A Church's Most Important Piece Of Furniture (2)

'Then the preacher said the most provocative words that church congregations need to hear and act on today.

The most significant piece of 'furniture' or fitting in this building are: 

the doors through which you will all leave at the end of this service and go out into the world.'

I ended with the above words in my last post.

I'm a bit crabby at the moment. Yes, I know, good Christians are not supposed to get irritable, fractious, fretful, cross, petulant, pettish, crabbed, crotchety, cantankerous, disagreeable, miserable, morose, peppery, edgy, impatient, querulous; etc but I am. 

I think my crabbiness has to do with the fact that the visible, institutional church doesn't get it! But then I have to remember that for many years I didn't get it either until a rude, Dutchman woke me up out of my dogmatic slumber. 

So I have nothing to boast about. None of us does. The church is in such a parlous condition in Australia that none of us has anything to brag about. Australia is also in such an alarming state and the Lord God is its only salvation but it fails to give Him the time of day.

So, what am I talking about? I'm talking about the church which fails to preach in such a way that every area of the WORK and LIFE of the congregation sitting being taught is addressed by the Word of God. Every area! 

Let me give you an example. Tom leaves his church building and on Monday he is at work in a job he hates. It is boring and to him seemingly pointless. He goes to an enlightened church friend and talks about this problem. 

His friend says, 'Maybe this boring job is where God wants you to be for the time being. How can you erect a small sign of God's Kingdom in this place? If you saw your boring job as Kingdom work, what would that do for the way you approach your work?'


Tom decided that he would come to work a quarter of an hour earlier each day and set that time aside to meet any others who were in early. Gradually with this change, he developed stronger relationships with his work colleagues which had all sorts of exciting consequences. 

For example, the others found out he was a Christian which provoked conversations about the Faith; two of them separately asked him if he would pray for various situations in their lives.

This group of workers began then to think about their work practices and how their work situation could be improved. They approached their supervisor about forming a work practices committee to suggest improvements to the running of the business.

Tom asked his church to pray for him at his work. In fact, his Vicar's interest in Tom's request led him to say, 'Could I come to your workplace and see what you're doing?'.

Like music to my ears! The institutional church seeing that it's not all about it and its evangelism programs, or getting every church member to become an evangelist. God is the God of every legitimate part of human living.

The Australian community is not listening to the church because it is not doing its ministry in workplaces, neighbourhoods, mothering networks through its congregants, the little people. And by ministry, I don't just mean trying to get people to come to church! Ministry in these areas is more than that. And it's more than evangelism. Much more.   

Progressive Dispensationalism

The revising of dispensationalism we talked about in the last post in turn gave way to a third form of dispensationalism which began in the 1980s called progressive dispensationalism (PD). 

One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting.

At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational¹ theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups.

The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. That plan is being unfolded through a series of different administrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations. 

However, the PD group still holds to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct; nevertheless, they also hold that both receive blessings through the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants.

Interpretation

This subject is a large one and highly vexed with strong differences of opinion. 

But as an example I had always believed that Gentiles could claim to be beneficiaries of the New Covenant set out in Jeremiah 31.31-34 (even though I was brought up as a dispensationalist without even knowing it). This fact seemed to be clear from Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11.25; Luke 22.20²). We also have in The Letter to the Hebrews where the New Covenant is specifically mentioned as making the Old covenant obsolete (Heb 8.8-12³). 

But some consistent dispensationalists don't believe that the New Covenant benefits the Gentiles. They believe that the New Covenant is for Israel alone. They reason this way on the basis that Jeremiah's words address, 'the house of Israel [Northern Kingdom] and the house of Judah [Southern Kingdom]' (Jer 31.31) and say nothing about the Gentiles.

Such exegetes would argue that all they are doing is being faithful to the 'literal' meaning of the words of Jeremiah 31.31. Hence, differences are apparent even within the classical⁴ dispensational school and require that we look further at the subject of interpretation which will be examined in future posts.

1. I've used this category to designate premillennialists who are nondispensational, as well as amillennialists (those who don't believe in a millennium on earth). It would also included preterism (that most prophecy has already been fulfilled) of all types.
2. Modern translations omit 'new' because of their use of a variant text. However, the Gospel accounts are clearly describing a covenantal Meal.
3. Of course, it can also be said that Hebrews is not addressed to Gentiles but to Hebrew Christians who were in danger of going back into Judaism once again.
4. Another issue that dispensationalists are divided on is the time the Church actually began. Some hold to an Acts 2 beginning; others to Acts 13 with the beginning of Paul's ministry; others to an Acts 28: 25-31.

Dispensationalism Revised

Before we outline a development in the classical dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield and others, I invite readers to look at Charles C Ryrie (b.1925) in a 7-minute You Tube interview explaining dispensationalism. 

Ryrie's teaching in the video is clear and easy to follow even if basic; and importantly, his work in 1965 led to a revised dispensationalism taking form.

Ryrie (1965, 1995) laid down three essential characteristics unique to dispensationalism¹ in his printed work: first, a consistent difference being maintained between the Church and Israel; second, the adherence to 'literalism' or a 'plain' reading of scripture (as opposed to allegorical or 'spiritual' readings); and third, more controversially¹, the belief that God's primary intention in creation was His own glory (as opposed to man's salvation). 

But in this process some notable differences between the Darby-Scofield view and mid-20th century views emerged. For whereas in traditional dispensationalism, a sharp dualism was believed to exist between the Church ('heavenly' destination and rewards) and Israel ('earthly', land of Palestine, ruling on earth, material prosperity), in 'revised' dispensationalism, this radical difference became an 'earthly' difference.

That is to say, the differences between the Church and Israel though still marked and basic were not as radical and far-reaching as they had been in traditional dispensationalism.

1. I should repeat a good point that Ryrie makes on You Tube that: all Bible students acknowledge various 'dispensations' to some extent. Just to recognise that living under the Mosaic Law for Israel is different from living in New Testament times is to do that. Hence, dispensationalism is greatly focussed on change and variety in God's administration across history while those opposed focus more on the continuity and unity found across the whole of scriptural revelation.

2. My reason for saying that this criterion is more controversial is that surely Ryrie was clearly misinformed to have thought that only dispensationalists hold firmly to such a belief. Famed Calvinist Jonathan Edwards taught this understanding which, in our time, has been taken over by John Piper.

An Introduction

The People of God as One People

These posts in this series are an attempt to deal with some of the complicated issues surrounding the identity of the people of God as the one people of God.

They examine how the Church and cultural Israel are related within the broader scope of the several types of eschatology (end-time study). For the complexity of the issues has led to a multiplicity of differing viewpoints that can be confusing without some road map: using some type of classification of views is one way to create order in an otherwise tangled scene.  



First the question of whether the Church superseded the earthly Jewish nation and its religious practices is a major issue. Some use the language of 'replacement' although 'fulfilment' is currently thought to be a better term within this framework.

Others, of course, believe that God has a plan with cultural Israel as well as with the Church; that He postponed his work with Israel only until the 'time of the Gentiles' would be fulfilled. Then his work with Israel will be taken up again.

These Christians believe that cultural Israelites because of their race will receive grace to believe in the future: these Christians will reject any suggestion that God has abandoned Israel as a nation. Other Christians, just as fervently believe contradictorily, that the Jews have no special place in the economy of salvation but must come by way of the Cross of Christ as do all who would be saved in this age of opportunity. 

Some believe that present-day national Israel is part of a fulfilment of God's 'unconditional' promises to it of greatness, land, and many descendants. Others believe that all such promises to Israel were fulfilled in Joshua's time or that elements of the promises have 'spiritual' fulfilment.

These Differences Have Consequences

The questions raised about Israel above raise individual and even nation-changing consequences. For example, the present US government supports the State of Israel to the tune of 6 million dollars per day (8 billion dollars per year) at present. 

At least some of this support can be explained in terms of Christians who believe that Israel is entitled to the 'Holy Land' because of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Hence the question arises, should the Church or Christians support the present Israeli government in its conflict with the Palestinians on the basis that God has promised the 'Holy Land' to the Jews?

Not An Easy Topic In General

In the reading I've done so far in preparation for blogging I've discovered that this field of inquiry is by no means simple. Many earnest Christians hold widely differing opinions and appear to have solid biblical reasons for so doing. 

Hence, my aim is to approach the area with some caution even though I have already developed what I think is a general sense of the place of the Church vis a vis Israel. (That doesn't of course mean it is correct in all respects and I realise I have much to learn!) Nevertheless, my quest is to acquaint myself more fully with some of the extensive discourse on this theme and hopefully learn much so that my views become better founded.    

Are You A Full-Time Minister Or A Part-Time One?

*The denomination that I am a part of seems wedded to the idea that full-time ministers of Christ only exist within the congregational structure. Therefore, it clearly implies that all the work done by the 'laity' (an abominable term btw) is outside the ambit of the Body of Christ.

Just to make myself clear: I am NOT talking about involving the non-ordained 'laity' in congregational work such as song-leading, worship-leading, taking up the collection or dispensing the elements for Holy Communion. All of these tasks need to be done but the 'laity' spends most of its time outside the confines of the congregation.


The Body of Christ (the capital 'C' Church Universal) is not identical with the variously named institutional-congregations that provide corporate celebration of the Word and Sacrament within the Body of Christ. That's the distinction I am aiming for you to consider.

If you are a husband/wife, father/mother, family member, and have any other vocation of any legitimate sort then each of these callings is 'holy' work because the LORD is Lord of every sphere of life: marriage, family, vocation, schooling, politics, etc. and the Christian congregation too.

The latter is no more 'holy' or 'spiritual' than any of the other spheres. However, it is different because it is a central hub of the Church Universal.

What the congregation and its ministry chiefly do is to equip the 'laity' for its 'ministry' (Eph 4.12) outside the congregation in its daily callings. And I don't just mean only devotions and testifying either, although these are part of it obviously. 

Their work of ministry embraces any edifying sphere of human life for which each member (or members) has the calling and gifts. Christians are called to present their bodies (whole selves) as 'living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, which is their spiritual worship or service' (Rom 12.1).

In Romans 12.4-8, we have a list of functions or gifts that members of the Body of Christ might have. We are told to exercise these gifts for the common good (1 Cor 12.7) which can be interpreted in the first instance towards other believers that we meet in the congregation but it doesn't stop there. We have a particular responsibility towards any Christian believer we meet who is in need. Moreover, our responsibility is also towards those who are not yet believers.

Do we not know that the Father sends the rain on the just and the unjust (Matt 5.45)? Do we know remember that God is also declared by the apostle Paul to be, 'the saviour of all** mankind, especially of those who believe' (1 Tim 4.10)? If so, how much more shouldn't we be prepared to serve our neighbour in daily life with any gifts we have been given by God.

Martin Luther puts the above issue graphically in the following: 'God is milking the cows through the vocation of the milkmaid'.

*I've delayed my projected post on the topic of the 'implications of the Reformation's discovery' by expounding more fully on what the discovery was.
**I don't believe in universal salvation -- in fact this verse suggests a decided difference between believers and nonbelievers -- but that God's 'saving' expressed in this verse points to God grace showered on all indiscriminately in blessings that sustain life.

'The Church Beyond The Congregation'

I was confronted 30 years ago with a different form of the message contained in this book by James Thwaites (a Pentecostal), and it still faces me today.

Some book titles are arresting and The Church Beyond The Congregation is one of these. However, it is more than just arresting because it is very easy to misunderstand what the book is proposing by simply interpreting its title within our normal categories. It's a creational given that we do this and it's dashed difficult to modify or abandon our settled categories.

I could start by asking, what is the Church? Such a simple question but it is easy to get the answer wrong according to New Testament (NT) terms.

The normal understanding of the Church is that it is only the institutional structure, the congregation that Sunday-by-Sunday meets to hear the scriptures read, to break bread, to pray and fellowship (Act 2.42).

If you would like a snapshot of this regular view, Google 'the Body of Christ', then click 'images' and peruse. For example, the image to the left gives this mistaken view in a nutshell.


However, we misunderstand the riches of the meaning of the Church as the Body of Christ if we believe that Church is fully expressed in its congregational activity, the 'religious' gathering on Sunday (or whenever), personal evangelism and individual 'good works'.

This grievous error of equating the Church with the congregation James Thwaites attempts to dispel in the above book.

In this introductory post, I can't present all the evidence for Thwaites' uncommon, though completely orthodox view (although Thwaites' speculations are at times unorthodox bordering on a form of panentheism). So I will outline one scriptural area that could be explored by those wanting to have their own understanding of the Church<--->congregational relationship enriched.

Ephesians

Arguably Ephesians is the great NT letter focussing on The Church as the Body of Christ (and Colossians is a companion letter focussing on Christ as the Head of the Church). 

The picture given in Ephesians is of Christ seated at the right hand of the 'God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory' (Eph 1.17) who 'made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all' (Eph 1.22-23, emphases mine).

Amazing statements are made in Paul's prayer (Eph 1.15-23). These verses should urge us to look beyond the Christian congregation (not forsaking it because it is a necessary part* of the Church) to what God is doing through his whole Church in all areas of life: marriage, family, and every work life (see Eph 5.21-33; 6.1-4, 5-9).

An Important Implication

Many important implications flow from the above understanding of the Church and its servant, the congregations of the various denominations. 

One that I want to emphasise at this point is that every Christ-believer is a 'minister' and is part of the general ministry of Christ's Body (Eph 4.11-13).

That being so, the term 'full-time Christian worker or minister' used to imply that only 'ordained, full-time pastors or workers' are full-time Christian workers is incorrect. 

However, I hear this expressed all the time and I'm sure readers of this blog do too. This view means that most of the people of God are outside the exalted group of Christian ministers and have to be content with doing 'secular' work which of course is inferior to the 'sacred' work of the church's ministry.  

This view falls short of the NT view of 'ministry' which essentially means service.

Next time, I will outline a brief history of how the churches of today got themselves into this unbiblical position and some steps we need to take to break our way out of it.  

* Perhaps as a hub is to a wheel depending on how important one sees the institutional church to be and I do see it to be important.   

A New Church

I am an evangelical looking for an Anglican congregation which still values the Prayer Book (PB).

Australian Anglicans have three major prayer books dated: 1662 (Book of Common Prayer), 1978 and 1995 but it's hard to find evangelical congregations which use the PB. Some will use tiny bits out of the PB but it's hard to describe their liturgy as dependent on the Anglican Tradition; what is presented could equally be found in any non-conformist denomination.

Usually members of such churches will boast about this absence of Anglican liturgy as if this is a good thing. (I suppose it can be if the formal liturgy has become lifeless and routinised but this process can happen within non-conformity too.)

Last Sunday I finally found an evangelical Anglican church where good expository preaching was given and the PB liturgy was used. My, it was good! I had almost given up hope.

The church is the Church of St Edward the Confessor in Blackburn South, Melbourne, Australia.

I'm not saying that other Anglican services don't have a place in the Anglican fold. I'm sure they do and that many join these churches from other denominations because the Anglican character is often non-existent.

But I wonder then why be Anglican at all. Why not just be non-denominational?