Thanks for sharing this article. I am heartened by it and will study it carefully.

Fob, I’m afraid your use of the words of Christ from the cross is kind of a non-sequitur, and not quite what I think they really mean. Christ did not mean all things are finished for all time. Obviously, there is still some “working out of our salvation” that happens after the cross. He was not referring to organized religion or organizational structures either. What was finished was Christ’s perfect life of obedience and full atonement for our sins. Just because our sins are atoned for and Christ has purchased for us a perfect righteousness doesn’t necessarily mean all church membership covenants are manipulative schemes to build ecclesial empires (though we can all agree that MANY obviously are).

I’ve got to insist, thought, there is a good, healthy, non-abusive way to practice covenant membership, and right use of it can be an edifying tool in the contemporary pastoral toolbox. Here’s a list of point about formalized membership that I stole of the blog of a Presbyterian minister:

The meaning of membership:
1. It means that you realize that you’re not only called to Jesus but called into a community.
2. It means that you’re recognizing you’re weak, and therefore need the deepest amount of commitment and accountability to support your weakness.
3. It means that you’re choosing not to treat the church like a consumer product.
4. It means that you help lead and guide the church.
5. It means that you’re taking your discipleship under Christ seriously.
6. It means that you want to be a fully committed part of the vehicle God has created to change the world.
7. It means that you’re willing and committing to give sacrificially of yourself for the sake of others.
8. It means that you’re willing to make and keep promises. (as in, as a member, I agree to….)

I’m not denying that membership covenants can be wielded as weapons of spiritual abuse. However, spiritual abuse can occur with or without them; just look at the Calvary Chapels.

Problems start when legalism comes into the covenant, and “Christian behavior” begins to accumulate a strenuously long and increasingly unbiblical behavior. As in, all covenant members are required to: tithe 10%, belong to a small group, abstain from alcohol, give FULL disclosure/submission to their pastors, etc…

More problems come in when those in office begin to see themselves as having too much authority. In a good organization, all members contribute in some manner to decisions, and every grievance has a voice. But if the church copies the corporate model and lets the power flow top down only, then the leaders have free reign to trample on dissenters. It doesn’t have to be this way in order to make helpful use of a covenant.

Bottom line is, followers of Jesus aren’t’ a massive conglomerate of self disciplers. We grow and serve through community, as Christ modeled well for us. You can’t have discipleship without discipline, and occasionally some tough decisions need to be made in that process (read; tough love). I think that proven and trustworthy persons (elders or deacons) should be given the authority to make those decisions. This should not include shunning under any circumstances.

Are your church leaders using such authority for harm? Leave! There actually are pastors out there who love and care for their congregations. It may take a while to find, but it is totally worth it.

Former MHC Leader’s thoughts on the “Call to Reconciliation”

http://marshillrefuge.blogspot.com/2012/03/former-mhc-leader-on-call-to.html

Trina, as far as I know, these sort of church membership covenants didn’t really exist prior to the Protestant reformation, so I would agree they are not Biblically mandated, but just one option as to discipleship methodology. My major concern is that churches do SOMETHING to instruct their congregation in pursuing greater Christ-likeness where the members actually help each other through intentional cooperation and mutual submission. But it seems I’ve yet to find a method without drawbacks. The “authority” that abusive church leaders use for harm is most certainly self-proclaimed, proof texting be damned! IF you sign a covenant, read it carefully, and see how much power it invests in specific individuals. It’s all about balance, imo. When one person/group assumes too much influence, they can often become above the influence of others. But those who are trustworthy and have proven it should be trusted with responsibility. Oh, if only we would learn to be more careful about who we place into positions of leadership! And always be ware of men who place themselves into such positions. Red flag number 1 imo.

I agree. As an Alabamian, I am glad to hear Mr. James’response!

To Miguel:

Miguel, you are right that a church, any church, can agree with everything I wrote in principle, and still be abusive. It is what’s in the heart that comes out eventually. However, on the basis of scripture, I think that supplemental church covenants that involve a vow to submit or recognize so-called church authorities, always lead to frustration and dryness, or worse still abuse, because they are idolatrous. These covenants put “church leaders” in the place of the scriptures, and of the Lord Himself.

You used several significant words in what you wrote, words that the Holy Spirit also used in inspiring scripture:

— covenant, community (fellowship), commitment, accountability

Covenant — Look up covenant (diatheke G1242- Strong’s) at Blue Letter Bible or similar site. It occurs 33 times in the New Covenant Scriptures. Read them all. They’re so much about the Lord’s offering of His body and blood, as foreshadowed in the Old Covenant and fulfilled at the cross. This is exactly what the Lord Jesus meant when He said, “It is finished.” There is not a single verse with diatheke that can honestly be used to support the notion of a local church covenant.

Community (Fellowship) — Look up fellowship (koinonia G2842 – Strong’s). It appears 20 times. There’s the “apostles’ fellowship,” the “fellowship of His Son,” the “fellowship of the blood of Christ,” the “fellowship of the body of Christ,” the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” the “right hand of fellowship,” the “fellowship of the mystery hidden in God,” the “fellowship in the gospel,” the “fellowship of His sufferings,'” the “fellowship with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ,” and finally this verse, “But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship (community) with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His son cleanses us from all sin.” When someone says explicitly or implicitly that “committing yourself to Christ…brings salvation”, and “committing yourself to a specific group of believers….brings fellowship,” as many have done (see http://www.christianpost.com/news/following-jesus-means-belonging-to-a-local-congregation-43735/), they effectively separate what God has never separated. Our fellowship is “in Him.” Our fellowship is not “in the church.” Only to the extent that a local church is, in reality, in the Father and the Son, will there be fellowship in that church.

Commitment — Look up the occurrence in scripture of the related words paratithemi (G3908 Strong’s), paratheke (G3866 Strong’s), and parakatatheke (G3872 Strong’s), about 20 altogether. When Jesus said on the cross, “Father, in to Your hands I commit my spirit, ” it was paratithemi. When Peter said for those “suffering according to the will of God, to commit their souls to Him in well doing, as to a faithful Creator,” it was also paratithemi. When Paul said He knew Whom he believed, and that “He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him against that day,” it was paratheka. When Paul said to Timothy to “keep that which was committed to your trust,” and “that good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit Who dwells in us,” it was parakatatheke. And finally, again paratithemi to Timothy, “And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” There is not one instance in scripture where believers “commit” to other believers, to a local church, etc.. Believers commit themselves to god and commit others to God, and to the grace of God. But they don’t commit to someone’s authority structure in the name of committing to each other. Believers love other believers and do all the “one another’s” in scripture. However, “commitment” does have its place in the church. The Lord has “committed” the gospel to us, as Paul committed it to Timothy. We do have a great commitment enjoined to us in a great commission. This is our work, our joyful work. We will be better committed to this work of the gospel if we remove the false commitments and false covenants devised by man.

Accountability (to give account) — look up “didomi logos” ( G1325, G3056 – Strong’s) and “apodidomi logos” (G591, G3056 – Strong’s). These words literally mean “to give word,” which is often translated “give account.” So do we as believers “give account,” that is, make ourselves “accountable” to each other? Or is this another word that has been taken by man for his own purposes “in the church?” I will answer this with something similar to what I wrote in an email to the ladies of the castle here at Wartburg earlier this week:

Take the words “give account” (“didomi/apodidomi logos”- literally, “to give word”).  I used this term a few times, I think, in the past in regard to church but was never for some reason comfortable using it, and now I know why.  The Holy Spirit does not use it, not once in scripture, in regard to relationships among believers, including apostles, leaders, and all the flock.  It is always about worldly relationships, or at times an accountability of leaders to God (for teaching, leading).   There is just something sick about using it all the time in regard to brothers and sisters, and moms and dads.  No good early father I know wants an “accountable” son.  The prodigal, understandably, tried the accountable-I-am no-longer-worthy appeal with his dad, who cut off his speech and would have none of it. A cognate of lego/logos is the often used verb logizomai, which is what Abraham did when he believed God and it was “accounted” (logizomai) to him for righteousness.  The only “son” who could ever give “account” for my sins did so on a tree 2000 years ago, with his own blood. I wish all the folks calling for new church polities with true “accountability,” would consider that ‘accountability” is the wrong word, the wrong gospel.

Miguel, the Holy Spirit with His words 2000 years ago anticipated all of these things that are happening. Many for so long have required a vow of submission to themselves as a pre-condition for acceptance “in the church.” They have utterly merged what they call “covenant’ (or call or commitment, etc.) with their authority/submission structures. In so doing they have turned their backs on the real covenant in the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. But the Lord gave us an answer to them when He said, “It is finished.” Fob

Fob,
Over on Wade’s blog, Scotty said,’ “church authority” stems from Jesus and not Paul. His command regarding the progression of dealing with differences (Matt 18:15-17) culminates in “tell it to the church.” If there is a refusal to listen to the (voice) of the church then the person is to be regarded as one who is unconverted.’

The question I immediately had was “regarded by whom?” My personal answer is, “By the offended one.”
So I’d say that in this particular situation the authority rests in the brother (thee singular) who does the forgiving. Peter seems to realize this since after the Lord’s further comments to the plural you (apostles) Peter immediately asks how often he (not “we” or “the church”) should forgive sin against “me” ( not “us “the church”.)
Am I too far afield to be seeing a priesthood of all believers in this passage, with the church having precisely the same “authority” as the “one or two others”, — that of confirming the matter? But not even, necessarily having “church authority” to do the “regarding” which our Lord was still commending to a singular “thee”?

Hi Trina…

That is funny (ironic)…when the membership covenant deal came up and I had a disagreement over the word covenant…that particular scripture stuck in my paw…

Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Good word.

Trina, thanks, but all I have done is some basic word studies. What I think happened is that over the last 2-3 years the Lord opened our eyes (my wife Beth and me) to just how applicable the words chosen by the Holy Spirit in scripture are to the spiritual issues we face. The language that people use is so telling when it is compared to language of scripture. Fob

Thanks Fob. No hurry, and I agree with Trina. Just to clarify, the reason I said “in this particular situation” is because I believe the Matt 18 situation and Paul’s situation are, to an extent, apples and oranges (sin, repentance, and forgiveness being common to both). In the case of the I Cor 5–II Cor 2 fellow, It was a church problem, since the man had caused sorrow, not to Paul, but in some degree, not to say to much, to them all. Thus, “punishment by the majority” was required. I’m not against churches as a whole occasionally following that pattern, so long as they don’t forget the “reaffirm your love for him” part. The Lord’s statement about ,”so that you might know that the son of man has AUTHORITY on earth to FORGIVE SINS” is, I think, closely tied to the binding and loosing of apostles and church in both these oft-abused examples.

Fob,

Amen about the heart condition. Corrupt people will exploit any system or lack thereof. However, good systems have checks and balances to protect the innocent from such corrupt persons. But I agree it sends a counter-gospel message to say: “you must agree to obey us in all things before we let you in.” That is covenant membership done wrong.

One purpose of a church covenant is to give pastors a platform from which to practice discipline. Discipline is not a unique feature of the old covenant, I think the Corinthian example is enough to prove that beyond question. The problem is that the “signing” of the covenant is NOT supposed to put the pastors in a legal/contractual advantage over the laity. Those using it in such a way are obviously looking for leverage. But the signing of a covenant, though not explicitly commanded in scripture, is not forbidden by the new testament, not in the manner that you pronounce it to be contrary to the new covenant.

The thing is, pastors MUST have the authority to discipline membership in a compassionate, sensitive, and loving manner, or else they cannot disciple. A covenant gives the pastor the ability to say to someone, “Do you remember when you joined the church? Here’s your signature. You agreed to follow the teachings of Jesus as part of our community. Here’s what Jesus said about adultery. And you are running around on your wife. Can you see how there is a conflict there? Can you see that you agreed this wasn’t the life you were going to lead?”

If such person should refuse to repent, the pastor should not serve them communion under any circumstances. That’s all that is necessary. No shunning, no witch-hunts or long lists of discipline warranting sin. It’s not the pastor’s job to keep the people from sinning, but it is his job to keep unbelievers from believing that they are forgiven.

Covenants do not have to put “church leaders” in the place of the scriptures or Christ, though I’m sure that some certainly do. While I recognize the rampant spiritual abuse that pervades American evangelicalism (learning more and more about it here every day), the opposite extreme is not healthy either. We don’t need churches full hyper individualistic believers who insist that nobody has a right to tell them anything about what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. If we are to all practice mutual submission, the trustworthy, proven, and ordained men in the teaching offices ought to have the authority to confront those living in blatant sin or heresy. If they do not have that authority, than who does? Should nobody have a right to exhort a brother drifting from either orthodoxy or orthopraxy? That is completely contrary to the ethos of mutual submission.

It is just insane for every Christian to insist on their right to be accountable to nobody but God. When pastors do this it creates massive problems instantly, so how is it right for the laity? To say that “It is finished” absolves all Christians from submitting to any church authority whatsoever is a non-sequitur in the same way that a man cheating on his wife might say “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

You cannot ultimately have community without accountability. I’m not talking about confessing your dirty laundry to your small group. It’s just about checks and balances to protect from abuse and ensure that discipleship is happening. Once you start associating regularly and cooperating in mission, organization happens. Once organization happens, roles are delegated. You can even see this in the Trinity.

Not to mention, all organizations have authority structures. Jesus did not come to put an end to earthly authority, just because all has been given to him. He entrusts fallible earthly men with the responsibilities to lead and make decisions for the benefit of all. Even with the prodigal son, God’s command still stands that children ought to honor their parents. The prodigal’s father may not have wanted an “accountable son,” but he certainly desired an obedient one. Obedience is not enough, as the older brother had that without love, but love without obedience is not love at all. God has given parents to have authority over the children, this is a good thing, and for the benefit of both.

Forgive me for the digression, but I’m curious. What does “Roll Tide” mean? Is it a reference to something? #britishignorance

Numo,

The Fourth Commandment; Honor your father and your mother. What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise or anger our parents and other authorities, but honor them, serve and obey them, love and cherish them.

Luther said it, I believe it, that settles it 😛

Miguel, You are wrong on so many levels. Let me take them one by one:
The meaning of membership:
1. It means that you realize that you’re not only called to Jesus but called into a community.
“You must leave your mother and father….etc.” -Jesus
(You are called to Jesus, and to love your brother.) “called into a community” is not found in the Bible.

2. It means that you’re recognizing you’re weak, and therefore need the deepest amount of commitment and accountability to support your weakness.
“Our weakness is made strong in Jesus” – Paul.
(Note it is not made strong in the church!

3. It means that you’re choosing not to treat the church like a consumer product.
Your definition of church must be really weird. It sounds like you think it means a place you go during Sundays, or a club like structure. The Church is the body of Christians.

4. It means that you help lead and guide the church.
Bull. Go read about the various gifts.

5. It means that you’re taking your discipleship under Christ seriously.
No. Discipleship of OF CHRIST. Not of the church.

6. It means that you want to be a fully committed part of the vehicle God has created to change the world.
It never says that the church is to go out and change the world. That is not the commission. The commission (to the apostles) was to preach the Gospel, not to “change the world”.

7. It means that you’re willing and committing to give sacrificially of yourself for the sake of others.
Again BULL. There is nothing that says that that is the purpose of the church. Giving is something each individual does as prompted by the Holy Spirit. And the idea that you should abdicate your responsibilities in this area is ludicrous.

8. It means that you’re willing to make and keep promises. (as in, as a member, I agree to….)
This I agree with. Except that I would say it means you are willing to make uninformed, ill-advised legal commitments without the benefit of analysis.

Me–

High five! That was good. So much of what I’ve been thinking. Thanks for clarifying that for me, Me. (haha) Keep at it. My ears are open.

Miguel

You write…
“Luther said it, I believe it, that settles it”

At one time I had some good Christian “Idols,” authors, theologins, that I liked to quote…
But, alas – Power – Profit – Prestige – Honor – Glory – Recognition – Reputation,
has brought down more then a few of my past human *Heros of the Faith.*

Seems to me, God is a jealous God and wants folks looking to Jesus. NOT to a mere fallible human. When one of God’s sons, who started out serving only Jesus, become too important to themselves, and to others, eventually they will become a disappointment to those who look to mere humans and are NO longer looking to Jesus.

Jesus made it available to ALL to “Hear His Voice” and follow Jesus.

John 10:27
My sheep *hear My voice,* and I know them, and *they follow me:*

John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be ALL taught of God.

Deuteronomy 4:36
Out of heaven he made thee to *hear His voice,*
that *He might instruct thee:*

Here are a few more things Martin Luther NOT only said – but actually wrote. 🙁

—————

On the Jews and Their Lies… Written by Martin Luther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

On the Jews and Their Lies is a 65,000-word **antisemitic treatise** written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

In the treatise, Luther describes Jews as a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[1] Luther wrote that they are “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,”[2] and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut”.[3]

In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are

1. for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2. for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3. for their religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5. for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and “put aside for safekeeping”; and
7. for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.[4]

——————–

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice – One Leader

{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

“Thanks Fob. No hurry, and I agree with Trina. Just to clarify, the reason I said “in this particular situation” is because I believe the Matt 18 situation and Paul’s situation are, to an extent, apples and oranges (sin, repentance, and forgiveness being common to both).”

Dave, I agree. Matt 18 is erroneously applied. People forget it starts in Matthew 18:1 and who is the greatest…

It was taught by Jesus before Pentecost so what does that mean? What “church” is he referring to? Where is He teaching? And to whom? The passage is focused on PERSONAL OFFENSES by one brother (or sister) to another. It is NOT about church discipline there was no “Christian” church at the time. It mentions no “church leaders”. Only ‘witnesses’.

Miguel – I think you are misunderstanding aspects of the cathechism [sp?] *as they are applied in contemporary society.* The rulers of Luther’s time were nothing if not authoritarian – parliamentary democracy was nowhere on the horizon in Germany at that time, nor anywhere else. (Divine Right of kings, absolute monarchs, warring principalities and electorates…. check some history, please!)

If someone is baptized, they are part of the body of Christ – no ifs, ands or buts. There is *no* “membership covenant.”

A. Amos – see, I can be pretty accommodating, even though I’m a Lutheran! 😉

As for “On the Jews and Their Lies,” it is infamous and was used by the Nazis to justify Kristallnacht and all other actions against Jewish people (from bullying to death camps).

I can’t make any excuses for Luther on this one – he was a messed-up guy in many ways. He assumed that once his reforms of the church started taking hold, there would be flocks of Jewish people lining up to convert. When that didn’t happen, he let the hate surge….

That screed is unparalleled in his own time, and even now, still one of THE single most hateful anti-semitic rants, ever.

Doubtful,

You can certainly argue that Bonhoeffer was wrong, but surely you aren’t saying was was not Lutheran! I referenced him in response to Numo’s saying that my comments sounded un-Lutheran. You can say Lutheranism is wrong, but I think my sentiments line up with them either way.

Wow, my commitment to Christ is bigger than yours? Have you ever read Bonhoeffer? Sure people use his writing that way, but that was precisely the ethos he consistently railed against. If orthodox, confessional Lutheranism has one opponent is is most certainly Pietism. I don’t doubt his phrase is used as a cover for legalism, though. But to be protestant at all is to agree that God’s grace is freely given, but not that it cost nothing. It cost the Father the death of His only Son. He gives us this grace not with any conditions, but his commands still remain. Honor your father and mother. Thou shalt not murder. These are good and right things. To say you have freely received God’s grace and now have the right to ignore his commands was explicitly condemned by Paul in Romans 6:1.

“…grace is that your debts have been paid for you – because you were incapable.” Spot on! So any good works I do from this point on have absolutely no merit! I can’t earn God’s favor because I already have it! But good works are still worth doing. We are still called to follow after Christ’s example. Not to earn his grace, but because it is already ours in Him.

If orthodox, confessional Lutheranism has one opponent is is most certainly Pietism.

Again… how is it that you are so certain of all of this?

There are widely (sometimes “wildly”!) differing viewpoints within the overall Lutheran movement(s) in both Europe and the States.

And then there is history to contend with; political forces, Lutheranism as state church in many countries, changes from monarchy to democracy, etc. etc. etc.

I might be wrong here, but my understanding of Bonhoeffer’s later beliefs is that he was more “Confessing Church” (his term) than Lutheran per se, since Lutheranism had been so successfully co-opted by the Nazis.

Overall, what you (Miguel) are saying about covenants (etc.) sounds like Calvin’s Geneva.

Church = state, including the “authority” to execute those who criticize the Almighty Theologian’s pov.

I find that completely at odd with what Jesus and the apostles taught about what the body of believers is supposed to be, and how we are meant to look – and act.

“My kingdom is not of this world,” etc. etc. etc.

” theooogy” hah! ;P

Numo, you have GOT to be misunderstanding me somewhere here. Where do I say church = state? Does denying communion to unrepentant sinners = state? When has the “state” ever don that?

And execution = denying communion? I don’t understand how the two could be equated. But if that’s how you understood my comments, I would agree it is certainly at odds with Jesus.

And I would love to pick you brain sometime about history of pietistic movements within Lutheranism. You seem to know a ton about the history of the tradition. I will be looking up that film for sure. Thanks!

LCMS and confessionalism – yes, I’m all too aware of that, having mng come across some pretty crazy material on the web, but have to confess to a superficial understanding (as well as not wanting to immerse myself in LCMS controversies!)

Student of Luther: well, not as much as you think. But we do need to look at his writings with an understanding of both the political and religious systems of his day in mind. It’s not as if he was flag-waving for any kind of democratic rule – the peasants’ demands (which are pretty basic human rights kinda things) did NOT sit well with him – probably because it did not sit well with his patrons and protectors. (Y’know, princes, electors, etc.)

Bonhoeffer: I don’t know as much as I might appear to know, believe me! Again, though, it helps to have at least some foundation in history of that period, very much including the co-option of most churches by the Nazis. The fact that the Lutheran church was the state church didn’t exactly help matters, but all state churches are potential vehicles for political manipulation and control… some high-ups in the C of E said some pretty horrible things about Germans during WWI, for example.

As for saying “I am not wrong,” it comes across as, well, “I am NOT wrong!” rather than what you seem to have meant to convey – that it was a presby. minister who said it.

Maybe just saying “I got this from a Presby. site and I agree with it” would work better?

Just sayin’ (and I *don’t* mean that sarcastically).

Text-only communication is so tough sometimes….!!! (For me as much as anyone else.)

Miguel – re. Babette’s Feast, there is some *great* info. buried in the archives of this site. (You might have to register to be able to access it.)

But if anyone asks who referred you, I would prefer that my name be left out of it. (Long, long story….)

As for execution (etc.), I wasn’t saying that *you* said that, but it is part of what the original Calvinists did… because Calvinism became THE state church in Geneva and environs.

The quotes from the Presby. minister lead me to think that the logical conclusion of his thoughts on church covenants could lead to a theocratic type of “government,” a la the Mass Bay Colony and other places where very severe Calvinist types conflated citizenship with being part of *the* church. (Since they only recognized one – their own. How convenient!)

Am I clear on my aversion to so-called church “covenants” yet? 😉 More seriously, I have seen them abused and that abuse has been leveled against me personally. I think they are just plain wrong.

Baptismal regeneration: well, now – that’s a whole ‘nother topic! And I am not altogether in line with the basic ELCA theology, insofar as I believe that one can experience regeneration apart from baptism. (The apostle Paul comes to mind…) But I do believe that something happens during baptism… what it is, exactly, I’m not sure, and I’m not certain any human being can comprehend everything that goes on, let alone explain it all.

A. Amos – My “conversion” happened when I was 16. My mom (raised in the Lutheran church) reports a similar experience – within church, during a Lutheran service.

In fact, the pastor somehow gave a Lutheran version of an altar call, but no coming forward or anything. So… she prayed and that was that.

I think it *can* happen within the context of Lutheranism, and even that the whole setup is meant to gently nudge people in that direction.

But that’s just me. (Me who hated confirmation classes and quit going after a certain point.)

Food for thought, maybe?

Miguel @ on Thu, Mar 08 2012 at 01:31 pm

You write
““Looking to Jesus” does not mean “ignoring all other teachers and preachers of the Word.” I don’t think Christ had in mind a bunch of disciples running around with fingers in their ear saying “I ONLY listen to Jesus…”

I believed I was called to be a teacher – and a preacher.
That’s what My elders told me – I believed “mere fallible humans” and did both. Oy Vey!!! ;-(

A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet. Pro 29:5

Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel. Pro 20:17

Yes – I was caught in the trap – with a mouth full of gravel,
thinking I was a “Special Class” of Christian – Clergy Class.

When you believe the lie you start to die…

Of course – I wouldn’t have said “I was special” then – Had to at least ACT humble.
And God couldn’t possibly teach His kids – un-edjumacated sheep – ALL truth…
Like He taught Jesus – Like He taught Paul – Like he taught Peter. He needed “me.”

AND – It’s quite a HIGH – having 100-200 folks listening to “me” – sitting in rapt attention…
I mean listening to God ‘s Word For an full hour or more – NO 15 minute sermonettes for us –
Hanging on every word – Well, at least making believe they were listening to every word –
And after this Glorious message with pats on the back, and, “good word brother.” I knew
Amos had advanced the Kingdom Of God.

Eventually realized – The best I could do was teach some truth – and teach some error…
And teach some “Traditions of men” that make void the Word of God. Mark 7:13.

Finding out about “Teaching Error” – stinketh…

It’s the things you learn “after you know it all” – that really count… 😉

Thank you Jesus – found out – In The Bible, there is – NO Clergy class – NO laity.

We’re ALL bretheran – Mat 23:8 – And there is “ONE” teacher – The Christ. 🙂

Found out Jesus is still the best teacher – Yes?

Numo,

You may not see yourself as a Luther scholar, but I’m really the new kid on the block with some of this stuff. Your experience predates mine in terms of years, and you appear to be more well read as well.

Like I’ve said before, I can hardly blame folks for their aversion to covenants after the experiences I learn about here. It is better to not use them at all than for these abuses to exist. I still insist it’s possible to use them without such abuses, just because my experience with them hasn’t been quite to traumatizing. Those arguing against covenants based on experienced have some major points I must concede them, but I’m not ready to scrap the whole system just yet. Would you insist that a pastor owes communion to a man who is publicly having an affair on his wife? Would it be wrong for the pastor to make a public recognition of the wrongness of this public betrayal? I just can’t see how that is fair to the wife for her unfaithful husband to be communing at the same rail as her. I think Jesus would stand up for her. (and forgive the husband should he repent.)

I would definitely agree with you that humans can have only a limited understanding of what takes place in baptism, but “baptismal regeneration” is a broad enough category for me to fall under. I might take exception to your example of Paul saying that I don’t think his experience is necessarily prescriptive of all believers. We didn’t exactly become one of the apostles or write large sections of scripture either. But as a biblicist I’d have to concede that point isn’t clearly spelled out in the text, so your view isn’t heretical or un-biblical. 😛

I’m really trying to keep the heat down. Now Trina is taking issue with my softer rhetoric. …

A. Amos Love—

Here’s the bigotry test for what Luther wrote. I have replaced all terms referring to Jews or Jewish people, with that of black people, African Americans and any other derrogatory term used to describe us:

Here are a few more things Martin Luther NOT only said – but actually wrote.

—————

On the Blacks and Their Lies… Written by Martin Luther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

On the Blacks and Their Lies is a 65,000-word **antisemitic treatise** written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

In the treatise, Luther describes Blacks as a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[1] Luther wrote that they are “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,”[2] and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut”.[3] In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Blacks and “black”ism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are

1. for Black synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2. for houses owned by Blacks to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3. for their religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5. for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Blacks;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and “put aside for safekeeping”; and
7. for the Black population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.[4]

Is there any difference between his ideals and that of slave owners in the South; Nazi Germany; human trafficking and slave labor today?

You can write all the greatest Gospel works in the world, but if I should ever hear that crap come out of the mouth of a preacher, I’d confidently, with a firm female tenor, exclaim that he is no representative of Christ.

My ex-reformed Baptist church’s acceptance of Luther troubles me. In the same way that the SBC had for years condoned the enslavement of others. No wonder they can easily accept that a man can be a bigot and a representative of Christ at the same time, and not be beyond reproof.

I, myself, would not sit under any African-American pastor who spoke ill of white people. Preaching hatred and bigotry is unacceptable from the pulpit, no matter what race you are.

The same rules go for John Calvin. It baffles me that such self-proclaimed well-read, PhD possessing theologians can know so much about Scripture and church history, and yet NEVER mention this ish from the pulpit!!

CHBC conducts what are called Henry Forums. A Henry Forum is generally some type of social topic, whether it be how to reach out to people in Islamic faiths, music and arts for Christians, particular Christian authors, writers… They are these academic forums where there is a speaker and they bring forth a certain issue to be addressed, and talk on the topic and then field questions and start discussions.

So there was supposed (I say supposed, because I’m not sure it took place, but believe it did) one recently, that of course, I did not attend, given by Thabiti Anyabwile on the topic of Puritan authors, particularly those who owned slaves, and if African-Americans should trust what they preached? Should African-Americans consider their teachings? Is there value in their teachings for the black Christian.

Of course my response was an absolute NO! For many reasons, but for the main reason mentioned. You can’t tell me crap about Christ when, although culturally acceptable, you treated other humans less than humane. Yet, one argument was that Johnathan Edwards (I think) was nice to his slaves. He treated them kindly and humanely.

Thabiti’s view was that blacks should accept the teachings of men like Edwards because they have a lot to offer, and are good in many ways. Other black men he has known have begged to differ. I, myself, will beg to differ.

The bottom line is that Chrsitians–black, white, asian or other, DONT NEED any teaching by Edwards, Burroughs, not even Spurgeon, or going back as far as Richard Sibbes. What they need are the teachings of Christ and understanding the sufficiency of Scripture through study of the languages, cultures, literature of that time. THAT, they already have.

Miguel–

I’m just going to put you on ignore. That’s about it. Re-read your statement again, and you will see that you are essentially telling me the same thing. You CANNOT see that, and that’s the problem.

If this isn’t a textbook example, means that it should be “clear” to me as it is to you. You are still telling me that I dont have a clear understanding of what you’re saying.

“You should read my comments more carefully then.” I have. “Me” also did. But you continue to use the “you’re missing my point”, “you’re not seeing clearly what’s there”, “you’re misquoting me”, or “you’re misinterpreting me” excuse.

Apparently, MOST people here are missing your point, BECAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING THAT.

You sure use a lot of words to express your ideas and still come out unclear to us. Yet, you think the miscommunication is on our part.

You also continue to make statements like this “Numo, you have GOT to be misunderstanding me somewhere here.” But yet, you make statemetns like this “First of all, I am not wrong about these things.”

I wish we all had the absolute clarity you seem to have. Your sentences are so cryptic, nobody can get your points. EVER. Really?

Yes, I DO think you refuse to recognize legitimate disagreements. And trust me buddy, I have read your comments VERY CAREFULLY. You come across as rude very often as you tend to want to challenge the aptitude of your readers, as you had before in a previous argument we had. I think you are quite blind to your own arrogance.

Maybe YOU should start reading your own comments more carefully before you hit send.

A. Amos Love,

Were you a preacher before? If so, it’s refreshing to hear one admit the high of public respect.

“The best I could do was teach some truth – and teach some error… And teach some ‘Traditions of men’ that make void the Word of God. Mark 7:13”

Right on, again! Was it N.T. Wright who said that he’s open to the idea that at any given time about 2/3 of his theology is wrong. One of the difficulties I have with systematic theology is it tries to reduce an incomprehensible God to bite sized propositions. There a limit to how far we can go in knowing God in this life, for sure.

Nonetheless, Jesus for some reason chooses to use such foolish and fallible people as us. 1 Corinthians 1:21 – we are fools, but God still delivers the infinite through the finite. Don’t ask me why, but I’m happy enough to be playing for his team. If I were Jesus I wouldn’t give me a chance at bat!

But not all “tradition” or teaching of men has to be the enemy of the gospel or true faith. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 encourages us to keep to the true tradition or right doctrine, and James 1:27 encourages us to keep to true religion. You think the author could have foreseen we would never agree on what that is.

Clergy should not be treated as a “special class,” you are right to lament that. But they are a specific class, charged with specific responsibilities that don’t necessarily belong to everybody (though most of what they do can certainly be shared). But they are no more holy, spiritual, or righteous than any other sinner, ordained or not. Beware of any clergy that deny this! Also beware when the sermon is equated with God’s word. We ought to be able to distinguish the text from the commentary.

And yes! IF a fallible human being does manage to teach us something true and worthwhile, it is really Christ that is the teacher, and his voice that is leading us. Jesus IS the best teacher, and an extremely creative one at that.

Miguel – I totally get what Trina is saying.

A number of comments back, you said something about a comment of mine and “execution.”

The thing is… I *thought* (perhaps incorrectly) that my 1st comment about Calvin’s theocratic Geneva showed the extent to which “covenants” can be abused, and that the supposed “authority” vested in John Calvin *was* abused (by him), big time.

The whole “covenant” thing caught me by surprise back in the 1970s when Catholic charismatics started implementing it (The ideas came mainly from the Ft. Lauderdale Five – the head honchos of the shepherding/discipleship movement.) Clearly, they got it from somewhere else; likely multiple sources.

Covenants and the abuse of covenants are not a new thing – what we’re seeing now is the latest iteration of these ideas, with a hardcore Calvinist slant, which (imo) makes them even more prone to abuse.

Miguel
I’d like to summarize just one of your points, using statements from 3 different comments, and respond with just one subjective, anecdotal counterpoint. 
     “There is a good, healthy, non-abusive way to practice covenant membership, and right use of it can be an edifying tool in the contemporary pastoral toolbox.
And: One purpose of a church covenant is to give pastors a platform from which to practice discipline.
And:  A covenant gives the pastor the ability to say to someone, “Do you remember when you joined the church? Here’s your signature. You agreed…etc.”
    My understanding:  covenant membership is an important enabler of pastors for the edification, discipline, and exhortation of church members.
     My counterpoint: the most effective pastor I ever knew, in all 3 areas (for over 20 years) made no use of anything like covenant membership. He had no difficulty knowing who it was he was leading, and HAD a platform for discipline– primarily through the preaching and teaching of the Word. He was gifted with the ability to remind and exhort us — not based upon something WE had done because WE joined, WE signed, or WE agreed, but based upon our having been joined with Christ as members of His body (not the pastor’s organization) by grace through faith. IMO he also had great authority in the Gospel. I long to see such changed lives where we are now. Quite the opposite of individualism and lack of community took place in this church, as a result. With not one community care group ever, plenty of “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom” and “speaking to yourselves with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” took place, even on Sunday mornings. Much of this was because our pastor focused on equipping ALL the saints to do the work of ministry, rather than doing it all himself. Just an inadequate summary of the subjective memories of a lifetime, I know.
BTW. 2 years before I met him, he resigned Lutheranism (LCMS) but brought with him a good many good things, including an appreciation for Bonhoeffer, by which many have been blessed. 
 
  

Trina,

Ok, you don’t want my defense so I’ll just apologize. Listen, I am really, truly sorry if what I’m saying is offensive. It’s certainly not my intent and I’m doing my best to understand where I’ve been inappropriate. I certainly have much more to learn about clarity and sensitivity. And I REALLY didn’t mean to imply that YOU were linguistically challenged, I’m willing to concede I just don’t express myself clearly. I’ve concede many points here and I’m willing to admit I’m wrong if you can help me to see it.

Dave A A,
I feel totally understood 😀
Your summary is quite fair.
Good story. I would certainly agree that covenant membership is not even necessary for effective discipleship, but merely a frequently abused option. I would even agree that being “in Christ” is the true grounds upon which to appeal to a believer when confronting unchristian behavior. The use of a covenant in such situation was simply to affirm that since they did agree to it, we believe they are in Christ, thereby justifying our appeal to them as brothers, and not “you need to change first or you can’t be in Christ.”

As far as “equipping all the saints for the work of the ministry,” I definitely believe this is high priority for all in ministry. Right use of a covenant goes would go to support this. Regardless of the proverbial list, the true membership of a congregation are those doing the work.

When you refer to your pastor discipling primarily through preaching, I would agree this is THE primary method of discipleship. However, I would call this positive discipline. It points the direction. There is need, however occasional, for corrective discipline. 1 Timothy 3:16 encourages the use of Scripture for teaching, rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness. I feel like in our culture there is nothing more politically incorrect than open rebuke, but you would think a heart of wisdom would embrace it, according to the book of Proverbs.

Miguel – no, I didn’t think you were endorsing that aspect of Calvin’s life.

I missing something. What is “the Galatian error still exists” mean? Maybe, I’m tired, but I’ve rescanned the article. Thanks!

Trina

Amen – much agreement when you write…
“The bottom line is that Chrsitians–black, white, asian or other, DONT NEED any teaching by Edwards, Burroughs, not even Spurgeon, or going back as far as Richard Sibbes. What they need are the teachings of Christ and understanding the sufficiency of Scripture through study of the languages, cultures, literature of that time. THAT, they already have.”

and again – Amen…
“What they need are the teachings of Christ and understanding the sufficiency of Scripture”

In my experience…
Most today in “the Corrupt Religious System” do NOT believe…
Jesus can teach ALL – ALL truth… John 6:45, John 18:37.
And you need NO man to teach you… 1 John 2:26-27.
And you can – *Hear His Voice* and follow Jesus… John 10:27.

Hey Steve Scott,

Love your thoughts. I’d agree that most of the goals in those 8 points (which are taken from Zack Hicks, actually) are covered in Baptism. However, looking at #3, even baptized Christians often treat the church like a consumer product.

While I would certainly agree that all believers have membership in Christ automatically, this membership expresses itself through local congregations, be it institutional churches, house churches, bible studies, etc…

It is true, though, that many membership covenants create a mold that strain out many. However, every individual congregation”s style and methods of ministry do about the same thing; some people just don’t fit in high church worship services, and others can’t endure high decibel music.

This is why I’ve said again and again that the Bible most definitely doesn’t require covenant membership, or any one form of church organizational polity. Covenant membership is just one option on the menu of ministerial methods, all of which come with pros and cons.

Even churches without covenant membership often see a divide between attenders and servants, via the 20/80 principle. Or between regulars and occasional worshipers.

When authoritarian leaders begin pontificating on the personal details of the lives of the laity, that’s a red flag. But as I’ve also said before, when people come together for community, organization happens. Part of the organizational process is the delegation of roles, and leaders emerge. Nobody wants a pastor who says “I’m accountable to nobody except God, and therefore I don’t have to listen to you.” Is it really good for the laity to have that attitude then?

So I know I’m late in the game on this post but if anyone of you gets a chance to respond I’d be much obliged because I am extremely curious about the two questions that came up for me. Firstly I agree with the writer as a whole, the abuse brought up is real. My question thought is 1. What do you think Paul was actually like as a leader? Was he sort of a grass roots, stand by the peoples side and lead or was he an authoritarian. I think it’s interesting because we see him say things that let us know he wouldn’t impose anything on his churches that he himself wouldn’t do and we see him as an advocate for freedom in Christ but we also see him say things like in 1 Cor 4:21 if he should come to them with a rod?

2. The good news referenced at the end of the article, the death burial resurrection etc…that is Paul’s gospel. But what was the good news that Jesus was preaching?

“If I read the sermon on the mount with no church experience, I’d take away that he actually wants and expects people to live like that.”

He does, Nick. It is a lie from the pit of hell that it is taught we cannot live like that. Otherwise, why would Jesus Christ bother to send the Holy Spirit to us? Why are “we” to be the temple where God dwells now?

We will never be “perfect” because we are born in corrupted bodies and live in a corrupted world. Perfection is God and we “miss the mark”. But we can be “pure”. In fact, we are told that Jesus will present a “pure” Bride to Himself. We are even told to be righteous. But as NT Wright says, so many hear that word and think ‘self righteous’ and do not know the real meaning.

@ A. Amos Love,

I dig your thoughts and I want to agree. That is what I hope that Paul is like, What do you make of when he says to the Corinthians..paraphrase…when I come see you should I come in love or with a rod? And other similar situations.

@ Dee,

What do you make of say something like the end of 1 cor 5 when Paul is saying that anyone who claims to be a bro or sis and is immoral, you shouldn’t even eat with that person.But then kind of this idea that Jesus likes sinners, hes not impressed with good church folk. Its humble and good and honest to confess our depravity (not total, just using the word). Doesn’t this appear to be a contradiction. Its almost like the message can be, “hey don’t be a “good” super religious church person and think its all about reading your Bible and not sinning, because Jesus likes sinners but once you realize that Jesus loves you make sure you become a good church person that reads there bible and doesn’t sin.” (Obviously I’m picking out a couple things…read bible and not sin…but hope the idea is clear)

Nick

You write – Mon, Mar 12 2012 at 01:56 pm…
I think referring to the possibility of Paul also being an “Authoritarian”…
“we see him as an advocate for freedom in Christ but we also see him say things like in
1 Cor 4:21 if he should come to them with a rod?”

Thought that an interesting observation so I looked up that verse. And the word “Rod.”
And today you ask again… 😉

IMO – One of our unique quandaries with the Bible…
We all have the ability to use the Bible to validate our life style, and our beliefs…
We seem to be able to find what we already believe.

Here’s what I found. It seems – “Rod” can be harsh, to beat someone. “Authoritarian.”
And – “Rod” can be a nice word. A baton of royalty. A shepherds staff – to lean on.

If Paul means it to be “Harsh” here? Why is he “Asking” – shall I come to you with a rod?
And giving this bunch an option? …with a “Rod, ”or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Personally – I have never had “Authoritarian Leaders” *ask* my opinion about much at all.
They just tell you, in many different ways, Many Messages, Just Pray, Pay and Obey.
So, I see Paul, the Servant???, “asking” if he can come with a “Rod,” or in love… 🙂

1 Cor 4:21.
What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Rod – is Strongs #4464 – rhabdos – a cane or a baton of royalty, sceptre, staff.
…….. In the KJV – rod 6, staff 4, sceptre 2; 12

Rod – in Thayers Lexicon
1) a staff, a walking stick, a twig, rod, branch (Nice)
2) a rod with which one is beaten (NOT so Nice – Harsh)
3) a staff as used on a journey, or to lean upon, or by shepherds (Nice)
3b) when applied to kings
3b1) with a rod of iron, indicates the severest, most rigorous rule (NOT so Nice – Harsh)

And – When Jesus Rules – with a “Rod” – of iron no less… – Rev 2:27, Rev 11:1, Rev 19:15.
Is Jesus being “Harsh?” Or – Is Jesus being “Nice,” loving?

Rule – In Rev is – Strongs #4165. poimaino
to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, supervisor):– feed (cattle), rule.
…….. In the KJV – feed 6, rule 4, feed cattle 1; 11

Rule – Thayers Lexicon
1) to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
1a) to rule, govern
1a1) of rulers
1a2) to furnish pasture for food
1a3) to nourish
1a4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
1a5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need

So, for me, when Jesus “rules with a Rod of iron” – (And Paul also with his “Rod”)
Jesus is “tending the flock” with a “shepherds staff of royalty” made of iron. 🙂

(Nice)

A. Amos Love

I like it. What does IMO mean by the way? I think that’s a cool thing you found. I’m still curious though because if that’s what he meant then why would he say in love OR rod, the contrast makes the rod seem opposite of gentle. Just to let you know where I’m coming from, I’m not making a case for nor do I support authoratarian leadership. In your first response you mentioned Paul never calling himself a leader and I think that’s the way it was meant to be, communities under the leadership of Jesus with certain people given spiritual GIFTS like eldership and signing and serving and whatever which is not in anyway a church office. There are wise dudes that seem to have a special sense when people are hurting or in need in the church I spend my time with and I consider them elders more than the people who are labeled elders. With that being said I still am up in the air about the way Paul was. I think there are theoretical parts of his theology that weren’t perhaps weren’t practical in his time and place. So I think the general message of equality and community is consistent with what you have been talking about but are there times when it seems like Paul doesn’t stand by that message? It appears possible. I don’t find this a reason not to trust Paul or his message, he was a recovering Pharisee who was open about his own struggles I’m just suggesting he might have been human and gotten angry and said things or did things at times outside of his own ideals. Ps this is speculation. Brainstorming.

gracias numo

Hi Nick

Enjoying the thoughts and questions. Causing me to search, to ask different questions.
Thanks numo for helping out with – IMO – Meaning – In My Opinion.

Nick, you ask…
“why would he say in love OR rod, the contrast makes the rod seem opposite of gentle.”

That’s the way I always understood “Rod” – “opposite of gentle.” Paul, the tough guy.
But – because of you asking this question – I can see Pauls “Asking” as being “gentle.”
So, now, when I look at “Rod” I have some additional – maybe’s. 😉

Maybe – Paul is offering something Nice – OR – something, really, really, Nice.. 😉

Maybe – This “OR” is NOT opposite – but – This “OR” is offering something greater, better?

Maybe – Pauls “Rod” is a shepherds staff – used to help, correct, protect, ”helpless sheep?”

Maybe – Kinda like – offering help, correction, to a teenager – who knows everything…
Errr…. Thinks they know everything – And desires to be treated as an adult.

Maybe – Paul’s “Rod” is offering help, correction, protection – OR – love, spirt of meekness?

How’s that for some – Maybe’s? 😉

And Jesus, in Mark 10:42, teaches His Disciples NOT to be like those who rule over
the gentiles – NOT to “Exercise Lordship” and NOT to “Exercise Authority” upon them.

So, here, I would like to see Paul as a “Servant.” NOT as one who will “Exercise Authority.”

What is popular is not always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is not always popular.”