incarnational terms like those of 1 John 1:1—“What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” If I can merely hear and see the gathered body, but cannot touch and embrace its members, or feel, smell, and taste its sacraments, then it’s not an incarnational church but a docetic church. The word “docetism” means “appears to be” or “seems to be.” In fact, it’s the functional equivalent of the modern term “virtual,” which means “simulated,” or “opposite of real or physical.” The docetic heresy taught that Jesus Christ was only a “virtual” human. His humanity wasn’t real, wasn’t physical. He was “simulated” humanity. In the same vein, a docetic body of Christ would be a “virtual” church. Its corporate gathering wouldn’t be real, wouldn’t be physical. It would be “simulated” church. And just as virtual reality is 100% not real, virtual church is 100% not church.

In short, the docetic church is no more an acceptable alternative to an incarnational church than a docetic Christ is an acceptable alternative to the incarnate Christ. Just as the docetic Christ is an anti-Christ, the virtual church is an anti-church. 

Rise and Fall of the Anti-Church

“Can” does not imply “ought.” The ability to do something does not mean it should be done. After evangelicalism as a whole took four distinct bad turns in the last few centuries, a growing number of over-zealous individuals and churches have taken the wheel and have driven their ministries headlong over a cliff. This has resulted in the docetic belief that an online church is a legitimate substitute for a real gathered congregation.

Evangelicals who are dedicated to biblical, theological, and historical renewal of the church must resist this madness. Let me suggest three ways we can do this.  

First, stop promoting, supporting, and tolerating virtual churches or online-only campusus and those who are propagating them. Those who believe online churches can pass as real churches have by this very belief demonstrated that they are unqualified to shepherd a true incarnational church of Christ. They apparently do not have the biblical understanding, theological training, and historical perspective needed to lead the church out of its current crisis. They can only lead it faster toward its disintegration. Resist the temptation to start a virtual church or promote an online campus as a viable alternative to the gathering of the body. And run (don’t walk) from those who start them.

Second, retrace your steps and work at reversing the four bad turns that led to virtual church being regarded as even a plausible ministry move. Reverse the promotion of the non-incarnational church (neo-docetism), the conversion of the congregation into an audience (fan-ification), forsaking the rites of covenant initiation and renewal (anti-sacramentalism), and reducing church to the message (sermo-centrism). Each of these alone and all of them together have led to a number of ministry models that are serving to weaken, not strengthen, the already declining evangelical tradition.

Third, promote a full-bodied church ministry, aligned with biblical priorities, informed by historical realities, and strengthened by theological convictions. Don’t let pragmatism, peer-pressure, commercialism, popularity, numbers, and the bottom-line dictate your ministry models and methods. The modern technological gimmicks and games may appear to be bringing about success in your ministry, but this is only “virtual” success. In the end, anything short of an incarnational ecclesiology will lead your ministry to destruction.

For a biblically, theologically, historically, and practically viable antidote to these trends, consider working through my RetroChristianity: Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith.

[Originally published April 12, 2012 at www.retrochristianity.com]

7 Church Ministry Models in Light of the Ideal

Posted on by

Small single-service churches . . . home churches with rotating locations . . . mega-churches with thousands of seats . . . large churches with home groups . . . mega-churches with multi-services at different times and days . . . multi-site churches with recorded messages and online campuses . . .  multi-site churches with live feed from the main campus . . . multi-service churches with rotating preachers . . . single-service churches with rotating preachers . . .

When it comes to American church ministry models, if you can imagine it, it exists.

In RetroChristianity, I describe six essential building blocks of a local church: orthodoxy, order, and ordinances as the essential marks of a local church, and evangelism, edification, and exaltation as its essential works. I also present a biblically, theologically, and historically-informed ideal worship model as pulpit/altar-centered—the effective proclamation of the Word (pulpit) and the effectual consecration of the worshipper (altar), centered on Christ’s person and work, and bounded by the Trinitarian creation-redemption narrative. The former includes reading of Scripture (1 Tim. 4:13), instructional music (Col. 3:16), and other forms of proclamation; the latter involves confession of sin (Jas. 5:16), prayers (1 Tim. 2:1), responsive music (Eph. 5:19–20), offerings (1 Cor. 16:2), and the communion meal (1 Cor. 11:20). The first is embodied in the leader’s sermon; the second is incarnated in the Lord’s Supper.

But how does a missionary or church planter move from the ideal to the real in a particular cultural context? Or how does an existing church move from the real to the ideal without a major upheaval? If given the opportunity for modifying the ministry model of your church, in which direction should you lead it? When evaluating your church’s ministry emphases and general direction either in setting short-term ministry priorities or casting a long-term vision, how do you critique your current trajectory?

In an attempt to think through these questions more carefully and to provide a frame of reference for discussion, I have established a spectrum reflecting a range of ministry models. Each model poses unique opportunities and challenges when it comes to living out the marks and works of the church as well as emphasizing a pulpit/altar-centered worship. (For a presentation and defense of these ecclesiological models, see RetroChristianity chapters 8, 9, and 10.) So, let me briefly describe these seven models. Within (and probably between) these models we can imagine numerous shades, nuances, and varieties, but I believe these seven serve as sufficient (though not perfect) “types” of modern evangelical church ministries for the sake of discussion.

Model 1: The Small Community. Small, intimate, manageable community with qualified personal pastoral presence for discipleship, accountability, and encouragement. To maintain intimacy and manageability, a single-meeting community desires to remain small—between 100 and 250 people. Among this community, the pastoral leadership strives to maintain direct relationships with church members. The pastor and elders know their flock well, understand their strengths and weaknesses, and are attuned to their needs. This incarnational presence among the community makes discipleship more intuitive and natural rather mechanical and programmatic. Accountability is a natural part of a covenanted life together. And encouragement toward faithfulness emanates from both the pulpit and interpersonal relationships. The small community model may often function as part of a larger mother-daughter network model (Model 2) or even as well-ordered, intentional smaller groups within a larger church model (Models 4, 5, and 6). And it does not preclude the possibility of denominational or inter-ecclesial associations to cooperate and pool resources for larger-scale projects.

I believe that pulpit proclamation can be more intimately and effectively crafted for a smaller group known personally by the preaching pastor. This intimacy and efficacy is easily lost when a large audience (or especially a non-present audience) is preached at from a stage or behind a camera without a personal relationship between the pastor and the congregation. I also believe it is self-evident that a full-bodied, efficacious Lord’s Supper is best observed in a single smaller community. Such an intimate observance can easily include all (not just a few) of the elements that should center about the Table—the confession of sins to one another, prayer for one another, material and spiritual support for one another, individual and corporate consecration, covenant renewal, corporate discipline, and a solemn community participation in the bread and wine as a mark of unity and means of spiritual blessing. As the crowd gathering around the altar grows, so will the tendency to emphasize one aspect of the multi-faceted eucharistic worship over other aspects. The altar will inevitably lose its significance, intimacy, and efficacy as a means of sanctification.

This small community of 100-250, however, can have its challenges. If a medium congregation (Model 3) or larger church (Model 4) shrinks in size to a smaller community, it can be difficult to the numerically declining church to adjust to a new ministry model. Members will often have a hard time adjusting to a more intimate fellowship and more volunteer-driven ministry. Also, small communities without some relationship to other local churches will often find they lack the critical mass of people necessary to carry out certain types of ministry, often leading to burn-out or weariness by volunteers. Also, a very small church can be marred by a lack of energy and excitement that can stimulate worship and service and motivate outreach and evangelism. This can be especially true when such small communities are in a larger metropolitan area. These challenges are less severe when such churches are part of suburban or rural community.

Model 2: The Mother-Daughter Network. Small to medium churches in a network with qualified on-site pastoral presence in each local church plant. Many growing churches have made the conscious decision to cap the numerical growth of a local church by strategically planting smaller “daughter” churches as evangelism and discipleship begin to cause membership in the church to increase and sprawl. Rather than treating all small groups as interdependent communities under the umbrella of a larger local body, smaller groups serve as seed groups for future church plants. The goal is not to maintain financial and organizational control and oversight (though this is a necessary stage in the cultivation of the daughter church). Rather, the goal is to establish a fully-functioning, self-sustaining small community bearing in itself all of the essential marks and works of a local church. In this case a pulpit/altar-centered worship can be easily maintained in all of its intimacy and efficacy. Usually the daughter churches maintain some kind of formal or informal association with the mother church, and they also usually cooperate with sister churches in the city or region even if there is no denominational structure enforcing such inter-church fellowship.

It should be noted that as larger churches move toward planting daughter churches, they may temporarily pass through Models 3-6 toward that goal. Many daughter churches begin as branch campuses of a multi-site church, with the intention of eventually establishing the site as an autonomous (though not independent) congregation with its own pastoral leadership, pulpit ministry, etc. The difference between a small group in a mega-church or a campus of a multi-site church on the one hand and a daughter church in association with a mother church and its various siblings is whether the congregation has its own local pastoral leadership distinct from the mother church and its own pulpit/preaching ministry.

Of course, the mother-daughter church network presupposes a trajectory of numerical growth from the small community toward a medium-to-large community. Such sustainable growth is not always possible in small towns or rural communities. Also, a mother-daughter church planting strategy requires intentional leadership training over the course of several years. Often numerical growth for churches takes place too quickly to effectively plan and execute the movement from Model 1 to Model 2. Thus, many growing churches understandably choose to (or are forced to) embrace Model 3 instead.

Model 3: The Medium Congregation. Medium congregation of smaller groups with pastoral personnel among the groups for discipleship, accountability, and encouragement. By “medium” I mean churches between 300 and 1000 people. Of course, the larger the church community, the more difficult it is to maintain a meaningfully intimate fellowship of the entire church membership (though intimate relationships can occur in smaller segments of the church’s membership) . While organizational and financial unity can be maintained, intimate community and mutuality among members must take place in subsets of the larger body. The smaller groups within a church variously manifest themselves as home groups, Sunday school classes, fellowship groups, or discipleship groups. A healthy ideal medium congregation strives to be a church of small groups, not a church with small groups. In other words, church membership implies smaller group membership. These smaller groups, then, each under qualified pastoral leadership, carry out the basic functions of the “small church” (Model 1). A generally healthy pulpit/altar-centered worship of the entire congregation can still be maintained, but often at the cost of its intimacy and efficacy, especially with regard to a loss of the Table’s multi-faceted function and significance.

Model 4: The Larger Church. Large multi-service church with voluntary opportunities for intimate community among smaller flocks under qualified pastoral leadership. The challenges toward whole church unity, intimacy, and authenticity that begin to surface in the medium congregation grow more acute in the larger church of between 1000 and 2000 members. Eventually a decision must be made to either build a larger facility or hold two or more services. Planting daughter churches as in Model 2 is usually not part of the larger church’s strategy (though such decisions can still be made). A move from personal pastoral presence to professional executive leadership occurs when trained, ordained leaders usually become disconnected from the congregation. This distancing is not intentional, but accidental. There are simply limits to how many close relationships can be maintained in very large organizations.

In some of the less ideal iterations of the larger church model, actual personal pastoral care is often delegated to lay leaders who may or may not have adequate biblical, theological, and historical training. The pulpit/altar-centered worship suffers under this kind of leadership model as messages may become detached from close relationships with the people and as members of the congregation are distanced from each other. For all practical purposes, multiple services begin to function as distinct congregations. Pastoral presence and intimacy decline, and the Table no longer functions as the obvious point of unity. In some cases, bureaucracy, personnel issues, budget concerns, and facility issues take a considerable amount of time, energy, and especially finances. As such, the direction in which a church decides to move at this stage—either upward toward Model 1 or downward toward Model 7—will often determine the church’s virtually inevitable trajectory.

However, larger churches can manage their growth well when they intentionally foster smaller groups within the larger church body, providing such groups are led by trained (and preferably ordained) qualified pastoral leaders. In such small groups, discipleship, accountability, care, outreach, and other works of the church would take place in ways similar to Model 1. Also, some larger churches may choose to attend to the ordinances in these smaller groups to allow for a more meaningful and frequent observance of baptism and especially the Lord’s Supper. However, all of this requires maximal intentionality and the prioritizing of on-going leadership development and training.

Model 5: The Mega-Church. Large auditorium multi-service campus with opportunities for programmed events and voluntary flocks led by less-qualified lay leaders. The “mega-church” is more of a mentality and methodology than a matter of head-count. However, the financial and facilities resources necessary to maintain the programming usually require at least 2000 people—often many more.

In less ideal versions of the mega-church, the model is sustained by shaping its ministries around an attractional methodology—“If we build it, they will come.” The growth strategy is usually epic—“If too many come, we build bigger.” Those who initially attend a mega-church ministry are often drawn to specific aspects of the church—youth, singles, marrieds, discipleship, worship, special programs, contemporary atmosphere, a well-known pastor, etc. All of these various elements must therefore be maintained to sustain high attendance, which must be sustained to support the high cost of maintaining the various ministry elements. An inescapable circle can develop from which there is no easy escape. Church members may become more deeply assimilated into the life of the church usually through affinity groups, which are joined voluntarily. As such, intersecting circles of social fellowship develop, and these fellowships are almost never structured around a pulpit/altar-centered ministry. Also, this model allows for many attenders or members of the church to be practically severed from discipleship and accountability. For practical purposes, many flourishing mega-churches often find themselves forced to make moves toward the multi-site church (Model 6).

Positively, mega-churches provide excellent opportunities for entry and assimilation. They naturally maintain an energetic atmosphere appealing to people of every generation. Also, as in Models 3, 4, and 5, effective and efficient aspects of mega-church ministries can occur in smaller groups, as long as these are under the care of well-trained, well-experienced pastoral leadership. Though it is possible to handle the large size of a mega-church in ways that do attend to the necessary marks and works of a church, this requires a great amount of intentionality and effort.

Model 6: The Multi-Site Church. Multi-site church campuses with broadcast messages from main campus, local pastoral presence, and voluntary flocks. The multi-site church should not be confused with the early planting stages of the mother-daughter church network (Model 2). In the multi-site mentality, the mother church has no real intention of actually establishing autonomous daughter churches. The sprouts are not church plants but merely branches of the same tree. The multi-site campus is usually a function of three elements: 1) a sprawling church membership scattered throughout a usually metropolitan area (as opposed to a localized community church membership drawn from a neighborhood); 2) a strong devotion and dedication to a well-known, well-loved preacher whose messages become the basis for unity between various campuses; and 3) a willingness to simulcast preaching from the main church or play recorded messages from the preacher as the sole or primary pulpit ministry. One practical motivation for the multi-site campus model may be an unmanageable exponential growth within the mega-church model to the degree that a single location simply cannot sustain multiple services nor accommodate traffic. However, this model can lead to a kind of “branding” in which each branch campus functions as a “franchise.” In my opinion (and in many churches’ experiences), ultimately the multi-site campus approach exacerbates unaddressed problems already inherent in the mega-church model, in which the pulpit becomes increasingly detached from a relationship with the congregation, rendering a generic “message” able to be broadcast to anybody rather than a message crafted for the focused edification of a specific body of believers. It also makes accountability, discipline, and especially a frequent and full-bodied observance of the Lord’s Supper as “one body” less practical, though not impossible. In short, a pulpit/altar-centered worship is not easily maintained in a multi-site worship. To do so requires maximum intentionality and effort.

Since originally writing this essay, I have had many opportunities to engage with leaders of multi-site churches. It seems that some have achieved a kind of balanced approach in which the individual satellite campuses function somewhat like the ministries of Models 3, 4, or 5, though without a local preaching pastor. Others have moved away from a simulcast preacher from the mother campus and have essentially become daughter churches (similar to Model 2), a model sometimes called “multi-church” rather than “multi-site church.” In the last few years we have also seen the intentional reorganizing, forced dismantling, or even scandalous implosion of several large multi-site churches. In light of both my ecclesiological critiques and practical realities observed in multi-site ministries, it is my contention that most multi-site church models are inevitably temporary arrangements that will eventually need to be reorganized. It is not a question of if the model will eventually become unsustainable, but when. This, I believe, is a reality many multi-site churches must consider in advance and prepare for responsibly.

Also, many have read my evaluations of Models 4-6 as fueled by a personal preference for smaller churches and a jealousy of successful large church ministries. This is simply not true. The fact is, even though I attend what would be regarded as a “smaller community” (Model 1), I would personally prefer a larger church and could function quite contentedly in any of the models (except Model 7). Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each has challenges that must be carefully thought-through and addressed. The fact is, I have seen very large, mega-church ministries that do, in fact, handle their “bigness” quite well, maintaining a strong pulpit/altar-centered ministry, membership, accountability, discipleship, and the essential marks and works of the church. Sadly, however, I have seen more churches of this size neglect church membership, accountability, leadership training, and especially a proper observance of the Lord’s Supper.

Model 7: The Remote or Online Church. Self-styled “churches” encouraging remote (radio/television) or online-only experiences with no real pastoral or community presence. Before explaining why this model is unacceptable, I need to clarify that we should not confuse this model with any of the previous models that may have a radio, television, or online ministry. Model 7 is distinct in that these churches encourage the remote or online church experience as a full and sufficient relationship to the church. This is the otherwise acceptable multi-site model (Model 6) radically individualized and taken to an extreme. It completely detaches the pulpit from a real pastoral relationship with a congregation, and it utterly trivializes the biblical, theological, historical, and practical significance of the altar. Neither intimacy nor efficacy characterizes the ministry of the remote or online “church.” The marks and works of the church, if present, are not functional in any significant way. That is, orthodoxy cannot be enforced; order is non-existent; ordinances are detached from authentic community; evangelism has been reduced to a message and detached from baptismal initiation into the community; edification has been reduced to receiving information and having an emotional (or, often, financial) response; and exaltation is strictly individualistic. Though purely online-only churches are currently rare (and will hopefully remain so), many mega-churches and multi-site campus churches have incorporated online-only options into their “made to order” approach to church ministries. (For a more pointed and detailed critique of the online church movement, see my essay, “Rise of the Anti-Church: Online Virtual ‘Church.‘”)

Conclusion

Having surveyed this spectrum of church ministry models, let me make a few closing comments. My overarching question in this essay is: “Which ministry models make it easier to maintain a healthy balance of the essential marks and works of a local church and protect a meaningful pulpit/altar-centered worship?” In answer to this question, it seems the “small church” (Model 1) and “mother-daughter network” (Model 2) have the potential to more closely incarnate the ideal without having to overcome great practical and organizational challenges. The medium congregation (Model 3) is also sustainable, though in my mind it does begin to require some conscious planning and implementation. A consideration of the “larger church” (Model 4), “mega church” (Model 5), and “multi-site church” (Model 6), lead me to issue a few cautions, not so much against these models per se, but against the temptation to neglect the marks and works of the church and a pulpit/altar-centered worship simply because of the logistical and practical challenges involved. It seems to me that as one moves from Models 1 through 6, the need for wise, well-informed, intentional, and consistent attention to the marks and works increases, perhaps exponentially. Church leaders and members need to be aware of these challenges and plan accordingly.

Church Membership as a Covenant Commitment?

Posted on by
In our culture of competing churches, lackluster commitments, and consumer-driven spirituality, the idea of local church membership has suffered greatly. The classic biblical concept of a family’s covenant commitment to a definable body of believers under ordained leadership with a common calling and mutual concern has consequently been treated with skepticism, disbelief, or even contempt. This kind of cavalier treatment of the local church reflects the low commitments we see throughout our culture as marriage vows are shattered, contracts are breached, and promises are broken. However, just as Christians are called to affirm their marriage vows, fulfill their contracts, and keep their promises, we are also expected to fulfill the covenant commitment we make when we publicly join in membership to a local church.

            But what do we mean by “covenant commitment” and how does this affect our understanding of local church membership? The term “covenant” simply means “formal agreement,” “solemn promise,” or “public commitment.” This relates to church membership in two important ways. First, when we describe church membership as a “covenant commitment” to a local community of believers, we are simply saying that by becoming a member of a particular church, we are not simply entering into rights and privileges, but we are assuming certain responsibilities and obligations. Second, a “covenant commitment” is more than simply being committed. I may be committed to abstain from coffee for a week (a purely hypothetical concept, of course!). However, such a commitment becomes a covenant commitment when I publicly confess my commitment before others as a formal promise or solemn vow. In the same way, regular attenders at a church may be “committed” to showing up week after week. But those who have formally entered into membership have made a “covenant commitment” when they publicly affirmed their loyalty to carry out their biblical responsibilities as members of a local body of believers.
            With the general concept of “covenant commitment” defined, let’s look at a few important considerations related to the concept of church membership in the New Testament and why our official entrance into such membership must be viewed as a covenant commitment to a local, definable body of believers.

 Cleaving to the Local Community
When we become members of a local church, we “cleave” to that community with the same kind of solemnity with which we cleave to our spouses or our families.
In Matthew 19:5, the Greek verb kollavw (kollao), refers to the joining in covenant commitment between a husband and wife. Elsewhere it means to enter into a contractual labor agreement, to “hire oneself out” to a master (Luke 15:15). In fact, so close is the relationship described by “cleaving” (kollao), that the term is used to describe the eternal relationship believers have when they join themselves to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17)!
In its ecclesiastical usage, kollao is used with reference to “joining” a local assembly, even if one is already a baptized member of the universal body of Christ. Thus, when Paul traveled to Jerusalem after his miraculous conversion, he “attempted to join (kollao) the disciples” (Acts 9:26). After the church in Jerusalem responded with skepticism, doubting the genuineness of his conversion, Barnabas vouched for Paul before the local leadership of that church, that is, the apostles (Acts 9:27). From that point on, Paul’s relationship is described as “with them,” that is, a member of that community under the headship of the leadership.
Later, as Paul preached the gospel and made disciples, they “joined (kollaomai) him and believed” (Acts 17:34). We know from numerous passages throughout the book of Acts that believing and being baptized were closely associated (Acts 18:8), and that baptism itself was the first step in the life of discipleship (Matt. 28:19). We also know that discipleship involves a formal relationship of master and disciple (2 Pet 3:16). Thus, the idea of officially “joining” or “cleaving” to a particular local congregation of the body of Christ under ordained leadership for the purpose of mutual edification and accountability is quite biblical.


Accountability within the Community

Being a cleaving member of a local church involves an accountability relationship to that particular community that one does not have with any other congregation. This relationship of accountability defines who is “in” the community and who is “out.”

In 1 Corinthians 5:2, Paul commands the local church in Corinth to gather together and remove the unrepentant believer from “among” the church (1 Cor. 5:2). This has come after a proper process of church discipline. Such a removal from “among” the church is only possible if there were clearly-established boundaries of the local community. Just as a company can only fire those who are officially and legally employed, churches can only exercise discipline against those who are officially and covenantally incorporated into membership.
But can we be sure that Paul had in mind a well-defined covenanted community of actual identifiable members? Yes. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 5:13, Paul quotes a phrase from the Old Testament that clearly indicates this: “Purge the evil person from among you” (Deut. 17:7, 12; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24). The Old Testament background illuminates Paul’s intention here. Only those who were covenanted members of Israel were responsible to its laws and therefore accountable to its discipline. That is, those who were circumcised as the sign of the Old Covenant were accountable to keep the whole Law (Gal. 5:3). In the same way, Paul regarded as accountable members those baptized believers who were covenanted to the local community in association with their brothers and sisters in the congregation under ordained leadership.
            In Matthew 18, Jesus outlines a process of church discipline that begins with a private confrontation between one brother and another (Matt. 18:15). If this step fails, the next stage is to bring two or three witnesses (18:16). If this intermediate step does not bring about repentance of the transgressor, the final stage is to take the matter before “the church” (Matt. 18:17), which includes at least the leadership of the church and those who constitute the “assembly” of covenanted believers joined to that local body, accountable to its discipline. Failure to bring about reconciliation at this point leads to an ejection of that member from the local church, as described in 1 Corinthians 5:2 and 13.
            Simply put, without a covenanted submission of believers to one another and to the established leadership, the kind of church discipline described by Jesus and the apostles is simply impossible. Without membership in a community, there could be no ejection from the community. And without a covenant commitment to the community, there could be no charge of a breach of that covenant with the appropriate repercussions that accompany it.
Leadership and Membership in the Community
The fact that leaders are exhorted to take care of the members of their churches demonstrates that they have a God-given responsibility for a particular definable covenant community. Without such a covenant, leaders could not responsibility and legitimately exercise such authority.
In Acts 20:28, Paul addresses the elders from the individual local church in Ephesus with the following charge of pastoral responsibility: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with his own blood.” For such a charge to have any meaning, the leadership would need to be able to identify those who are members of “the flock.” Keeping in mind that Paul is addressing the local church leadership from Ephesus, those leaders would know who was within the scope of their oversight. This “flock” is called the “church,” that is, the local congregation in Ephesus.
            The apostle Peter also echoes this same kind of charge in 1 Peter 5:1–3. The elders in the churches were charged with the responsibility of shepherding (or “pastoring”) “the flock of God,” that is, an identifiable group of individuals for which the leaders were responsible (1 Pet. 5:2). In verse 3, those for whom the elders were responsible are referred to as “those in your charge” (kleros). The term is used with reference to an official, set membership in Acts 1:17, 26; 26:18. Thus, the idea of defined leadership responsibility requires defined membership boundaries and a covenanted relationship of responsibility.
            The establishment of local church leadership began already in the church in Jerusalem, where the apostles themselves served as elders alongside other elders appointed in the Jerusalem church (Acts 8:1; 9:27; 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 1 Pet. 5:1). The establishment of leadership in local churches continued in Paul’s apostolic ministry. During their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders” in every church (Acts 14:23). These elders were responsible for overseeing the community of disciples they made in each location (14:21). The fact that these members of the local church are called “disciples” is significant, as “disciple” indicated a person who was in a formal mentoring relationship. In the case of the local church community, a disciple would be in a relationship of submission to the teaching, training, and mentoring of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). After the ministry of the apostles, the establishment of ordained leadership in each local church was intended to continue. Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).
            The responsibility of the membership of the local church was to live in a relationship of mutual encouragement and support, meeting together consistently (Heb. 10:23). This membership in the local established church also involved a relationship of submission to leadership (Heb. 13:17).   
The Seriousness of the Covenant Commitment
When a person joins a local church community with an established leadership structure and a set membership roster, they are committing to fulfill the biblical calling to that particular family of God. This commitment before God and His people is solemn and serious. It should not be entered into hastily or flippantly, nor should the church leadership and membership accept new members without scrutiny.
Scripture is quite explicit about the seriousness of our commitments as Christians—especially our commitment to build up our local church body. In general, we are to take our human commitments with utmost seriousness. In Galatians 3:15, Paul explained that “even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.” Thus, entering into contracts, covenants, agreements, and promises is serious. As much as it lies within us, we are to keep our commitments without wavering. Paul wrote, “Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ at the same time?” (2 Cor. 1:17). Obviously, the answer is, “As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No.” That is, just as God keeps His promises and covenants with us, we are to keep our promises and covenants with each other (2 Cor. 1:20).
Our reputations as consistent promise-keepers should be such that worldly flakiness and waffling are unheard of among us. This means fulfilling informal agreements, contractual obligations, and covenant commitments. In fact, rather than having to swear oaths by God, the Bible, or our mother’s graves, Christians should have such a high degree of consistent integrity in keeping their commitments that they should simply let their “yes” remain “yes” and their “no” remain “no” (James 5:12).
            Now, applying this general principle of faithfulness to commitments to our local churches, we turn to the expectation of all members of the local body of believers described in 1 Corinthians 3:10–17. Don’t miss the context here! Paul is addressing the local church in Corinth, marred as it was with sin, divisions, and conflict. Nevertheless, he recounted how Paul himself had planted that church, followed by Apollos, who “watered” the plant (1 Cor. 3:6). Paul then likens the body of believers in Corinth to “God’s building” (3:9). As a master builder, Paul laid the foundation of the church in Corinth, the Gospel of Jesus Christ (3:10). After he moved on, others were left behind to continue building up that local body upon that original foundation (3:10–11).
In this context of building up the local body of believers in Corinth, Paul warns that each member must “take care how he builds upon” the foundation (3:10). That is, as individual members of our local church, we are to exercise our gifts to the edification of each other (1 Cor. 12–14). In this sense we can build with either precious, strong, high-quality materials that endure or with poor, weak, low-quality materials that crumble (3:12). Obviously the good quality work in the church will lead to positively building up our brothers and sisters in Christ while low quality work will lead to the church’s deterioration and ultimate destruction. The former will be rewarded, that latter punished (3:13–15). In fact, Paul closes his building analogy for the church in Corinth by likening them to a holy temple: “Do you not know that you [the Greek is plural] are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple” (3:16–17). We must not lose sight of the context here. The “temple” Paul refers to in this passage is neither the universal church nor the individual believer’s body. The temple is the local church in Corinth, the body of believers exhorted to work together to build each other up in the faith.
What does this text teach regarding the seriousness of keeping our commitment to our local church? First, we are to be positively exercising our gifts as well as expending our time, resources, and skills for the building of that holy temple—our local church body in which we are vital members. This is spelled out for us explicitly in 1 Corinthians 12–14. No member of the body can excuse itself from building up the local church.
Second, to either withhold our gifts or to withdraw ourselves from the local body of believers will bring destruction upon the church. If we contribute poor quality to our local church or if we fail to contribute at all, we will fail to build up the body of Christ. Instead, we will contribute to its weakening and ultimately its destruction.
Third, God will destroy those who destroy His local church. In one of the most sobering warnings of the Bible Paul says, “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (1 Cor. 3:17). Think about this in relationship to our commitment to our local church. If I withdraw my time, talents, and treasures from the congregation to which I have obligated myself through membership, I will be directly contributing to its weakening and destruction. On what basis, then, can I expect to avoid the disciplining hand of God? Remember, Paul’s stern warning relates to an individual contributing to the destruction of the local church in Corinth, not to his general behavior as a Christian.
Clearly, breaking our membership commitment to a local church and the brothers and sisters of Christ with whom we have entered into a covenant relationship is serious business. So serious, in fact, that behavior leading to the destruction of the local church will mean “destruction” from the hand of God. These are not my words or my warnings, but the clear teaching of Scripture.
Conclusion
The Bible is clear about formally joining a church community by entering into a covenant commitment to a specific local body. This community then becomes our “spiritual family.” We ought to have extended family relationship with other local churches and other believers outside our local church. This is biblical and healthy. However, our “nuclear family” is the local church in which we have covenanted to build each other up in the faith, to submit to the leadership, and to love and support through good times and bad. Once we have entered into that covenant commitment, we are expected to contribute to the church’s positive growth, building it up with quality work rather than contributing to its destruction.
God is serious about the local church and our committed participation in its life and ministries. We need to strive to be just as serious in our covenant commitment to our local family of God.

The Dating Game (Round Two): Harold Camping’s Imminent (Second) Failed Calculation of Judgment Day

Posted on by
I’ll never forget September 6, 1994. Not because of what happened on that day, but because of what didn’t happen.
That was the day Jesus didn’t Rapture the church.
That was the day that Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, calculated that the Rapture of the church described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 would take place. Though he acknowledged the possibility that he could be wrong, he defended his arguments with passion. After Camping’s failed attempt at playing the “Dating Game,” I lost track of him. I assumed he had simply drifted off into the backwaters of the evangelical fringe as false teachers usually do.
Boy, was I wrong! He and other contenders have reemerged with a vengeance, ready for round two of the Dating Game. This time the date set for the Rapture is May 21, 2011. This time these contenders have provided a simpler calculation for the end of the world—easy to follow, easy to explain, easy to promote. (Also quite easy to refute.) And this time they’re playing the game with billboards in major metropolitan areas to get the word out.
So What’s Supposed to Happen on May 21?
To get a clear picture of what we’re told to expect on May 21, 2011, let me quote from the Family Radio website (http://www.familyradio.com/facts/):

On May 21, 2011 two events will occur. These events could not be more opposite in nature, the one more wonderful than can be imagined; the other more horrific than can be imagined.

A great earthquake will occur the Bible describes it as “such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.” This earthquake will be so powerful it will throw open all graves. The remains of the all the believers who have ever lived will be instantly transformed into glorified spiritual bodies to be forever with God. 

On the other hand the bodies of all unsaved people will be thrown out upon the ground to be shamed. 

The inhabitants who survive this terrible earthquake will exist in a world of horror and chaos beyond description. Each day people will die until October 21, 2011 when God will completely destroy this earth and its surviving inhabitants.

Got that? On May 21 a mega-earthquake will toss the dead from their graves and kick off five months of earthly horror until October 21, 2011, at which time the earth will be demolished. Also on May 21 the believers will be resurrected and raptured, taken to heaven to be with God forever. In other words, these are “front-page,” “special-report,” “we-interrupt-this-program,” “this is not at test” kinds of events. In other words, there will be no question at all whether the players of the Dating Game win or lose.
How the Dating Game Is Played
Like the first round back in 1994, the second round of the Dating Game is doomed to failure. Let me present just a few of the straightforward arguments for the commencement of Judgment Day on May 21, 2011.
First, as odd as it may seem, the argument for May 21 begins with creation and the flood. By analyzing the chronology and genealogies in the Bible, the interpreters have precisely dated the year of creation at 11,013 B.C. The global flood in Genesis 7 is dated at 4990 B.C. This specific dating of the flood is essential to the whole May 21 dating game. In fact, we might say that the strict, detailed, and indisputable chronology of events in the Old Testament may be likened to the field, stage, or board on which the Dating Game is played. Without this precise dating, the whole calculation collapses.
Second, the players also use 2 Peter 3:8 as a key to interpreting the often hidden prophetic meaning of Scripture. Peter wrote, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years” (ESV). With this key in hand, the secrets of Scripture can now be unlocked, because when certain parts of Scripture refer to days, they can now be interpreted as thousands of years! Without this formula of “1=1000,” the whole calculation fails
Third, the date-setters use Genesis 7:4, 10–11 as their prophetic text. With a precise dating of the flood and the prophetic key of 1=1000 firmly in hand, they read these verses not as an historical account of the flood, but as a hidden prophecy of the end of the world: “For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground. . . . And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen. 7:4, 10–11). They read this account as a prophecy of the end of all things—each of the seven days leading up to the flood being seven thousand years from the flood until the end of the world. Without interpreting this historical record as a cryptic prophecy, the whole Dating Game flops.
So, in one publication entitled, “The End of the World Is Almost Here,” the author concludes, “Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. . . . Amazingly, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar of our day” (http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/jd_en.pdf). The math is quite simple. Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year A.D. 2011: 4990 + 2011 – 1 (since there is no year “0”) = 7,000.
So, should we print up some pamphlets, hit the streets, and start proclaiming the end of the world?
Not so fast.  
Cheating at the Dating Game
Each of the three pillars supporting the May 21, 2011 date for Judgment Day is simply ridiculous. First, based on the data given to us in the Bible, it is impossible to date creation and the flood . . . impossible. The reality is that the Old Testament doesn’t intend to give us the precise dating of creation and the flood. In fact, great Bible scholars throughout history who have attempted to work out these dates have always come up with different answers. Nothing like a consensus has ever developed. Rather, the scholars generally agree that Scripture doesn’t give us enough information to date the flood with any degree of certainty. So, the precise dating of the flood at 4990 B.C.—an essential dating for the May 21 calculation—is mere speculation. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
Second, the “1=1000” key to prophecy is also impossible to maintain. In 2 Peter 3:8, Peter is not answering the question, “With what secret key can I decode Old Testament prophecies?” Rather, the question is, “Why has God delayed the judgment for so long? Why hasn’t Christ made good on His promise to return soon?” The answer? From God’s perspective of timelessness, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day! That is, earthly time is completely irrelevant to God. In fact, Peter is paraphrasing Psalm 90:4—“For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” That is, from our finite human perspective a 1000 years feels tedious; for God it is but a moment. Notice that Peter reverses the formula as well—“and a thousand years [is] as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). Therefore, using 2 Peter 3:8 as a key for interpreting a day in the Old Testament as a thousand years is simply wrong. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
Third, the use of Genesis 7:4, 10–11 as a prophecy looking forward to the final conflagration of all things also fails to pass scrutiny. Anybody with sensitivity to the genre and context of this passage can see that nothing in this text warrants these verses to be read as an end-times prophecy. Rather, Genesis 7:4 is simply a one-week count-down to the global flood given to Noah so he would know when to load the Ark. Then verses 10-11 is historical narrative explaining that the flood came just as God had said and giving us the exact time of year the rain began. This is historical narrative, not end-times prophecy. There’s nothing in this text that suggests the chronology of this account is to be taken typologically or prophetically in anticipation of the end of the world. Even if it were legitimate to interpret the seven days until the flood as indicating “seven thousand years” until the final Judgment Day, why, then, are the forty days of rain upon the earth not taken to represent 40,000 years of judgment upon the earth? Wouldn’t that be consistent? The fact remains that this prophetic interpretation of Genesis 7 is simply arbitrary and indefensible. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
To summarize: 1) We cannot date the time of the flood with any degree of accuracy, and 4990 is a wild speculation. 2) The “1=1000” formula is not a key for unlocking prophetic chronology. 3) The historical narrative of Gen. 7:4, 10–11 is not a prophecy of the end times.
The Presumptuous Sin: God Knows and Tells?
Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the entire early church believed that nobody can calculate or know the hour, day, year, or even season of Christ’s return. Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36). To clarify that not even the disciples could have known, Jesus added, “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42). And to underscore the fact that even those who would believe in subsequent generations could not know the time of Christ’s return, Jesus said, “Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come. . . . What I say to you I say to all, ‘Be on the alert’” (Mark 13:33, 37).
Later the apostle Paul reiterated this teaching that nobody knows the day or the hour but that all believers of every generation must remain alert and ready for judgment to come at any moment. He wrote, “Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:1–2). Believers, however, will not be overtaken by the suddenness of this coming (5:4), not because they will know the times, epochs, year, and day, but because they will be ready for Christ’s return regardless of when it occurs! Later the apostle Peter himself echoes this same thought: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief” (2 Pet. 3:10, emphasizing the suddenness of the coming of Christ in judgment.
Finally, an early Christian writing called the Didache (A.D. 50–75), used for instruction of new Gentile believers in Christ, included a brief account of Christian expectations of the end times. The author of that text wrote, “Watch over your life: do not let your lamps go out, and do not be unprepared, but be ready, for you do not know the hour when our Lord is coming” (Didache 16.1). Thus, the pattern of teaching in the early orthodox church was the same as that of Jesus and the apostles: we do not know (and cannot know) the time of Christ’s return. It could happen in their lifetime as well as ours. Therefore, we must be ready for it every day and every moment of our lives.
Yet these facts of Christian faith don’t stop those high-risk gamblers playing the Dating Game. Instead, they suggest that these warnings are for unbelievers, or that God has chosen to progressively illuminate His church to discover the secret knowledge long hidden in Scripture, or they quote passages like Amos 3:7, concluding that God would never suddenly judge the world without adequate warning. They write, “However, the Holy Bible tells us that Holy God is a God of great mercy, compassion and love. That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment. The Bible tells us in Amos 3:7: ‘Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto His servants the prophets’” (http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/jd_en.pdf). There are, of course, a few problems with this, besides the obvious problem of presumptuously ripping this Old Testament verse out of its context and then pitting it against Jesus, Peter, Paul, the early church, and the vast majority of orthodox believers from the first century to the twenty-first century.
First, God’s New Testament prophets, including Jesus, has already given sufficient warning to every generation that Day of the Lord would come suddenly, unannounced “like a thief,” urging believers to be on their guard at all times. Note that this warning is for believers, not unbelievers. He has already fulfilled the principle of Amos 3:7 by telling us to be ready at any moment. This is God’s last warning before the period of judgment begins.
Second, in the classic belief of the earliest church, the unannounced, any-moment commencement of the time of final judgment on earth, which will last seven years (see Rev. 11–13), will be filled with numerous additional warnings, calls to repentance, and opportunities for mercy and salvation. We don’t need a special date-setting revelation today prior to the beginning of that tribulation for Amos 3:7 to be fulfilled quite literally. In fact, the book of Revelation shows us that God’s final seven-year period of judgment will grow in intensity and severity in order to grant people opportunities to repent and be saved.
Finally, the promise of Amos 3:7 refers to God giving a special revelation to His prophets to warn the people of coming judgment. This is different from granting an individual or group special abilities to interpret God’s inspired Scripture in order to calculate the time of Judgment Day. Unless Family Radio and other supporters of the May 21, 2011 date are claiming authoritative divine revelation directly from God, Amos 3:7 does not apply to their flimsy and faulty calculations. 
We’ve Got Some Bigger Problems
Besides the unbiblical and presumptuous nature of playing the Dating Game, there are several very serious theological and practical problems with this latest error of date-setting. In fact, when we consider the theological consequences of the inevitable failed prophecy of May 21, 2011, these problems expose implicit heretical implications.
The Christological Problem. Jesus clearly said that nobody knew the day or hour, not even He Himself in His humbled earthly state, having submitted His power to the will of the Father so that even things He could have by nature miraculously accomplished, He temporarily set aside to accomplish His earthly mission (as in Matt. 26:53). However, the date-setters say that the date of May 21, 2011 is clearly set forth in the Bible in the “prophecy” of Genesis 7:4, 10–11. All one needed to do was to calculate the date of the flood based on the clear testimony of Scripture and follow the “1=1000” principle already revealed in Psalm 90:4. This means that had Jesus simply put two and two together, He should have been able to interpret the Bible and would have known the date. This means that either Jesus didn’t know His Bible as well as Harold Camping and Family Radio or that He couldn’t do the math. That is, if the Father had already revealed this date in the Old Testament, how could Jesus have said that He didn’t know it? In fact, not even angels knew it! How is it that frail and fallible humans today can read and interpret their Bibles better than Jesus Himself? The only solution to this problem that doesn’t make Jesus look like an ignorant buffoon is to face the simple fact that only the Father knows the Day of Judgment and He has not revealed it either in the Bible or to any prophet. Harold Camping, then, is simply a false teacher two twists the Scripture to his own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
The Theological Problem. Jesus is not the only member of the Godhead that ends up slandered by the date-setters. God the Father, who revealed Scripture through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20–21), will also be placed in a bad light when the prophecy of May 21, 2011 fails to come to pass. The simple fact is that Judgment Day will not begin on May 21, 2011. (Note: nobody knows the day, which will come when it is not expected; Family Radio has gone international claiming to know the day; therefore, it will not be May 21, 2011.) However, Family Radio has posted billboards claiming that God has provided clear clues in the inspired, inerrant Word of God that May 21, 2011 is the very day! In fact, they have placed a golden seal on some of their signs that says, “The Bible Guarantees It!” If this is true, then God must fulfill this guarantee. Yet, if these things do not come to pass on May 21, 2011 (and they won’t), then we have two options: 1) God changed His mind, as He did when He threatened judgment against Nineveh through Jonah, or 2) God genuinely threatened to send Judgment Day on May 21, 2011 in order to bring about repentance, knowing all along that He wouldn’t really judge the earth. However, in either case, God becomes a deceptive, untrustworthy, promise-breaking liar. If God, through His Holy Spirit, placed the “guarantee” of Judgment Day for May 21, 2011 in Genesis 7:4, 10–11, and then if He doesn’t fulfill that guarantee, then God is a liar. The only solution to this problem is that God has not, in fact, guaranteed the Judgment Day will fall on May 21, 2011, nor on any other day anybody past, present, or future, might set. Harold Camping, then, is a false teacher, guilty of ignorance and instability (2 Pet. 3:16).
The Practical Problem. Finally, by claiming that “the Bible guarantees” that Judgment Day will begin May 21, 2011, Harold Camping and Family Radio have contributed to the further undermining of the Bible’s perceived authority in our increasingly skeptical and cynical culture. How so? Well, when May 21, 2011 doesn’t pan out, weak believers, unbelievers, skeptics, critics, and scoffers will likely conclude one of two things: 1) Christianity and the Bible are utterly untrustworthy, legitimately leading to the question, “What else does it guarantee that isn’t really true?” Or 2) The Bible is hopelessly ambiguous, because if careful interpreters can read it so wrongly that they can say it “guarantees” Judgment Day on May 21, 2011, then Scripture can apparently be interpreted to say anything people want it to say. In either case, nothing good at all comes from failed date-setting. Rather, those who play the Dating Game make authentic, Bible-believing Christians look bad, as they lump us all together and regard us as misguided, brainless zealots. 
Our Enduring Response
Christians can learn something from yet another failed attempt at pinpointing the time of Christ’s return. We must all make a conscious decision to resist two perennial errors with regard to end-times expectations. First, we must ban, shun, and reject those who play the Dating Game. Setting a date for the return of Christ or some other end-time event(s) is completely unacceptable. It was unacceptable in the first century. It is unacceptable in the twenty-first century. We must exercise a policy of “ZERO TOLERANCE” for this unwise and borderline blasphemous practice.
Second, we must also inoculate ourselves against the much more common disease of “This-is-that-itis,” which is the common practice of interpreting the Bible’s prophecies in light of current events and presumptuously concluding (or at least hypothesizing) that our generation must be the last generation. This was unacceptable in the first century. It is unacceptable in the twenty-first. We simply cannot know the hour, day, week, month, year, decade, or generation. Christ could come in our lifetime. Or He could come in a thousand years.
God only knows.
(And He’s not telling.)