Contemporary Evangelicalism and the Kerygma/Didache

By Ben Zemmer
9/7/2009

In recent years, many professing Evangelicals have forgotten what it means to contend for the biblical evangel, that is the gospel. Sadly, the word evangelical is more often likened to a political movement of the “religions right” rather than a theological one with deep life changing ramifications (Bloesch, p.9-10). In attempts to affect political change and gain ground on worthy social issues, many have diluted the gospel message to a Christian version of therapeutic moralism. “Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” has replaced the deep gospel message – salvation from God’s wrath, the imputed righteousness of Christ, biblical faith, true repentance, and the lordship of Christ. The evangel in evangelical is thus all but eclipsed by man-centered philosophies.

When the Scriptures speak of proclamation (kerygma) and teaching (didache) they refer to different forms of conveying this very gospel message – the evangel. Any departure from the biblical evangel will inevitably empty any kerygmatic or didactic communication forms from their meaning or even abandon these forms all together. A prime example of this is the modern de-emphasis on preaching the primary biblically mandated form of proclamation (kerygma). Another example is a corruption of the biblical concept of teaching (didache) into a mere set of ethical guidelines. The other extreme is outward profession that results in no true spiritual fruit and even encourages sin. Examples are those churches which call themselves evangelical and champion a semblance of biblical forbearance and humility, but at the same time, overlook and encourage homosexuality along with the doubting and subversion of God’s sufficient Word. The evangel is the core of what it means to be an Evangelical. A departure from the evangel by definition is a stepping away from the life-giving gospel and the essence of what it means o be a Christian.

The apostle John asked, “What fellowship does light have with darkness?” The implied answer is: none! Those who contend for the gospel must not fellowship as supposed brothers and sisters in Christ if one is denying the biblical evangel. This denial can come in various forms. The most obvious is the plain denial of the basic truths of the gospel. Other not quite so obvious forms include the rejection of the biblical necessity for proclamation, the reduction of biblical teaching into mere ethical codes (moralism), or the rejection of the plain biblical imperatives (anti-nomianism).

Biblical discipleship inevitably results in greater conformity to Christ. In contrast, a life of unrepentant sin denies the very truths professed. In other words, a true Evangelical is not only one who professes biblical truth but one who does not deny that gospel with a life of unrepentant sin. Thus, good doctrinal statements guide local church bodies by proclaiming the evangel not only by heralding the essential truths of the gospel and sound teaching, but also by explaining the biblical relationship between belief and desire which result in action. True belief is faith in God’s Word, which results in right desires and actions, while unbelief inevitably results in unrighteousness. Actions of obedience and God glorifying emotions are a necessary part of the Christian life because they demonstrate outwardly an inward reality of God’s work. This inward and vertical reality is the reason for and source of strength for the horizontal and outward. Thus, “the slogan ‘become what you are’…encapsulates the essence of Pauline ethics” (McGrath, p.92).

Doctrine is a necessary part of growing in the knowledge of Christ, for “the identity and significance of Jesus can only be spelled out in doctrinal terms”(McGrath, p.103). This was a point made clearly by the fundamentalist movement at the turn of the 20th century. In attempts to defend the authority of the Scriptures and foster fellowship around the gospel across denominational boundaries, godly men drafted a statement of faith which both clarified the gospel at the points at which it was attacked and called for greater unity around God’s Word. However, its weakness lies in that it was largely shaped by the issues at hand and did not treat the gospel in all of its fullness (Bloesch, p.9-10). Evangelicalism was a movement which formed out of fundamentalism and put greater emphasis on the gospel the as the very essence of Christianity (Bloesch, p.15). Thus, it is correct to say that true Evangelicalism reflects a balanced summary of the gospel and its outworking (the “first principles”). To deny the biblical Christ and the gospel is to cease being evangelical (Blosech, p.15-15).

True discipleship is the result of biblical relationships in community. Older and more mature believers encourage, admonish, and instruct the younger in the faith. The content of this instruction is the gospel and its outworking. Modern curriculums that encourage this understanding of the gospel as necessary for every part of the Christian life are truly in keeping with the Scripture while those which treat ethics in isolation from the gospel are foolish at best and spiritually dangerous at worst.

To many the modern flavor of the Evangelical movement is no longer one of a potent and powerful gospel but rather one of superficially sweet people pleasing. In contrast, the era of the Reformation was one of commitment to the essence of what it means to be Christian namely the gospel – the evangel revealed in the Scriptures. The re-discovery of the gospel and the lengthy writings and statements of faith continue to reverberate for the benefit of believers today. Though most theologically sound churches do not have statements as long as the ones of the Reformation, they are indebted in many ways to them (Koivisto, p.207).

In summary, the witness of faithful believers of the past and the Scripture itself cries out to members of the modern Evangelical movement to return to what it really means to profess for the biblical evangel – to contend for the gospel in all of its fullness. That is what it is to be Evangelical.

The Indicative and Imperative in the Unfolding of Redemptive History

By Ben Zemmer
5/15/2009

In order to understand the Bible, it is necessary to grasp the categories that rise up out of the Scripture itself (Horton, par.3). A primary example of this is the grammatical use of the Greek mood structure in the New Testament. In this structure, some statements are clearly declarations of fact or “Indicatives” while others are calls to action or “Imperatives” (Horton, par.3). In church history the word kerygma or “proclamation” has often been used to describe the indicative because God calls for His Word and definitive works to be heralded and proclaimed (Dodd, p.9). A clear example of this proclamation is the prominence of preaching in the Bible. Also, a common term in church history to describe the imperative is didache or “teaching” which connotes the practical outworking of the imperative (Dodd, p.10). The indicative and imperative structure is not only present in the Greek portions of Scripture, but can also be found interwoven all across the entire scope of redemptive history.

In fact, the greatest example of an indicative statement in Scripture is the gospel itself. The gospel is a glorious reality. Paul graphically describes the gospel as the “power of God” a phrase only used to describe Christ Himself (Romans 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:18). This should be of little surprise, because Christ is the essence and incarnation of the gospel. It is Christ’s completed work namely His life, death, resurrection, and ascension which composes the gospel. The gospel is Christ’s definitive work on behalf of His people bearing the wrath of God for their sin and imputing His complete righteousness to them. This grand exchange is a sealed and firm reality for the believer. It is the grand indicative statement of their new existence and identity in Christ.

The indicative nature of the gospel is not confined to the New Testament. Rather, from the very beginning of redemptive history, God has acted on behalf of His people in permanent and definitive ways which in turn pointed forward to the gospel. He called Abram from Ur. He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Yet, He did not stop with that. He gave Abram a faith in and a love for God that made him willing to relinquish his most precious possession – his son. He freed Israel from slavery that they might worship Him. Intertwined with new identity and reality were imperatives. God commanded holiness of His people in the law of Moses because He is holy. These commands did not exist separate from His work on their behalf but in the midst of it. This shadow of reality in the old covenant met its fulfillment in Christ. Christ completed all the demands of the law and God’s holiness on behalf of His people who now live in an “already but not yet” state (Ridderbos, p.257). Believers are complete and holy in Christ, but they await the final consummation of that reality. In the mean time, the imperative is a necessary component in the life of the believer (Schneider, p.656).

The call for holiness in the lives of His people echoes again in the new covenant (1 Peter 1:6). When Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law, He Himself become the standard of holiness “the law of Christ” (Schneider, p.661). As Schneider said: “Christ’s self-giving sacrifice functions as the paradigm of this law.” (Schneider, p.655). All throughout the gospels and the epistles are imperatives (commands) that are expected of believers, but these imperatives do not exist on their own. They always arise from the indicative, namely the gospel. Often in his letters Paul gives a command such as, “cleanse out the old leaven” and “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”, but they are always tied back to the gospel (the indicative) for example, “as you are already unleavened” and “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (1 Cor. 5:7, Phil. 2:12-13). As Schneider said, “the imperatives are part and parcel of the gospel as long as they are woven in to the story line of the Pauline gospel and flow from the indicative of what God has accomplished in Christ”(Schneider, p.656). Both conversion and the continued progress of believers in holiness are works of God in Christ, but they are experienced by the believer as belief, decision, and work (Ridderbos, p.255). “Having once died with Christ does not render superfluous putting to death the members that are on earth, but is precisely the great urgent reason for it” (Ridderbos, p.254). The indicative and the imperative are thus inseparable and intertwined.

To frame the indicative and the imperative as separate or loosely connected categories in Scripture, as some evangelicals today are in the habit of doing, is to sever the branch from the root. Indeed, an emphasis on the ethics of the Pauline letters and the New Testament as a whole without explaining their vital and intimate connection with the gospel is to create and encourage a “new legalism”. Rather, the indicative and the imperative, “represent two ‘sides’ of the same matter, which cannot exist separated from each other” (Ridderbos, p.256). The only means by which believers can ever hope to fulfill the imperatives is the power of the Holy Spirit applying the gospel, the Word of God in the heart of the believer (Schneider, p.662). It is truly the supreme joy of the believer to partake of Christ in the new obedience by faith through Christ’s finished work on the cross.

The Pauline Example of Establishing Churches in Sound Doctrine

By Ben Zemmer

Often in the New Testament believers are exhorted to hold fast to “sound doctrine”. A cursory look may leave the average “just-do-it” American thinking this “doctrine” is a code of conduct or a means of self-improvement. The Apostle Paul would passionately beg to differ. He toiled often and long to present to his hearers and readers the full counsel of God, namely the gospel. This gospel message along with its implications is the “sound doctrine” for which the Apostle Paul contended.

In ancient times, God revealed Himself through visions and prophets, mighty acts, shadows and types, but all of these served but to point to the fuller and complete revelation of God in the person of Christ. The ageless question of how can sinful man stand before a holy God has its final, definitive answer in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. This is the hope of all true children of God. The reason and life blood from which flows the life of the believer is the very definitive and final work of Christ. The cross and resurrection is the pivot point on which the life of the believer turns. The very quickening of saving faith, the constant battle of continued belief and repentance, and the final climax of sinlessness beyond the death-line are all anchored in the cross of Christ. It is for that reason that the Paul resolved when teaching the Corinthian believers to “know nothing among [them] but Christ and Him crucified”. It is of this good news that Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe”. Paul was so fixated by the greatness of the gospel that he carefully constructed all his reasoning, instruction, and admonition to tie back into the completed work of Christ. Though the content of “sound doctrine” is complex and profound containing both indicative and imperative statements, narrative and discourse text, it relates in every way back to the foundational truths of the gospel.

Sound doctrine consists of the once for all delivered gospel and propagates by means of teaching. When writing to Titus, Paul encourages him to, “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Earlier on in the epistle Paul highlighted that sound doctrine is the task of a faithful elder by means of instruction (Titus 1:9). Further, it is clear that the content of sound doctrine is the gospel. Paul told Timothy that every doctrine or teaching must be measured against the Words of Christ (1 Timothy 6:3). Another word which Paul uses in close conjunction with the concept of sound doctrine is the word “traditions” (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2). Although in this passage, Paul uses traditions in a positive sense to refer to the whole body of teaching that Paul “delivered” to the believers, one must exercise great caution to not mistake the word “tradition” as a largely positive term, since almost everywhere else in Scripture the term is used in a negative sense, referring to the self-righteous set of standards by which unbelievers attempt to make them selves acceptable to God (Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8). Near the end of Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonian church, Paul exhorts the believers against “idleness” which is “not in accord with the tradition that you received” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If one were to understand “tradition” to refer to the whole content of Paul’s teaching that he cited earlier on in His epistle, it would be plausible to conclude that the content of Paul’s teaching was largely ethical. Although this is not the case, because the word Paul uses when rebuking idleness is not in the plural, but rather in the singular form (“tradition”). This indicates that ethical exhortation is only one “tradition” (3:6) amid the larger body of “traditions” (2:15). Thus, a correct understanding of tradition in this sense is very much synonymous with sound doctrine, namely the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Another key word that Paul used, though only once, is the concept of “pattern”. Paul used this term in reference to the way in which he communicated the content of sound doctrine to the believers. It is thus good to summarize that content of sound doctrine is the full bodied message of the gospel which includes both statements of fact (indicatives) and calls to action (indicatives), both of which cannot be divorced because both are rooted in the finished work of Christ. The essence of sound doctrine is Christ and Him crucified.

In his epistles Paul clearly follows a pattern of moving from proclamation of the “great redemptive works of Jesus” (indicative) to the “act and content of teaching” (imperative) (Ridderbos, pp.57,69). Just as in his epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul based his call to ethical change upon the gospel and truth he had delivered to them. One could easily, confuse Paul’s exhortations to be separated from the indicative statements that preceeded them. But clearly, the two are closely connected. As Ridderbos stated, “It is true that frequently teaching and to teach are concerned especially with ethics, but it is impossible to find…[this] distinction supported by New Testament usage. Teaching not only accompanies the kerygma [proclamation] (Matt. 4:23; 11:1); from the outset it refers to the content of the kerygma (Matt. 5:2; Mark 1:27; 4:2ff.; Acts 28:31; Gal. 1:12) and in part consists of the further explanation of the nature and progress of the accomplishment of redemption (Mark 9:31; 4:2ff.; Acts 18:25).(Ridderbos, p.70). Christ is the great indicative. Christ is the great normative. Thus the founding, shaping, and stabilizing of believers happens through the proclamation of the gospel. Paul calls faithful ministers of the gospel to preach the indicative with imperatives as natural outworking. Believers only have hope for following the imperatives, because Christ has already completed the work for them. As Paul elegantly stated, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure”(Phillipians 2:11-13). Christ is both the content and essence of sound doctrine.

The “Rule of Faith” and the Development of the Creeds

By Ben Zemmer

As the apostles faded off the scene of the first century church, they left behind a very certain witness, everything necessary for the life and growth of the church. This “apostolic” witness or “rule of faith” is the gospel in all of its continuity and agreement with the Old Testament scriptures (2 Peter 1-2). The believers of the first century had copies of the Old Testament Scriptures, and as apostolic letters circulated, they thoroughly examined these teachings in the light of the Scriptures they possessed (Acts 17:11). A teaching was deemed to not be biblical and authoritative when it did not demonstrate continuity with the Old Testament scriptures in content, nature, prophecy, confirming signs or miracles, power of truth, and observed life (Hodge, par.70). Long before the official recognition of the canon, more than two centuries after the death of the apostles, the church was experienced in the use of the “rule of faith” to recognize true from false teaching.

This faithful practice guided the church’s response to heretical challenges arising from within the church itself. Individuals and groups introduced thoughts and teachings which deeply diverged form biblical teaching. Having recognized this fact from the testimony of the scriptures, local churches and groups of churches responded in these early centuries with short statements of faith otherwise known as “creeds”. These were used as a tool to recognize false teachers or teaching from true (Gonzalez, p.63). Creeds are not a concept foreign to the scriptures, but rather are in keeping with similar tools exemplified in Paul’s writings and even the summaries of the Mosaic law namely the “shema” of Deuteronomy 6 (Horton, p.7).

In recent years scholars re-discovered a document which dates back to the time of the apostles. Due to its proximity to the apostles and evidence of common thought in the early church, this document has achieved some level of importance. Known as the “Didache” (teaching), this document synthesizes many of the imperatives of the New Testament into summary form and presents directives for churches to follow. Due to the fact that this document at several points does not agree with the “rule of faith” in the revealed scriptures, this document was rejected as scripture and authoritative (Powel, p.123). It is clear both from the fact that the document was rejected and by the fact that the content of the document does not match with the scriptures, that it should not be used as an authoritative example for Christian life and practice.

The “rule of faith” is not only the criteria used by the early church for the recognition of false teaching from true, it is an example of the means God has given His church for the interpretation of the scripture. Christ Himself embodies the gospel and it is He who stands over and above any teaching claiming any sort of authority. To Him be glory both now and forever more.

How Today’s Church Should Interpret the Principles and Patterns in Acts

Ben Zemmer

2/22/2010

Acts is a unique and important book in the New Testament canon. In it are accounts and narratives of the early days of the Church. The large amounts of narrative often frustrate interpreters who would like to draw direct lines from the New Testament books to the present. While making those connections is both possible and necessary, it is first essential to approach the text biblically giving great care to let the text speak for itself.

On the road to biblically exegeting Acts, many have fallen by the wayside thinking that Acts is primarily about historical events while some think the apologetics and leading personalities are the main focus, while still others see the intent of Acts as inspirational literature (Fee and Stuart 1982, p.88). These points may all be true to some extent, but true justice to the text consists in using biblical tools to examine Luke’s intent guiding the narrative at hand. Those who proceed without caution here often end up with inconsistent interpretations of the text and sometimes even extreme misapplications of it. The authorial intent of Luke is largely evident in the principal thrust or meaning of given narratives often indicated by emphasis and repetition in the text (Fee and Stuart, p.96).

The book of Acts when closely examined yields a pattern of six large sections bookended by Luke’s short summaries of the progression and outward movement of the Word through the church by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:41, 4:4, 5:14, 6:7, 8:12, 9:31, 11:24, 12:24, 13:49, 14:21, 16:5, 19:20, 28:31). For some it may be problematic that Acts ends in such an apparently abrupt manner without recounting what happened to Paul in Rome or any of the rest of the Disciples for that matter. When looking at the book of Acts from the perspective of these six divisions it becomes clear that Luke’s cohesive theme in Acts is the outward movement of the Gospel – the Word in the hearts of the redeemed by the working of the Holy Spirit.

With this larger picture in mind, tackling the smaller narrative portions is not quite as difficult. In most cases, Luke frames narrative as illustrative of the greater principal and pattern of God’s work in the Church. Hence, nearly all but the principals and patterns are normative, unless that same illustrative form is confirmed by other biblical texts as being binding on the believer (Fee and Stuart, p.97). “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (Fee and Stuart, p.97). Another way to look at it would be to delineate the function and the form in the narratives. The function is the indicative that undergirds actions and methods while form is the imperatives – the applications of functions (Getz 1984, p.38). Functions are clearly evident in the text. “It is not possible to absolutize something that is not described; that is always incomplete; and that is always changing from one setting to another” (Getz 1984, p.38). This method of weighing the Scripture against itself is exceedingly rich and helps prevent incorrect presuppositions to cloud what Luke is saying in the book.

The road to faithfully interpreting Acts is not an easy one, but it is possible. One of the best policies to follow, if one does not understand a given text, is to keep reading. The Word is living and active. The Holy Spirit will complete the task for which he sends out the Word into our hearts.

The Authority of the Local Church in Commending Ministers of the Gospel

By Ben Zemmer
2/10/2010

The human eye is of no use if it is separated from the body and the ear is of no use if it is by itself. This is essentially what Paul said when he wrote to the believers in Corinth about the importance of unity and functions within the Church (1 Cor. 12:12-31). All believers have need of each other. Community and unity in Truth compose a large part of what the Church is. This is no less the case with the mission of the Church. No part of the body can truly and ultimately operate independent of the rest of the body. So often in American evangelicalism today individual believers “feel a sense of calling” for gospel ministry at home or abroad, and they rush to join a para-church organization they feel fits their ministry focus. Yet, they often fail to see the need for the commendation and sending of the local church preceding and guiding their desire for ministry (Griffiths, p.12). Portrayed in the book of Acts is not an image of a mindless mad-dash for the front lines of ministry, but rather a careful, calculated work of the local church selecting believers from within their midst to be sent out, supported by, and accountable to the local church (Griffiths, p.13).

Two prominent examples recorded in the book of Acts are Barnabas and Paul. Durring the early stages of the church in Antioch, the church in Jerusalem sent out Barnabas to minister in Antioch (Acts 11:22). While the work was underway and many people were coming to Christ, Barnabas went to Tarsus to seek out Paul to help him teach and disciple the people (Acts 11:25-26). Later on these very two who played such a pivotal role in the growth of the church in Antioch were set apart and sent out by the church for the work of the gospel in other areas (Acts 13:1-3). In no part of the book of Acts can one find individuals who on their own accord and apart from the local church went out for the work of the gospel. The repetition of this pattern of the church selecting sending out its members for the work of the ministry by itself is evidence enough of its normative nature. Yet, this example is supported by other portions of Scripture as well. Timothy was encouraged to hold fast in the work of the gospel remembering that he had been commended by the church and commissioned by Paul for the ministry (2 Timothy 1:6, Acts 16:1-5). Also, Paul gave instructions to Titus to appoint elders from the midst of the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5). That is, the leaders within the Certain churches were not self-appointed or distinct from the local church.

It is clear from Scripture where the primary authority lies: in the local church, not in the individual. This is important in understanding not only the relationship between individuals interested in gospel ministry and the local church, but also between the church and para-church organizations. The point is clear from the Scriptures mentioned above that the weight and emphasis must rest on the local church and not on para-church organizations. This does not preclude the existence of para-church institutions or proclaim their very existence as unbiblical, but it does mean that whatever role they play, it must be a subservient one to the local church. It was not of para-church institutions of which Jesus spoke, but his chosen bride the Church when he said, “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The local church is both the primary authority and the primary emphasis of the Scriptures especially as it relates to the ministry of the gospel.

The Transfer of Authority

By Max Strange
Leaders & The Early Church
1/15/2010

There are celebrations, public announcements and notifications, honorariums, trophies, placards, awards, keys to the city, certificates, fanfare, applause, or a public acknowledgment that one has achieved a new office or status in societies. In the Bible, we see in a similar fashion, leaders rise and receive public recognition. Not only do we see recognition, but we also see those who are in leadership, transmit their authority forward in a visible way. In the Old Testament, the observable action was the laying on of hands. This signified a transfer of authority and a passing of one’s same-self to another. There are several of passing on the blessing with fathers to children, the transfer of authority from Moses to Joshua, the recognition of the Levities to their office, and the ordination of Saul and of David. In addition to the Old Testament, the New Testament continues this practice and carries with it all the significance of transfer. It is very important to understand how the early Christian church acknowledged its leaders so that the church today may appoint and affirm its leadership in a Biblical manner. To know this is meant to safeguard the church against rogue leadership. Men and women inside and outside the church assume leadership positions, claim to have gifting that is not acknowledged by the leadership, and self-appoint themselves in secret quarters to positions of high authority. In the end, the church is ran by thieves and bandits who run over the saints, dictate from the pulpit, twists the Scriptures, refuse to be under the authority of none, and serve none but themselves. This is why the transfer of authority is so vital as ever. The Scriptures have much to say about the importance of church leadership and the transfer of authority.

After ascending to his God given position in Egypt, Joseph brings the people Israel and his father Jacob to the pharaoh’s land. Jacob sees his grandchildren from his son Joseph, and transfers the blessing to Ephraim. The Scriptures say,

“And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Lev. 16:21).
In Leviticus, we have Aaron the high priest transferring not only his sins, but the sins of millions upon a sacrificial goat. Both hands were placed on the animal in a powerful public demonstration that a spiritual transaction was taking place.
“And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness” (Gen. 48:14).
Furthermore, we see Moses transfer his priestly authority to Aaron and his sons to be priest for the people in Leviticus 8:22-29 when they laid their hands of the head of the ram of ordination. Finally, at the end of his life, Moses commissioned Joshua and transferred his governing authority to lead the people into victory. The Scripture says in Numbers 27:22-23

“And Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and made him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole congregation, [23] and he laid his hands on him and commissioned him as the Lord directed through Moses.” Therefore, we see just a few examples from the Old Testament how the laying on of hands depicts this paramount transfer of authority. The New Testament then takes that visually reality of laying on of hands and the transfer of authority and uses it to ordain leadership in the church.

In Acts 6:1-6, the church brought forth men to serve an urgent need for the Hellenist Greeks, and these men were brought before the apostles and had hands laid on them. They were given authority to serve in the capacity that the Apostles were serving and represented the Apostles as if they were still being served by the Apostles themselves.

In Acts 13:1-3, the leaders in the Antioch church, appointed Barnabas and Paul to upbuild the church and become an extension of Antioch. They laid their hands on them and sent them off. They were given authority as if the entire church at Antioch was represented by and through them as they multiplied churches in Asia.

Paul, as a seasoned church planter and elder, did as he had learned. He passed on his authority to qualified men like Timothy (2 Tim. 2:2). He, among other elders, laid their hands on Timothy and transferred elder authority to the young pastor (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). Paul even warns Timothy to not be hasty in this transfer of authority in 1 Timothy 5:22 because with it comes great responsibility, authority, and duty.

Lastly, the writer of Hebrews list the laying on of hands as a basic component of the Christian faith in chapters six, verse two. It is mentioned within the group about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. Therefore, the laying on of hands and the transfer of authority to qualified leaders is as foundational to the church as understanding the resurrection and eternal judgment!

So, we conclude that the transfer of authority by the laying on of hands is Biblical throughout. It is a visible sign that the church has incorporated from the Old Testament to transfer authority, publicly recognize its leaders, and honor the men and women that God is raising up to serve His people. This protects the church from self aggrandizing manipulators and pseudo leaders who weasel their way into leadership positions, it places qualified men to serve, preach, teach, and transmit the sacraments for the upbuilding for all the people of God. 

The Means of Church Multiplication

By Greg Simmons

The question is should the church be the primary means of mission and church multiplication or should that be a function left to others. If we are to believe what many contemporary missiologists suggest, evangelistic outreach and missions are primarily the responsibility of para-church organizations. Although the scriptures do not speak directly to specific churches planting new churches, I believe there is enough evidence in the New Testament to make such a case for church-to-church multiplication.

Both Bowers and Winter start with two main assertions. First, that the scriptures are silent when it comes to a direct reference to specific churches planting other communities.  Secondly, that Paul and his team functioned as the first para-ecclesiastical structure, therefore setting the precedent for the para-church structure as being the primary means for doing the work of missions and church planting
Let’s start with Bowers. He acknowledges that church planting was central to Paul’s mission. This is certainly a more biblical view than Winters’. Where he misses the mark is that he doesn’t believe that Paul expected established churches to be instruments themselves in founding new communities. He understands Paul’s admonition to believers “to be imitators of me” as being chiefly concerned with godly living and not a general call to follow him in mission outreach. He also sees Paul’s apostolic calling as the mark of missionary leadership and not something common to all believers. This is certainly true, but where he fails to connect all the dots is in not seeing this same calling being given specifically to leaders within existing churches. Paul’s fellow workers were, for the most part, leaders sent out from existing churches. Barnabas, Judas and Silas were leading men sent out from the church at Jerusalem. (Acts 15:22) Timothy was a man well attested to by the communities in Lystra and Iconium. (Acts 16:1-5) Titus was a leader in the church on Crete. It was primarily these leaders from existing churches that were Paul’s fellow workers. The men that participated with Paul in the founding new communities were therefore being sent as the mission outreach of their home churches.

I won’t spend too much time answering Winters’ argument that para-church is the primary instrument of missions and that para-church and church should be established on equal footing. The question that should be asked is whether Paul saw himself and those that were with him as a separate and distinct para-church team and not part of the organized church. Winters’ defends his paradigm of mission sodality by defining Paul as the first para-church structure. But, Paul defines himself as a “skilled master builder” of the church.  Christ’s word is the final authority in declaring God’s means and purpose. Christ declaration in Matthew 16 is that He is building His “church” not His para-church sodality.

The emphasis throughout Acts and Paul’s letters is God calling gifted leaders from within the church to be the means of church expansion.  Acts 11:22: The Jerusalem church sends Barnabas as a leader to Antioch to establish the believers.

Acts 11:25-26: Barnabas seeks out Paul and they return to Antioch to establish the church through their gift of teaching.

Acts 14:26-28: Paul and Barnabas return to their commissioning church at Antioch to bring a report of what God was doing in the rest of Asia minor.  If Paul and his team were a self-contained para-ecciesiastical entity, why bother continually returning to give an account of their work. It’s because Antioch sent them out to do a specific work under its authority and they were fulfilling their responsibility to that church.

Acts 15:22: The Jerusalem church sends chosen men to Antioch to bring a decree concerning the keeping of the law of Moses. Afterwards Judas and Silas remained in Antioch to exhort and strengthen the church.

1 Thessalonians 1:6-8: Paul commends the Thessalonian church for following him in the proclamation of the Word throughout Macedonia and Achaia. This is a strong statement by Paul commending the church for their outreach to surrounding regions.

1 Timothy 1:3 Paul tells Timothy to stay in Ephesus to protect the church from false doctrine. This demonstrates Paul’s primary concern for the church in leaving a gifted leader like Timothy to oversee and protect the Ephesian church.

Titus 1:5 Paul leaves Titus in Crete to set things in order and appoint elders in the churches of Crete. The focus for Paul is always the well being of the church. His care is demonstrated by sending other leaders from within the churches to serve that purpose.

Titus 2:15 Finally, Paul commands Titus and the elders to lead and exhort the church with all “authority”. Therefore, the “authority” for church establishment and multiplication is not given to a separate, but equal para-church sodality, but to the leaders of the church exclusively.

The Core Work of Elders & Deacons

By Max Strange
Leaders and The Early Church
12/07/2009

In modern evangelicalism, their is a fog of mystery hovering over the central work of elders and deacons. So many variations of these two offices are presented in churches that we need to simply ask, “What is the main function for Elders and Deacons?” Jesus said He would build His Church and to build indicates order, and structure.  This organized structure is not a building but an edifice of people if you will. In this living building are officers who serve the Christ in His upbuilding.  Where Biblical responses lack precedent, it is important to go the the Word of God and determine the nucleus of their work to set straight those who may use the office to misrepresent Jesus, pervert the Church, dictate, and squash underneath the people of God. 

For one, the pastor/elder role is seen as a CEO business man who runs his organizational headquarters, produces a product, and has employees to manage. His main focus is on programs and the promotion of social club functions in a churchy atmosphere. He is also seen as a football quarterback who hands out his plays, “runs the field,” gives pep talks, and promotes his playbook with charisma, personality, and a smile brightened by Crest White Strips. Of similar distortion is the office of deacon who floats around as an elected ghost fixing problems when no one is looking. He is viewed as a handyman that excels at lawn care and ensures the baptistery has warm water. Nevertheless, by examining the Scriptures we are able to dismantle the caricatures of the CEO type elder and the handyman deacon, determine their core work and how they should be appointed.

First, the core work for the office of elder is Word ministry in Gospel proclamation and teaching. Paul addressed the Ephesians’ elders before his imprisonment in Acts 20:17-38 and described how they were to imitate him. He described himself as one who did not shrink in fear when he declared the Gospel (v. 20), how he taught in public and from house to house (v. 20), how he testified to Jews and Greeks and preached openly about repentance and faith (v. 21). He testified to the Gospel (v. 24), proclaimed the Kingdom (v.25), and declared the whole council of God (v.27). This was the foremost duty for the elder office. He was to serve God’s people primarily through the Word ministry that preached, declared, taught, herald, announced, delivered, proclaimed, testified, and expounded the Word of the LORD. Acts 20:17-28; 1 Timothy 3:1-7, and Titus 1:5-9 teach that the elder office is also to maintain sound doctrine, be rooted in it, defend it, serve it, guard it, refute opposition to it, study it, love it, and be saturated by it. There are also secondary roles for the elders that including managing home and church, shepherding, oversight, and leading. The elder/preacher is not autonomous. He is surrounded by a plurality of elders and is never so far at the top that no one can question his authority and decisions. He does not run his playbook nor is he to run the church like a business. He is appointed by God and recognized by the church (Acts 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:17; 1 Peter 5:1, 5; Rev. 4:4, 10; 5: 5-6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11; 14:3; 19:4)

Likewise, the office of deacon also needs elucidation. We see the beginning stages of the deaconate office emerge in Acts 6:1-6. The passage describes seven men appointed to serve the Hellenists widows and free the apostles to focus on the Word and prayer ministry. As church’s needs began to multiply, the deaconate role materialized to serve the elders of the church and also its people so that the sustaining Word could be preached. It is seen then that the core work for the deacon is that he helps unleash the Word of God. He frees the elders to dedicate their energies to the Word and prayer and thus they help maximize the Word ministry to the people of God. The deacons have similar qualifications as elders, but that does not mean the deacon office is a stepping stone to the elder office (1 Tim. 3:8-13). God’s holiness manifests itself in the same way in the deacon as in the elder though the deacon lacks the preaching/teaching gift, which is unique to the elder office. The deacon should not be seen though as inept in Word ministry. He “must hole the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.” The truth revealed in Christ’s incarnation, Christ’s indwelling of believers (Col. 1:26, 27), the unity of Jews and gentiles in the church (Eph. 3:4-6), the gospel (Col. 4:3), the plan for Christ to unite all things under His reign and rule, the resurrection and the new body (1 Cor. 15) are just a few mysteries that deacons are knowledgeable in and hold to them with a clear understanding. Therefore, deacons then are skilled in service and in the Word. They model mercy service church wide. So, these are more than mere craftsmen who float around looking for the next handyman project.

Finally, it is important that these offices be recognized publicly. These men should be presented by the church as God’s gifts to the church to bring God’s people to their mature stature. These are not self-appointed men or one who assumed a role in private or solely on personality. The whole of the church ought to know whom God is raising up to Shepherd and serve God’s people. It shouldn’t be a secret affair based on prejudice and preference. They are to be publicly recognized in order for the church to know who their servant leaders are and who they might go to for council and aid (Titus 1:5; 1 Tim. 3:1-13).

The elder and deacon public offices are vital to Christ’s church and work together to boost Gospel proclamation. Both are offices of mercy and service, Word dissemination and Word maximization. These men are not CEO quarterbacks or handymen who lack Gospel knowledge. These are gifts from Jesus to His church to equip the saints for the work of ministry and bring everyone to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:11-14).

1 Tim. 3:1-13 (ESV)

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. [2] Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. [4] He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, [5] for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? [6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.  [8] Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted too much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. [9] They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [10] And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. [11] Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. [12] Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. [13] For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The Authority of Pauline Teams

By Max Strange

Leaders & The Early Church
1/9/2010

There are independent minded Christians who greatly desire to advance the Gospel of Jesus with zeal and in a freelance fervor. Yet, more and more they do this apart from the local church’s oversight and authority. Many Para-church organizations function in a similar way. They are said to come alongside the church and aid the church in the Great Commission enterprise and yet keep arms-length from truly being under the authority of a church body. There seems to be smattering of footloose Christians all over the world, exercising their individual liberties, declaring what they have decided to do for God, and upon THEIR decision speed off to “minister” to the hut Mongols in the Himalayan region. The Body of Christ appears to be a body full of disconnected joints and severed limbs! Is this free spirited and autonomous way in mission Biblical? Has God given us a record to pattern ministry and mission, church and outreach in a detached, go-as-you-please, free as a bird, liberated and emancipated way? The goal of this paper is to reveal that all mission must be vitally connected to the local church of Jesus Christ. God has set a pattern for church, mission teams, oversight, authority, and order to image forth one massive front, which is the Body of Christ, ushering in the new humanity. Paul’s missionary team will give us a lucid view of the Church and the nature and authority over the limbs it determines to stretch and extend to the nations.

Let’s begin our explanation in Antioch. After Stephen’s death, God scattered His church and it became the Christian capital of the early church. It seems as if overnight, Antioch became the recognized hub for Christian expansion (1). In Antioch, a plurality of leaders, elders, prophets, and teachers had gathered and began to transfer their authority to good Christian men. Just as Jesus appointed the 70 to go out with authority, this plurality of godly leaders, through the Spirit, began to move the new creation along by appointing elders to go out and expand the church (2). One of the first teams approved by the Antioch church was the Pauline Team that consisted of Barnabas and Paul (3). They were commissioned by teachers and prophets with a significant gesture-the laying on of hands. For the Jew, the laying on of hands had not been a mere symbolic sign but one that had rich meaning. It indicated the transfer of sin to a scapegoat substitute.

In the like manner, the elders at Antioch repeated this practice because they knew it symbolized the reality that an actual transfer of delegation and authority takes place and that his authority had been given to Paul and Barnabas. The were charter members of Antioch who became true representative of those that sent them. They were Antioch’s best men who went out with the hands of Antioch approval on their head and thus became ambassadors for a mobile Antioch. They were going outward to be an Antioch extension with the authority to preach the Gospel, gather believers into community, instruct and train ministers of the Gospel, appoint elders and deacons, and transfer their authority to qualified others. Acts 13:1-3 give us strong evidence that the church sent and approved this export team consisting of two solid men of God whom God had given to the church as a gift. The Pauline team went out and continued to see themselves under the umbrella of Antioch and operate under its auspices.

Paul’s team spread across Asia and the Mediterranean after having received delegated authority and yet they were not autonomous field agents. As a wing to the Antioch church, Paul continued to “report” back after each missionary trip (4). He and Barnabas did not isolate themselves or become rogue missionaries. Paul acted as an Antioch arm that reached out across various cities and seaports with the Gospel (5). They did have “in-the-field” decisions to make, liberties to exercise their office and strategize, and yet the Pauline team continued to see their selves as vitally connected. Paul could appoint elders and gave orders for elders to do so (6). Paul gave orders to Titus to set in order what remained, establish churches, ordain Timothy, and train new leaders (7). Paul also gave clear instructions for the offices of elder and deacon so that the Word and service ministry could maximize Word expansion. Paul knew to do all this because it was modeled to him at Antioch and by direction of the Holy Spirit. All the while, Paul and his coworkers understood that they were forming chips off the old Antioch block as they preached the Gospel and gathered believers into community. Paul wove all his churches together into one interdependent community of new covenant people that reflected his home base at Antioch. Unfortunately, mission is not viewed from a Biblical perspective.

The church is often seen by most mission organizations as a financial-needs outposts by which disconnected missionaries tap on the window for monetary support. Missionaries see themselves as separate entity, away from all the red tape of church business and politics. Nonetheless, the Biblical model for mission is found in Scripture. Paul and his team are the template for mission. They most certainly viewed themselves as a vital component directly fastened to the local church. The leadership, the transfer of authority, the extension of Antioch by qualified men, the rule of Christ’s body by gifted undershepherds, is the Biblical thrust in Scripture by which God builds His Church and brings everything under the headship Christ.
1. Acts 11:19  2. Luke 10:1; Ephesians 4:13  3. Acts 13:1-3  4. Acts 14:26-28; 18:22-23  5. Acts 14:12
6. Acts 16:1-5; Titus 1:5  7. 2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy

A Candid Analysis of the Didache

By Max Strange 8/29/2009

In 1883, a historical document was found called ‘The Didache.’ It has been heralded wrongly as the greatest document find for the Church in the past 100 years, for obvious reason. It is a church manual that for historical purposes has some value. On the whole, it is a document that is non-canonical, spurious, and reveals the church’s inclination towards moralism. The following will be a short and candid analysis of the Didache document, the people behind it, the internal evidence against it, and the cons for its use as a template for today.

It is important to state that this document was never recognized by the early Church as a commonly used document by the Churches. It was recognized as a spurious book and furthermore, it was not written by an apostle or a close associate of one of the apostles, nor does it have any hallmarks of canonicity and lacks in a Theocentric and Christological core. Though it has historic value, it cannot be said the practices listed in Didache manual was common for the churches. It does however give a glimpse into a solitary church or perhaps even a circuit of churches, in which the person/people behind the document and/or perhaps the leaders therein, tended away from grace living to moralistic and legalistic religious activity.

Disturbingly more, the Didache document, with its spurious label by Eusebius, and void of a Christocentric character, has a flawed section called “The Two Ways.” The two ways as described in the Didache are: A Way of Life and a Way of Death. First to note, it is merely “A Way,” and absent is the definitiveness of Christ as “The Way” (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Next, “A Way of Life” is moralistic. This is a colossal clue to the strangeness of this document. It does not mirror Scripture because if it did, the document would tell its people what to believe first! However, this historical footnote in Christianity simply describes a list of do’s and don’t of a merry moral way. If this document was added to the Church, a milk carton would have to be issued that said, “Missing: The Gospel. The Christ. The Indicatives. What God has done.” The whole internal witness of the document, with its very minute historically value, ignores all the texts in Philippians 2, Galatians 3, Romans 1-3, Colossian 2-3, Ephesians 1-4, that reveal an irreversible and immutable connection between the what we believe and how we are to live. This document pulls what we believe right out from under our feet and gives us merely “a way” to live.

Statements in the document are silly. They tell the Christian to make the baptism water “cold if possible; if neither is practical, then pour three times on the head…” and that they should “fast” before baptism, which adds to Scripture. In addition, the text is formulaic (Prayer of Jabez error) suggesting that prayers be offered three times a day of the Eucharist and one should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays since the hypocrites do so on Mondays and Thursdays. Shall the moral juvenile methods go on? In one section, a false prophet is recognized if he “does not stay more than a day, or two days if it is really necessary. If he stays for three days, he is a false prophet.” Paul often stayed for more than 1-2 days when he traveled and established the Churches. Scripture makes certain that a false prophet will be known by the accuracy of his prophecies (1 John 4:1; Deut. 13; 2 Peter 2:1). Painfully more, the Way of Death does not describe man in his natural condition, without God and in need of an alien righteousness. The Didache fences in sin by a list of actions such as murder, adulteries, lusts, malice, pride, foul language, witchcraft etc. Sadly, it does not pinpoint that unbelief in Jesus Christ is what truly sends one to hell nor does it speak of the root evil of mankind, his fallen, corrupted, depraved, blackened heart, and Godless nature! (Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 3; Jer. 17:9).

Even more alarming, the Didache is a transported Jewish document. It is the Judiazing attempt to corrupt or even bridge the purity of the Gospel to the Law. This document corrupts and taints the Gospel clarity. The Judiazers and the moralizers are of the same camp and the Church must always be on the alert throughout history for their intrusion upon the Gospel of grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Further investigation on your own will yield the same historical discovery.

Lastly, to consider this as a template for a church manual would be disastrous. To have believers with a list of rules and to give ethical instruction a prominent place, will lead the next generation of the Church and all its ministries down the slippery slope of moralism. It will create religious moralist whose focus will shift from grace (by the work of the Spirit) to a works-oriented self-help society (Gal. 3:3). The Church would not be God dependent but self-determined, self-motivated, self-centered, and develop a system that has no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Col. 2:23). Christians will become carnally minded, deceived, thinking that they are growing upward in the faith, but in reality small toadstools, weak, infantile, and self-reliant. They will rely on their own efforts and focus on the inversed trinity of “Me, Myself, and I.” Evangelism, God’s Sovereignty, preaching, the Spirit’s role in transformation, will all be whittled down to a little stump. I do not recommend that the Didache be used as a blueprint or as a schematic for Church order, for impacting the culture, for “getting” Christians in alignment, nor as an ecclesiastical grid by which to maneuver the 21st Century Church.

The Necessity of Church Membership

By Greg Simmons

Todayʼs various strains of evangelicalism, whether mega-church or emerging church, is in the process of redefining the Christianʼs relationship to the visible body of Christ. Church membership, which is structured and identified with a local congregation, we are being told doesnʼt matter. Itʼs not necessary to commit to a “church”, but be the church. In other words, membership in an institutional church is passé. But membership is a biblical as well as human concept. The most basic, God ordained institution is the family, of which we are individual members. Paul, in Romans 12:5, is clear that we are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. The notion that we have now moved beyond the organized church and the individual Christian no longer needs to be bound to it must be rejected. The alternatives to traditional church membership being offered by the marketing studies of the mega churches and calls for relevance by the emergents are simply not biblical. This is not the way of the New Testament church. From the earliest times the local church congregations were made up of identifiable members who committed their lives to one another. This form of gathered and committed membership to Godʼs visible family is seen in the Old Testament as well. Those forms were always ordered and structured. Israel had corporate duties and functions in their worship, which set them apart as members of Godʼs chosen people. They came together corporately as an identifiable people at set times determined by God. (The Sabbath Ex 16:22-24  The Feast of Unleavened Bread Ex. 23:15; The Feast of Harvest Exodus 23:16) The practice of regularly attending an organized corporate community for worship and sacraments was brought forward into the church age.  The following are the forms and functions of church membership that are seen in New Testament.

1. Members of the church were first identified by public baptism. Acts 2:38, 41; Acts 8:12; Acts 16:15, 33

2. Members gathered regularly for the Lords Table. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 10: 14-17; 1 Cor. 11:25-27
3. Members regularly gathered for corporate instruction in the apostles doctrine and the preaching of the Word. Acts 2:42; Acts 14:7; Acts 14:26-28; Acts 15:35

4. Members served and supported one another by loving acts of service and gifts. Acts 2: 44-45; 2 Cor. 8:1-4 2:Cor 16:2-4; Phil 4: 16-18; 1 Pet. 5:5

5. Members submitted to and supported church leaders. Acts 11:30; Heb. 13:17

6. Members gathered together for prayer. Acts 2:42; Acts 12:5; Rom 15:20; Phil 1:19; Col 4:1-3

The biblical model is one of membership in a corporate body where the individual is brought into covenant relationships with other believers. This is a clear obligation for all believers. It cannot be redefined by the whims of culture or by so called leaders of an emerging church. Our membership is in the household of God chosen by him to live as a clearly defined community with clearly defined forms and structures.