A Radical Invitation

Has the first word of the biblical salvation message has been lost through disuse? Given the climate and message of today's evangelical church, one has to wonder. Jesus preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The Apostles preached, "Repent!" Even when just counseling the woman caught in adultery Jesus said, "Go and sin no more." Let me ask you, is that the kind of thing you preach?

Where is the "REPENT!" in today's preaching? It just isn't part of the evangelical fabric that's in fashion these days. Have we become so afraid that people will not respond to that nasty little word that we have abandoned it and now depend on manipulation and marketing instead? When we rely on such measly human efforts that utilize enticement and stroke the flesh, what sacrifice is any respondent prepared to make?

The discipleship crisis the American church is in today starts with the message that initially enlists today's supposed disciples. Folks that enter thinking they don't have to turn, won't turn after they enter. I'm not a fan of fire and brimstone preaching--faith, not fear, is the only motivation that sustains a life of following Jesus--but to become a Christian a person must embrace their own death and trust Christ to raise them to a new (and better) life. People today, though all-modern-and-educated, must  still hear and respond to the call to repent and follow Jesus, as any disciple in any former age did.

Christianity is about a radical change in direction, a night and day difference in one's life. The result of a new birth cannot be the same old, same old, for birth means leaving an old way of life for a new one, or it's not birth at all. For those would who style themselves as radical and innovative preachers in this day and age, the message that actually matches that characterization starts with the word REPENT! Now that's a radical invitation that stands a shot at producing new life.

The Twenty-four Elders

24 is a significant, symbolic number in the Apocalypse.

It's symbolic content can be understood in terms of two: two covenants and two flocks becoming one in Christ, the Good Shepherd. Twelve is an obviously significant number since there are 12 tribes in Israel and twelve apostles. 24 is merely the whole of twelve times two, and so represents the one people redeemed by Christ out of Israel and the Gentiles. That is clearly a major theme in the Apocalypse, though it leads dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists to vastly different conclusions.

This theme is visited rather dramatically for the last time in chapter 21 as the New Jerusalem which comes down out of heaven to a new earth is described. The eternal home of the saints has twelve foundations and twelve gates. The combination of 12 and 12 in the structure of the New Jerusalem (which is 24, though not explicitly mentioned) is used to encompass the entirety of God's salvivic people, and picks up the theme which streams throughout the Apocalypse. Jew and Gentile who believe in Christ, though distinctive in some ways, form one eternal people of God.

The 24 are elders (presbyters) which means, basically, they are old men who are wise and worthy of respect. I think the use of the generic term, "elders," accentuates their symbolic quality, and yet excludes seeing them as non-human living creatures, or even angels, because those things are specified in the Apocalypse when they are meant. How long they've been there, or how they got there is not mentioned, so it's either unimportant or so obvious it's assumed to be known. Could they represent the sons of Jacob and the twelve apostles?

Although John is viewing and recording the vision, not much of an objection could be raised to the 24 representing the 12 Apostles (Paul substituted for Judas). It's a bit more difficult to see them representing the actual, less than exemplary, sons of Jacob. Throughout biblical history the names of the twelve tribes was always more important than the twelve people that gave those tribes their names, so specification as to person is not so important with the twelve representing Israel, which fits well if this was merely a generic identification. They could represent some exemplary member of each of the associated tribes, but that is not actually necessary if the identification is purely generic.

They are given thrones placed in close conjunction with that of God, which, along with their victory (but not regnal) crowns, implies they are engaged in judgment and administration with him. That jives well with Matthew 19:28, which would tend to verify seeing at least twelve of them as representing Christ's Apostles. If that is the case, then it's hard to avoid the math and see the other twelve as faithful representatives from each of the twelve tribes. They are clothed in white which is always associated with purity or righteousness in the Apocalypse, so, in effect, the 24 elders are clothed in righteousness.

Aside from judgment, the 24 seem occupied with worship. They hold censers and harps. They fall to their knees (the implication of proskuneo), cast their victory crowns at the feet of God, extol the Creator's virtues, and sings songs of praise to God and the Lamb. The force of their worship is to attribute to God the action that accomplishes his salvivic and magisterial aims--God is the actor, everyone else is the benefactor.

We are told explicitly that the incense signifies the prayers of saints. That is not an endorsement for the doctrine of the Intercession of the Saints, but merely represents that the prayers of the saints rise directly before God. The elders, though themselves men and therefore representative in some fashion of all believing humans, are not the makers nor mediators of the prayers (interceders), but, really, only witnesses of such. The harps, in very similar fashion, signify the praise of those same saints.

So the prayer and praise of the saints rises to the throne of God, symbolically carried by those representative of all who follow. As they are before God in prayer and praise, symbols in the heavens, so are those they represent also before God as they praise and pray on earth.

The Keys of Death, Hades and David

The Keys of Death and Hades

He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."   Revelation 1:17b-18

We use the word key in various ways. It can signify the crucial piece to understanding something or solving a problem. It can merely signify the importance of a thing. It can serve as a figure of affection; for instance, "the key to my heart." It can reference authority, or it can simply be a key, a device that opens a lock.

When it is said that a person holds the key to something the meaning is relatively straight forward. They have the means and therefore the power to unlock what is locked, they exercise control over it. To say that Jesus has the keys to death and Hades is to say that he has the ability to open the door to death and Hades and the power to release those who were locked in behind it. Jesus has authority to release people from death and Hades.

Death is the common fate of all the living. When anything living crosses that threshold, whatever animated its life is lost to its physicality. If that life isn't reinstated quickly it never can be, it's locked up behind death's door. For humans, that impelling, animating something is called a soul, an incorporeal, spiritual essence which carries not only the life force, but the personhood of the human.

Before Christ's ascension, humans souls were locked in Hades (Sheol in Hebrew) upon death. The body turned to dust and the soul was locked in Sheol. There is some thought that Sheol really just meant the grave, but I think Jesus' teaching concerning the rich man and Lazarus completely undermines such thoughts. Jesus envisioned Sheol as a place where dead people were kept self-aware, conscious. Whereas it may have been "restful" for the faithful, Jesus revealed that it was anything but for the unfaithful.

Once in either condition, there was no way out. Death and confinement thereafter in Hades was a one way trip. Jesus, however, overturned the order of all that had gone before and did what no one had done before or since. He entered into death and Hades, and then, of his own accord, he came back. His authority and power over death and Hades was thus neither theoretical nor derivative--it was demonstrative. He went there and came back with captives in tow, that is why he is said to have the keys of death and Hades.

There are not literal keys in Jesus hand, of course, as if he required a tool to open that figurative door. His power is intrinsic to who he is. The keys are merely a figurative way to put the concept into graphical terms. Jesus, the Son of God, has power over life and death, what was irreversible to everyone else is reversible to him. The most impenetrable, intractable wall humanity faces, death and Hades, Jesus had the power to walk right through, and most importantly for us, he has the power to bring others with him.


The Key of David

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.'"   Revelation 3:7

The phrase, "the key of David," elicits similar thoughts as did the phrase, "the keys of death and Hades." In both phrases, the word key relies upon the same basic symbolism which refers to the possession of authority. Whereas the first expression has an inherent Jewishness to it, the second is markedly Greek (Gentile). Regardless, what is in focus is an eschatological, teleological authority--the possessor of the keys has authority to affect and effect the end of things.

David, God's choice to rule over Israel, conquered and then established Jerusalem as the capital of all of Israel shortly after he had consolidated his power over all twelve tribes. Thereafter, the city was often referred to as "the City of God" or the equivalent. Why not? The God-appointed king was there and the only tabernacle of God on earth (the Temple) would be. So, to have the Key of David meant having authority over Jerusalem, and by extension, to have authority over God's kingdom (see Isaiah 22:20-22).

The symbolic connection to the New Jerusalem is obvious. The Messianic heir to David (Jesus) is the one in authority over the New Jerusalem. He has the power to let folk in or to keep them out (see Matthew 16:18-19 for an interesting connection and extension). If entry into eternity with God is something one desires, one will have to come to Jesus and get his approval in order to enter. Thankfully, to be coming to him is all that it takes to get it!

Though there is nothing particularly Jewish about Philadelphia, it was in the message to that church that this Jewish nomenclature was used. In the Kingdom of God, neither Jewishness nor Gentileness matter a whit, despite the fact that there is distinctive historical tracks for Israel's redemption and for that of the Gentiles. I don't think much can be read into that, for the new Jerusalem is of infinitely greater import than the original, and it is to that the symbol actually points.

Entropy, Zombies, and Eternal Life

en·tro·py  

  [en-truh-pee]  Show IPA

noun

1) In Thermodynamics:
   a. on a macroscopic scale, a function of thermodynamic variables, such as temperature, pressure, or composition that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
   b. in statistical mechanics, a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S
2) In Data Transmission and Information Theory: a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3) In Cosmology: a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (i.e. heat death).
4) a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

Entropy is a death principle. On a large enough scale, everything is winding down and does not have the ability to wind itself back up. The spring is springing and eventually will be sprung, for nothing in all of creation can reset itself to what it was before. Something would always be lost in the effort. Even if it could "come back to life" it would be less than life--zombie life, only a shadow of its former self.

The classic proof of First Cause is true: the caused cannot cause itself. Therefore, to observe, not only the self-initiated return to a former state, but an improvement in that state is an evidence of something truly supernatural. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is such a circumstance. Not only did he come back from death, he came back better--more powerful and not subject to death again.

One could dismiss such an occurrence because he or she was not there to see it. But for those who cannot shake eyewitness testimony, nor the need to explain the rise of Christianity in a hostile, pagan world, Christ's entropy-defying defeat of death and his return, not to zombie life but to eternal life, becomes the central event in human existence. Even more than that, it becomes the window to heaven and the gate to eternal life. Open up the shade and crack open the door, the world may offer zombiism at best, but light and life await you in Christ.

The Christian Fundamental Again

At this point, a few words should be written about the meaning of words. Some approaches to scripture often end up divorcing words from their natural meanings in context, thus "spiritualizing" or even negating what was intended to be communicated. It is extremely important that we don't allow such to cloud our perceptions of the biblical accounts of the resurrection (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-14; Luke 24:1-43; John 20:1-20).

The Bible reported that event like a newspaper reports a mugging: the authors attempted to state facts concerning an observed event in an accurately descriptive way. We need to hear their account as they intended to convey it, for only then can a choice be made to believe or disbelieve it. With that in mind, let's look at some of what was reported.

Jesus Died
One had to have been in live flesh in order to experience death. That which is ethereal doesn't die-- it may vanish in a wisp, but it doesn't die. Death leaves a corpse, which is made of the same molecules which before had been animated. Jesus, by dying, was proved to have been in real, living flesh. To deny that Jesus came in real flesh, and experienced real death, is to embrace the lies of the Devil and his antichrist.

Death Is Death
The biblical accounts do not report that Jesus swooned or only appeared to die, they say he died, expired, dead as a door nail. Some may try to discredit the poor ignorant bumpkins of that day and say they only thought he was dead, but that has it's own problems. First, the Romans were anything but bumpkins; second, the Jews made sure the event was explained as body snatching, not slinking away; and third, how could a crucified, beaten, blood-deprived man gain the strength necessary, unaided in the dark, to pick himself up, roll away the stone, and walk outside to face a brave new day? That would be a miracle more incredulous than the resurrection itself.

Jesus Rose From the Dead
I have to wonder sometimes if supposed Christians see Christ in heaven the way they see poor old Aunt Gladys in heaven: spirit with God, body in the dust. That is not resurrection, that is death! Jesus is not dead (spirit in heaven, body in, well, who knows?), but alive bodily in heaven, something like Enoch or Elijah. The real body that was dead as a door nail is alive forevermore, victorious over sin and death. As he is, so all those who believe will be.

The obvious tenor of the scripture is that the Apostles were absolutely certain they did not see a ghost, but Jesus alive and well after dying. We need to be just as certain through faith. Once so, our response should be a foregone conclusion, and then in the day of salvation we'll be just like him.


And I have just a little more to say...

The Only Rule of Faith and Conduct

How long does it take people in any kind of group to veer off a course set by the founder of such a group?

Human will is strong, unmanageable, and hubris drives some to seek to imprint their own brand on what someone else had started. Paul endeavored in his day to not succumb to such a temptation; in our day, hmmm. It's certainly not uncommon anecdotally to hear of someone founding a company, a church, a ministry, leading it successfully toward the attainment of a vision, dying, and then in comes Jr. or the next one up and everything changes. The organization loses its soul.

I remember well the so called, third generation rule I first learned of in Bible College: by the third generation, the descendants of a revival have lost touch with its experience and do not share the passion or drive for its distinctives that the revived generation had. Between the founders and the third generation drift sets in. I think we actually see this reality even within one generation, but by the third, it is so unmistakably clear as to be... unmistakeable.

Given this proven human trait, I'm puzzled by those who rely on church history to boost their notions of what was a more pristine, and therefore more authoritative, approach to doctrine and practice. They reason that those who lived closer to the first generation must have had a better grasp on the original than those further removed in time. The problem with that approach is that it ignores the reality of what we see before our own eyes-- humans drift, and rather quickly from the original visions of founding leaders.

We have no further to look for the start of such than in the New Testament, mostly written by ~65 AD. Virtually all of the epistles and certainly Revelation 2 and 3 are filled with rebukes and admonitions against the drift that was well under way before the Apostles, handpicked by Christ to pass on the faith, were cold in the ground. To give the drifters that followed the Apostles, even those from the earliest days in the first and second centuries, near the same doctrinal authority as the Apostles themselves is nothing but an invitation to play Leapfrog or Whisper Down the Alley with our souls.

 

For the Catholic and Orthodox churches this certainly is a critical issue, but Protestants are not exempt from resting the warrant to state what the scriptures do not on the backs of the church fathers. The faith was once delivered to the saints, and written about by those that did that entrusting. No one else but them is a reliable authority for doctrine and practice. Therefore, the scripture itself stands as the only objective basis for knowing what the unfiltered, untainted faith is and how it is to be practiced.

When I met Jesus personally, in my first few days as a Christian, and I asked him how I could know what was of him, he did not tell me to listen to my elders or even to a line of elders from way back, he told me to look to his Word. Since that experience, and hopefully always, my only rule of faith and conduct has been the Bible. My hope is that you, for your own stability and faithfulness, will adopt the same.

The List of Spiritual Gifts

It's time for the list. This, of course, represents only my cobbling together of what the Word says about the subject. One could see it somewhat differently and still be correct. Hopefully, this will help you see things from the broadest perspective, while giving you the detail necessary to grasp what each gift is.

THE SPEAKERS

Apostle: one sent by God to a people to establish the church among them. There is an administrative (supervisory) aspect to this gift, but it not directly associated with hierarchical office (as with the Mormons)-- its authority is confined to its function. (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Evangelist: one who announces the good news to the public (which hasn't heard it yet). It's not foundational (like the apostle or teacher), because it's tasked with making people believers, not making believers into a church. (Ephesians 4:11)

Prophet: one who proclaims and interprets what God is saying to the church. The prophet speaks to strengthen, encourage and comfort God's people. This gift is not about prognostication, nor has it anything to do with hierarchical office. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Exhorter: one who speaks to urge others on in matters pertaining to God. I really see this as a subset of the prophetic gift, but can see someone being an exhorter without being a prophet. (Romans 12:6-8)

Linguist: one who speaks and interprets tongues in public. No, you will not see it listed this way in the scriptures, this is my synthesis of what is said about it there. Not everyone who speaks in tongues in public will be a linguist, but those who are linguists will be interpreters. This (as in the case of the exhorter) is a subset of the prophetic gift, but it is possible to be a linguist without being a prophet or a prophet without being a linguist (I Corinthians 12:28)

Pastor: one who tends the flock of God. This gift has both administrative (supervisory) and speaking (teaching) aspects. Whereas the apostle establishes the church, the pastor maintains it. That is not an institutional task, but an interpersonal one-- it's about the sheep not the sheepcote. This gift is directly associated with the supervisory church office (elder/bishop) which is as close as the Bible gets to validating anything hierarchical in the church. The pastor is always a teacher and a leader, but it is possible to have teachers or leaders who are not pastors. (Romans 12:6-8 [leader], 1 Corinthians 12:28 [teacher/governor], Ephesians 4:11)

Teacher: one who instructs the church in the commands of God and how to apply them to daily life. This is a subset of the pastoral gift, but it is possible to be a teacher without being a pastor. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

THE SERVERS

Server: one who attends to things that need to be done (similar to a Deacon). Everyone in the body serves in some capacity, but this gift does it in inspired, focused fashion. This is not necessarily the same as the office of Deacon, that is supervisory, this is functional, but I would think the office of Deacon would often be filled by those who are gifted as servers. By way of interest, Philip, the evangelist was a notable example of one who served in the office of Deacon, but was gifted as other than a server. (Romans 12:6-8)

Giver: one who shares his or her substance with the church. Some folk are appointed by God to be channels of blessing to the rest of the church. Everyone gives, but the gifted do so in ways enabled only by God. That, however, does not equate with being rich! (Romans 12:6-8)

Sympathizer: one who alleviates the suffering of others in the church. This is a mercy ministry. Everyone in the family of God is expected to show mercy to the family of God, sympathizers do so at an exemplary, Spirit-inspired level. (Romans 12:6-8)

Miracle Worker: one who exerts supernatural power. Everyone in the body of Christ can move in the supernatural, this gift does so on a marked, consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Healer: one who heals the sick. Everyone in the body of Christ can pray for the sick, anyone in the body can be used by God to bring a miraculous healing to someone who is sick, but the healer ministers this wonder on a consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Helper: one who addresses the petitions of the needy. Everyone in the body should respond to the needs of their brothers and sisters, but some are enabled to do so in a particularly dedicated fashion. This may seem a replication of the gift of giver, but I think it involves more than substance and sustenance. Though this ministration is part of the duties entailed in the office of Deacon (as with the server), the gift is functional whereas the office is supervisory. Possessing this gift doesn't mean one will hold that office (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Leader: one who steers and superintends the church. The offices of Elder (overall oversight) and Deacon (service supervision) are the actual supervisory positions in a church, but their biblical descriptions do not necessarily specify what gifts one must possess in order to serve in them. In its formative stages, a church will be supervised by its apostle; thereafter, it may be supervised by some other gift acting in the office of Elder. The qualifications for that office specify functionally that an elder be instructive, but that is not quite the same as saying the elder must be gifted as a teacher. I could see the possibility of someone being gifted as a leader, capable of passing on effective instruction, but not gifted as a teacher, or any other speaking gift for that matter. What that implies in regards to the concept of church leadership vested in a plurality of elders I'll leave to you. (Romans 12:6-8 [governs], I Corinthians 12:28 [administration])

******************************************

One could debate the way I condensed this number and these particular gifts from the stew of the three passages we have been discussing. Since all of the lists are representative and none is exhaustive, the possibility exists that there could be gifts that are not found in any of these lists. I don't think that's true, but I can't prove it. Someone could see the cross-referencing differently than I have as well. Regardless, what we all should be able to agree to is that God intends each of us to express the gift he's placed within us, and whatever your gift, God has given you the manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all. I hope this series helps you express both.

Greater Gifts: Spiritual Ontogeny

There are two features of the gift list in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that are particularly worthy of notice and dissection. Even though I've talked about one of them before here and here, the truth always bears repeating, so here I go again...

This list presents the gifts in an extending or telescoping fashion. The ordinals modifying the list are not rankings of gifts per se, but a demonstration of how they arise in time during the development of a church. The counsel in v. 29 may seem to indicate that a qualitative discrimination is intended, but I don't think it fits the context. Would Paul have spent all that effort to illustrate gifts with the body analogy-- pointing out how needed each gift was, how much care and respect each one needed from the others, how necessary it was to be the gift one was intended to be, only to chuck it all with one verse at the end?

In other words, would Paul have said, "Be a toenail, we need toenails, your unavoidable destiny is to be a toenail, but desire to be a head!" I don't think so! Even though Paul does use the comparative (μείζονα) in v. 29, he did not do so to negate all that he had said from vs. 12-27. Then what was he saying and why did he follow up his arguments with chapters 13 and 14? My reading is that the Corinthian church was completely out of order when it came to the practice of manifestations and spiritual gifts.

When they assembled, everyone was trying to one-up everyone else in speaking with other tongues. The spiritual development of the body was arrested, the telescope jammed, and the full scope of gifts was not arising and functioning as it should have. Everyone was stuck on what, really, was an initiation experience that everyone went through. Yes, it was a sign (manifestation), but it had no practical import corporately, other than to evidence that someone had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. 

After the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the only good publicly speaking in tongues has is when it was combined with interpretation.

Interestingly enough, the fact that tongues is listed at all in v. 28 means that somewhere along the line in the development of the body, people will be gifted with an ongoing ministry of speaking (and interpreting) tongues. Granted, it will be when other body parts are more fully developed, but it is most certainly envisioned as a viable, body-blessing ministry. The rhetorical question of v. 29, then, is a self-evident corrective which reminds the Corinthians (and us) to practice everything according to its spiritual ontogeny.

What's the Point of Spiritual Gifting?

In a series of posts last year (here, here, here and here), I discussed the realities of how leadership (eldership) actually gets expressed in the modern church. Some of what is said this post will touch on some of the same material, but from a slightly different perspective. You may find it helpful to take a look those articles in conjunction with this posting, hence the links for your convenience.

When he dealt with the subject of spiritual gifts, Peter divided them into two classifications: speakers and servers. Paul divided them into two different classifications (what this post will develop) of two classifications. In Ephesians 4, he presents them in terms of the equippers and the equipped; and in 1 Corinthians 12, he presents them in terms of the foundational and the following. 

As I have argued before, the ordinals used in 1 Corinthians 12:28 refer to the sequence of emergence, not to comparative importance. Paul's point in using this demarcation was to show the proper development of gifts in the body from those first appearing to those appearing after some development. He was not setting up a hierarchy of value as much as he was trying to get the Corinthians to not be fixated on tongues to the exclusion of other gifts, important gifts needed for the church to properly develop. 

Certainly, his aim wasn't to offer v. 29-31 as a qualitative gradient that would allow future cessationists to dismiss the miraculous.

The body of Christ, in any area, starts with one, or at best a very few people. Generally, that one was sent there by God to be his representative and to establish his kingdom in that place-- the very definition of the ministry of an apostle. When the apostle starts his work in any given place, he is the body of Christ, and whatever ministry comes forth, comes forth through him. As the Word, signs attending, begins to reap a harvest of souls, folk are added to the one and the body grows.

As the body grows, God raises up people from among those the apostle's ministry has added to speak forth as he leads them for the strengthening, encouragement and comfort of God's people-- the very definition of the ministry of a prophet. The church is thereby established as ministry is expanded beyond the apostle to the prophet. Therefore, it can be said that the apostles and prophets are foundational to all that is built upon their work in the time which is following. 

As growth and development continue, God raises up folk who can teach those who have come to believe in Christ what he has commanded and how to apply that word to daily living-- the very definition of the ministry of a teacher. Once the body is at the place where some greater measure of folks have become disciples of Christ, ministry expands into a host of more specialized giftings. At that point, the fact that not all are apostles, or prophets, or teachers, or work miracles, or heal, or speak in tongues, as a ministry, becomes self-evident. 

A obsessive fascination with, or a "self-appointment" to a particular gift out of place or prior to its time only hinders the proper Spirit-directed development of the body; hence, Paul's dissertation to the Corinthians on the subject. 

The list of gifts found in Ephesians 4, which we tackle now, is perhaps the most misunderstood of them all. Today, especially in some of the newer church movements, these gifts are seen, it seems to me, as expressions of authority rather than as functional utilities. Polity is established on having people serve in the "offices" of apostle and prophet, rather than understanding these things as endowments which serve a need in the body.

I believe this is a misappropriation of the scriptures, and practically, breeds cult-like authoritarianism rather than Christ-like service. Rather than misappropriating the names of apostle and prophet, why not borrow the tried and true and use the term, bishop. Church leadership is established, very clearly, by the New Testament in the office of elder (or bishop). If one can see that folks with differing gifts can serve as elders, the fight for biblical polity and proper understanding of gifting is half won!

There are four gifts mentioned in the list in Ephesians: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers. Listing them this way, rather than as five, acknowledges the particular grammar of the passage, even though other lists mention teaching separately. Evidently, in the context of Ephesians 4, it is the teaching aspect of pastoring that is being highlighted by Paul, rather than more administrative functions.

What these gifts have in common, and what is focused upon in this text is that they serve a preparatory function within the body of Christ. The named four (the "some" in the text) are equippers, whereas the unnamed masses are the equipped. The aim is that some in the mass will eventually be one of the four, and all of the mass will become functioning parts of the body doing the work the Spirit of God has gifted them to do.

What is the means by which equippers take the raw material of Adamic flesh and build it into the body of Christ? It is the Word. The proclamation of the Word to the unbeliever brings new birth; the presentation of it to the novice is what inculcates truth; the application of it is what guides the established. In the kingdom, faith is what matters, and faith arises on the wings of the Word. So, the most fundamental quality of these four gifts is not authority of position, but God-given ability to proclaim the word within the context of their gift.

Presenting pastoring in the unusual fashion he did (with teaching emphasized), I think, clinches the argument.

Apostles proclaim the word among a people which has not heard it in order to establish the church of Christ among them. Evangelists proclaim the word to folks that have not heard it so they might receive the good news of the gospel. Prophets proclaim the word, fitted for the moment, which helps folks be built up in it. Pastor/teachers proclaim the word to people who need to apply it to living with understanding. All of them endeavor to move folk along on the pathway to maturity and to their own service in the body through functional gifting.

So spiritual gifting is never about the titles or authority of leaders, but always about maturity, health and function of the body.

Although the passage in Romans 12 leads into its gift list by associating them with the expression of God's grace (as does the Ephesian passage), and although it focuses upon how the gifts are used (as does the greater Corinthian context), its take on gifts is unique in demonstrating how we actually "act" in the gifts. It's not a list of nouns but verbs. It's not about prophets, servants, teachers, exhorters, givers, rulers, or empathizers, but prophesying, serving, teaching, exhorting, giving, ruling, and empathizing. That may be a subtle distinction, but an interesting one regardless.

What do I think that distinction tells us?

Among other things, it tells us to use the gift in producing the results of the gift. I could go on and on about what that says about our modern fascination (er, distraction?) with strategy and techniques, but I'll do my best to stay on task! Suffice it to say that the ability that grace deposited in us (gift) is not only sufficient to produce its intended result, but it should be relied upon to do so. The gift within us should not remain idle; it should not be suppressed (by ourselves or others); method should not be substituted for it; and its compulsion should not be considered secondary. Instead of wondering what the experts think about a ministry endeavor, we should be asking ourselves what the gift of God within us is inspiring.

That is not to say that we should be uncooperative and unsubmissive to the body of Christ around us, that is contraindicated by the concept of body itself. It does mean that what the Spirit intends to get done through us won't get done because the Grand Poobah (read vision-caster) has a plan we become cogs in, or that a consultant figured out a really good way to do that kind of a thing, or that we have achieved some level of preparation that now qualifies and certifies us to do it. No doubt, those things can be useful in building a successful organization, but what do they have to do with a temple indwelt by the Spirit of God?

All of us have had our fuse lit by the Spirit of God. In grace towards us, God dropped a bit of spiritual nitro into our souls which infused us with an energy that self-organizes the matter of life into its foreordained design. The gift itself compels us to produce the effects of the gift. Jesus experienced this, Paul did too, so should we. The gift is the tiger in our tanks, so with faith in in the promise of God, take that tiger by the tail and go for the ride of a lifetime.

The Tapestry of Eschatology

The First Scene

As the old man huddled over the scroll something sparked his interest.

It had been 67 years since he had left his beloved city as a youth. He had not left for fortune and fame, but in captivity and uncertainty, thrown out of Jerusalem by God himself, not likely to ever return. Regardless, he made up his mind to stay faithful, and God had been gracious through it all. Now, huddled over that scroll, nearing the final stretch of his days, his melancholy could not be masked. How he ached for the Jews and Jerusalem: God's chosen people, God's chosen city, would both be abandoned forever?

From the barren ground of such longing, unexpectedly, hope sprang forth from the words of Jeremiah: just 70 years had been assigned for the desolations of Zion. Restoration was soon to come, really, just around the corner. Daniel began to pray for the Jews and Jerusalem.

In answer to Daniel's confessions and supplications for the future of the Jews and Jerusalem, the angel Gabriel was dispatched with God's response to Daniel's pleas. In typical God-like fashion, the answer went beyond what Daniel thought or asked. In a nutshell, God said to Daniel, "I'm not done with the Jews or Jerusalem, I have fantastic plans for both. In fact, it will take 490 years for me to complete my work with and in them."

For all of us studiously scouring what was given to Daniel for clues as to how it will all end, we can never lose sight of the most salient feature of this vision: it's not that there are 70 weeks that is of utmost importance, but that those 70 weeks were decreed for the Jews and Jerusalem. If one does not understand this critical point, there is no way that one will ever arrive at a biblically coherent eschatology.

The Second Scene
An old man walks across the rocky landscape of his island abode alone.

Though he's not paying attention to where he walks, he navigates perfectly, lost in thought in God's presence. He remembered all that had transpired since his days as a youth traveling with Jesus. So much had happened since then: the gospel had spilled out of Judea and Jerusalem and was now well on its way to the four corners of the earth. Every kindred, tribe and tongue drawn into its net as it trawled the waters of humanity. All the old gang had died and were buried, martyrs for the cause, and John, himself, the last eyewitness of Christ, walked these isolated crags in exile. Perhaps, Truman-like, he wondered how it all would end?

A trumpet blast, heralding the appearance of the First and Last, shattered his ruminations. The Lord, himself, arrived at just the right moment with some awe striking answers. In the prologue of the Apocalypse, we are told those answers were not just to satisfy John's curiosity, but also yours and mine, any who are Christ's servants. The salient, but oft overlooked, feature of this prophecy is its stated purpose of telling what soon must take place. In fact, it is reiterated at least twice (Revelation 1:3 and 22:10) that its coming is near. No one could argue, at least not without doing injustice to the text, that the Revelation covers a lengthy period of time, one that actually extends into eternity, and yet the initiation of the period was to be near 95 AD.

The Common Thread
What we have in the figures of Daniel and John are two handpicked messengers of God who were both given a vision, at a critical time of transition, of what would happen from their time to the end of time for the people on their heart. Daniel's concerns were about the Jews, so God's revelation to him was specifically about the Jews. John's concerns were for the church (which encompassed every tongue, kindred and tribe) so God's revelation dealt both with the Gentile church age and the last 7 years of Daniel.

From Daniel's time to the end of time, God would work specifically with the Jews for a total of 490 years to bring them to redemption. The only proviso not readily apparent is that 483 of those years would pass in succession, but the last seven would be split off and follow much later than the rest at the very end of time. From John's time to the end of time, God would work through a series of periods which would culminate in the removal of the Gentile church and the final seven years of Daniel, and then the millennium and eternity.

What these two figures represent are parallel tracks of a singular story. They are tied together, but are absolutely distinctive. To tangle the threads is a recipe for disaster which will turn one's eschatology into a confusing wad of uncertainty. That's not what God gave us those stories for, so come with me on a journey to untangle the mess and see the Tapestry of Eschatology in its stunning beauty  and clarity.

Keep Your Appointment from God

"Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.." (I Corinthians 12:27-31a ESV)

The ordinals used in this passage can be taken as an order of rank of importance or authority, or as a description of the timing of expression. The mention of "greater" (Koine: meizona) in the last verse could be seen as requiring the ordinals used before to be interpreted as ranking importance or greatness, but for me, the "thens" (Koine: epeita) seal the deal. The force of ἔπειτα is "thereafter" or even "only then." Very clearly, the thens impose the idea of sequence, or timing, into the list.

Since, then, this roster of gifts puts them into sequence, the issue being addressed is their development and extension, not their comparative value. Paul is trying to help eager Corinthians understand not only the what, but also the how and when of ministry gifts. Notice that in the sequence of erupting gifts, the miraculous sorts arise throughout-- near the beginning, in the middle and at the end as well. It seems the biblical pattern for chuch growth embraces the miraculous from start to finish. 

Paul, in effect, said that the body starts with the ministry of an apostle. As the body grows, up rises prophets. As it continues to grow, then up rises teachers. As it continues expanding then all kind of gifts arise. Being an apostle is no more about being in authority than being outside in spring is about being a dandelion. And being a cessationist is nothing but a surefire way to miss half of what God would like the body to grow into.

We have been concentrating on leadership gifts in this series of posts, but this passage doesn't restrict it's scope to leadership as does Ephesians 4. Leadership is part of the body, but so too are the led. Each of us is part, each of us is gifted, not just leaders, to serve the body and the gifts by which we do so are assigned, or appointed, by God. Just as a finger on your body wouldn't do any good attached to your elbow, so also God has the prerogative of appointing us to the spot he knows we belong.

I must admit, I've grown tired of both the church shoppers and the church marketers of our day. What consumer benefits a church might offer a "shopper" has nothing at all to do with divine appointment. Neither does a carrot dangled on a line by a "marketer" have any place in God's assignments. Such shoppers and marketers don't have the slightest clue about what church actually is!

But if you do, then grow where God sprouts you, stay unless God moves you. Embrace your giftings, and rise into however God is causing you to function and do so for the benefit of the body. There are folk in the church world, leaders and followers alike, who are clueless and in total disharmony with what God is trying to do in his body. Don't let them get you down, do what you know is right from the Word. 

God has made an appointment for you and he expects you to keep it!

Your Gift Makes Room for You

The discussion started here concerning church leadership gifts continues... 

If an apostle is the founding leadership gift of a church in an area or in a culture, as I have purported in an earlier post, we could well say that the fledgling church is pastored by an apostle. To be technically accurate, that leader is and should be called an apostle, but he would also be acting as the pastor of that start-up congregation. It seems to me most places today would just call him "pastor."

We could make a case that once a congregation is established it would be more correct to call the leader of that church an elder or bishop, but then Acts 20 indicates that the terms bishop, elder, and pastor are largely interchangeable. Can an apostle even be designated a pastor-- wouldn't that be a confusion of terms since both apostle and pastor are listed in Ephesians 4? It may seem so at first glance, but a few verses (2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; Galatians 1:19; & Acts 21:8) make me think otherwise.

If one takes the Apostle John to be the author of all the Johannine epistles (as I do) and understands James, the brother of Jesus, to be the first Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, as many do, a biblical case for seeing any of the five-fold leadership gifts as capable of exercising the presiding office begins to emerge. The long and short of it: the office of elder or bishop does not describe the gift that is expressed by the individual occupying it.

Sometimes the elder/bishop will be an apostle (as in the formative stages of the church in a culture or geographic area), sometimes a prophet, or an evangelist, or even a pastor/teacher. I think the same kind of thing is true for the diaconate.

For leadership in the church, it's the function of preparing God's people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up rather than the type of gift leading that matters. Any of the five-fold gifts is capable of leading that preparation. It will be the case that some folk in any given church will be gifted in similar ways to the church leader, but that will not automatically qualify them to be church leaders. Church leaders are gifted and full of the Holy Spirit, tested in service, of good reputation with all, and good managers of their own families among other things.

In any church some will be more gifted than others, and if some folks are given to their gifts (i.e. "full-time"), it follows that some folks will not be. But whatever the situation is with any person's gifts we can be assured of this: when a tempered individual has been gifted in the ways leaders are gifted, his gift will make room for him.

What Are Apostles?

This post continues the discussion about church leadership, particularly the ministry gifts associated with it. The focus in this article is how those gifts come into expression, at least ideally, over the lifespan of a church. Within a culture or a geographical area the church is born with the ministry of an apostle and then grows toward maturity. As it does so other leadership gifts arise and carry things forward through church maturation.

An apostle is one called by God to establish the church where it had not been established before. The pattern for this ministry was set by the twelve Apostles of Christ, who defined by words and deeds what an apostle is and would do in the time after them. The only real distinguishment between the twelve and the apostles who followed is that the twelve were hand-picked eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection and the revelatory source for what Jesus said and did, whereas the apostles who followed were not. The apostles who followed rely upon the witness of the twelve but cannot add to it.

Much is made of apostolic authority today, whether focused on the twelve or the latter variety, but I see no record in the scriptures that apostolic authority was ever derived from anything other than anointing, ethos, consensus, and ultimately persuasion. That kind of authority is acknowledged by those under it, but cannot be claimed hierarchically, dictatorially, or oppressively. An apostle who insists upon that kind of authority would be establishing a cult not the church.

I think it self-evident that an apostle would be a generalist in terms of gifted skills. He is the church when he starts. All that needs to be inspired is going to have to be inspired through him, hence he will be a jack of all trades. Then, through preaching, teaching, and signs and wonders, others will be added to him birthing a growing church. As it grows, believers will mature and others will step into specific aspects of gifting for which the apostle was a generalist.

So, as the body grows prophets will arise, as will teachers, and all manner of other utilitarian gifts as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (or perhaps as implied by the listing in Ephesians 4:11). The ordinals used in the Corinthian passage are not a reflection of rank or authority, but of the order in which ministry gifts arise in the extension of the body as it grows. Apostles begin things that are then carried forward by others; therefore, for a mature church to "look backward" toward reestablishing an "apostle" is regression, twisted logic and just bad practice.

Leadership Gifts in the Church

Let's talk about he subject of church leadership, in particular, about the gifts associated with it and how they come into expression over the life of a church. Despite the relative clarity of the scriptures about the subject, there seems to be a lot of fog surrounding it, so I'll add my two cents over my next couple of posts and hopefully not add any dry ice to the bucket.

Today, almost everyone exercising church leadership is called a pastor, as if the responsiblity and authority of church leadership (bishop/elder) tracked congruently and exclusively with the gift of pastor/teacher. That is unfortunate because I think it clouds the scripture and confounds our practice. I don't see that as what was ocurring in the biblical church, nor is it what is suggested in Ephesians 4.

In that passage we are told that leadership could come from any of four (or five depending on your take on the passage) gifts or, perhaps, even a combination of those four/five gifts. All four are are the subjects of the leadership action which prepares God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up. Properly applied, this passage means a church could be led (bishop/elder) by an apostle, or a prophet, or an evangelist, or a pastor/teacher. T

That is, in fact, what happens in practice, regardless of whether or not our theology describes it that way.

Although we call them pastor if they lead a church, their true gift is going to make itself known in the execution of their duties. A church "pastored" by an evangelist is likely to stress the invitational message reaching the unbelieving. A church "pastored" by a prophet is likely to stress the revelatory message. A church "pastored" by an apostle is likely to stress getting the church planted. A church "pastored" by a pastor/teacher is likely to stress discipleship. I think that actually explains the imbalance we often see in a church's ministry.

Our response to one-sided church emphases is sometimes to criticize, i.e. "the pastor is too focused on ______ ministry." However, I think churches need to understand the nature of church leadership as I've sketched it out here and patiently work with their leaders to get gifts expressed that their pastors do not operate in. If pastors and church folk work together, I think balance in ministry can be achieved. I do not believe that diversity in leadership gifts is meant to produce handicapped churches, as it often seems to, but instead full-bodied expressions of the manifold grace of God.