Following the Real Pattern

Generally when the New Testament speaks of following a pattern, it has in mind models of living. For example, the much-liked word of patternists ‘typos’ is never used of some blueprint that outlines church polity or practice. Instead, it consistently refers to following a certain kind of lifestyle. Notice how the word is used in the following texts:

Join with others in following my example (symmimetai), brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. (Phil 3.17) 

And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.” (1 Thess 1.7) 

We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. (2 Thess 3.9) 

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. (1 Tim 4.12) 

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness (Titus 2.7) 

… not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5.3)

In each case, the word refers to some model that a flesh-and-blood human models for others to emulate. And this is precisely how Jesus modeled it. In John 13.15, Jesus tells his disciples,

I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you."

Here Jesus' example of washing the disciples' feet becomes a behavior he expects of his disciples. Whether, in terms of serving one another, or, in actually washing each other feet, Jesus sets himself as the example we are to follow.

More pointedly, Paul clearly calls on the Corinthians to follow his example, "as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor 11.1). Similar to the list of texts at the first of this piece, this text underscores that those who follow Jesus are worthy of imitation. The purpose of this pattern is the imatitio Christi. Phil 3.17 is concerned precisely about this as well:

Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you.

As is 2 Thess 3.7-9:

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow.

Here the context clearly describes what it means to follow the example of another. Paul implores the Thessalonians to live as he and his band had lived when among them. Paul continues this emphasis in some of his last letters when he mentors Timothy (1 Tim 4.12) and Titus (2.7) to set a good example for the believers among whom they serve. Therefore the biblical testimony about any pattern is consistent: it has to do with living right.

You will find the same emphasis again in Heb 13.7:

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Again, the point is to follow people who follow Jesus.

Yet a text from 1 Peter (2.21-25) gives the best way to follow the pattern:

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

The pattern here, as you have already surmised, is Jesus. Jesus is the pattern for what it means to follow God. In this particular passage, Jesus’ non-retaliatory response to those who would mistreat him becomes the example for those now facing persecution. Consistently, in the NT, following the pattern is about following the way of Jesus, the way he lives and the way he taught.

In the New Testament, the word pattern is never used of issues dealing with church polity, governance, or practice. Therefore, if one is looking for a pattern in the New Testament, you need look no further than Jesus.

Jesus is the pattern, our example, our model.

Beyond the Pattern

Google "according to the pattern," and you will get a series of Church of Christ sponsored links. Some in the Churches of Christ (and other restorationist/primitivist/biblicist traditions) seek to establish that God gives very thorough instruction on how to "do church." Typical of this type of understanding is Bill Jackson's "Make All Things According to the Pattern," in Studies in Hebrews, edited by Dub McClish (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing, 1983), 150-162. However, "patternism" can only be supported by an idiosyncratic reading of these texts, akin to doing a kind of connect-the-dot through a concordance, linking unrelated texts that happen to have the same word in them. I argue here that legitimate exegesis cannot establish such a patternism. This post, then, seeks to hear the pertinent texts on their own terms.

"According to the pattern" occur in just a few texts from the Bible, namely Ex 25.40, Acts 7.44, and Heb 8.5 (however, only here in the KJV). The latter two texts are citations or allusions to the Ex 25 text.

(Phil 3.17, which is sometimes pulled into the conversation, looks like an echo of the Ex 25 passage in the NIV but this is merely sloppy translating. The KJV's "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample" is much closer to the original. More literally, still would be "as you have us (as) example." The only connection with the Exodus text is the word typos; therefore, in the end, there is no literary connection between Phil 3.7 and Ex 25.40).

The originating text, Exodus 25.40, reads, “And see that you make them according to the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain” (NRSV). It serves as a transition between chapters 25 and 26 each which contains a long list of instructions regarding the making of furnishings of the tabernacle.

In these chapters, God gives Moses very detailed instructions regarding the making of the tabernacle and its furnishings, as in Exodus 25.34–36:

On the lampstand itself there shall be four cups shaped like almond blossoms, each with its calyxes and petals. There shall be a calyx of one piece with it under the first pair of branches, a calyx of one piece with it under the next pair of branches, and a calyx of one piece with it under the last pair of branches—so for the six branches that go out of the lampstand. Their calyxes and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one hammered piece of pure gold (NRSV).

Read contextually, this is not the pattern but a narrative about how to follow the pattern Moses has seen on the mount. These instructions are not the pattern that Moses was to follow exactly but an account of Moses being given the pattern. This is a fine, but important distinction. Moses did not pass on the "pattern" but instead monitored the process whereby the pattern which only he saw on the mount became the tabernacle and its furnishings.

In other words, "the pattern" generated these types of instructions. Observe that it has nothing to do with liturgical practices, the priest's clothing, their qualifications, or other important facets of the levitical priesthood; it dealt explicitly (and contextually) with making the furnishings for the tabernacle, as in Ex 25.9: “Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.” Again, in this text, it is the tabernacle and furnishings that are under discussion. Nothing else comes under the stricture "to make according to the pattern." I do not deny that God has expectations, some very exacting in other matters, but not everything God commands are based on some "pattern."

The word translated "pattern" (tavnit) in Hebrews occurs in other OT texts for things made from a model or pattern, as with an altar in 2 Kg 16.10:

Then King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria. He saw an altar in Damascus and sent to Uriah the priest a sketch of the altar, with detailed plans for its construction.

and the temple in 1 Chron 28.11, 12:

Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for the portico of the temple, its buildings, its storerooms, its upper parts, its inner rooms and the place of atonement. He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the temple of the LORD and all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated things. He gave him instructions for the divisions of the priests and Levites, and for all the work of serving in the temple of the LORD, as well as for all the articles to be used in its service.

or concerning the cherubim in the Holy of Holies as recorded in 1 Chron 28.18b-19:

[David] also gave [Solomon] the plan for the chariot, that is, the cherubim of gold that spread their wings and shelter the ark of the covenant of the LORD. “All this,” David said, “I have in writing from the hand of the LORD upon me, and he gave me understanding in all the details of the plan."

Several observations from these texts are in order. First, God did have a pattern for some things in which he expects people to follow to the detail. However, in all of the texts so far, it was not the task of everyman, but leaders who were privy to divine revelation. Second, while the biblical narrative speaks of the "plan" that was to be followed very carefully, it does not reveal the content of the plan in details that could be repeated by anyone reading only the biblical text to make any of the items. Simply put, we don't have the plans, we have a narrative telling us there was a plan. Third, as deficient as the fairly elaborate details are in the OT, the NT rarely offers the same level of detail in describing Christian worship. The passages dealing with worship gatherings in 1 Cor are the exceptions.

For the sake completeness, all of the OT texts containing the Hebrew word are these: Ex 25.9, 40; Deut 4.16–18; Josh 22.28; 2 Kings 16.10; Is 44.13; Ezek 8.3, 10; 10.8; Psa 106.20; 144.12; and 1 Chr 28.11–12, 18–19. In some of these texts, the word is equivalent with image or idol.

Now I turn to the NT citations of the Ex 25 passage. Acts 7.44 reads,

Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen.

Stephen's citation of the Exodus passage underscores the divine origin of the tabernacle which will only heighten Stephen's point that God does not live in man-made temples, including the tabernacle and the temple in Jerusalem. However, Stephen is not calling on anyone to do anything "according to the pattern." It is merely part of his historical retelling of the exodus story as found in Ex 25 and 26.

The citation of the Exodus text in Hebrews is a bit more intriguing. It reads within its immediate context:

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. (Hebrews 8.3–6 NIV)

The interpretation that views this text as saying that God has a divine pattern for the church today he expects humans to follow completely is simply not reading the text. The text makes no such point and actually works against any such idiosyncratic understanding.

In the larger context, the Hebrews writer is establishing that Jesus is a different kind of high priest from the ones who descend from Levi. The logic of this text is as follows:

Every priest needs something to offer. However, if Jesus was serving on earth, he would not be a priest since there are already those connected with temple doing that. This "sanctuary" is merely a "copy and shadow" of what is in heaven. (Now the Hebrew writers cites Ex 25.40 to support this relationship between shadow and reality). The tabernacle (or even the temple) is not the real sanctuary; according to the Hebrews writer heaven is! Not the church as patternists would have it.

The Hebrews writer is arguing that the tabernacle and its furnishings, the very things made according to the pattern, has been superseded in Jesus. For example, Hebrews 8:1-2 says it this way:

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.”

The sanctuary or tabernacle here is not the church, but heaven where Jesus offered himself to God. In none of these "according to the pattern" texts is there anything for God's people to do today. In order to create that relationship, patternist will seek to tie in others texts using the Greek word typos (which was used to translate the Hebrews word in the LXX and is used with several different connotations in the NT). However, those texts have no connection whatsoever with the way it is used in Acts 7.44 or Hebrews 8.5. Since there are only 14 verses that use this word, I have listed them with the word typos highlighted in red in the corresponding translation.

In the Gospel of John, the word signifies the "marks" left by the nails in Jesus' hands.

So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” (John 20.25 NIV)

In Acts, the word applies both the idols the Israelites once made as well as the pattern after which Moses was to build the tabernacle and furnishings. It can also refer to the model on which a letter is copied.

You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.

Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. (Acts 7.43–44 NIV)

He wrote a letter as follows: (Acts 23.25 NIV)

In Romans, typos can refer to how Adam was a model of the man to come, that is Jesus. In this way, the word is used much the same way as the earthly tabernacle prefigures the heavenly one. However, in the case of Romans 6.17, the "form" of teaching refers to the content of that teaching.

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. (Romans 5.14; 6.17 NIV)

In 1 Corinthians, the ancient Israelites serve as an example not be be followed:

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. (1 Cor 10.6 NIV)

In the remaining texts in the New Testament where the word occurs, typos has a consistent usage refering to the kind of examples people set for others to follow.

Join with others in following my example (symmimetai), brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. (Phil 3.17)

 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.” (1 Thess 1.7)

We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. (2 Thess 3.9)

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. (1 Tim 4.12)

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness (Titus 2.7)

… not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5.3)

In final analysis, I don't disagree that there is a pattern to be followed. My contention is that patternists choose the wrong pattern and then pour their prooftexting scriptures into their pattern and, what's worse, they seek to impose their understandings on the consciences of others.

In my next piece, I plan to explore more positively, what the pattern of the New Testament really is.

Shepherds without Blemish: Reflections on Leadership

In his instruction to the missionary (or apostolic delegate) to the island of Crete, Paul informed Titus to appoint elders in every city. The foremost quality for these leaders is that they be “blameless” (Paul uses two different words for “blameless in 1 Tim. and Titus; cf. the same word applied to deacons in 1 Tim. 3.10 and synonym “above reproach” in 1 Tim. 3.2, 5.7, and 6.14; and yet another synonym, “of good reputation” in Onosander’s The General, ca. AD 45. This last work describes of what makes a good Roman general; several of the terms used by Paul occur there).

What then does “blamelessness” mean in the context of church leadership? A sketch of context of the letter to Titus provides the background for why Paul sought this particular quality in an elder.

A. The Literary Context of the Letter to Titus.*

Paul states his purpose for writing the letter in 1.5, where the he (re)assigns Titus two tasks: (1) to set unfinished things in order and (2) to appoint leaders in every city. The rest of the first chapter elaborates on the second of these tasks. In 1.6-9, Paul enumerates the qualities needed for leadership in Crete. The last quality in v. 9, “to refute those who contradict,” prepares the reader for Paul’s assessment of Cretan society.

The populace of Crete lacked moral character, which the apostle supports by quoting Epimenides, a Cretan poet, who lived in the sixth century BC. Additionally Titus must deal with “those of the circumcision” (see Acts 10:45 and 11:2; cf. also Col. 10, 11),” a Jewish element, exploiting the church by “ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach,” and making a profit in the process (v. 12). The severity of the situation in Crete should not be minimized; it is the seriousness of the situation in Crete that called this letter into being, and forms the backdrop for understanding the qualities required of elders.

In chapter two, the apostle expands on the first of the two tasks (“to straighten out what was left unfinished”) mentioned in 1.5. In 2.1 Paul encourages Titus to teach “what is in accord with healthy teaching.” What “healthy teaching” (a better translation of the traditional “sound doctrine”) entails follows. In 2.2, Titus is to teach the older men, in v. 3, the older women, who themselves are to teach the younger women (vv. 4, 5). Why is Titus not to teach the younger women? The text gives no direct reason, but if homes are being disrupted and the reputation of the Christian community is at stake, the suggestion is appropriate. In this way, Titus will model “blamelessness.”

Titus is to teach the young men (vv. 6ff.) and slaves (vv. 9, 10). The ethical behavior sought for each group finds its biblical foundation in the appearance of God in Christ (vv. 11-14). The single goal of these ethical demands are strategically placed in the “so that” clauses of vv. 5, 8, and 10:

v. 5 … so that no one will malign the word of God.

v. 8 … so that those who oppose may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

v. 10 … so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive (NIV).

The common denominator here is that these ethical instructions are to have a profound effect on those outside the church—it has to do with, what we call today, public relations and image. Again this backdrop shapes Paul’s understanding of “blameless.”

Before explaining the relationship between the church and Cretan society, Paul reminds Titus (v. 15) of what he has already stated in 2.1, though ending with a surprising exhortation, “Do not let anyone despise you.” Again, this is a clue into the Titus’ situation: Paul anticipates opposition for Titus as he does for elders (see Tit. 1.9).

In 3.1 and 2 Paul continues his ethical exhortation, but the focus now shifts from relationships within the household and church to relationship of the church to society. In 3.3-8, almost as a reminder that Titus must continue to have compassion on Cretan society, Paul recalls that they too were once outside of fellowship with God, but now God had changed this when he save them, implying that he could do the same for depraved Cretans. The apostle finally returns to the problems described in 1.10-16, telling Titus to avoid such things (3.9-11). Final greetings fill 3.12-15, but in v. 14 we see that the apostle could not dislodge from his mind the gravity of the moral problems in Crete.

B. The Meaning and Use of “Blameless”

This brief overview invites a couple of observations regarding the word “blameless” and its function in Titus. The ethical state of the inhabitants of Crete is the opposite for what Paul is looking for in leaders for the church. This may suggest to Titus that finding good leaders may be difficult in that mission field—but also critical.

The word itself comes from the Hellenistic legal arena. It does not occur in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT current in the first century, (outside of 3 Macc. 5.20) and does not therefore reflect the sacrificial language of the OT regarding animals that were to be without blemish, though the thought is similar. It literally means “un-accused” and “indicates one whose character and conduct has not been called into question, or one who is free from accusation.” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, 2nd ed. [Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1988], 171. Währisch offers, “The other adjectives used in this context indicate that the meaning is beyond reproach, in the ordinary sense of common respectability. Thus in addition to qualifications of a spiritual nature, ordinary standards of decency are made into a preconditions of office in the church, for the sake of the church’s good name in the world.” (Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978], s.v. article by H. Währisch).

In Titus, “blameless” occurs at the top of the list of qualifications or qualities Paul required in church leaders and seems to be the premier quality explained by those that follow in the list. V. 7 offers a theological rationale: the elder serves as God’s steward, God’s household manager. As such, he, and the other elders, represents God. They serve as God’s ambassadors to the church and the world (see v. 9).

C. Implications for Leadership Today

“Blameless”-ness is closely related to integrity. J. Robert Clinton defines integrity as “that uncompromising adherence to a code of moral, artistic, and other values that reveals itself in sincerity, honesty, and candor and avoids deception and artificiality.” (J. Robert Clinton, The Making of a Leader: Recognizing the Lessons and Stages of Leadership Development [Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988], 58.) However, integrity is an internal quality while “blameless” has an external quality about it. It is what others think of an elder. There can be no charge brought against him, not just in his “public” life, but in his private as well. It is concern with not just what the church sees, but what the world sees. “Blameless” gets its force vis-à-vis the world—they cannot bring a charge against God’s household manager!

* The material in this section is adapted from my article, “Titus 2.5—Must Women Stay at Home?” in Carroll D. Osburn, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol. 1 (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993), 367-77.

Shiny Things: A Parable

“All the Athenians and the foreigners 

who lived there spent their time doing 

nothing but talking about and listening 

to the latest ideas.” (Acts 17.21 NIV)

There was once a mother raven who in the midst of picking at a juicy worm that would have provided a day’s sustenance for her young became distracted by a shiny object several feet from the worm hole. The raven flitted over to a shiny object firmly embedded in the dirt-mixed undergrowth. After several long minutes of pecking, the raven finally released the object. It was paper-like on one side and metallic on the other. Had the raven been able to read, it would have recognized the “Wrigley’s” logo on the shiny side of gum wrapper. Nonetheless, by this point, the raven had become weary of its promised prize so she looked around to look for the worm she had previously released. It was gone.

For a moment, she thought of the needs of her young, but that was soon forgotten. A shiny object caught her eye on the other side of the park near a park bench where sat several people. The prize was in the grass below the park bench. This should prove exciting. Getting around the people would prove a challenge. So she flew to several feet behind the bench. Then she slowly, stealthily approached the bench. She crept her sleek body toward the gleaming object. It was round and hard but it did not taste good and proved to be not very good as food for young ravens. Young ravens can’t eat quarters. Again, for a moment, the mother thought of her children back at the nest.

But again they were soon pushed out of her mind when she saw—you know it—another shiny object.

This object was unlike any of the previous shiny things. This object was near a fountain and the pigeons seemed oblivious to the object. They simply walked past it in their search for seeds and bread people had thrown down. Our raven would have none of the everyday seeds and bread—that was for pigeons but not suitable for ravens. After all, didn’t she leave a juicy worm earlier this morning in pursuit of shiny things. No simple seeds and bread would be good enough for her young. What are seeds and bread when one can have this . . . hey, this is special. The shining thing was long but narrow. It was an oblong, folded shiny piece of wire. The raven had no point of reference for understanding the true nature of a paper clip, but that was of no concern. The raven did know what a worm was like and this was worm-like in a way. So she swallowed it and prepared to fly away, but she found she could not fly, she could not move and soon she could not see anything. The next shiny thing, the last shiny thing, the raven saw was a bright light in the distance and then nothing. She would never know whether her young survived or not.

Embrace Each Other

In Romans 14.1-15.14, Paul challenged the “strong” to “embrace the person whose faith is fragile” (14.1; translation mine). At the end of this passage, Paul invites both weak and strong to embrace each other “in the same way that Christ has embraced you so that God will be praised” (15.7). Because God has embraced the strong, the strong are encouraged to embrace the weak (14.3).

I have chosen to translate the word normally rendered “welcome” or “receive” as “embrace” since Paul is inviting the strong to extend hospitality to the weak in the hope that the weak will reciprocate. In this often hastily read text, Paul calls believers to do more than just tolerate one another or just to accept (intellectually) that others have different understandings and practices. Paul stresses hospitality: the strong should invite and welcome the weak into their lives and homes, as one would receive a guest (see similar use of proslambáno in Acts 18.26, 28.2 and Philemon 17). He encourages the Gentiles to do what they can to embrace their Jewish brothers and sisters because he wants the weak and strong to stay together rather than going their separate ways.

In 15.5 and 6, Paul seeks a specific outcome for the weak and the strong: “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (NIV).

Paul’s strategy is Christ-centered. Every point and turn in his argument revolves around either what Christ would do or has done. Paul’s proposal is “For the kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit because in this way the one serving Christ is pleasing to God and acceptable by people” (14.17-18). Thus, values of the kingdom of God outweigh those of personal preference.

Paul, though a Jew, identifies with the Gentiles when he declares, “all food is clean” (14.20) and with Jesus who made the same pronouncement during his ministry (Mark 7.19). The strong are those who know that food and drink requirements are not a part of the gospel and who have the liberty to partake in many things the weak would find objectionable. Thus, food, drink and even holy days are not sinful in themselves since the kingdom calls us to the higher values of righteousness, joy and peace.

Paul illustrates with a couple of case studies. The first involves a vegetarian and a meat-eater. Both are acceptable practices before God. So Paul asks, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?” Both strong and weak are accountable to their Master. Paul offers a second illustration involving the veneration of special days. Again, either posture is acceptable to God since, according to Paul, both those who do and those who don’t “belong to the Lord.”

The intended rhetorical force of “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” is that we have no business judging another—that is God’s job! “Therefore,” instructs Paul, “we should stop passing judgment on one another” (14.13). In 14.13-21, Paul cautions the strong not to use their freedom in such a way as to “destroy your brother for whom Christ died” (14.15). Thus, to destroy your brother is working against the work of Christ.

Yet, not passing judgment balances not allowing other to speak evil of what one might consider good. Paul affirms that it is acceptable for believers to be in different places regarding these external practices (14. 22, 23). Neither the weak nor the strong are to argue about their convictions with one another and to do what they understand is right in each case without imposing their practices on the other.

Paul instructs the Gentiles and others who share the perspective of the Gentiles, to “bear with the failings of the weak” and not seek “to please themselves” in imitation of Christ (15.1-4). Paul presses his point: “Embrace one another in the way Christ embraced you.” Christ became a servant to the Jews. The Gentiles should do the same. Yet, on the other hand, Jewish Christians need to remember that God’s intent is for the Gentiles to “glorify God for his mercy” (15.9). The Gentiles belong in God’s plan, too. Paul supports this point from the Old Testament (2 Sam. 22.50 || Psalm 18.49; Deut. 32.43; Psalm 117.1; and Isa. 11.10).

Finally, Paul prays, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the Holy Spirit.” To this prayer we can only hope that the weak and the strong responded: “Amen.”

I once heard Marva Dawn speak about this topic. She asked, “When we can’t sing each other’s songs [speaking of “traditional” vs. “contemporary”] … what does that say about us?” Paul’s text about the weak and strong points to the road too often not traveled. Those who understand the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God are the strong. However, we don’t always see this. Often the weak will claim the position of being the strong to bind on the whole congregation their version of food, drink, and holy days and so keep the congregation at their level of immaturity.

I have sometimes witnessed the oldest, and presumably, the most mature members seek to hold the church hostage in this way. While I do want to honour those who have lived long lives in the church, I also believe it is reasonable for us to expect the oldest members to be the most mature, to be the strong. Living a long Christian life should transform a person into the image of Jesus: thus, the longer one is in Christ, the less concerned they are about “food and drink” and the more fully they embrace “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” If the oldest members of the church are the strong, then it follows that they should be the most tolerant of the “failings of the weak.”

While the weak are to be respected, they are not to set agenda. Nowhere does Paul suggest we should compromise the mission of the church for the sake of the weak. People will always have personal matters of conscience; however, no one should be compelled to do what they believe is wrong. However, neither can the scruples of the weak become the standard for the whole church. When someone demands that things be done their way, they are acting the part of the “weak.”

This point has great poignancy as we are currently beset with a baffling array of choices. For example, do we continue to use songbooks or do we make the move to computers and projectors? Other issues are going to be more challenging. Can we use praise teams or show a video clip as a sermon illustration? Is drama an appropriate form to communicate the gospel in the Christian assembly? Can we play a scripture CD with instrumental accompaniment? 

We will disagree which of these are of the “food and drink” variety and so this will require some patience on the part of those who seek to be truly strong. Nor do I always know what the best solution is in every case but I do know that Paul’s text regarding the weak and the strong will have something to say about how we embrace one another through this maze of differences.

Weak and strong, as believers in Jesus, are commanded to “embrace one another.” While it is much easier to go our separate directions when we disagree, that is neither the way of this text nor the way of the cross. The text demands that as Christ has received us so we are to receive others. Christ is the model for how the weak and strong should relate to one another. I may not be able to figure out how this text applies in every single case, but I know where it begins and ends: the hospitality of Christ! Because it is Christ who embraces us!

First published in the Gospel Herald in 2008.

Room for Mystery

A temptation of our time is to present Christianity as logical and reasonable by the standards of this world. Many years ago Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of theological liberalism, attempted this move in On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultural Despisers (1799). He conceded that science and the Bible were incompatible and argued that "religion" deals with human "affections" and as such was a matter of faith, not fact. Schleiermacher's work marks a beginning point for the current divide between public facts and private faith. Thus, in our time, politics belongs to the world of facts while religious beliefs live in the realm of private preferences. Neither have defenders of the Christian faith always helped. John Toland, for example, wrote a work called Christianity Not Mysterious (1693). Since the beginning of the Enlightenment, both liberal and conservative writers have attempted to remove mystery from the Bible and from Christian thinking. Oddly, both approaches accept that human logic and science should and can support all truth claims.


Not much has changed in this regard. Liberals still tend to reject anything in the Bible at odds with (the current state of) science and conservatives, using the exact same empirical tools, seeking to show that (what they call "true") science supports the Christian faith, not realizing that they treat biblical truths as accountable to human logic. Some claims in the Bible cannot be reduced to being reasonable or answerable to the dictates of science or logic! Despite this, Christians should boldly announce these claims even when, by the world's standard, they are considered foolish to science and contradictory to logic. (I am not arguing that logic and science have no role in how we know, but that reason and logic have limits when it comes to comprehending divine mystery).


The very centre of Christian theology, the incarnation (literally, the enfleshing) of God in the person of Jesus Christ, is one such mystery. Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher, once labelled the incarnation the "absolute paradox." This paradox, God becoming human, the creator becoming (in some sense) created, was not, for him, a problem for the intellect to unravel but a mystery for the human spirit to experience and to hold in awe.


Beyond debate, the Bible declares that God became human. This, however, is a logical impossibility as what it means to be God does not line up with what it means to be human. For instance, God is all-powerful; humans are not. Humans can die, and presumably, God cannot. If God could die, then, it would seem that he would cease to be God. The logical contradiction—that God could become human—is what Christians believe. There is no way to prove, in any way science accepts, that Jesus was both human and divine; yet the Christian faith hangs on accepting this very "contradiction."


To explore this further, the Bible, as most Christians believe, is the word of God. This is a bold claim but also impossible to prove through science or reason. To complicate matters, the Bible is also the product of human authors. At least forty writers over a period of fifteen hundred years composed the contents of the Bible. Additionally, many thousands participated in the formation of the canon and the preservation of the texts in that canon throughout the centuries. Christians believe that the Bible is both a human product and the medium through which God reveals his Son to the world and continues to speak to the church today. Because of this, we revere the Bible as sacred Scripture carrying the very authority of God, and yet study it as a textbook with insights into human history.


This confidence in the human-divine origin of the Bible is not reasonable from a logical or scientific perspective. Christian belief in the incarnation (and the Bible) transcends human logic and the empirical observation of science. Thus, our faith and our thinking must have room for mystery.


This mystery only intensifies when we explore the meaning of the incarnation. Why did God become human? The incarnation is a necessary precondition for the atonement and our subsequent reconciliation with God. We believe, and the Bible teaches, that Jesus, the God-man, gave His life to save humans and bring them back to God. As Christians, we generally accept this so matter-of-factly that we do not reflect on how unreasonable this claim is. We believe the death of one person is sufficient to cover the sins of everyone who has ever lived. If Jesus were just a human, then there is no way He could pay for another's sins and possibly not his own. Even if Jesus were just a sinless human, then His death might cover one other person—a life for a life. However, because Jesus is God he can cover the sins of the world. Thus, the mystery of our religion is that God took our sins upon himself; He paid the price for human sin. If true, then Christianity is far more mysterious than we usually comprehend.


Yet this is precisely what the Bible teaches: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5.20). The Greek, however, is even stronger: "God made the one not knowing sin [into] sin for us." This Sinless One not only bore our sins, but He took our sins into Himself, a thought teetering on the edge of nonsense... a mystery.


If that is not enough, Paul, in a seeming slip of tongue, suggests that God himself experienced death in the crucifixion of Jesus when he urged the Ephesian elders to "be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood" (Acts 20.28). God's own blood? This bothered later scribes who altered manuscripts from "church of the God" to "church of the Lord" to avoid the obvious meaning of the text. We might say that these scribes struggled with the mystery of God dying.


Finally, since faith will always have room for mystery, how then should we respond to things we cannot explain? Paul may give us an example here. At the end of his discussion about God's mysterious ways of dealing with Israel that resulted in an influx of Gentile believers into the church, Paul can only express awe: Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?" "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?""For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen" (Romans 11.33-36).


Thus, when Paul encountered this mystery, he worshipped. So should we. There remains for us, then, room for mystery. May our strivings be not toward a knowledge that seeks to unravel the mystery, but toward faith that embraces more than science or logic can ever explain.

Originally published in the Gospel Herald (April, 2008).

No Room for Family

This article was originally written with a Canadian audience in mind; however, I believe it has applicability beyond that setting.

Christian people speak often of family values, the sanctity of marriage and the horrors of broken families. We definitely care a great deal about family, as we should, and the Bible has much to say about family, too. For instance, Jesus himself taught that God’s ideal for marriage was a man and woman in life-long partnership and that a marriage should only dissolve when a spouse has chosen another’s bed. Moreover, several New Testament writers speak of the commitment a husband and wife should have for one another, and that children and parents should treat one another with appropriate respect. Yet, Jesus placed marriage (and family!) second to following him. Accordingly, marriage and family are important, but they are not our most important commitments as Christians.

One only has to spend a few moments in western Canada to find that family is important in the churches; one soon finds out that family is often the glue holding our congregations together. Shortly after moving to Canada, I learned how interconnected church and family were. When we introduce ourselves here, we immediately follow up with which family is ours. Because of this, ministers and elders in western Canada also need to be part family counselors. In addition, families are the earthen vessels that pass the gospel from one generation to another. Family ties are one of the strengths of the church in Canada—however, it may also be a serious weakness in participating in God’s mission.

Sociologist Reginald Bibby has done some serious cultural analysis of the state of “Christianity” in Canada. In Restless Gods: The Renaissance of Religion in Canada (2002), he addresses the place of family in the life of Canadian churches. “For all the talk about evangelism,” says Bibby, “groups of all kinds were failing to demonstrate much success in recruiting people outside their own boundaries. Most were growing by adding people who were primarily their own—children and geographically mobile members” (p. 24). In another place, Bibby asserts that churches in Canada generally grow in two ways: birth and marriage. That is, either we give birth to future members or our children marry people who then also become members. In his earlier work, Unknown Gods: The Ongoing Story of Religion in Canada (1993), he observes that churches in Canada were often “family shrines.” In these churches a few families hold all of decision-making posts, both formal (elders, deacons) and informal (highly respected members). Regarding a congregation he once attended he states, “For all the external signs of engaging in outreach, I increasingly had a great difficulty being convinced that people in my small church really wanted things to change. New people would have upset the organizational applecart” (269). 

Some of what Bibby observes rings true for us as well. It is entirely possible that we have so much biological family around us that we do not feel the need to invite new people into our church family. Even if folks try us, they might not find the welcome they seek. I often ask church leaders in workshops I hold, “Who does your church exclude?” The first response is usually that their congregation is very friendly and welcoming. I quiz deeper, “Would the handicapped find a welcome here?” Most of our older buildings are not up-to-date and so we usually have to admit that a wheelchair-bound visitor would find it difficult to move around. We could ask the same about the blind and the deaf, although most of congregation would probably adapt if they had a member with such needs. 

But let’s look even deeper. As the morning service adjourns, do we have room at our families’ tables for those who are not physical family? Do people have to know the same people as you know to be welcomed? Do people have to have attended the same (unnamed) school to be part of the circle? If a visitor really wanted to become a member, could they find a clear way in?  If they had leadership potential and desire, could they learn what it would take to be a Sunday school teacher, deacon, or elder in your congregation? Before answering these questions, think about how successful your congregation has been in the past ten years at bringing in new people and assimilating them into the common life of the church. (If this concerns you, see Lyle E. Schaller, Assimilating New Members [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978]).

While Bibby’s research may help us take a hard look at ourselves, we depend ultimately on the teachings of Jesus to place family, church and discipleship in proper perspective. One time, Jesus’ family came to take him away because they believed he was crazy. When his family, which included Mary and his brothers, approached where he was teaching, they sent word to see him. To this Jesus asked the messenger, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” Looking around at the rag-tag crowd listening eagerly to his message, Jesus said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3.32-35). To feel the sting of this, imagine your son or a significant family member saying something like this about you. Jesus gave preference to his seeking-God’s-will family over his physical family. 

However, Jesus has more to say regarding family. Luke records Jesus teaching, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14.26-27; cf. Matt 10.37-38).

This topic is of personal importance to me. My mother and father were strangers to the people of God. I am a Christian today because a Christian woman invited me to a Vacation Bible School when I was seven years old. I had no physical family in the church and the physical family I had was not able to teach me God’s ways. I was a stranger and the church took me in and gave me a place to belong. Consequently, I have always looked to the church to be my family wherever I have lived. I understood that when I accepted the call to follow Jesus that my present family—my wife, my daughter, and any extended family I have—all come second to my loyalty to Jesus.

This topic has become important to me for another reason. I now live in this country and I want our churches to grow and to prosper in every way. We all know that we are not growing and I have come to suspect that in some degree we are the problem. The protection and nearness of our families may give us the false illusion that we are doing well, yet all the while church after church is on the verge of closure; as many as four have closed in Saskatchewan since I arrived here in 2003. As these churches die, they often find themselves being mostly members of a single-family group. I know several such families and they are my heroes for keeping the doors open, but they know that if revival is to occur, it must involve those who are not biological family.

I do not write this as a final word, or even as a word of judgment, but as a place to begin a very difficult conversation. I recognize I could be butchering a sacred cow here, but we must be willing to lay this one on the altar if we are serious about following Jesus. I may have overstated my case a bit here or there, but maybe not. Is it possible we are not inviting people into the family of God because we have “enough” family on earth?

Previously published in the Gospel Herald (May 2008).