I Was in the Spirit

John uses the expression, "I was in the Spirit" twice in the Apocalypse. Once at 1:10, and once at 4:2. That he was referring to the same state of experience both times could hardly be argued against. What that state was we are about to explore, though it is not explicitly developed in the text. The sort of thing it results in, on the other hand, was explicitly demonstrated throughout the Revelation.

In both instances, the phrases are exactly the same in Koine. On their face, they refer to a locus in or among the Spirit. In the way that one can be "in the wind" or even "in the sun", the Apostle John was in the Spirit. What he is communicating by this was that he was experiencing a pointed (and I would say virtually tangible) consciousness of the divine presence.

This was not John's common or moment-to-moment experience of the Spirit. There are clear enough references to the inception of the experience in both occurrences. In the first usage, this something special happened to occur one Sunday on Patmos. In the second usage, the condition was initiated immediately upon hearing the voice beckoning him to heaven. In both cases, it seems clear that the experience as recorded represented a change from what was going on before.

The word used [ginomai] to describe the existence of John's state packs within it the idea of "becoming" rather than simply being. In other words, John emerged into this state (really, was born into it) at the moment in reference. It is not described in trance-like terms, though the word "ecstasy" is often bandied about while commenting on it. It is ridiculous to do so in my mind, for John betrays no rapture, no enthusiasm, no exhilaration nor any euphoria in conjunction with this experience. Really, there is nothing but matter-of-fact reportage associated with it.

More than anything else the state of being in the Spirit, at least from the accounts of John's being so, is about awareness of the very presence of God--not theoretically, not by faith, but in actuality. If we can generalize from John's experience to any of our's (and I think we can), being in the Spirit is like having a light go on in the dark which suddenly reveals things one would otherwise be unaware of. Those things could be revelations regarding heaven or earth or about the activity of God in a moment past, present or future.

If there is anything precedential or paradigmatic about John's experience, I think it can be said in regard to its application to us, that coming to be in the Spirit (really, acting on charismatic distinctives) is about coming to an acute awareness of God's immediate presence and what he is up to. As a result of that awareness prophecy, or healings, or works of power, or miracles are then manifested in this world. Those manifestations do not break into existence because someone exercised enough faith to produce them, but because someone had come to be in the Holy Spirit.

The Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse

"Who are those guys?" students of prophecy wonder in regard to the two witnesses of the 11th chapter of the Revelation. We are given only a few details concerning these cryptic figures: they prophesy for three and a half years at the end of time; they fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah; they are powerfully anointed as attested by signs and wonders; their ministry and death will occur in Jerusalem; they are hated and feared by the world; and they are raptured by God, publicly, after being dead for three and a half days. There have been interesting guesses about who they might be offered through the ages, but I know who they are with certainty!

How? You might ask. Well, I Corinthians 15 gives us all the information we need to figure it out! We are told there that Christ is the first one who defeated death and received an imperishable body. Furthermore, we are told that no one can go into eternity in perishable flesh and blood inherited from Adam. All born of Adam must die and/or be transformed into a new body following after the model of Christ in order to enter eternity with God. The old cannot inherit the new.

That produces a problem with the biblical record when one remembers the stories of Enoch and Elijah. They were taken by God to be with him while they were still alive in Adamic flesh, before Christ arose. Therefore, according to I Corinthians 15, they are not prepared for, nor can they enter into eternity until they put off their old bodies and rise in new ones untainted by Adam's fall. Somehow, either by an transformation akin to the Rapture of the Church (which not revealed in the Word), or by returning to earth and going through "normal" processes, Enoch and Elijah have got to be transformed. 

We have known that Elijah is in the mix forever, but the identity of the other witness has caused incredible speculation in the church. It really did not need to, for the Apostle Paul told us what we needed to know in order to identify both of them conclusively. Enoch and Elijah may have been enjoying the last few thousand years in the presence of God well enough, but they can't go into eternity the way they are. For their own good, and for the good of the Jews alive during Daniel's 70th week, those guys need to come back to earth, and then, they need to die!

A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part II

Continuing our look at Christ's Message to the Church at Thyatira, the vision-driven church...

Some interpreters of the Revelation suggest that Jezebel was the wife of the vision caster in Thyratira. Even though there are a few linguistic reasons for such an interpretation, I find none of them convincing in the least. Primarily (as I've written elsewhere), the angels to whom these letters are written are not pastors, prophets, vision casters, or even humans--they are angels as is consistent with the use of the term throughout the Apocalypse. Pastors and bishops are never called angels (or messengers) in the NT, and it would be a novel application of the term to use it as such in these messages to the seven churches.

Furthermore, since the same Koine word means "wife" and "woman", it is not necessary to interpret the reference to Jezebel ("that woman") as "your wife", even if an extra pronoun (your, second person, singular) is attested in some minority manuscripts. She is female, she may be married, but there is no way she is married to an angel! The bottom line: there is nothing compelling about such an interpretation, and much that militates against it.

Christ gives this self-styled prophetess time to repent of teaching and misleading Christians in Thyatira to commit sexual immorality and participate in idolatry. Of course, in that time she actually has an opportunity to lead more astray, although time granted for the one leading others astray is also time granted for those being led astray to come to their senses and repent. If they don't, they'll go down with her because followers never shed their responsibility for following what they follow. The Antichrist may be thrown into the fire first, but those who follow him get thrown in just the same afterward.

Striking her children dead is a shocking threat, not really unique in biblical revelation, but appalling to our modern sensibilities all the same. Whatever else that says about God, it certainly undermines any notion that he is the touchy-feely type that loves everyone unconditionally. God is love, but he does with people as he sees fit, and who is there that can argue with him about it or question his judgment? History has an ample record of bracing catastrophe, e.g. the Black Death (~1340's), the Shaanxi Earthquake (1556), the Spanish Flu (1918), the Boxing Day Tsunami (2004), and the Haitian Earthquake (2010), which should convince any of us that it is a fearful thing to be in the hand of a God who can suddenly bring us into judgment.

If one sees the name Jezebel as a merely figurative assignation, (i.e. there was not a woman actually named Jezebel in Thyatira), then I would think it was permissible to see her children along the same figurative line. In that case, the children would be her second layer or level of followers rather than actual biological offspring. Those she commits adultery with would be the first layer, those that are won to her way as a result of the first layer would be the children. All three (her, her first followers, and the followers of followers) are justifiably threatened with judgment, for none are innocent.

When God strikes in judgment, it is meant to get our attention, but does he do so just because he desires to demonstrate his wrath? I think that the answer to that question must be both yes and no. No, in that he didn't desire it within himself as if wrath were an attribute of his nature; yes, in that given rebellion, he does desire to respond to it with wrath. Apart from creatures rebelling, there would be no need for, nor any expression of wrath--God is not innately wrathful. He doesn't have to, and hasn't fixed the game just so he has an opportunity to hurt someone and break things, but when it comes to unrepented of rebellion, God wants folk to know what reaction to expect from him.

So never read the wrong message into his patient forebearance--God searches the mind and heart, with absolute transparency. And what he knows in secret, he'll make known in judgment seen by all.

Her Name Rings A Jezebel

"...you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."    Revelation 2:20 NASB 

Jezebel called herself a prophetess and unrepentantly led Christians in Thyatira into license. Exactly who was she? I doubt there was a person in Thyatira actually named "Jezebel" at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, but I do think there was an actual person in Thyatira around that time who was symbolically designated by the reference but was otherwise unnamed. What I feel quite certain about is that whoever was referred to by the name was not a "spirit" or a demon. It's not that I don't think that a demonic spirit could have been behind the activity mentioned, it's just that it's not at all discernible from the text if it is. It's better not to make such a claim.

The name itself hearkens back to some of the dark days of the northern kingdom of Israel during the era of the divided kingdom. In a politically expedient marriage, Ahab, an Israelite king, married the heathen daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians. Her name was Jezebel. She was willful, a dedicated pagan, and in utter opposition to God and his prophets. Elijah, the one prophesied to reappear in the end of the age, was driven to despair and into hiding by her focused effort to undermine what he said and to kill him.

Whoever the actual person referred to by Christ may have been, the qualities which make her a symbol for all who followed are that she was: 1) a woman, 2) who wanted those in the believing community around her to embrace practices foreign to true religion, and 3) who resisted all correction from legitimate spiritual leadership. Furthermore, this self-appointed authority was associated with teaching the "deep things of Satan." Christians never need delve deeper into the things of Satan than realizing he's on the prowl seeking someone to devour. Learning his secrets is not the means of overcoming him, rather getting deeper into the things clearly, openly revealed in Christ is.

My experience over the last 30 years leads me to doubt any claim to "deep things" from contemporary prophetic figures, so when I hear the phrase used by teachers today, my mind translates it into: "reading into the text something completely alien to it". I do not doubt the Jezebel referenced by John the Revelator would have foisted her teaching in a similar vein. In fact, since I see these letters as prophetically representative and therefore in force for types of the local church as it exists in various places at various times, I would expect that at any given time some local church would be dealing with such a figure in their midst. If and when that happens, even though the false prophetess' name may not, her way most certainly should ring a Jezebel.

The Disclosure of God: The Bible

It is my proposition that humankind can never know anything with certainty about God apart from his self-disclosure. I am not speaking about forensics here: what is implied by evidence, what can be inferred from the same or deduced logically. I am talking about God speaking for himself. We may think forensics offers objectivity, but it doesn't because it is always the prisoner of man's perception, particularly when it comes to the subject of God.

If God doesn't speak for himself about himself, we'll never figure out who he is, what he's like, what's he up to, what he can do, or where this is all going. We wouldn't even know whether we are he and he is us or whether everything is him together. Minimally, I think it is safe to say that he has to be much brighter than us and would have to be able to communicate at least as well. Other than that, our faulty perception plays a greater and greater role as we try to plumb the depths.

What is needed is a voice from heaven, laying it out straight, unmistakably clear. Of course, with all the people constantly popping into being, that would get a little noisy--better to say it once and record it for posterity. Or even better yet, because of the value of empathy in communication, do a ventriloquism act with a few select individuals and have that recorded for posterity. And even then, there may be some good reasons in the mind of God to not be all that clear!

I believe the Bible is God's recorded self-disclosure and commentary on creation to all mankind. I believe it sets forth all that God thought essential that we know about him and what he's up to, and that it is the only source for truly objective knowledge about him. I believe that he watches over that word, to make sure it accomplishes all for which it is sent, and I therefore believe that it is reliable and error free. If you ask me why I believe such things, I will in straight-faced seriousness tell you, "because God told me so!"

And yet for all that communicative power, it is still not enough.

When Bad Things Happen

Pat Robertson is in the news again. He usually is at the start of a new year for his ridiculous yearly prognostications. This week it's because of his statement about God's judgment being reflected in the events in Haiti. He said similar things about New Orleans when Katrina struck. Is he right or wrong?

I will not jump on the bandwagon led by the spokesman for our guru-in-chief in the White House. At this point, I'm not sure the big cheese knows anything about anything, but I'm downright certain he knows nothing of the Bible or the intricacies of how God governs the world. The White House is not alone in this; however, more than a few Christian clergy are singing the same song. Is it in tune, biblically, or just expedient for fundraising and image?

There are many biblical precedents of God bringing judgment in response to sin to individuals and peoples. Since God is immutable, what he's done before in time, I could seeing him doing again. Therefore, this is not just an OT paradigm--God is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Is this not what so much of the Apocalypse is about? Perhaps Herod, the worm-fed, might have something to say on the subject.

There are also biblical precedents for tragic events occuring having nothing directly to do with judgment for sin. Towers fell, children died untimely deaths, folk lost everything, capriciously it seems. Such things occur because of sin and the judgment upon it in a general sense, but hardly ever as the specific retribution for a specific sin. In eternity none of that will be the case, but in the now, we are broken vessels living in a broken world. Walking amidst the chards, someone's bound to get cut.

Even though it's cliched, we need to see that we're all in the same boat. Everyone dies, even the best among us; everyone sees pain and heartache, it's the human condition. Our response to the beaten and bloodied should not be speculation about the motives of God in bringing them to that condition, that's not something God has given us eyes to see. Our reaction should be binding the wounds we can bind, that our God-given eyes can see just fine.

Though God's grace meets us in this broken world, it doesn't change the nature of it. There is a day appointed when God will intervene, do away with all that's rotten, and start again without it. Until then, we must live with the perplexity, the seeming capriciousness, of tragedy in mutual pity and compassion. Now's not the time for ex post facto jeremiads, but for giving a hand to a injured shipmate. When bad things happen, good neighbors are needed.

The World's Background Noise

It's been said that the mass of humanity is sheep-like, following whomever seems to know where to go. There doesn't have to be a logic to it, boldness is sufficient to turn the masses. Adolf Hitler's strategy was to tell the biggest lie he could as boldly as he could, and the sheep would follow in tow. Hitler as Bo-peep, now there's an image you won't find on the average blog, boy, I wish I had graphical skills!

It doesn't take anything as dark as Hitler to reveal this quality in the human race, we see it in the rather silly and less threatening realm of fashion and celebrity. A star wears the outrageous or impractical and the stores can't stock enough to staunch the crescendo of bleating. Though we're all adapting to the concept of the viral in the internet age, I wonder if its roots trace wa-a-a-a-ay back before Al Gore's famous creation to the fawning of a new age introduced by bobby-soxers' hysteria over Frank Sinatra.

Does one little match really set the forest aflame?

It makes one wonder, at least it does me, where my ovine tendencies are leading me. Whether it be election year musings, or some more profound stirring of soul, I'm asking myself whose lead am I truly following. We all know the PC (preferred Christian) answer: Jesus!-- but does an investigation of our trail  to this point reading this silly blog, confirm or belie that contention?

There are many whose wool rises above the heights of any other's in the vicinity. They write books for dummies, testify to the greener grass in the pasture they know the way to. They host TV shows, wool carded and sounding not b-a-a-a-a-d at all. They get on soapboxes in the public square and blather until we choose, between them or that other blatherer standing on a different colored soapbox, which to follow.

Where are we going following them? 

It's time for us to begin checking credentials at the door. You know, that door to your life (thanks Bill Bright). We're not made of iron and these stars we follow are not made of neodymium. We can't follow two masters, two gurus, or two directions at once. Jesus rose from the dead so his credential trumps everyone else's. So, regardless of what anyone is selling, or supposedly knows, or thinks they can guarantee, put all your eggs in Jesus' basket.

We don't need to be like the world, we don't need to have what the world thinks we do, we don't need to fit into their mold, and we don't have to see things their way.

The ruckus of all that bleating, even the howls of wolves, are just background noise.

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.

What Does It Prophet?

God has demonstrated throughout history a desire and willingness to inspire people with his Spirit. From Adam in the Garden, to the Israelites in Sinai, to the prophets of the Old Testament, to the affirmations of Paul, the scriptures confirm God's desire to inspire his people with his Spirit. Only the separation of humankind from God due to sin frustrated that desire through the ages. As a result, only a few well-chosen people were ever inspired by that revelatory Spirit.

That is, until sin was dealt with broadly through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Since Christ expunged sin and reconciled to God all who put their trust in him, God's desire to inspire can be pursued freely in all who believe (even if only in part). Ultimately, God's desire to inspire will be fulfilled at the end of time when the redeemed will share that revelatory Spirit fully. Then it will be said of us that we know [him] even as we are known [by him].

The prophets of the Old Testament had a job, but only for a season. Some of them had great and memorable gifts, some were attended by signs and wonders, and others were less notable in these regards. All of them spoke for God to a people that could not and did not want to hear from God themselves. They were relatively rare amidst the community of faith. As impressive a lot as they were, none of them had the experience of the Spirit that anyone in Christ's kingdom does.

They were selected by God for their labor as a necessary part of bringing all things to that ripe moment when Christ would appear and then they would no longer be needed. There are things that Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel (among others) prophesied that have not yet come to pass, so their work continues in a certain respect. When Jesus said they prophesied until John, he did not mean that their words suddenly fell to the ground, but that the function they served ceased (as did the law's).

The prophets of the New Testament have a different job, but only until Jesus comes back. Some have more noticeable gifts than others do, some even become church leaders. Moses' inspired longing is answered among them, for even though there are only some in the church that are actually prophets, all of God's people can prophesy. Prophets no longer speak exclusively for God to people who can't and don't hear from him themselves, now they speak that which others can confirm and everyone can affirm.

New Testament prophets are not meant to be rare, for their service is needed in the meeting of the saints. It is best to have a bevy of them for the purpose of weighing what is prophesied. To squelch this needed gift, or to make it so difficult to operate in as to effectively bar it, is just shooting ourselves in the feet. Quenching the Spirit by despising this gift can only make the church poorer and prophets nothing!

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.