Category Archives: Theology

Is the Virgin Birth Doctrine Really All That Necessary?

Posted on by

How important is it that Christians believe in the virgin birth? This may seem like a strange question, as most reading this probably wouldn’t dream of doubting the miracle of the virgin conception. It’s clearly taught in Scripture (Matt 1:18, 23; Luke 1:34–35), consistently believed throughout church history, and once we’ve accepted miracles like the resurrection of Jesus or the splitting of the Red Sea, it’s really not all that hard to believe that God could pull off a virgin conception. In fact, our understanding of the physiology of human procreation—especially in light of modern developments in reproductive technology—makes the miracle of a mother having a child without a father seem less, well, miraculous.

Nevertheless, the contemporary minimalist focus on things “absolutely essential for salvation” has pushed the virgin birth to the margins of what are often called “primary doctrines.” Now, it’s not that evangelicals are eager to abandon the virgin birth. Rather, almost all retain the doctrine “as is,” but some are now allowing for less conservative (let’s avoid the label “liberal” for now) Christians to redefine the doctrine and still claim to be heaven-bound believers. The argument goes like this: all that’s necessary for salvation is belief that Jesus is God and man who died for our sins and rose from the dead. According to some, that’s the sum of the tightly-packaged “simple gospel message” in the key New Testament passages (Romans 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:1–4). There’s no clear mention of the virgin birth outside the Gospels, and only two of those, Matthew and Luke, bothered to include it. So, some less strict evangelicals, still regarding the doctrine as true, don’t make it an indispensable part of the Gospel message. And if it’s not a necessary part of the Gospel, then it’s not necessary for salvation. At least that’s how the argument tends to unfold with the “minimalist message” approach to the Gospel. For fear of adding too much confusing (or unbelievable?) content, the so-called superfluous elements are stripped away, leaving such secondary items to be handled after initial conversion.

So, three tendencies emerge when dealing with the doctrine of the virgin birth—1) rejecting it (flat out disbelief); 2) redefining it (finding the spiritual meaning of the mythical metaphor); or 3) re-categorizing it (demoting it to a secondary doctrine, true and good, but unnecessary for salvation).

My question to those who reject or redefine the doctrine of the virgin birth is always the same—why? What’s so offensive about the miracle of a virgin conception that would force us to regard it as either a loony legend or a meaningful myth? If a person reads a passage like Matthew 1:18 and says, “That’s ridiculous” or “That can’t possibly mean this,” I wonder what that same person does with the miracle of Christ’s bodily resurrection. (That’s a rhetorical question. I know what they do with it.) I have no patience for this kind of rejection or redefinition of the virgin conception. Those positions have no place within the Christian tradition. Never have, never will.

But is the miracle of the virgin conception of Jesus necessary for orthodox theology? Is it best to re-categorize it from “dogma” to “doctrine”? From “central” to “peripheral”? From “primary” to “secondary”? Often evangelical theologians and pastors argue for retaining the centrality of the virgin conception for a soteriological reason related to the work of Christ—His atoning death on the cross. The argument is that if Jesus had been the natural child of Joseph and Mary, then He would have inherited the stain of Adam’s sin. Jesus would have then been born a sinner who was Himself in need of redemption and therefore unable to pay the price for other sinners. Sounds reasonable enough, doesn’t it? But it assumes that sin and guilt are passed down only through the father’s seed, a doctrine not clearly taught in Scripture.

Another reason often cited for keeping the virgin conception primary is a bibliological reason. The argument goes like this: the Bible clearly teaches the virgin birth of Christ. In fact, it even prophesies the virgin birth in Isaiah 7. So, to deny the virgin birth is to deny the truthfulness of the Bible. And to deny the truthfulness of the Bible leads to potential doubt about everything it teaches. Such doubt undermines what the Bible says about sin, Christ, and salvation. So, every clear doctrine—and especially the virgin birth—becomes a primary issue for the Christian faith. Okay, I get it. But is an unbeliever really expected to believe everything in the Bible before he or she is regenerated by the Spirit? Would we need to convince a person that Peter literally found a coin in a fish’s mouth before we regarded that person’s confession of faith to be genuine? Would we check our new convert’s salvation pulse if she thought the story of Jonah might be a parable? Probably not. Most of us would likely say that a proper understanding of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture comes early in the process of discipleship, not as a pre-requisite for conversion.

Yet there’s more important reason for retaining the centrality of the virgin conception—a christological reason. For me the necessity of the virgin birth relates primarily to the person of Christ—one of the fundamental pillars of the Gospel message itself. You see, the miracle of the virgin conception is not so much a miracle of a woman becoming pregnant without the contribution of a man. There are scientists alive today who could pull that off! The real miracle of the virgin conception is the incarnation of God the Son. The fact is, without the virgin conception, there could be no incarnation. There could be a Jesus of Nazareth possessed by a divine being, but not the God-man, two complete natures in one unique Person. Rather, He would be a complete human person who was adopted by the divine Person, an “indwelled” human being, no different from the way the Holy Spirit indwells a believer in Christ. In short, rejecting the doctrine of the virgin conception results in an adoptionist—not incarnational—christology.

When God the Son took on humanity, He did not adopt a human person. Yes, He took on full humanity—with body and soul, with human mind, human emotion, and human will. But to accomplish true incarnation (rather than adoption), there could be no personhood in the womb apart from incarnation. When the person, Jesus of Nazareth, began to grow in the womb, He had to already be divine and human, two natures in one person. Had Mary become pregnant the natural way, the divine Son would have descended upon a human being who was already a person. This would have resulted in two natures and two persons, the opposite of incarnational Christology. What would have been the result? A radically different Jesus than the One who died and rose again. Paul warns against those who preach “another Jesus” other than the One He preached (2 Corinthians 11:4). A different Jesus quite clearly constitutes a “different gospel, which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6–7).

So, Christians should not only take a stand against rejecting or redefining the doctrine of the virgin conception of Christ. We should resist the trend to re-categorize it as non-essential, or we’ll lose the essential truth of the Gospel—the Person of Jesus Christ, who alone, as fully God and fully man in one Person, is able to accomplish the work of redemption for us.

[Originally posted April 20, 2010 at www.retrochristianity.com]

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 6—EDIFICATION

Posted on by

Having completed our examination of the three essential Marks of Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances, we began a survey of the second pillar of the church’s essential Works with a discussion of Evangelism. In this current essay, the sixth in a seven-part series on the essential Marks and Works of a local church, I want to add the second essential Work of a local church—Edification.

Edification is best defined as “building up” believers in the faith, including teaching, discipleship, the means of sanctification, and discipline. Unlike the Work of evangelism, edification is directed toward the Church, not the world. That is, only those who have been converted to Christ can grow in Him. Edification is included in the second part of Jesus’s command in the Great Commission. The Savior charged the apostles to “go and make disciples, baptizing them [that’s the result of evangelism] . . . and teaching them to observe all I have commanded you [that’s edification]” (Matt 28:19). In the Work of edification, the disciple-maker’s role is to teach and model. The disciple’s role is to learn and follow.

Edification Requires Practical Teaching

As a child I once tried putting my schoolbooks under my pillow at night, hoping that by mystical osmosis the information from the books would pass into my brain and I wouldn’t have to actually study. The result? A stiff neck and a bad grade! Sadly, this is how some Christians live their spiritual lives. They believe that by some mystical, supernatural hocus-pocus the Holy Spirit will simply grow them toward maturity apart from any actual teaching, instruction, or active participation in the life of the church. They think that spiritual growth will “just happen” through their passive presence in a church building for a few hours. Strangely, they spend the other 99% of their week wondering why they’re living a defeated Christian life.

The truth is that we all need to develop an “Ezra” complex. When that great Jewish leader re-discovered the long-lost Scriptures, he “set his heart to study the law of the LORD and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). Did you catch that? Study it . . . practice it . . . teach it. That takes some effort! Oh, and as you work hard at studying and practicing, don’t forget Peter’s stern warning against the “untaught” who “distort” the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Learning God’s Word was never meant to be an “independent study” or “correspondence course.” Rather, God gave teachers to the churches to equip the saints. Ephesians 4:11–13 says, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”

Thus, a major emphasis in a healthy local church must be the unapologetic preaching, teaching, and application of God’s inspired Word. Clearly this aspect of edification requires a robust order of qualified leaders and mentors as well as a clear sense of biblical orthodoxy (see previous essays on these two essential Marks of a church, hyperlinked in the first paragraph above).

Edification Requires Persistent Prayer

If teaching engages the mind of the local church, prayer engages the heart and soul. Without prayer, edification is impossible. Notice what Paul prayed for in Philippians 1:9–11—“And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” What a request! When was the last time you prayed for the edification of your fellow believers in the church? In Ephesians 6:18 Paul urges his readers to “pray at all times in the Spirit” as the essential key to perseverance in the midst of spiritual warfare. In fact, just a brief survey of the book of Acts reveals how vital prayer was for the growth of the infant church (Acts 1:14; 2:42; 3:1; 4:31; 6:4; 10:2; 12:5; etc.).

But Jude most explicitly ties prayer to edification when he writes, “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith [that’s edification!], praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life” (Jude 20–21). Clearly, prayer is the spiritual lifeblood of the local church.

Edification Requires Consistent Discipline

Edification also includes discipline, which we might call the “negative” aspect of applying God’s Word. Sometimes when believers have hardened their hearts against the truths of Scripture, discipline is required, just as a child requires discipline from his parents to learn and grow. Jesus describes in Matthew 18:15–17 how this discipline is to be formally applied in a local church: “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or tax collector.”

The notion of “excommunication” comes from the biblical concept of church discipline. God has charged the leadership of a local church with the task of maintaining proper discipline among the congregation. This includes protecting the sanctity of the ordinances, which may mean preventing unruly saints from participating in the Lord’s Table as the rite of fellowship (see 1 Corinthians 5:9–13). This may seem harsh in our “anything goes” culture, but anything less than proper discipline threatens not only the Work of edification in the local body, but also damages the Marks of order and the ordinances.

Practical teaching. Persistent prayer. Consistent discipline. These things may not be on your list of favorite activities. Taking them seriously might actually mean rearranging your priorities, shuffling your schedules, or renewing your commitments. But only when we devote ourselves to edification of the local church through teaching, prayer, and discipline will we rise above the languishing preference-driven church.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 5—EVANGELISM

Posted on by

So far in this series on the Marks and Works of the church, we explored the first pillar of a faithful and true local church—the Marks of Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances. To maintain a balanced Orthodoxy, we must focus on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in our preaching and teaching, which excludes destructive heresy and allows diversity on non-essentials. To uphold a proper biblical church Order, church leaders (pastor-elders and deacons) must lead with wisdom and humility and the congregation must do the work of the ministry under the shepherding care of the ordained leadership. And to encourage purity and unity of the local body of believers, a church must celebrate the Ordinances of baptism as the rite of initiation into the Christian faith and the Lord’s Supper as the rite of renewal and continued fellowship.

Returning to our diagram, I want to focus on the three elements of the second pillar—the Works of the church. The essential Works of a true local church are those activities in which the church must be engaged for that organized body of believers to carry out its God-given tasks. These Works of the church are Evangelism, Edification, and Exultation. Let’s discuss the first of these three essential Works of the church.

Evangelism Defined

The Greek word euangelizo, from which we get our English word “evangelize,” means to proclaim a good message. Evangelism involves reaching out to unbelievers with the good news (“Gospel”) that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead to bring forgiveness and new life. Evangelism is not directed toward the church, but toward the lost world. Thus, the normal venue for evangelism is not in the worship service (though it may occur here, as in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25). Rather, the most effective evangelism takes place as believers go into the world, live their everyday lives, and share the Gospel in word and deed with those God places in their paths.

The essential Work of Evangelism is most clearly articulated in Matthew 28:19. In the Great Commission Jesus ordered His disciples, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Notice what Jesus doesn’t say here. He doesn’t say “Wait for unbelievers to come” or “Pay some seminary graduate a salary to run an outreach program.” He says, “Go!” He doesn’t say, “Go to other churches and steal their sheep” or “Place ads or hang flyers for a low-key, high-budget, non-offensive outreach event” or “Let your next-door neighbors see your bland, upper-middle-class, moralistic lifestyles and hope they somehow become curious enough about how you spend your Sunday mornings that they ask about how they, too, can be upstanding, right-leaning, well-to-do citizens.” No, He tells His disciples to “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Clearly, Evangelism—with the goal of converting unbelievers to Christ and initiating them into the Christian faith—is an essential Work of the local church. We should never replace it with either ineffective activity or inactivity.

Evangelism and the Marks of the Church

The essential Work of Evangelism is dependent on the biblical Marks of the local church. Evangelism depends on the Mark of Orthodoxy with regard to the content of its message about Christ’s person and work, that is, the Gospel (Romans 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:1–5). If a person engaged in evangelism doesn’t have an orthodox view of the fundamentals of the Gospel, that person may be involved in proselytizing, persuading, or even story-telling, but not evangelism. And a clear understanding of the essential truths of the Christian faith will help clarify our message and keep us from programmed distractions symptomatic of church leaders who don’t have a grasp of the nature and purpose of the church’s basic proclamation.

Second, the Work of Evangelism rests on proper Order in the church. The pastoral elders are to equip the congregation for the work of evangelism. They are to lead by example and to train the members of the church in both orthodox teaching concerning the Gospel and how to share it with others. The teaching elders of the church serve as excellent resources when Christians doing the work of evangelism encounter non-Christian religions, false Christian sects, or difficult questions and challenges from unbelievers. Being able to turn to church leaders who have training and experience in such areas has great value for the church’s work of evangelism. Thus, the leaders of the church play a major role in preparing the church for the work of evangelism (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Finally, the Work of Evangelism is also related to the Mark of Ordinances. Matthew 28:19 says we are to make disciples from among the nations by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Baptism is the act that signifies the end of the evangelism for the new believer and the beginning of the Work of Edification, or growing as a disciple of Christ. Many churches have too long de-emphasized this profound and powerful moment when a person’s inward conviction of faith is expressed through a public act of confession.

Everyone’s an Evangelist

I sometimes hear members of the church say things like “The church needs to do more outreach” or “The church needs to focus more on evangelism” or “The church doesn’t baptize enough new believers.” But if we’re the church, the problem is with us, not some invisible corporate entity called “the church.” If we wait around for our hyper-busy, over-burdened, time-taxed pastors and staff members to do everything we’re supposed to be doing, our churches will die. We sit back and complain that this or that ministry isn’t drawing people to our churches. Or we worry that visitors won’t come back if we don’t offer them such and such amenity. But more often than not the problem isn’t with the ministry, the music, or the media. The problem is with us—the messengers!

Evangelism is not only the work of the gifted and trained “evangelist” or the elders of the church. Evangelism is the work of every believer. Each of us has a sphere of influence among unsaved family members, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances we meet regularly. In fact, church members have more contact with unsaved people than full time church workers! Remember, the role of the leadership of the church is to do the work of the ministry alone, but to equip the saints for the work of service (Ephesians 4:12). If you’re a saint, you’re an evangelist!

The sad reality of church growth in America in general is that few churches grow through the work of evangelism. Most church growth comes from good old fashioned saint-rustling. We think that if they aren’t branded, they’re free for the taking! And even if they are members of another local church, we usually have no qualms about encouraging them to break their covenant commitment to that other community and to join our own. (When will we learn that if they’ll break their commitment to them for us, one day they’ll break their promise to us for somebody else!) Let me challenge all you churches engaged in programmatic sheep-stealing as a means of church growth: are all those flaky church-hoppers really worth it? Do you really want to build your church with weak and wobbly stones already misshapen and set in their ways? You decide.

Church growth today also focuses on peripherals and showmanship rather than on personal evangelism. Why is it that when numbers decline and people don’t come to our church events, we scratch our heads and try to decide what piece of furniture to plant in the lobby, what gimmick to add to the worship service, or what P.R. stunt to pull in order to get people “out there” to notice us? Or how often have we pointed fingers at this or that pastor, worship leader, or staff member and said, “He’s the reason we’re shrinking! Get HIM!” And we start looking for somebody more attractive or more charismatic to wake us from our self-induced spiritual coma. How pathetic. Let’s set the gimmicks aside, call off the posse, and just go back to the ancient, time-tested, fool-proof method of authentic church growth: Evangelism.

Cosmetic modifications to our buildings (or new multi-million-dollar megaplexes!), radical program overhauls, or ministry staff restructuring just won’t do the trick. Those preference-driven changes will never bring the heart transformation most congregations need in order to renew their passion for evangelism and missions. In fact, those external fixes, which are usually extremely expensive, inordinately time-consuming, and exceptionally controversial, mostly distract us from the internal commitment of the church members to rescue the perishing and initiate them into a living, growing community of faith. Until we redirect our time, efforts, and funds to the essential Work of Evangelism, we’ll continue to have a tough time overcoming the diminishing effectiveness of the preference-driven church.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 4—ORDINANCES

Posted on by

So far in this series on the Marks and Works of the church, we explored the first two essential Marks of Orthodoxy and Order. To maintain a balanced Orthodoxy, we must focus on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in our preaching and teaching, which will exclude destructive heresy and allow for diverse views on non-essentials. To uphold a proper biblical church Order, church leaders (pastor-elders and deacons) must lead with wisdom and humility and the congregation must obey and submit to the ordained leadership. But before we move on to the essential Works of a church, we must discuss the third Mark—Ordinances.

A Rare Instance of Radical Advice

Not long ago a young man contacted me with concerns over his church’s apparent teaching and practice of communion. He reported that the pastor of their church taught that the biblical Lord’s Supper was never intended to hold a special place in church worship. Rather, the Lord’s Supper, he said, was any meal that believers enjoyed together. In fact, that Bible Church pastor boldly asserted that the traditional in-church observance of the Lord’s Supper is a “bastardization” of its original intent (these are his words, not mine!). And he added that he partook of the Lord’s Supper three times a day—whenever he broke bread with fellow believers at breakfast, lunch, or dinner!

This radical teaching sounded strange to my friend. And rightly so! All his life he had been taught that the Lord’s Supper was a special, solemn rite of the covenanted church community—an integral and special part of Christian worship. So, unsure of how to handle the situation at his church, he called me for advice. My response to him was simple: confirm that this was really what the pastor taught . . . then leave that “church” and bring as many people with him as he could.

For those of you who know my view on local church commitment, this may sound shocking. I can count on one hand the times in my life I’ve recommended that people actually leave their local churches. (See my essay, “Leaving Church” here.) However, when a church’s leadership intentionally tampers with a foundational Mark of the local church, that organization comes dangerously close to losing its legitimacy as a true biblical church. That “church” may be a teaching ministry, it may be a worship experience, and it may contribute in its own way to the nourishment and growth of believers. But without the essential biblical Marks, that organization is not a living local body of Christ.

Some of you may be scratching your heads, wondering, “What’s the big deal? It’s just the Lord’s Supper. A piece of cracker and a sip of juice—barely a crumb and hardly a swallow!” My response? If you wouldn’t leave your church over a failure to rightly observe the Lord’s Table, you don’t quite understand the essential Mark of Ordinances and the role they play in the sanctification of the church.

My View of the Ordinances

The doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, where I teach church history and systematic theology, says this: “We believe that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only sacraments and ordinances of the church and that they are a Scriptural means of testimony for the church in this age. (Matt. 28:19; Luke 22:19-20; Acts 10:47-48; 16:32-33; 18:7-8; 1 Cor. 11:26).” This brief statement on the essential Mark of Ordinances is striking in what it doesn’t say. It favors neither infant nor believer’s baptism and allows for immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. It permits the Lord’s Supper to be observed weekly, monthly, or annually. In short, besides affirming the enduring quality of the sacraments for the church, this statement allows for a number of diverse beliefs and practices regarding baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

But in light of Scripture and the early church, what more can we say about these essential Ordinances of the church?

Yes, Baptism Now Saves You!

It is undisputed that the New Testament closely relates believing, baptism, and salvation (Mark 16:16; Acts 18:8). As such, water baptism is often associated with receiving the Word, repentance, forgiveness, washing away sins, calling on Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:37–41; 22:16). Indeed, it vividly pictures a cleansed life freed from the debilitating stain of sin (Romans 6:3–4). However, before we jump to the mistaken conclusion that the rite of water baptism itself saves, forgives, or literally washes away sins, we must note that water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished (Acts 1:4–5). In fact, in some cases water baptism precedes baptism by the Spirit (Acts 8:14–16). In other cases Spirit baptism—received by simple faith—precedes water baptism (Acts 10:44–48).

How do we reconcile the Bible’s close connection—but clear distinction—between water baptism (the outward sign) and Spirit baptism (the inward reality)? First Peter 3:21 helps. Peter wrote that “baptism now saves you,” immediately clarifying the kind of rite he had in mind—“not a cleansing of dirt from the flesh [the physical act itself] but a pledge to God from a good conscience.” That is, the rite of water baptism is the public pledge or confession that marks a conscience already cleansed by the Holy Spirit (see Hebrews 9:14; 10:22). Thus, the ceremony of baptism must be closely associated with our conversion to Christ by grace through faith alone—but it should never be equated with it. I think the Westminster Confession of Faith presents a good biblical balance with regard to the association (but not equation) of baptism and conversion: “Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated” (28:5).

In short, water baptism was the exclusive response of faith to the preaching of the Gospel. Though baptism is rightly viewed as an outward sign of an inward reality, the early church would not officially recognize inward faith apart from the outward sign. Just as a public wedding initiates a man and woman into the life of marriage, public baptism initiates a believer into the visible community of Christians. As such, biblical baptism must always precede church membership, discipleship, leadership, and observance of the Lord’s Supper. I believe we deviate from the teachings of Scripture and the practice of the early church if we severely divorce saving conversion from the seal of baptism.

Yes, Christ Is Present in the Eucharist!

The ancient term “eucharist”—already used by Christians for the Lord’s Supper in the first century—comes from the Greek word, eucharistia, which simply means “thanksgiving” (see the first century historical document, Didache 9). In the apostolic age, it referred not simply to the broken bread or the poured wine, but to the observance itself—the celebration, the commemoration, the participation as a community. “Eucharist” at the time of the apostles primarily meant the prayer, confession, and fellowship that centered on re-proclaiming Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection—the Gospel. It included our response of reflection, repentance, reconciliation, and renewal in light of our mark of baptism and our ongoing fellowship with God and with one another.

But what do we mean by the “presence” of Christ in our observance of the Lord’s Supper? Well, here’s what I don’t mean—I don’t mean Christ has magically merged with the bread and wine. I don’t mean His spirit has left His body and descended from heaven and attached itself with the wafer and the juice. Nor am I particularly fond of all of the ancient and modern attempts at explaining how Christ is present in the Eucharist—transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real spiritual presence, and so forth. In my opinion all of these views miss the profundity of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and reduce this Ordinance to a thing.

What I do mean by Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is that in our right observance of the Lord’s Supper He has made good on His promise that “where two or more have gathered together” in His name—that is, according to His will, by His standards, centered on Him—then He is there, in their midst (Matthew 18:20). As we properly partake of the sacred meal He ordained, Christ graces us with His mysterious real presence by means of the Holy Spirit. Simply put, Christ doesn’t simply pass into the morsels; He is truly present at the meal. He’s not simply uniting with the food, but inviting us to fellowship. Furthermore, in a real, physical sense, Christ is present through the gathered Body of Christ, the Church, as it joins together in unity and submission to its Head. This mystical union of Christ with His Church means that where the community is present, so is Christ (see Acts 9:4–5; Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 10:16; 12:12–14; Eph 4:12–13; 5:23).

What, practically, does it mean to you and me that Christ is uniquely present in the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper? Well, think about it this way—when we pray that God will be “with” somebody, we’re actually praying for real, tangible effects, that is, for God to do something. In fact, where God is present, God is active. When we think of Christ’s presence in the observance of the Lord’s Supper, we should worry less about how He is or isn’t lingering in the bread and wine, but what He’s doing in the midst of the people. God has chosen to work through the Lord’s Supper in a way that He works in no other church practice.

One effect of Christ’s active presence is the unity and purity that result from self-examination, proclamation, and participation. In this sense, the Lord’s Supper is a means of sanctification. God has chosen to bring about sanctification of the whole church through the Lord’s Supper in a way that no other individual or corporate discipline can. When we properly observe the Ordinance, we will grow together spiritually as a family of God. However, there’s another side of his promise of participation in the “cup of blessing” (1 Cor 10:16). Failure to partake properly brings judgment in the form of weakness, sickness, and even death (1 Cor 11:29–30)!

Three Needed Responses

First, many independent Bible Church traditions have over-reacted to the Roman Catholic dogma that understands baptism and the eucharist as means of salvation rather than as means God uses in His work of sanctification. As a result, we have spent much of our time emphasizing what baptism and the Lord’s Supper don’t do, all the while neglecting the biblical teaching on what the Ordinances do. It’s time we move on from telling what baptism and the Lord’s Supper aren’t and get back to explaining what they are. We need to return to the biblical centrality of baptism as the ceremony of initiation into the community of faith . . . and the Lord’s Supper as the celebration of continued fellowship. We need to recall the indispensable role these Ordinances play in our spiritual growth as individuals and a church. There’s a reason the early church celebrated the Lord’s Supper weekly: it’s as important to spiritual growth as the apostles’ teaching and prayer (Acts 2:42)!

Second, if you or your children are unbaptized believers, what’s keeping you from taking that initial step of baptism as the public act of initiation and commitment to the Christian community? As you arrange for this act of obedience to Christ, let me urge you to follow the biblical order of the Ordinances, holding off on participation in the Lord’s Supper until you’ve been baptized. This isn’t a light matter. Proper order is a vital part of proper observance. Just as a wedding ceremony frees a man and woman to participate in the intimate act of marriage, baptism publicly confirms a believer’s devotion to Christ, allowing the believer to participate in the intimate fellowship of the Lord’s Supper. From the biblical perspective, participation in the Lord’s Supper without baptism is like shacking up before the wedding!

Finally, if you harbor unresolved conflict with a fellow member of the church or hide unrepentant sin, stop participating in the Lord’s Supper. On the authority of the Bible, if you don’t repent you will become weak, sick, and die. And as long as we as a church continue to practice the Lord’s Supper tolerating unrepentant members, the entire body will continue to suffer as it fails to experience the full blessing that comes from the presence of Christ in the right observance of the Ordinances.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 3—ORDER

Posted on by

In the first article of this series, I outlined a schematic of a local church, without which a church is driven not by biblical Marks (Orthodoxy, Order, Ordinances) and Works (Evangelism, Edification, Exultation), but by cultural forms and pragmatic functions—i.e., personal or community preferences. In the previous article I focused in on the fundamental Mark of Orthodoxy, suggesting that we must be clear in what orthodoxy 1) includes (fundamentals of the faith), excludes (heretical false teachings), and allows (diversity of views on non-essentials). In this article I will explore the second vital Mark of a local church: Order, or the relationship between church leadership and the congregation.

From Orthodoxy to Order

The primary responsibility of church leadership is to safeguard the essential Marks and Works of the church, especially the foundational Mark of Orthodoxy. Paul sought to prevent the danger of heresy when he told Timothy, the pastor in Ephesus, “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). Paul earlier described the leadership in Ephesus as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, who were uniquely responsible “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11–12). Though the offices of apostles and prophets ceased in the first century, the other offices of evangelists, pastors, and teachers were to endure until the church arrives at unity, maturity, and doctrinal stability (4:13–14)—that is, in every generation since the first century. So, the idea of gifted leaders doing the local church work of proclamation (evangelists), shepherding (pastors), and instruction (teachers) is not a man-made concept. The Holy Spirit called such men to specially-ordained offices of the church for the purpose of protecting and promoting orthodox belief and practice. And Paul’s instruction in 2 Timothy 2:2 indicates that the offices were to have a permanent quality.

In fact, Clement—a contemporary of the apostles and later the pastor of Rome around A.D. 96—recalled the establishment of this order by the apostles that remained in his own day: “The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Having therefore received their orders . . . . they [the apostles] appointed the first-fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be overseers and deacons of those who should afterwards believe” (1 Clement 42:3–4). Later Clement wrote, “Our apostles also knew . . . that there would be strife on account of the office of the overseer. For this reason . . . they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry” (1 Clement 44:1–2). Just a few years later (A.D. 110), the aged pastor of Antioch and personal acquaintance of the apostles said of the ordained pastor, elders, and deacons in a local congregation: “Apart from these, there is no church” (Ignatius, Trallians 3.1). This is what we mean by the essential Mark of Order—that leadership established by the apostles intended to continue on to our own day.

Church Leadership

Through the apostles God has established an order of leaders to shepherd, train, and exhort believers. Around A.D. 58, the apostle Paul made a brief stop in Miletus where “he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). There he gave that specific group of officials the following charge: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). From Acts 20 we see the convergence of three key terms that identity the same body of leadership: presbyeroi (elders), episkopoi (overseers), and poimaino (to pastor or shepherd). At this early stage in the development of local church order, “elders” and “overseers” were interchangeable terms, and these officers of the church were responsible for pastoral leadership. When we read in Ephesians 4 of those men given to the church as “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers,” Paul was referring to the elders of that church. About five years later the apostle Peter also used the same united trio of titles—elders-overeers-pastors—indicating that these various responsibilities rested within the same group of leaders in the churches (1 Peter 5:1–2).

As this apostolic order matured, a presiding elder, known as the “overseer” emerged as the prime among equals. Timothy and Titus were early representatives of this office, as were the “messengers” (angelos) of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2–3. It’s also possible that the “evangelists” (euangelistes) of Ephesians 4:11 identified this office in the local church. Equivalent to our modern day “senior pastor,” he was to lead the counsel of elders, who themselves were responsible for the preaching, teaching, and pastoring ministries of the church. So, in the biblical and early church order, all pastors were elders, and there were no elders who were not ordained, gifted, trained, and qualified men who were actively engaged in the pastoral and teaching work of the church.

Working under the authority of the ordained elders (preachers, pastors, and teachers), the deacons assisted in the work of the ministry (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8–13). These leaders were responsible for more than merely temporal affairs of the church. They ministered as junior leaders in whatever capacity was necessary, including the administration of the ordinances under the authority of the elders.

Neither Anarchy nor Democracy

The Bible’s description—read in light of the actual situation in the ancient church—presents a clear picture of the apostles’ established church order. The official ordained group of “pastors-overseers-elders” were in charge of teaching, preaching, shepherding (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1–2). Some—but not all—elders were paid (1 Timothy 5:17). But all of the pastors were elders. There is no biblical or historical justification for separating elders and pastors.

The biblical church order makes it clear that the church is not an anarchy, an assembly without clearly-defined leadership. In fact, God never established any secular or sacred institution that lacked clear order. From human government (Romans 13:1) to the family (Ephesians 5:22) . . . from Israel (Exodus 22:28) to the church (Titus 1:5)—God’s institutions reflects order. Even within Triune equality, God the Father functions as the head, sending the Son and the Spirit into the world (John 14:16–17; Galatians 4:4, 6; 1 Corinthians 11:3). A groups of Christians without ordained leadership is not a church.

Neither is the church a democracy, in which final authority over the shepherds is distributed among the flock. I’m reminded of the Latin words engraved above the House Chamber of the Minnesota capitol: VOX POPULI, VOX DEI—“The Voice of the People is the Voice of God.” Unfortunately, many Christians believe this is how God leads the church—by majority rule. But not if the Bible has the final say! God intends that the local church have ordained leadership. The elders—a term synonymous with pastors and overseers—were to be the leaders of the church, to shepherd the flock as servant-leaders, yes, but as leaders nonetheless.

Some of you may be thinking, “Doesn’t this kind of elder authority rest decision-making in a select few—the pastors and teachers of the church?” Yes. This is the counter-cultural teaching of Scripture. To be sure, the covenanted members are to be involved in ministry as the Lord gifted each one (see 1 Cor 12—14; Eph 4). However, their primary relationship to the appointed elders was to submit without grumbling or complaining.

Now that’s a word Americans hate: submit. In a nation birthed in rebellion, the suggestion of submission to our human leaders sends chills up our spines. Yet Scripture is clear. The congregation was to pray for, support, and follow the leadership of the ordained pastors (Hebrews 13:7, 17). When we read the Bible in its historical context, letting it say what it says (and not what we want it to say!), then there’s nothing ambiguous, nuanced, or complex about this. Submit. Obey.

Anticipating objections, though, the writer of Hebrews adds the fact that elders will “give account for their work” to God. We often forget that since God is sovereign and Christ is the head of the Church, every elder is under the headship of God and Christ. Instead, we think they are under our headship and try to turn God’s order upside down. We treat elders like our representatives, as if they were supposed to be moved and molded by the whims of the masses or champion the agendas of their “constituents” (again, Vox Populi rears its ugly head).

In other words, both the ordained elders (pastors and teachers) and the covenanted members (congregation) each have their biblical roles and responsibilities. Leaders shouldn’t abdicate . . . and members shouldn’t usurp. Leaders should pastor . . . and members should submit. Only when we align ourselves closer to the biblical Mark of Order—and not our own personal opinions—can we move beyond the preference-driven church.