It was not easy for me to break my commitment to mainstream ecclesiology to seek an unjaundiced view of serving together with other believers. I should have done it long ago, but I kept trying to make it work. Finally, I realized I had already moved too far away from the mainstream path. Further, that path itself was moving farther in the wrong direction. Some of what follows is a matter of "we don't agree." Some of it is obviously more like "you're wrong, and you need to change." As always, I make no apology for my convictions, since I did not create them.
More than one theologian has recently suggested the richest field for spiritual harvest is the Evangelical churches of America. It's not there are so many outsiders visiting churches; there really aren't, for the most part. What they mean is far too many churches are dumbing down the gospel, and millions who believe they are saved are not.
This is more than just sniping and nit-picking between disparate theological backgrounds. However, that is precisely the objection raised by the targets of this implied accusation. What follows is Scripture. Reject it at your eternal peril. The gospel is not a mixed bouquet of different flowers from which you can choose your favorites. It has well-established elements, basic landmarks which, if any are missed, it's not the gospel. There are many ways to outline it, and serious students of the Word will recognize when something is missing:
That's pretty much bare-bones. You'll notice there's not much in there about success in contemporary society. Indeed, the opposite is assumed. If by chance a very large segment of those who share your cultural setting are on the same path to New Life in Christ, you still won't have great and easy success, but it's a little less traumatic. Jesus Himself warned finding a good spiritual consensus in any society was highly unlikely. He also warned most of the world would always be on the highway to Hell.
When a religious institution takes the focus off the desperate need of fallen humanity, the eternal doom of sin, and absolute necessity of the Cross to cancel that doom, whatever they're offering can't be called the gospel. What they do can't be called Christianity ("following Christ"). What they build can't be called a church. Of course, they always do call it those things, and so a great many are confused about those terms. Far too many ministries today aren't sharing the gospel, they are selling a moralistic brand of modern culture as a path to success in this world by it's own measures. What they offer is rightly called "conversion" as a term in psychology. However, it is not regeneration. It is not the thing Jesus described in John 3 as "born again." All the sincerity in the world won't change that.
It's possible the men and women who lead these institutions are genuinely confused, don't really know any better. I would suggest a great many are simply lacking in themselves a true regeneration. Say what you will about the Market-Driven Model of church management (Purpose-Driven, Seeker Sensitive, etc.), but in the majority of its manifestations, human sin is simply not mentioned at any point. Damnation is never discussed, and having a tough life is certainly the opposite of what they teach or expect.
As I've said before, I really don't care how you wrap it. Music style, clothing styles, facilities, technology, etc., are all externals. Pick what best fits your divine calling from God. However, if you leave out any part of what I've outlined above, I'll be first in line to condemn what you are doing as contrary to Scripture. The results of what you are doing will make your congregation a bunch of happy, fulfilled, successful... lost souls. That makes your church my mission field.
This is about the Calvinist version of the flower, the acronym T.U.L.I.P. For those who aren't sure what that means, let me quote the Wikipedia article on the Calvinist-Arminian debate:
Quinquarticular Controversy refers to the theological Calvinist-Arminian controversy that was addressed by Dutch Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619. Quinquarticular (which means, "having to do with five points") refers to points of contention raised by the Arminian party in its publication of five articles of Remonstrance in 1610 and rejected by the Synod in the Canons of Dort, the essence of which is commonly referred to as the Five Points of Calvinism....
After the death of Arminius, his followers penned a petition... called a "Remonstrance," which highlighted five aspects of their theology: (1) election was conditional on faith; (2) Christ's atonement was unlimited in extent; (3) total depravity; (4) prevenient and resistible grace; and (5) the possibility of apostasy.
While not a perfect record of the history of that controversy, it is accurate enough. I note here the article mentions the political wrangling where this debate took place under the Dutch government of that day. Essentially, the final conference where this was decided was not a free debate, but a stacked deck. Thus, Calvinists missed a rich opportunity to assert proper biblical arguments.
Here's the Calvinist TULIP:
T -- Total Depravity of humanity: Humans can do nothing to save themselves, nor even want to be saved. There is no controversy here, really.
U -- Unconditional Election: God elects based on His own pleasure, and no one has any choice or input in any way.
L -- Limited Atonement: The Blood of Christ on the Cross applied only to the sins of those who were predestined to be saved.
I -- Irresistible Grace: No one who is elect can choose to reject God's grace.
P -- Perseverance of the Saints: Since we don't save ourselves, we can't lose ourselves by anything we do.
There are several problems here. First, this was a reaction to Arminian claims, which were presented as a list of five points, with only the T not in dispute. This essentially allows the other side to frame the debate, which hands them some victory already. Second, it's a good bet neither Calvin nor Arminius would have signed off 100% on the arguments attributed to them. Third, much of the dispute was entangled in politics, which makes both sides wrong in that sense. Realize this reliance on government force is an unconsidered assumption held over from when the Roman Church was a quasi-government, a huge sin. Still, it cheapens the whole thing when men can't trust God to defend His truth without forcing things at the point of a sword.
The greater error is using the Western analytical framework as the base assumption. One more time: Scripture is an Eastern mystical product, and it's teachings assume that framework. It's not so much the disputants applied inductive logic, but assumed the logical frame of reference rooted in the it. Scripture is about the organic, narrative explanation, often largely symbolic in language, because the Truth defies human understanding in the first place. We are permitted by grace, via the presence of the Holy Spirit, to grasp a relational understanding of God's will for us. Any hint of objectivity introduced does violence to the essence of Spirit. The whole debate shows a determination on both sides to extract hard, precise and objectified principles.
My claim to the label "Reformed" simplifies things for those who don't know me well, but close friends realize that's not precisely accurate. Further, to be "Calvinist" here is used in the broadest sense of the term: a reflection of Calvin's teaching. Such theological terminology can only approximate things from this author's viewpoint, since the truth in Scripture is tied directly to a less precise use of human language. As a net result, there will seldom be in my writing a reference to the TULIP acronym. To answer directly to that: T and P are bluntly stated in Scripture; however, U and I are more a matter of logical derivatives of God's sovereignty, and are somewhat beside the point. L is even farther removed from direct biblical statements, completely beside the point. Yes, I have read the Bible references used to promote each point, and a natural reading of Scripture from the Eastern perspective is the basis for my critique. In keeping with that Eastern framework, the terms used here are fuzzy.
I am not interested in debate, so don't bother. That's a Western obsession, too, and does no good for either of us.
It's pretty rare I drink any sort of alcoholic beverage. The reasons have little to do with the oddball obsession in the English-speaking world with alcohol. It has more to do with matters of taste and expense. I like European brews just fine, and I've had some really interesting wines there. Most of the stuff made in the US is simply nasty. Even when the makers know what they're doing, idiotic regulations ruin it. It's really hard to get the good stuff here, but even when you do, you still have to deal with the peculiar weirdness infecting our Anglo-American conscience.
That weirdness has a long history. During the Industrial Revolution, which started in England, mining coal became a major element in the national economy. Steam power (along with metal working) consumed vast quantities of the stuff. It was all about replacing muscle power with machinery. The one part of the process most labor intensive still was the actual mining of coal. Finding so much of it in places far from urban labor pools, mining companies built whole towns to house their workers. Such towns were miserable warrens, lacking all the amenities associated with older villages and towns.
Given alcohol abuse has always been a major problem in the lower classes, a means of escaping the ills of life, it's no surprise they took to gin with a vengeance. It was potent and very cheap, and devastated the working classes of cities where it was sold. Where the working classes were clustered unmixed in coal towns, the social mix magnified an already bad trend.
Colliding with this was the rise of numerous Christian sects unaffiliated with the Church of England. While there were a few Calvinist groups, it seems the Arminian groups were far more numerous. These religious groups wasted no time coming into mining towns and poor neighborhoods as with any other mission field. Most of this activity was Arminian, and some were simply theologically liberal. We note this is also around the time of the birth of Sociology as an academic discipline, which further removed the miraculous element of God's power. Blaming almost all the misery on alcoholism, there arose a powerful strain of prohibitionism in these religious groups. While we rightly have visions of the Salvation Army leading the way, this condemnation of alcohol as an inherently moral issue bled over into the Baptists and other Calvinist groups.
Thus, we have in 1732 the State of Georgia founded as a place to send those filling English debtors' prisons so they could start a new life, and the royal charter for the colony prohibited alcohol. While those debtors and prisoners never materialized, it is noteworthy respectable English, and therefore American, Protestant opinion held alcohol as a sin in itself. This idea has spread wherever English influence has.
However, for the most of the world, this idea is silly, even among Evangelical Protestants. We are left with a peculiarly Anglo-American neurosis, in which every effort is made to find Scripture passages to support what is "so obviously a teaching from God," of course. Sorry, but the Bible depicts only the abuse of alcohol as evil, just as one might abuse every other thing in God's Creation. Consider one critical fact from biblical history: storing the juice of grapes for more than a couple of days without refrigeration is impossible without fermentation. You can either ferment it on purpose and make wine, or you can let it ferment wildly and become poisonous. Here's another: Drinking any significant quantity of plain grape juice leads inevitably to diarrhea in most humans. Alcoholic wine usually does not. Thus, Bible stories make no sense if "wine" meant unfermented grape juice.
I note in my association with Baptists, I played by the rules while serving in churches. I never taught it was a sin, simply didn't comment on it. This past year (2006) has seen the issue rise again to the forefront in the SBC. While many voices for sanity are trying to shed this legalistic requirement -- which in effect adds to Scripture a prohibition it doesn't support -- there are many in leadership seeking to make the enforcement more harsh. Thus, it's not just a matter of assuming you agree; denominational leaders, even pastors of many churches, will be required to sign a statement including a provision they agree with the customary doctrine or be fired. Look for this to get uglier before it calms down again.
When John the Baptist appeared in the lower Jordan Valley, prophesying the need for repentance, he employed ritual washing as a means of public awareness. While no one can prove John was a member of the Essene Community, it was obvious he was a disciple of similar austerity and concern for returning to holiness and purity. I doubt anyone was confused about whether getting wet did much for the soul, but it had been for quite some time a ceremony symbolizing a commitment to seek a clear conscience.
There remains a major struggle over whether the term in Scripture is defined as sprinkling, pouring or full submersion. Jesus commanded we should practice the ritual, and the New Testament church clearly used it to signify someone committing to follow Christ. For those who emphasize the symbolism of the Holy Spirit descending upon the individual, it makes sense to insist on pouring or sprinkling. There's not much doubt the Essenes practiced immersion, requiring those involved to get themselves into the water. Whether they then dunked their heads under or poured it over the top is hard to pin down. The Greek word bapto (βαπτο) itself quite obviously requires submersion, as it is a nautical term for a sinking ship -- "whelmed."
I'm not sure it matters much between pouring and dunking, but I would insist on getting completely wet. Sprinkling a few drops is almost certainly derived sometime much later. It seems to have begun around the time of Constantine's ascension to the Imperial Roman throne in 306 AD. That so many older Reformation-based churches adhere to it reflects their having no reason to depart from Roman practice. This is also true of the practice of baptizing children and infants. We have no record of the practice in the New Testament except a few occasions of adults. Insisting baptism is an extension of the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is hard to prove. Such an argument risks the necessity of echoing too many details from Mosaic Law, and this is rejected outright.
Thus, my house church will call for either submersion and/or pouring sufficient to be completely wet. The ritual is not about joining an organization, but a public notice one claims to be a citizen of the Kingdom of God. Only those able to make such a claim will be permitted. Readiness normally requires the witness of another, established believer, symbolized by helping the new believer get wet -- either by doing the pouring or by lowering them down under the water.
The blood of believers flows mingled with that of the Savior in the celebration of His death. How sad it is something so simple has caused such controversy. I won't propose here to set aside all the debates and produce a definitive answer, only describe the answer I would use in my house church.
Call it what you wish -- Communion or Lord's Supper -- but the ritual meal in churches is extracted from the Jewish Passover observance. The evening before Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, He met with His disciples in a second floor private room. We understand this was the first time they celebrated in quite this fashion, and the Twelve still labored under visions of an earthly Messiah kicking out the Romans. They had just been arguing over which of them would be His right-hand man once He assumed an earthly throne. I can't imagine how He tolerated this in the face of His own agony. This was the Final Passover Meal, as after this it would have no meaning. Thus, Jesus selected the last two elements, normally representing future promises, as the beginning of the New Covenant. He was the future hope symbolized by those elements, and thus gave them a new meaning for a new future hope in His Return.
Taking the matzo set aside earlier, Jesus identified it with His body. Specifically, He described it as the sacrifice of His life, the substance of who He was and what He had taught, the incarnation and living will of Jehovah. The Cup of Blessing became the symbol of His blood shed for sins. The disciples realized He was calling Himself the Passover Lamb, and were trying to process the idea of His sacrifice. They were too busy trying to sort out the symbolism to hear Him bluntly saying He was about to die. Later, even after some forty days with them in His resurrected body, they were still asking if He was about to restore the independent kingdom status to the Nation of Israel. It took the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to make possible the full impact of what He had promised: His Kingdom could not be confined to this world, nor even this thing called "time."
Paul later reprimands the Corinthian church for having become so worldly in their observance of something totally symbolic and other-worldly. During the early years of the New Testament Church, folks would celebrate the New Passover with a continuation of the ritual meal, calling it a "Love Feast," sort of a potluck in ancient terms. Afterward, they would reenact the ritual Jesus instituted that night in Jerusalem. In Corinth, the wealthy would have leisure to gather early and pig out so as not to share with the later arriving lower classes, who worked until sundown. Some of the rich would have had time to get drunk by then. This was the same old Corinthian culture carried over into church. By the time they got around to the ritual, it was hardly in honor of the Lord Jesus. To correct this idiocy, Paul rehashed the story, then told them to drop the Love Feast, since they were incapable of doing it righteously. Until Paul could come in person to really straighten things out, it was best they simply hold the ritual observance at worship. Thus, Paul did not actually do away with the Love Feast, but ordered the Corinthians to set it aside for a time.
In our practice today, it would probably be a good idea to consider having a Love Feast -- everyone bringing food as an offering of love to Jesus Christ, then sharing equally with those who can't bring as much. However, this only works when the local body can overcome the Corinthian selfishness so common in many Western churches today. Afterward, it hardly matters what sort of bread is used, as long as it is bread. Nor would I see a demand for wine from grapes, but just about any appropriate local fruit juice. So in places like rural Indiana, why not cornbread and apple cider? Getting hung up on such details is legalism, but there's nothing wrong with sticking to matzo and wine. The ground of meaning under all this has moved, and it is no longer a detailed ritual provided in a written law. While there is nothing wrong with hearkening back to the Hebrew source, it is no less reverent to shake free of that by isolating the ritual to its new meaning.
Something I consider essential is using a common cup and a single loaf, as it were. In this, the symbolism of the Old Testament is too important, for it's not a serving, but a mere taste. It is a taste of shared food showing a promise shared by all who wait longingly for Him. As I've said elsewhere, it's wise to avoid having a congregation so large you can't reasonably share a common cup and loaf. Further, Paul makes it clear if there is no actual communion of hearts, there is no Communion Service. This business of "worthiness" was never a question of the worthy people; they are never worthy, nor can they be. It is the worthy manner which matters, wherein we all take a moment to remember our unworthiness, and solemnly celebrate His death, and look forward to His Return.
By Ed Hurst
revised 27 February 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)