The First Order of Business

by Frank Turk

I am posting excerpts from my talk at the "Call to Discernment" conference last weekend since DJP feels a little dry this week.  You can hear the full audio for my talk, or any of the talks, when they all go live.  I'll post the link here.

Today is Thursday, so keep it between the ditches.

We continue in Mat 16:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! [He says] For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That’s quite a declaration from Jesus.  He started with what looked like some sort of opinion poll or a survey of ideas about what it is that was happening as he was going around with these fellows teaching, and he changes the discussion from what everyone is expecting from Jesus to what God Himself is doing, and is about to do, through Jesus.

See: Jesus did not come to appeal to flesh and blood, or to fulfill the desires of our flesh and blood: Jesus came to do what God Himself wants accomplished.  Those who see it, says Jesus, are “on a rock” – like Simon who is the first to say it out loud. This is plainly a reference back to the parable in Matthew 7 -- the wise man and the foolish man, yes?  The foolish man built his house upon the sand; the wise man built his house upon the rock – and the rain came tumbling down.  Right? This is the end of the sermon on the mount -- “the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.”  So on the same rock which caused Simon to declare Jesus to be the Christ and not merely a prophet, Christ himself will build what he calls “my church” – and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus has set up the priority of things carefully here, contrasting what “everyone” thinks against what the Disciples think about himself.  But as soon as He gets the right answer, Jesus draws a conclusion: Since I am the Messiah, the Christ, I will build my church on the rock of faith which God has given.  That’s the first conclusion Jesus draws about the priority of things – in this passage anyway: Since there is a Christ, there must be a Church.

When I say that, it will upset a lot of people.  Some people will say, “But Jesus is here speaking about the universal church, or the invisible church – the set of people from Adam to the last person saved in Revelation – and that is as broad as the scope of the cross-work of Christ.”  The reason they do this is simple: they read Jesus here to be saying, “I will build a church in general, with an indeterminate number in it.”  That's an orthodox reading of this statement, and one which I agree with.

But there is something there which I think we also want from this passage: nobody wants Jesus to do anything which offends.  We want Jesus to be saying things which are inviting only, and not in any way intimidating or putting demands on us.  And let’s face it: it’s easier on us if we think the church is merely an indeterminate and disembodied set of people because that means there’s nobody in particular in that church.

I think Jesus is making a different point here.

We must see that Christ is not saying this to the wind, or writing it in a manifesto as a claim for the ages to people not yet in evidence.  He’s saying it to the disciples who are right here, right now, in front of him.  This fellow here? He is Simon Peter.  He’s standing on the rock of faith Jesus was talking about back on the hillside.  And what he’s got is what Jesus will build his church on.

This gets buried behind our English word “church.”  In Greek, it is the word “ecclesia.”  Most of you have heard that before, I am sure.  The word means “an assembly,” or “a group called together for a common purpose.”  It is not a word like “citizen” – although Christians are called “citizens” elsewhere in the Bible.  A “citizen” can be in a place but not of a place – or at the same time, they can be an American, but present in Canada or Mexico or China.  To be a “citizen” is to be a class of person without regard to your current whereabouts.  People being “ecclesia” is not like one person being a “member” – because I can be a member of a political party and never vote and never meet another soul who believes what I believe.

But an “assembly”, a “church” as we translate it: it’s not an association in theory.  It’s an association in person, a coming together in one place.  In an “ecclesia,” people are called out and get this: they come.  Everyone is present.   When the Greeks used this word, they used it to describe a body of people which is called out in public for a purpose of common cause.  I’m working this over for you only to say this: for us to misread Christ here to mean some kind of invisible body only where the people are virtually linked together merely by a mark or a quality entirely misses Jesus’  point.

He’s saying that as the Christ, he’s going to bring a real body of believers together, starting with this fellow Simon Peter.

Christ will build his church – it is the first necessary consequence Jesus tells his Disciples.  This is interesting because Jesus had what we might call a target-rich environment in Judea and Caesarea.  The Romans occupied the land; the religious rulers were corrupt and hypocritical; the standard of living, let’s face is, was, to say the least, impoverished – and Jesus was the Messiah.  He could have said anything as the first order of business:

“Flesh and Blood did not declare this to you Peter, and because of your faith I will rain my wrath down on Caesar, after whom Caesarea Phillipi is blasphemously named.”

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah – and to show you my power as Messiah, bring the Scribes and Pharisees as my enemies before me so that I may lay them under my footstool!”

“Upon your faith, Simon, I claim healing upon the whole land, and wealth, and prosperity, and good marriages!”

But No: the first order of business was to declare that as Christ, he must have his Church.  He must have the people who have faith in Him, built upon the rock which cannot be shaken.

Therefore, when we ask the question “what is the church?” we can make our definition of the church using Jesus’ term:  “The Church is that which Christ builds, on the basis of real faith in him, in real people like Peter.”

“The Church is that which Christ builds, on the basis of real faith in him, in real people like Peter.”

---

The Sunday School Answer

by Frank Turk

I am posting excerpts from my talk at the "Call to Discernment" conference last weekend since DJP feels a little dry this week.  You can hear the full audio for my talk, or any of the talks, when they all go live.  I'll post the link here.

The comments are closed until Thursday.

It says in Matthew 16:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

Jesus asks the question which puts us in-focus of what really matters.  Whatever, whoever it is that people say Jesus is, that is what is going to drive what they think about Him, and how they think they ought to relate to Him.  Jesus knows this.  Just up the page in Mat 16, he is confronted by the Pharisees who test him for a sign from Heaven – as if God could send somebody to Earth for any reason, and some men could therefore command that person to do anything.  Jesus of course tells them that the signs are everywhere, but they can’t see them.  This is why he sets up the Disciples with this question, because he knows that someone who thinks of Him wrongly will decide to do all manner of things wrongly.

So Jesus asks this question, and the Disciples say, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”  As I read that, I wonder what would happen if I asked you here, “Who do all of you think that I am?”  If the answer came back, “well, some think you have a sharp tongue like Elijah, and some think you love the people of God like Jeremiah, and some think you are politically dangerous like John the Baptist or one of the other prophets,” that would be a pretty fantastic compliment.  Completely undeserved, completely over-the-top, but extraordinary high praise.

But think about this: people were saying this about Jesus.  People meant it for good – because these are not the things that the enemies of Christ were saying: these were the things that the people who thought much of Christ were saying about him.  They were trying to capture the truth of who Jesus was.  But in that, these people were actually wrong.

Here’s how John Calvin reads this response:

[Here] we perceive how great is the weakness of the human mind; for not only is it unable by itself to understand what is right or true, but even out of true principles it creates errors.  

That is to say this: even in meaning well toward Jesus, and thinking highly of him, men could not know him when they were left to their own devices.  As true as it is that it would be wrong to call me or any of the speakers here today a prophet, it is also wrong to call Jesus only a prophet, only some kind of teacher or messenger.  That answer actually aims too low.

That’s why Jesus responds to this by saying, “who do you say that I am?”

Think about this with me because this is the whole point of this passage.  The Scribes and Pharisees want Jesus to belong to them, and answer their questions, and perform miracles when they command it – because they have somehow put themselves out of the right place in God’s way of running the universe.  The rest of the people, who thought much of him, merely made him someone who rightly serves God for their sake.

What Jesus is looking for is the right answer from someone – an answer which prepares them for something else.

[Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”  [and] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

We have to wonder if Simon knew exactly what he was saying here because of what comes next – which we will get to in a few minutes.  But Simon gives what I think we can call a theologically-precise and sound statement.  In some of our churches, we might call it a “Sunday school answer” – because it uses all the Sunday school words to say something about Jesus.

Simon calls him “Christ” here – in Hebrew, he would have called him “Messiah.”  That is: He is someone God has promised to Israel to do something for Israel.  He is present in the Jewish Scriptures, and predicted by the prophets.  He is not merely a prophet, but someone for whom God has the greatest of intention for – which is the deliverance of Israel from exile and bondage into the foremost place among all nations.  And to make sure he said something which sets Jesus apart from other Messiahs, other anointed ones, he says Jesus is the “Son of God.”  He wanted Jesus to know he was convinced that Jesus had some sort of dignity or station above the prophets, above John the Baptist.

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."  

When Christ says this, he is plainly setting Simon’s statement apart from the guesses of “people” in general about who Jesus is.  When “people” in general looked at Christ and listened to him, they heard something encouraging – apparently, they heard something they liked.  They liked the idea that the oppressors of God’s people like Ahab and his filthy wife Jezebel were going to get theirs, or that if one like Jeremiah had come, Israel would again be returned to the protection of God.  That is: people in general were looking to Jesus for something for themselves.  They wanted God for themselves, on terms they could understand.

But Jesus makes something clear here: Simon’s response is not that like that.  It doesn’t come from the place where Simon is thinking with and about his own flesh and blood.  Simon’s response comes to him from God, as a blessing.

---

Open Mic Night

by Frank Turk

I am posting excerpts from my talk at the "Call to Discernment" conference last weekend since DJP feels a little dry this week.  You can hear the full audio for my talk, or any of the talks, when they all go live.  I'll post the link here.

The comments are closed until Thursday.

It ought to be a pretty scary thing if, when we talk about the Christian faith with reasonably-intelligent people, the words “church” and “christian” are not clear in their meaning. There are a lot of different kinds of christians and churches represented here today, and I know in the circle I’m usually involved in we worry about the definition of words like, “Gospel,” and “Justification,” and “infralapsarian,” and “the aseity of God.” We sort of assume that we all know what we mean when we say words like “church,” or “fellow believer,” or “ministry,” but let me suggest something to you: I think we don’t understand those words very well. I think we often insert our generic interpretation of those words as a short-cut so we can get started on the Christian Life rather than thinking a little harder and discovering that we have made mistakes, and we have misinterpreted what we ought to mean when we set about living as if the Bible is true.

Because that’s actually the point, right? I’m going to assume that we all want to live as if the Bible is true. That is at least part of what we mean when we say we want to be “Ambassadors to the World.” There is ample opportunity to do so every single day. I’ll bet that there’s nobody reading this who thinks that our nation is doing just fine, our churches are just fine, and the state of the Christian faith is just fine. I’ll bet I could let any one of you who is willing come up here and you could, without any prepared notes, fill a whole blog post with concerns and remedies for our families, our local assemblies, and our cities, and states, and nation.

However, before we start open mic night , let me suggest something to you which many people – even those with the best intentions -- do not consider: It’s that inclination which causes us to want to organize ourselves into groups of like-minded Christians who agree with us about the problems and the solutions – but I think we forget that there is a difference between trying to do what’s morally right, and living as if the Bible is true.

Before we start with our diagnoses and treatments of the world and its ills, we need to make sure that our priorities are the ones which Jesus intended, and that our efforts are the ones which Jesus intended, and then that our results are the ones which Jesus intended. Most importantly: we need to make sure that we are clear about what Jesus says regarding these things, and that we are clear when we live them out and tell others about them.

---

Church vs. parachurch

by Dan Phillips

Each of the terms in the title is problematically broad, yet both are unavoidable. So let's proceed. I'm sure others have done this better than I, but I feel compelled to put in what I've got.

I feel about parachurch organizations the way I do about denominations. The concept makes sense, but the execution usually ends up being problematic. Parachurch organizations, at their best, address specifically targeted needs in ways that span churches and denominations. They might be clearing-houses for defense against cults, or response to scientistic attacks on our faith. They're Bible colleges, seminaries. A kid's at a secular college for some time, and a parachurch organization provides some on-campus fellowship, encouragement, instruction, camaraderie. I completely get that.

But here's the problem. Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). Not the parachurch. Christ is the Head of the church (Eph. 5:23), not of the parachurch. He gave pastors and teachers for the equipping of saints for the work of service (Eph. 4:11). The church is created for, founded upon, and united in, its allegiance to the person of Christ who exercises His headship through the specific truths of God's Word (Jn. 8:31-32; 17:17, 21, 23; Eph. 4:4-5). The task of enlisting and cultivating students of Christ has been entrusted to it (Matt. 28:18-20). The task of preaching God's Word come what may has been thunderously pressed upon its leadership (2 Tim. 4:1-6). Assuring doctrinal purity, and guarding against (and repelling, and shutting the mouths of) unbelievers is Divinely mandated for that local church leadership (1 Tim. 1:3-11, 18-19; Titus 1:5-16; 2:1, 15; 3:9-11).

Let me rephrase that last thought as a question, and come at it from a different angle. Do you feel the need for instruction, for equipping for service? Do you see how much more there is to learn of Christ, of His person and work, of His will for  your life? Are you boggled by the maze of differing and competing views, and longing for guidance and guarding amidst them? Christ already thought of all that, and more. He already made provision for those needs (Eph. 4:7ff.). The provision He made is men who are pastors and teachers, His personal ascension-gifts to His church. You find these men leading local churches, where they watch over and are held accountable by God for the souls of the people in their care (Heb. 13:7, 17). It is their responsibility, as well, to make sure that the teaching within those local church is sound, is in accord with apostolic doctrine (cf. Titus 1:9-11, 13-16; 2:1, 15; 3:9-11).

What's more, these guys aren't just anyone — or they're not supposed to be! They are held to certain publicly-detailed standards, and profess and demonstrate rock-solid allegiance to certain doctrines by which they are to be measured and assessed (1 Tim. 3:1ff.; Titus 1:5ff.).

So where do parachurch personnel come in? Well, that's the problem. Their leaders may or may not be (or be qualified to be) pastors. So that means that they may or may not be held to the specific standards spelled out in the Bible. They may or may not even be accountable to such men as specified by God, in the Bible. I've known more than one person working for Christian organizations who did not even attend a local church.

So what happens in these relations, when Christians get involved in parachurch organizations? That can be the problem. Do the folks in these parachurch organizations, whatever they are, point the folks they serve to local churches? Do they make sure that they make God's stated priority their priority, that participants not (for instance) be heavily involved in the parachurch organization, while remaining only occasional and uninvolved visitors at their church? Do they, for instance, follow the example of the radio Bible teacher I heard years back who regularly cautioned supporters not to regard their financial support of his ministry as equivalent to local-church support?

I imagine pastors will weigh in here, and welcome it. I recall an earlier ministry, years ago, where someone was all about a parachurch organization, but "iffy" on her church. She had — and I have seen this often — a sort of presbyopia that made distant things clear and vivid, but things at hand fuzzy and hard to make out. She was all about this parachurch organization, but took her church, and her role in it, for granted. You see this when folks enthuse about this or that ministry, but never speak of their own church.

It's easy to see how this happens: The organization focuses on something Christian A thinks is important. So Christian A focuses on that organization. So now — at worst — there's one more person not diligently pouring his/her time and gifts and resources and energies into the building up of a particular local church (Eph. 4:15-16).

Let's suppose all this parachurchical energy is going into a genuinely important function. Could the church (God's express institution) do it? Usually, the problem is lack of qualified and willing personnel. I daresay most pastors would eagerly welcome stable, maturing folks in their membership, already clearly committed to the church's ministry, who'd say "Here's an area of ministry where I'd like to serve and help us extend the breadth and depth of our outreach." Then they could do thus under elder oversight, guidance, instruction and protection (Heb. 13:7, 17). Instead, folks may find a parachurch organization, latch on... and the church sees that much less of them. Though perhaps it hears much of their ministry.

Back to where I started: there are parachurch organizations that serve the local church. They embrace and support its role in God's plan. Their personnel are committed church-members, and they point those who come to them to local church involvement. They treasure Christ's church. They don't try to arrogate the role of Christ's church to themselves or supplant it.

Can anyone see a parachurch organization in the NT? If not, I still wouldn't conclude that there's no place for them, any more than I would for organs or guitars or pews. However, these would seem to be the least we need to insist:

1. The local church, led by qualified men, is God's specifically designated organization.
2. As such, the lion's share of our time, talents and treasures should be invested in our local church.
3. "Leftovers" should go to parachurch ministries, not to local church ministries.
4. Any other organization should tread lightly and humbly, explicitly giving pride of place and emphasis to the local church.

---