the Good Question

Last week, I posted an article entitled "Organic Community in Hebrews 10:25," which was a continuation of a discussion I have been a part of that began on Mudsy's blog, Alternative Church, and has centered around Jeff Rhodes blog, Chaordic Journey. (Mudsy has since commented on the discussion via "Striking a Chord.")

My article last week was largely a direct quote of my comments on Jeff's first post in the discussion, and what follows is a revised version of my comments from his second post.

Jeff said,

I feel that much of what is done in institutional churches is shrouded in so much tradition and formalism that Jesus can and has often been snuffed out. This may not be the case in all situations, but I feel that it IS so in MOST cases. Quite often, many of the activities, programs, systems, structures, etc. only serve as a distraction from intimacy in our "one another" relationships and our relationship with Jesus....

This does not mean the same thing can’t or doesn’t happen in "house" churches. In fact, it does. The location of the gathering is quite irrelevant to me. What defines an "organic" church is not the location or even the size of the gathering, but rather what happens in the gathering and in the lives of those who gather every other moment they live.

In other words, "organic" church is not so much about meetings as it is a way of living everyday as a part of a dynamic community of believers who seek to passionately follow the Way of Jesus in all that they do.... It is about the life and vitality of Jesus breaking into our reality everyday. It is about God’s will and activity in heaven coming into our world through us and in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think maybe the best place in Scripture which captivates the idea of "organic" church is Hebrews 10:23-25.

All of this gets us thinking about two questions: "What makes a particular community of believers organic?" and "How can an organization or group of people become an organic community?" I choose to answer those questions by reflecting on what I call "the Central Formative Principle¹ of an organization."

What is the Central Formative Principle of the gatherings of the people in your organization (i.e. church)? The Central Formative Principle of an organization is that principle that, above all others, is the most influential in its model, format, program, schedule, and practical values.

For example, if your Central Formative Principle is education, then you might meet like a typical institutional church, wherein the central-most thing is the teaching, and so the people sit facing forward, the way the schedule is oriented shows that education is primary, the service or meeting is programmed in such a way that perhaps almost all attention is given toward education, and the people are by-and-large passive recipients of educational learning. The immediate goal, organizationally speaking, is learning. The problem with this is that authentic community is not a function of education. So, you can be a part of such an organization and have all kinds of great teaching and never function in genuine community—never have any real depth in your relationships. The weekly calendar is filled mostly with opportunities that are educational, but very few opportunities for the community to flourish and function in honesty and grace as a whole, and therefore, if people are going to nourish the community, they have to do so outside of the weekly schedule and structure, rather than through them. And let’s face it: that rarely happens.

[Two more examples² of common Central Formative Principles of churches come immediately to mind. See footnote two for those.]

When the CFP is education, the organization becomes shaky when the teaching is repetitive or has poor style, and the people are prone to dry intellectualism, "always learning but never able to come to an intimate knowledge of the Truth"—what T.S. Eliot once said becomes true of them: "We know too much, and are convinced of too little."

But, if the Central Formative Principle is authentic, vibrant, and holistic community, then the people will get education. Why? Because community is not a function of education, but education is a function of community. Education is not the centroid—community is—but education is in orbit. Education is present, but so is confession, accountability, fellowship, discipling, encouragement, prayer, social grace, the mission, personal experience with God, and all the other things necessary for a lively New Testament fellowship of Jesus-followers (and as an added bonus, the people aren't likely to be bored—but that's not the point). Of course, you can find all kinds of groups wherein the CFP is just "community for the sake of community" and not find education or many of the other important qualities, but if this is the case, then it is a crippled community (and effectively a social club), and not an authentic and holistic community focused on Jesus and His mission in the world.

The reason I bring this up is three-fold: 1) to show that it is possible, though difficult, to reform an institutional church into an organic church by recovering a Biblical Central Formative Principle, 2) to show that it is impossible to reform an institutional church into an organic church unless the Central Formative Principle changes (please withhold judgment for just a moment, I’ll qualify this below), and 3) to cause anyone reading this to reflect upon how the church or community of believers they are a part of is organized and whether it results in the maximum potential for a Bible community to glorify God through the transformation of lives.

As to point 2, when an institutional church realigns its CFP with community in the place of education or entertainment, it is not absolutely necessary for it to give up meeting in a church building with pews or to give up a lectural sermon. What is absolutely necessary is for the church to drastically change how it otherwise stimulates and elevates the other functions of community to nurture a more wholesome, unified, intentional, grace-oriented, prayer-saturated, and obedient body of believers.

Again, I’ll quote two of my favorite sayings: "Your systems are perfectly designed to produce the results they are getting." (Frederick Taylor) and "Radical changes require radical choices." (Or, for those of you who may be uncomfortable with my choice of words: "Drastic changes require drastic choices.")³

Your thoughts, in continuing this discussion, are greatly valued.

-dave

¹  The basic concept I picked up from somewhere in the first half of Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity. The term "Central Formative Principle," used in this way, is original to me so far as I have been able to determine. [RETURN]

²  If your Central Formative Principle is entertainment, then the main idea is to get together to feel good and not be bored. So, again, your organization is liable to meet in a face-forward style of architecture and seating, with a passive audience and individualistic bent, the calendar emphasizes entertainment, and the people get restless without constant preoccupation. One of the several problems with this is that community is not a function of entertainment either. And you can be an active part in this sort of organization and have no effective level of community.

If your Central Formative Principle is personal experience, then individualistic spiritual or emotional highs will be the ultimate goal, as can be the case in some loose charismatic gatherings. The problem, again, is that community is not a function of personal experience, but personal experience can certainly be a function of community. Individual experiences with God can take place outside of the context of community, but there are experiences with God that can only take place in the context of authentic community.

When the CFP is entertainment, the whole organization quickly erodes when the programs that are provided fail to give them something fresh, exciting, and polished.

When the CFP is personal experience, the organization can become self-obsessed or complacently introverted, overly high on individual expression, and low on confession and social grace. [RETURN]

³  To challenge whoever may be reading, what follows is a short list of quotations that I thought might be appropriate after reading this discussion:

• "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different result." (Albert Einstein)
• "The good is the enemy of the best."
• "You might have a vision for your life, but a vision without a plan is just wishful thinking." (Graham Cooke)
• "Let me beg you, not to rest contented with the commonplace religion that is now so prevalent." (Adoniram Judson)
• "I have been thirty years forming my own views; and, in the course of this time, some of my hills have sunk, and some of my valleys have risen: but, how unreasonable within me to expect all this should take place in another person; and that, in the course of a year or two." (John Newton)
• "God assumes full responsibility for your obedience to Him…. That eliminates all reasons to be afraid." (Charles Stanley)

Labels: church, churchplanting, community, first-century thinking, house church, ministry, organic church, radical change, simple church

Since my laptop fried, it's been a little difficult to get everything done that I've wanted to do. Nevertheless, here are some of the MP3 messages to expect in the Audio Archives in the future: a seven-message series from Alan Hirsch on "The Forgotten Ways", another series, featuring Wolfgang Simson, on organic church, a message on suffering and character development from Graham Cooke, Larry Crabb on developing spiritual community, and Dennis McCallum on cultivating a tender heart. You will enjoy these messages greatly.

Labels: blogging, theGoodQuestion.com

I've recently been following an interesting discussion (here, here, and here) on organic church and community over at my friend Jeff Rhodes' blog: Chaordic Journey.

It all started with a couple of posts (here and here) on Hebrews 10:25 by Mudsy over at Alternate Church. [UPDATE: Mudsy has also since mused over the discussion thus-far with her article "Striking a Chord."]

Mudsy said,

I began to study Hebrews 10:25 with passion. What first hit me was what it did not say:

• It didn’t say be sure to go to church every Sunday
• It didn’t say be sure that you gather in a specially designed building
• It didn’t say be sure you join an institution
• It didn’t say gather in one place around one primary leader
• It didn’t say make sure you hear a 1-hour sermon every week (or a 40-minute one, or a 30-minute one)
• It didn’t even say how often to meet.

....These verses imply a number of things about the purpose [of] Christian community. Here are a few, I see:

• To draw near to God
• To experience forgiveness
• To help each other hold fast and to not waver in our faith
• To spur each other on to love and good deeds
• To encourage each other

....I began to view "church" differently. Sometimes, I would be really tired on Sunday mornings, and would not feel up for going. I would feel the old indoctrination pulling at me saying: you really should go....

Anyway, when the "should" came into my mind, a simple question would come each time in response: "Have you forsaken gathering together with other people of faith?" Each time I heard this question, I realized I had, in fact, not forsaken Christian community (usually I was so tired because I had been to numerous gatherings with other believers all week). Further the question itself revealed to me that it wasn’t the joy of community that was drawing me to the Sunday morning service, but a sense of religious obligation.

Please understand, I am not "anti-Sunday-morning". I am only saying that whatever day we meet together our purpose should be to encourage and strengthen each other, and if we are doing something that doesn’t do that, then we’re not really doing "church" (which means "gathering") according to Hebrews 10:25. I’m also saying there really is nothing sacred about meeting on Sunday morning per se, unless it’s sacred to you.

Later in the discussion, Jeff commented:

This particular article caught my attention because it so closely resembles so many stories I have heard over the last few years and that of my own. Sometimes these stories are told with fists clinched and teeth grinding. Sometimes they are recounted with tears and great humility. Often, they are told with great pain and disillusionment. No matter, I think we should all listen to these cries. There is a prophetic voice ringing loud that something in our Americanized Christianity has gone awry. We have, over the course of time, drifted from the Center, which is Jesus. We have become comfortable with attending meetings, planning programs, arguing about music and clothing, tearing particular traditions apart, emerging, missionalizing, forgetting the masses who are not concerned with our petty arguments, and pretty much ignoring how to do life with one another.

As a result, much of what we do as Christians has become quite irreverant and irrelevant to those who do not yet know the God we claim to love. They see more hate and bitterness than the love that Jesus said would show people that we know Him.

Please understand, I do not mean to imply that "house" or "organic" churches are THE answer to all of our problems. I am not saying that everyone should leave and forsake the institutional church. In fact, I haven’t really heard anyone saying that. The point of this growing conversation is to cause us to really think about what we do and why we do it.

When I came across this discussion on Jeff's blog, I had been thinking about Hebrews 10:25 for two or three months. I think I was talking with someone about the principle of organic church when it dawned on me, much like it did with Mudsy, that the spirit of 10:25 isn’t that we make sure that we just so happen to be in the same place as a bunch of other Christians, nor even that we just so happen to listen to the same sermon at the same time in the same place as other Christians. The point is that we make sure that we actively involve ourselves in authentic Christian community.

We can attend all kinds of meetings and services if we want and never be involved in authentic community. Most church people do.

So, what often happens is that people think, consciously or emotionally, "If I don’t go to church today, I will get dukie points with God, because I’ll be disobeying that verse the preacher quoted the other week." And so, they go, maybe chat a little, leave, and maybe, just maybe, even go out to eat with someone, and never experience any depth of community. So, despite their intent, they totally miss the point of Heb. 10:25 anyway. Friendship is not the same as community. Having Christian friends does not necessarily mean that you are involved in authentic Christian community with your friends.

Furthermore, it's not enough that Jesus is the subject of conversation. Being actively engaged in genuine Gospel community with fellow followers of Jesus means, yes, that we discuss Jesus and His kingdom, but also that we confess our sins, receive accountability (much more active, effective, and relational than mere "church discipline"), provoke each other "to love and to do good deeds" (to embody the Gospel, to be "on mission"), encourage each other and draw each other closer to God with joy and passion for His glory, and act as a functional part of the Body in all the various ways that the Body functions (think APEST).

And if you aren’t a part of this kind of community, then you aren’t living out the fullness of Jesus’ ecclesia and global strategy. You must endeavor to pray and seek out or start a community of this kind.

It is only an empowered, grace-oriented, intentional, missional, organic, relational, de-centralized, simple, humble, radically obedient, and passionate community with mountain-moving faith in the power, wisdom, character, providence, and supremacy of God that can change the world and finish the Great Commission as Jesus intended.

There is no room for pride because there is no perfection in human community (prior to the coming of the Kingdom in its fullness), but God forgive us if we aren’t actively striving for these things to be true in our lives and within our influence!

It is possible to be "missional, organic, relational, de-centralized, simple" and meet in a "church building." But if so, then such a church is not institutional, even though it is also not a house church. It is, however, my opinion that this is a very difficult thing to pull off in our Western church-culture. I have not often seen it.

Radical changes require radical choices. The problem is, every American Christian seems to admit "something needs to change," but then a large majority of them also say "but we don’t want to change anything."

My initial suggestion: substantial prayer with other believers. If you aren’t comfortable switching to a more house-church or cell-church model. That’s fine. But whatever you do, you have to enact some changes to see some spiritual change. The business maxim is true: "Your systems are perfectly designed to produce the results they are getting." So, if you want to see different fruit in your life and in your church, you can’t just expect business-as-usual to produce them. Pray a LOT with other followers of Jesus (hours every week), read whole books of the Bible in community (Colossians, for example, usually takes less than 15 minutes), then obey what you read as if Jesus were returning next week, and see if things don’t begin to change.

Labels: accountability, APEST (five-fold ministry), church, churchplanting, community, discipling, first-century thinking, house church, ministry, organic church, radical change, simple church

What follows is an article written in the April 2001 issue of Virtue magazine by musician, writer, and theologian Michael Card. This article was introduced to me by John Piper. Enjoy.

One day Joseph, who was walking along one of these hot, dirty African roads, met someone who shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with him. Then and there he accepted Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. The power of the Spirit began transforming his life; he was filled with such excitement and joy that the first thing he wanted to do was return to his own village and share that same Good News with the members of his local tribe.
Joseph began going from door-to-door, telling everyone he met about the Cross of Jesus and the salvation it offered, expecting to see their faces light up the way his had. To his amazement the villagers not only didn’t care, they became violent. The men of the village seized him and held him to the ground while the women beat him with strands of barbed wire. He was dragged from the village and left to die alone in the bush.
Joseph somehow managed to crawl to a waterhole, and there, after days of passing in and out of consciousness, found the strength to get up. He wondered about the hostile reception he had received from people he had known all his life. He decided he must have left something out or told the story of Jesus incorrectly. After rehearsing the message he had first heard, he decided to go back and share his faith once more.
Joseph limped into the circle of huts and began to proclaim Jesus. 'He died for you, so that you might find forgiveness and come to know the living God,' he pleaded. Again he was grabbed by the men of the village and held while the women beat him reopening wounds that had just begun to heal. Once more they dragged him unconscious from the village and left him to die.
To have survived the first beating was truly remarkable. To live through the second was a miracle. Again, days later, Joseph awoke in the wilderness, bruised, scarred—and determined to go back.
He returned to the small village and this time, they attacked him before he had a chance to open his mouth. As they flogged him for the third and probably the last time, he again spoke to them of Jesus Christ, the Lord. Before he passed out, the last thing he saw was that the women who were beating him began to weep.
This time he awoke in his own bed. The ones who had so severely beaten him were now trying to save his life and nurse him back to health. The entire village had come to Christ.
(Michael Card, "Wounded in the House of Friends," Virtue [March/April 1991], pp. 28-29, 69.)

There are some people in this world who will not turn to Christ until they witness a believer suffering—suffering without regret or malice, for the Gospel of our matchless Jesus. Our suffering for him is a parable of love that tells of the love of God for poor humanity, the "monsters of iniquity" (Paris Reidhead) that we are. So, don't waste your suffering.

And even when we don't suffer for the Gospel explicitly, our times of pain and trouble are the best opportunities we have in this life to show what Jesus means to us. That's when people will stand up and notice that we don't hope the same hopeless hopes they hope—{grin}. It is then they will ask "of the hope that lies within us" (1 Peter 3:15). What hope is there to hope for when you are full and clothed and comfortable and know exactly where the money for this month's rent will come from? You have no reason to hope for anything—at least, that's what they think.

But when you're vomiting from the chemo or giving your mother's eulogy or being beaten for your faith, you have an amazing opportunity to show just how precious and valuable and sufficient Jesus is to you.

Think back on those early days when you first learned about Christ. Remember how you remained faithful even though it meant terrible suffering. Sometimes you were exposed to public ridicule and were beaten, and sometimes you helped others who were suffering the same things. You suffered along with those who were thrown into jail, and when all you owned was taken from you, you accepted it with joy. You knew there were better things waiting for you that will last forever. So do not throw away this confident trust in the Lord.
(Hebrews 10:32-35a)

Labels: conflict, evangelism, suffering, the unwasted life, The Upside-Down Way

No doubt that many of you have noticed that there has been a major overhaul of the design and function of theGoodQuestion.com. My blog and the Audio Archives are already up in the current format. The other blogs may be ported as well, but they will no longer be a main focus of the site, mainly because none of them have been maintained and I haven't heard back from any of the new blogger candidates. The survey and evangelism section will likely be made available at a later date, when I have the time.

This new format is much simpler for me to maintain, which means that I don't have to worry about spending as much time with making sure everything operates correctly. That applies directly to you, the reader, because one of the main reasons I haven't posted very frequently thus-far is due to all the extraneous maintenance that the old format required of me. Just thinking about it sucked dry all my enthusiasm, like a Dementor hovering over my lifeless, twitching corpse. (Okay, so maybe it wasn't that bad.) Anyway, now I can focus much more on writing.

Plus, I think this new design is more pleasing to the eye. There are some small style and readability issues that I will be addressing shortly, but all-in-all the port of theGoodQuestion.com to a new template was very successful.

Kudos to Phu Ly and Gecko & Fly for designing and providing this nice template, so I didn't have to.

Labels: blogging, theGoodQuestion.com

Hey all. I just wanted you to know that I have just updated the Audio Archives section of theGoodQuestion.com. I added 23 posts, including 46—yes fourty-six—individuals audio messages (there are several series). Be sure to check them out. And for a quick search through the Archives, you can click on "Categories" on the menu to your left and select the subject of the message you would like to find.

The messages include sermons from Tim Keller, John Piper, Floyd McClung, and more, as well as an entire 20-part podcast series from David Garrison on Church Planting Movements.

Labels: blogging, theGoodQuestion.com

WARNING:  If you understand the following, then you are at least as much of a nerd as I am. But fear not, oh geeky one! I have discovered how to discuss theology in computer languages! What follows is a JavaScript devotional on the subject of faith:

<html>
    <head>
        <script language="javascript"><!--

            function processfaith(object){

                var f = self.present.faith;
                var e = self.present.experience;
                var t = object.trustworthiness;
                t = object.ability + object.character;

                while(e){
                    if(f<t && e>f){
                        f=f+(e-f);
                    }
                    else if(f<t && e<f){
                        f=f-(f-e);
                    }
                }
            }
        // -->
        </script>
    </head>
    <body>
        <a href="javascript:processfaith(God);">Increase your faith in God here.</a><br />
        <a href="javascript:processfaith(self);">Decrease your faith in self here.</a>
    </body>
</html>

Nerds! If you have successfully parsed the faith equation, leave a comment to stand for all ages as a monument to your abounding nerdity.

Labels: faith, translation

While doing some reading on Five-Point Calvinism for a possible future series of articles, I read the following on the subject of Total Depravity. On the first read, I didn't catch the problem, but there was something that just didn't seem right to me. I went back and perused the context of Romans 14. Here is what the article said:

• Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace.
  The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity.
  (John Piper & Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff, "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism", revised March 1998, source)^*

Let's not look at whether Piper's points are correct yet. Let's just decide whether the passage he cites does in fact teach these points. Don't think I'm nitpicking. The points Piper is trying to make are very critical ones. Whether they stand or fall will make a significant impact on our theology one way or another. So, ensuring that these points have a Biblical basis is very important no matter where you stand on the issue.

Upon reading Romans 14, one will discover that Paul is not using the term "faith" in the sense of "saving faith" in this passage at all. He is discussing sins of the conscience and referring to personal convictions. Verse 23 and the two preceding verses read as follows:

• It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
  (Romans 14:21-23 ESV)

The New Living Translation, Second Edition, renders the same passage in this way:

• It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. You may believe there's nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don't feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right. But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
  (Romans 14:21-23)

Remember that "faith" (pistis) in the New Testament can refer to intellectual belief, moral conviction, reliance, trust, or a system of belief (only with the direct article "the"). Ouk ek pisteos (οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως) is often rendered "not from faith" and is functionally equivalent to "from doubt." Therefore, pan de ho ouk ek pisteos hamartia estin (πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν) can be translated, "furthermore, all which is from doubt is sin." The phrase ouk ek (οὐκ ἐκ) ("not from" or "not out of") can also mean "against." The Greek word pistis can be translated any one of the following English words, depending on the context: faith, reliance, assurance, belief, or conviction, among others. In other words, Paul is saying, "everything that is done against moral conviction is sin" or "everything you do that is against what you believe is sin."

Robertson agrees: "Faith (pistis) here is subjective, one's strong conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience." The Contemporary English Version (CEV) has it, "anything you do against your beliefs is sin." And Eugene Peterson paraphrases it, "If the way you live isn't consistent with what you believe, then it's wrong."

John Calvin even commented on Romans 14:23:

• The word faith is to be taken here for a fixed persuasion of the mind, or, so to speak, for a firm assurance, and not that of any kind, but what is derived from the truth of God.
  (John Calvin, "Commentary on Romans", source)

A good summary of what Paul is saying might be: "In these morally-ambiguous sort of issues, follow your conscience. If you believe it is wrong according to God to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, then don't, because though it may not actually be sin, you are sinning by your intention to commit what you do believe is sin."

While Bethlehem Baptist's statement indicates that "faith" in Romans 14:23 is referring to "a heart humbly relying on God's grace," the context doesn't support that interpretation. The points Piper and Bethlehem Baptist are trying to make could be true, but we would never know from this passage. Interpreting Romans 14:23 in this way is going beyond Paul's authorial intent—something of which we've all been guilty with one scripture or another.

Another man attempted to take Piper's first point using this text and take it to a logical conclusion. He wrote,

• Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." If you are not a believer in Christ, everything you do is sin. Going to church is sin, being kind to your room mate is sin, being honest is sin, coming to Campus Crusade for Christ is sin, its all sin! Everything is sin!
  (Dustin Shramek, "The Supremacy of God in the Depravity of Man", source)

Is that true? Is everything sin? Is being honest sin? No. That statement is exactly the opposite of the Ninth Commandment. Isn't that silly? Now, you can have a motive that is wrong while telling the truth (such as, hoping for another's unjust downfall), but the honesty itself is not wrong, your heart is. Jesus settled this in the Gospels. The heart is indeed deceitfully wicked. But there are worlds separating the idea that every deed is a sin for the unconverted and the idea that any action could be done with a sinful motive.

I tell you, it takes just one sin to garner the full and just wrath of Almighty God! Every sin is "exceedingly sinful," and an everything-is-sin theology of sin is unnecessary to a complete theology of salvation and unsubstantiated.

Honesty doesn't have to be sin in order for everyone to deserve Hell—"all men are liars" (Romans 3:4) and "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8). That's both succinct and complete. If you are a liar, you are bound for Hell. And everyone is a liar. (It's just that Jesus has provided a way for them to be rescued from their "part.")

I'm not saying that there aren't often unrighteous motives underlying good actions. I'm not even saying that it's not likely that most good deeds are in fact done out of impure motives. I wouldn't argue with that. I'm saying, let's not call the actions sins if they aren't sins. That's not sending the right message. It's not pointing out the deeper problem.

Blame the marionetter. The heart pulls the strings.

^*  I agree with John's point that "depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man," but Romans 14:23 doesn't speak to this point.

Labels: bible study methods, faith, justification, translation

Until recently, whenever I have read Romans 14 and reached verse 23, I have tended to stop and think, “That verse doesn’t sound like it fits here.” In particular, I am talking about the phrase “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (KJV).

The problem, I’ve decided, is the ever-present problem of assumptions. When I read the word “faith” in the New Testament, I often either think of “saving faith” or “the faith” (as in the orthodox Christian belief system). But there is a problem with that, and it's a common problem I would think. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. That is, we very narrowly assume certain words always mean certain things. We sometimes narrow the meaning of words unnecessarily. We come to the Bible with a twenty-first-century theological mental dictionary (that’s a mouthful, I know). Truth is, when first-century Greek speakers heard the New Testament, they did not bring a theological dictionary along, but a secular one—the one they used everyday in the markets and workplaces.

I’ll come back to Romans 14:23 in part 2. For now, let’s look at a few other examples of this.

When Greek-speaking people heard the word “baptizo,” they didn’t think immediately of “a religious water ceremony.” They thought of “an envelopment or immersion.” You could “baptizo” your hands into a washbasin. You could be “baptizo-ed” (swallowed up) by death—which is one way they really did use the word. You could be “baptizo-ed” into a culture. You could “baptizo” a spoon into a dish of Jell-O. It was a regular word... that they could, in turn, use in a theological context if they wanted. So, when they heard the word, it didn’t always refer to the same event, only the same type of event. The context and the intention of the speaker indicated what they understood the word to mean in each occurrence. So, when they heard that John “baptizo-ed” people in the Jordan River, they knew basically what that meant (even if they didn't yet understand the religious significance) before anyone gave them a Strong’s Concordance, a Life Application Study Bible, or a Sunday School lesson on flannelgraph.

The same goes for many other terms. “To save” is an example.

• And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' (Acts 11:13-14 ESV)
• By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)

Does the writer of Hebrews mean to tell us that Noah was able to barter with God for the eternal salvation of his family by consenting to accomplish this construction project for Him? No. But it sure sounds like it if you assume “to save” always means “to save spiritually.”

“To justify” is another example. Just as we use the term today, Greek speakers sometimes meant “to make righteous,” and other times meant “to show to be righteous.”

• What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.... Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 4:1-5, 5:1-2)
• Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? (James 2:21-25)
• We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16)

Remember that Sesame Street song: “One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others by the time I finish my song?”

What’s the problem with these three verses? If you read those chapters in assumption-mode, one of them seems to contradict the others. Certainly this is not true. So, what is the problem? —Two different writers trying to make two different points! Just because I use a term in one way doesn’t mean that my friend who believes just as I do necessarily uses the term in the exact sense. Read Romans 4. Paul leaves no room for justification by works at all. Read Galatians 2. Paul again leaves no room for it. Read James 2. Read it like you’ve never heard the term “to justify” used in any theological sense.

What do you suppose I would mean if I were to say, “Quit justifying yourself!” In a normal conversation you would never assume I’m telling you to quit trying to make yourself innocent! You would assume I’m telling you to quit trying to prove that you are already innocent. When you are justified in a court of law, the judge weighs the evidence and declares that you were innocent the entire time.

Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, commenting on James 2:24 concurs: “Present passive indicative of dikaioō, here not ‘is made righteous,’ but ‘is shown to be righteous.’ James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God.”

This is why Paul can say “a person is not justified by works” and James can say “a person is justified by works” and they both be right. These two phrases sound contradictory when we cut them out of their books and paste them next to each other, but they’re not meant to be treated that way. It's like quoting "he said, 'I love pintos'" and "he told them, 'I can't stand pintos,'" when not only is one quoted from a book on the life of George Washington (the president) and the other from a book on the life of George Washington Carver (the botanist), but "pintos" is referring to a breed of horse in the first quote and a kind of bean in the second. Paul and James are not even talking about the same thing. They didn’t hold a conference to discuss which words they would use for what purposes . They aren’t coauthoring a book or even writing to the same group of believers. Paul and James are trying to make two very different points with everyday words. Their vocabularies overlap, but their usages do not. Paul is trying to explain how a person is made righteous in the first place (by grace through faith). James is trying to explain how a person is shown to be righteous in daily life (by obedience out of faith).

But more than that, remember that the word “faith” is also used in different ways in the New Testament? When Paul says “a person is... justified by faith in Christ” and James says “a person is justified... not by faith alone,” they are not using the term “faith” synonymously either. Paul is talking about “saving faith”—genuine, complete, and humble trust in Christ. James is talking about mere “belief”—intellectual assent. The Believer’s Bible Commentary remarks, “Faith apart from works is head belief, and therefore dead belief” (italics mine).

We can get ourselves in trouble when we approach the Bible like it’s not written by—get this—forty different authors... in sixty-six different books... with their own purposes... and messages... in multiple genres... and various literary styles... over the span of more than 1,500 years. And we can get ourselves in trouble when we approach the Bible assuming certain too-rigid terminologies. There is no substitute for the application of logical Bible study methods.

Part 2 will finish up this article by explaining Romans 14:23 and questioning a popular interpretation. What was John Piper thinking? All this and more after the commercial break.

Labels: bible study methods, faith, justification