Issues Facing Missions Today: 52. Paul’s Concern for Unity and Peace in Ephesians

Issues Facing Missions Today: 52. Paul’s Concern for Unity and Peace in Ephesians

[This post continues the study of mission as church renewal by examining the theme of unity and peace running through Paul's letter to the Ephesians (over against merely social understandings of unity in certain heretical groups today).]

Introduction

A rather humorous misuse of Scripture surrounds a very sad state of affairs in the Anglican Communion.  The heretical Episcopal Church, seeking ways to remain engaged in ministries in Africa, recently brought together 23 representatives from parts of Africa, on the basis of Galatians 6.2’s ‘bear one another’s burdens.’[1]  The idea was to skip over differences on homosexuality and just get on with needed social programmes.  Underlying this idea is the conviction that unity can be held despite different views on sexuality.  Mainline denominations in general move between the views that differences on sexual ethics are (1) matters of indifference or that (2) the less evolved and enlightened human groups will eventually come around to the West’s way of thinking.  Rather sad. What is humourous from an exegetical perspective is that Galatians 6.2 follows the directive to help someone who has fallen into some sin!  Galatians 6.1-2 reads:

Galatians 6:1-2  My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.  ² Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

Bearing one another’s burdens in this passage does not mean skipping over sin but dealing with it.  It does not mean social ministry over against sexual ethics.  The ease with which Scripture gets misused arises because such interpreters come to the text with a preconceived notion that unity can be formed through social relationships and not based on core convictions.  Their reading blinders pick up 'bear one another's burdens' without seeing 'if anyone is detected in a transgression.'

A careful look at unity and peace in Ephesians can help to sort out this fundamental error.  Truth matters.  Ethics matters.  Unity is not merely social, it is not simply about common projects—no matter how good a social project might be.  It is first and foremost about the reality of Jesus as Lord in every area of our lives, including our convictions and our ethics.

Ephesians: Paul’s Politics

Eph. 2.14 states simply and profoundly that ‘Christ is our peace.’  The immediate context is that Christ has become the peace between Jews and Gentiles.  This conviction extends to other points in the epistle—to every part of the epistle.  Indeed, Ephesians is what we might call Paul’s Politics, if we mean by ‘politics’ how a society works or should work.  (I have here in mind a comparison with Aristotle’s Politics).  The aim of Paul’s Politics is to show how unity and peace are established in the society of what we call ‘church.’  As Ephesians progresses, we learn that Christ establishes the unity and peace of the Christian community—a rather different understanding from, say, the Roman Empire’s pax Romana, ‘peace of Rome,’ that establishes peace and unity through oppressive power.

• Christ is cosmic head, overpowering all other authorities and establishing peace (1.15-23)
• Christ has produced a peace between God and humanity by dealing with sin (2.1-10)
• Christ has produced peace between Jews and Gentiles (2.11-3.12)
• Christ has produced peace and unity in the Church (4.1-5.20)
• Christ is the peace and unity within the household (5.21-6.9)
• Christ is the way to victory over hostile, spiritual powers that threaten our peace (6.10-17)

Jesus is Lord

Absolutely essential to the peace that the Church knows and offers to the world is the reality of Christ’s Lordship.  There is no peace and unity apart from the Lord Christ: He is our peace.  Thus the epistle begins with an application of Psalm 110.1 to Jesus as the resurrected and exalted Lord:

Ephesians 1:20-23 God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,  ²¹ far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come.  ²² And he has put all things under his feet [cf. Ps. 110.1] and has made him the head over all things for the church,  ²³ which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Any theology or understanding of the Church that begins with the social reality of the Church rather than devotion to Christ as Lord will, sooner or later, fail to experience or offer a true peace and unity, which can only come from Christ.  This is not only because devotion involves worship of and obedience to Christ but also because Christ is the one who accomplishes peace.  He accomplishes peace:

• by setting believers free from the prince of the power of the air who is at work in disobedient humanity, who eagerly give free rein to their passions (Eph. 2.1-2);
• by reconciling sinners to God through his own sacrificial blood (Eph. 2.13) and granting us the Spirit of God so that we might have access to God the Father (Eph. 2.18);
• by giving gifts of ministry to the church in the roles of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, who build up the body of Christ until the church comes to a unity of faith (Eph. 4.11-13);
• by equipping believers for the spiritual battles they face with the armor of God: truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, and salvation (Eph. 6.14-17).

Core Convictions for Social Unity

Paul’s Politics knows no peace that is merely a matter of social agreement despite convictions.  Rather, peace and unity arise at the social level only because there is first a coming together around core convictions of the Christian faith.  The unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4.3) entails the following Trinitarian convictions:

⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 

⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 

⁶ one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all (Eph. 4.4-6).

The working out of these convictions in the life of the Church entails correction of false teaching and growing up into Christ:

Ephesians 4:14-16 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people's trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.  ¹⁵ But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,  ¹⁶ from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love.

The working out of these convictions in the household entails submitting every relationship to the Lordship of Christ.  Paul is certainly not offering an egalitarian vision of the family in Eph. 5.22-6.9.  But he is not really offering a complementarian view of the husband – wife, parents – children, masters – slave relationships either.  Granted, he accepts different functions and authoritative roles in the household, but all this is background to his real point.  That is, he assumes the relationships of the 1^st century household (whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman).  His point, however, is that Christ makes a difference to the household relationships, and the difference he sees is one of removing power relationships because all relationships are now experienced in Christ.  The wife submits instead of being contentious.  The husband loves to the point of laying down his life for the wife instead of using his position for his own gain.  Children obey their parents, and fathers do not provoke their children to wrath but rather bring them up on the discipline and instruction of the Lord.  Masters treat slaves as they wish to be treated by their master, God.  And slaves serve their masters enthusiastically as to the Lord.  Each of these instructions removes power from the relationship and submits the role one has in the household to the Lord.  Paul’s vision for equality is not an equal sharing of power but an equal submission to the Lord and letting his rule make all the difference.

Conclusion

Thus, unity and peace for Paul is social.  It has to do with our relationship to God, with ethnic relations such as those between Jews and Gentiles, with relationships within the community that is the church, with relationships in the family (including work relationships), and with relationships in the world itself.  But peace and unity are not established across these relationships despite our beliefs.  We do not agree to disagree.  We do not have unity because we lay aside our differences for the greater good of fellowship.  On the contrary, the reality of Christ’s Lordship among us works itself out in unity of faith and ethics. We proclaim the truth that Christ has died for our sins, he has risen from the dead, and he is exalted and rules among us as Lord.  His rule calls us to truth in every area, including the ‘truth’ of moral purity, as Paul says:

Ephesians 5:6-9 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient.  ⁷ Therefore do not be associated with them.  ⁸ For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light--  ⁹ for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true.

Those advocating a unity in the Church by agreeing to disagree over moral matters are those trying to deceive God’s people with empty words when, in fact, God’s wrath is coming on those who disobey.

---

[1] See the story at http://www.virtueonline.org/african-anglicans-invited-galatians-62-conference-tec-explore-bearing-one-anothers-burdens-spin. 

Issues Facing Missions Today: 51. Dare We Judge?

Issues Facing Missions Today: 51. Dare We Judge?

[This post continues the study of mission as church renewal by examining the New Testament understanding of Christian discipline and judgement.]


Introduction

‘Christians should not judge others’—so goes the saying often repeated by some believers and non-believers alike.  It is a statement meant to shut down criticism, promote tolerance of diverse views and behaviours, and avoid any practice of church discipline.  Is it really true, though?  Dare we judge?

The Ecclesiastical Context for the Discussion

One context to be found for this discussion might be in churches not knowing what to do with recalcitrant sinners in their midst.  Another context is found in denominations that are faced with moral crises as some redefine sin and begin to endorse, affirm, and even advocate certain practices the Church has always condemned as sinful!  A case in point might be how the Anglican Church is dividing over the matter of homosexuality, with some now affirming the practice and some seeing it as a matter of indifference that should not divide the ‘Church.’  There is nothing Biblical or historically Christian about these positions, but is there something to the notion that Christians should not judge?  The orthodox response to those pressing for acceptance of homosexuality as a choice to be accepted, even blessed (as in ceremonies blessing same-sex unions or even ‘marriages’ of this unnatural union), has been seen by some as ‘judgemental.’  Over against these revisionists of Christian teaching, faithful Christians are faithful to the teaching of Scripture and the Church, and this faithfulness may well entail the need to separate from false teaching and sinful practices, as well as calling sinners to repent from practicing their sins and calling on those who support the sins of others to desist (cf. Rom. 1.32).[1]  But, dare Christians judge?

Is Judgement Really Not Just an Old Testament Practice?

The Biblical context for this discussion involves a long-held and widespread misunderstanding about judgement and Christianity.  The idea that Christians should not judge others stems in large part from Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’ (Mt. 7.1; it sounds better in 17^th century English!).  How are we to put this together with so many other passages that speak of judgement among the people of God?  Adam and Eve were judged for their sin in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3).  Cain was condemned for killing Abel (Gen. 4).  When ‘God saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth,’ he determined to ‘blot out from the earth the human beings’ that he had created (Gen. 6.5, 7).  This is not a good start to a story that is going to go on for the rest of the Old Testament!  But maybe that is just it: the Old Testament is full of judgement.

Actually, that line of argument (one the heretic Marcion took in the 2^nd century but that is ever present) does not work.  The Old Testament fundamentally and repeatedly presents God as merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin’ (Ex. 34.6-7; cf. Neh. 9.17; Ps. 86.15; Ps. 103.8; Ps. 145.8; Joel 2.13; Jonah 4.2).  Yet it also, as we see in the rest of Exodus 34.7, says that God by no means ‘clears the guilty;’ rather, He visits the ‘iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex. 34.7).  The righteousness of God is two-sided: it means God’s coming wrath and judgement to deal with sinners and His coming redemption to take away sin (as in Isaiah 59.16-21).  There is no division between judgment of sin and forgiveness of sin when it comes to God’s righteousness.  The same point is reaffirmed, possibly with Isaiah 59.16-21 in mind, by Paul in Romans 1.16-18 and 3.21-26.

Is Judgement Really Not Just Something to Leave to God Alone?

Be that as it may, perhaps we should leave judgement to God?  Well, yes—at least when it comes to Christians’ relations to those outside the faith.  Paul says, ‘Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord”’ (Rom. 12.19).  Believers are to live peaceably with all, as the previous verse states.  As Jesus had said, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’ (Mt. 5.44).

Yet we have another, clear line of thought throughout Scripture—the need to judge within the community of God’s people.  It was a matter of justice that Moses and Israelite judges settled disputes for the people (Exodus 18).  This same policy is one Paul encourages in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 6.1-6).  Moreover, justice demanded punishment for sin.  Achan and his entire family were put to death for their disobedience to God (Josh. 7).  This was God’s judgement and a judgement to be carried out by the people.  There were, also, breaches of God’s moral law that carried the death penalty in the Old Testament (Lev. 20.1-16—here we have the law against homosexual relations).  Is this just an Old Testament approach that we Christians have now eclipsed? 

Is There Any New Testament Teaching about Sin and Punishment in the Church?

There is no redefinition of sin in the New Testament, even if penalties for sin could change.  Sin remains sin.  And judgement continues to be practiced in the New Testament by the people of God even if the form of judgement necessarily changes between a theocracy and a church.  Certain sins no longer carry a death penalty—the Church has no legal right to carry out any physical or capital punishments.  Yet they can and should still punish by putting a person out of the community of the people of God.  That is, when Paul calls on the Corinthian church to put a person living with his father’s mother out of the church—his actual words are ‘turn him over to Satan’—he is following an adaptation of the Old Testament law for the church: ‘The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them’ (Lev. 20.11).  Thus Paul interprets the punishment of being put out of the church into the realm of Satan to be a destruction of the ‘flesh,’ meaning not the death penalty but dealing with the sinful flesh ‘so that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord’ (1 Cor. 5.5).  In providing both a path for restoration and a judgemental process that could lead to ostracism, Paul was offering the same perspective that we find Jesus giving in Matthew 18.10-20.

Is There a Difference Between Judging Those Inside and Those Outside the Church?

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul gives us more insight into his reasoning, and this helps us see the consistency of Scripture on this issue of judging.  There, Paul distinguishes between our attitude towards those outside the church and those who claim to be ‘brothers.’  We are responsible to judge those inside the church, but we are to leave judgement of those outside the church to God:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons--  ¹⁰ not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world.  ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.  ¹² For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge?  ¹³ God will judge those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you" (1 Cor. 6.9-13).

What, Then, Did Jesus Mean by ‘Do Not Judge…?’

So, we return to the claim ‘Christians should not judge others.’  When Jesus said not to judge in Matthew 7.1, he was not teaching against judgement but against hypocritical judgement.  The often quoted first few lines of what Jesus said need to be read in the context of what he goes on to say.  Here is the full quote:

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.  ² For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.  ³ Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?  ⁴ Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye?  ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye (Mt. 7.1-5).

We are not, of course, talking about people who are judgemental, gossipers, or haughty.  We are not talking about judgement with no mercy or forgiveness—one of Jesus’ major teaching points (cf. Mt. 9.13; 12.7, where Jesus quotes Hosea 6.6: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’).  Yet the notion that Christians do not or should not judge others in their communities who willingly and consistently remain in sin is thoroughly unbiblical—whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament. 

Why Should Christians Judge Those Inside the Church?

A community of ‘saints’ needs to call sin for what it is, sin.  God’s missional purpose is to create for himself a holy people (Ex. 19.6; 1 Peter 2.1-10).  Judgement preserves the community’s holiness, as Paul says: ‘Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons’ (1 Cor. 5.7-9).

And to be God’s holy people requires—in addition to mercy and dealing with sin and transformation and infilling with God’s Spirit--being on the watch against ‘savage wolves [who] will come in among you, not sparing the flock’ (Acts 20.29).  As Jude explicitly says,

For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 4).

In fact, in this regard Jude even mentions God’s punishment of Sodom’s ‘unnatural’ sin—that is, homosexuality:

Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire (Jude 7).

Is Judgement Only About the Church and Not Also About the Person Being Judged?

Judgement not only preserves the community from sin and sets it apart as God’s holy people, judgement is also a means of grace for the person being judged.  As long as the sinner in Corinth (1 Cor. 5) remained part of the church, he did not think of himself as someone who would not inherit the kingdom of God with the believers.  Similarly, Jesus instructed individuals, elders, and the church to point out a sinner’s sin so that he might repent.  To do so is like the shepherd who left the ninety-nine safe sheep to go after the one that had strayed (Mt. 18.12-20).

Conclusion

All too often, a simplistic notion of judgement for sin prevails.  It is often based on a gross misunderstanding of Jesus’ statement not to judge (Matthew 7.1).  On the contrary, judgement is necessary to preserve the church from sin and keep it separated to God as his holy people in a sinful world.  It is also a means of grace for the person continuing in willful sin, since it entails a process by which the person is made aware that his or her practice will ultimately mean separation from a holy God for all eternity.  What service is offered someone if God’s people tolerate a sinful person in their midst only for the person to discover later on that he or she will not inherit the kingdom of God because of that sin?  Here is a toleration of sin that leads to eternal condemnation—the exact opposite of Christian love.  As we read in Hebrews:

And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as children-- "My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him;  ⁶ for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves, and chastises every child whom he accepts (Heb. 12.5-6).

---

[1] Peter Jensen, the General Secretary of GAFCON, for example, has outlined six steps that orthodox Anglicans should take in regard to other Anglicans affirming or tolerating homosexual practice in the Church (see: Back to Basics: Six Blog posts on key issues facing the Anglican Communion;’ online at: http://gafcon.org/category/blog/).  His third blog post addresses ‘fellowship,’ including the need to separate and the need for repentance before reconciliation.

Issues Facing Missions Today: 50. Preserve the Unity of the Church?

Issues Facing the Church: 50. Preserve the Unity of the Church?

[This post continues a study in a series of posts on mission as church renewal by examining Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17--'that they may all be one' (v. 21).]

One argument that has struck many believers as compelling in the ecclesiastical debates in oldline denominations that revolve around sexuality—especially homosexuality—has been that the unity of the Church must be preserved at all costs.  This discussion entails figuring out what Christian unity and love are, and what issues may be considered matters of indifference (Greek: adiaphora).  What does it mean to preserve the unity of the Church?  Here, this question will be addressed with respect to Jesus’ high priestly prayer to the Father in John 17.

That ‘unity of the Church’ is no small matter perhaps gains its greatest strength from Jesus’ prayer for unity among the disciples in John 17.  ‘Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one,’ Jesus prays (v. 11b).  Of course, Jesus’ prayer acknowledges that the ‘world has hated them because they do not belong to the world’ (v. 14b).  In the narrative context of the Gospel, the ‘world’ often, as here, applies to Jesus’ opposition.  The disciples are ‘sanctified’ or ‘set apart’ from the world, and this occurs ‘in truth’ (v. 19).  Jesus has given them God’s word (v. 14a), which is truth (v. 17).  The unity for which Jesus prays on behalf of his disciples is a unity established by their disunity with the world and being set apart in the truth.  This is no airy fairy unity ethic that focusses on social inclusion whatever one believes or does.  Quite the opposite.  Social inclusion is based on an exclusive commitment to the truth.

So, John 17 is about more than unity.  It is actually Jesus’ prayer that precedes his arrest in Gethsemane (ch. 18) and immediately follows Jesus’ statement that the disciples are about to be scattered (16.32).  The prayer for unity, then, is about the danger the disciples are about to face from a hostile world that has rejected the truth that Jesus has taught his disciples, the truth in God’s word that Jesus has proclaimed in his own person.  Unity is not an absolute; it is the result of remaining committed to God’s word despite persecution.

Had Jesus been concerned about unity in a more absolute sense, he would have sought common ground with ‘the Jews’ (that is, the Jewish religious leaders rejecting Jesus), his opponents in John’s Gospel.  Instead, Jesus draws the line between his disciples and all others.

Some people are, moreover, peculiarly committed to unity within one corner of the Church, a denomination, as though this preserves the unity of the Church itself.  They understand unity with respect to their denomination’s unity.  This raises the important question, ‘Is a denomination the Church?’  The word ‘ekklesia’ in the Greek Bible is translated as ‘assembly’ or ‘church’ in English Bibles.  In the Old Testament, the word translates the Hebrew word for the assembly or people of God.  The term refers to the whole people of Israel.  This is how the New Testament picks up the word: the Church is the people of God.  Paul uses the term to refer to a local people of God in a given city, such as ‘the church of God that is in Corinth’ (1 Cor. 1.2).  He also uses the term in a specialized sense to refer to the Christians who are in a locality gathering together for worship.  He says, ‘…when you come together as a church…’ (1 Cor. 11.18; cf. 14.19, 28; 16.19).  Finally, as in the Old Testament, he also uses the term ‘church’ to refer to the universal people of God—to Christians.  Thus Paul says, ‘…I persecuted the church of God’ (1 Cor. 15.9c; see especially the use of the term in Ephesians).

None of these uses directly equates to a meaning that comes close to the term ‘denomination.’  ‘Ekklesia’ never means a group of believers distinguished from others by virtue of their practices or beliefs.  The idea that protecting the unity of such a group of believers is in any way a protection of the unity of the Church is actually a significant misunderstanding of the Church.  The error is inevitable, as the word ‘church’ has been used by the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Church precisely because it sees itself as the true Church to which all others ought to be reunited.  Certain Protestant denominations have adopted the word in a similar way to refer to the approved institution of the church in their geographical region, such as the ‘Church of Scotland,’ or Presbyterians, and the ‘Church of England,’ or Anglicans.  The meaning changes still further when we speak of the ‘Lutheran Church’ or the ‘Reformed Church,’ since here doctrinal and practical differences are in view.

When we refer today to denominations as ‘churches,’ we create a confusion about what ‘unity of the church’ really means.  Denominations are at best parts of the church and therefore by definition cannot fulfill any goal of Church unity.  They are, more realistically, parachurch organizations, or even, by definition (!), ‘disunity groups.’  Unity is not obtained by agreement with a faction of the Church but by, as Jn. 17 shows, obedience to the word of God, which is truth.  More positively, they might contribute to unity of the Church, but then, by the same token, they might disrupt the unity of the Church.

That unity with a faction of the universal Church means disunity with other factions of the Church needs to be stated.  Apparently it is not as obvious as it ought to be.  Unity with a group of American Episcopalians does not mean unity with the vast majority of African Anglicans, for example.  Unity within the Presbyterian Church (USA) does not even mean unity with other American Presbyterian groups.

Surely a desire for unity is a good thing.  Abraham Lincoln’s desire for unity and peace in America during his presidency led him to change his mind several times about what to do with slavery.  At one point, he sought to affirm the right of slave states to practice slavery in perpetuity so long as there was no spread of the practice to other regions or states.  At another point, he supported the view that slave states should be permitted to retain their slaves for another forty years.  Such options could have preserved the unity of the country and brought an end to war if both sides had agreed.  Ultimately, Lincoln was led to a more radical view: emancipation of all slaves everywhere.  The path to emancipation involved continued war.  Unity of the states, one might say, was the result of holding to the truth that slavery was wrong, even if that view meant the disunity of war.

                                                                                                                     

This is precisely what Jn. 17 is all about.  Jesus prays for the disciples to hold on to the truth in God’s word even though it means enmity with the world (including other Jewish religious groups).  By doing so, they would maintain Christian unity—a unity known by the Father and the Son.

Issues Facing Missions Today: 49. The New Tribalism of post-Postmodernity and Christian Mission to the West

Issues Facing Missions Today: 49. The New Tribalism of post-Postmodernity and Christian Mission to the West 

Introduction

Christian mission to the West is facing a new challenge that requires moving beyond the categories of ‘Modernity’ and ‘Post-Modernity’ for the worldview of the larger society.  We are witnessing a fundamental change in the western worldview, a new outlook that might be called ‘Tribalism.’  The Church is caught in the challenge of how to position itself in this new reality, which involves persecution from the Tribe.  Yet is also able to offer a profound witness at this time if it is willing to ‘become the Gospel’ in communities with far more depth than they have had in recent decades.

Enlightenment Modernity

Modernity was characterized by the encyclopedic, progressive accumulation of knowledge, the authoritative lecturer in the classroom, the scientific method and the reign of science over other disciplines in the university, and the relegation of faith to the private and individual sphere of life.  Modernity championed scientific and logical rationality and the ‘system’ (political, social, logical—whatever).  In this world, the body is understood for what it is—how it was made.  It is not a canvas to be tattooed with personal expressions of art.  Modernity is a world open to ideologies as diverse as democracy, fascism, and communism, but it is a world that can be characterized by ideology and the wars that were waged to establish them.

Postmodernity

Postmodernity was characterized by its objection to a metanarrative to explain life, a deconstruction of rational foundations and the philosophical, moral, and scientific edifices built thereupon, the role of students to explore meaning through discourse (rather than the lecturer), the triumph of language and literature over science in the university, and a new permission to hear the mutterings of faith—and everything else--in public places.  Postmodernity championed narrative rationality, diversity, and self-expression.  In this world, the body is understood not as something given but as something to be personalised.  It was a canvas to be tattooed with personal art: there was no natural order.  Freedom of choice was the ruling ethic, over against the order of nature or some common understanding of justice.  It was a period in which to apologize for the past abuses of power and to bring out of the shadows groups that were marginalized.  Its deconstruction of ideologies and powerful authorities brought a certain easing of tension, but also a relaxing of moral argument and an uncertainty about what limits there are, if any, in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

The New Tribalism

Unquestionably, the page has now been turned in the West.  A new, totalizing discourse has and is emerging.  If Modernity ruled from the science department of the university, or from the history department operating as a science (a closed system of cause and effect that was swinging dialectically but positively towards some goal), Postmodernity ruled from the literature department.  Whatever post-Postmodernity is, the sociology department is gaining control of the university.  And so it is that perhaps the best term for this development is not ‘post-Postmodernity’ but Tribalism—an appropriately sociological term.

The tribe champions not the individual but the group, even though it recognizes that there are other tribes out there that must be kept in their places.  It is not apologetic for its own abuse of power but attacks the use of power by others as abuse.  It controls the speech, laws, and public square with its own, immense power.  Freedom is no longer based on conscience but is determined by the powerful majority and defined as the support of privileged groups.  All others must be silenced, made to conform in the marketplace, on the job, and in public discourse.  Not the emergence of individual tattoos of Postmodernity but gang uniforms and tribal tattoos for all members are the marks of political correctness.  If Postmodernity argued in favour of sexual diversity it was as a matter of the freedom to act as one wished.  Tribalism, however, argues for sexual identities and also insists that gender is not, as Modernity would have claimed, a biological matter but an innate orientation despite biology.  The tribal mentality shuts down free speech in the university and public square—it forcefully defines the new, totalizing ideology not by arguing from science (including politics, history, and economics interpreted as sciences) but by arguing sociologically.

If Postmodernity opened up some space to explore religions as legitimate expressions of faith that were, at times, oppressively shut down by the championing of science in the period of Modernity, the new Tribalism is decidedly opposed to faith, particularly Christian faith.  It often affirms Islam not as a faith but as a minority group (think ‘Sociology’) that needs to come under the Tribe’s protection because the Tribe wants to support minority groups.  It defines Transgender persons as a minority that is determined by its gender orientations over against its biology.  This argument is only compelling because the Tribal mentality assumes the dominance of the sociology department in the university and the agenda of supporting marginalized groups as groups, with no academic enquiry into their legitimacy apart from their social status.

The Church in the Age of Tribalism

Christians need to realize that the apologetic landscape has changed.  Mission in this context is no longer that of evidentialist argumentation ala the scientific paradigms of Modernity.  Nor is Christian mission going to succeed merely by means of a compelling narrative.  In the Tribalist world in which the Church now finds itself in the West, a sociological argument will be the most compelling.

Ecclesiology is now the most important theological question.  However, the sociological argument comes with persecution and martyrdom for the Christian faith as the pattern of life for Christians is increasingly at odds with the Tribe in which we find ourselves.  What is needed, though, is a compelling witness of Christian community living against the grain of Western society both ethically and socially.  This community—the Church—cannot argue much from common understandings of nature or from appeals to the legitimacy of diversity in a complex world.  It will have to argue by means of its life together that its alternative society has answers to what others seek.

The Christian response to Tribalism cannot come in the form of mega-churches desperately trying to get a robust cell group or home fellowship programme going despite its mass gatherings.  This witness if far too weak.  It cannot come in the form of calls for individual conversion alone; rather, the focus must become baptism of converts into a new community, the one body of Christ, the church.  It cannot come in the form of polished speakers offering a message, no matter how well crafted.  It has to come in the form of the compelling life together of a Christian community that is either winsome or worth persecuting for its stark challenge to the controlling Tribe.  Mainline denominations have so identified with the Tribe that they have lost any reason to exist.  On the other hand, truly Christian mission to the West must come in the form of faithfully orthodox communities of Christ that have so deeply participated in the life-transforming good news of Jesus Christ and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit that they have ‘become’ the Gospel message in community together.[1] 

The bad news is that the Church faces persecution in tribalist societies.  The good news is that Tribalism strips away the unfaithful and compromised so that the Church offers a purer witness, and it forces the 'church' to be a real church--a family whose life together shines forth the Gospel.

---

[1] See Michael Gorman’s Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2015).

Issues Facing Missions Today: 48. Heretical Teaching and False Unity Then and Now

Issues Facing Missions Today: 48. Heretical Teaching and False Unity Then and Now

[This post begins a study of mission as church renewal with respect to the specific question of Church unity.  It does so by examining an erroneous understanding of Church unity that does not allow for division and discipline in the Church.]


Mission is not always about the Church's reaching out to others with the Gospel and various ministries; it can and often needs to be a renewal movement within established churches.  The opposite of continuous renewal of the Church according to the Scriptures is a wearisome process of endless dialogue led by persons committed to false teaching and a call for unity of fellowship with persons who undermine the faith and who lead others into errors with eternal consequences.  The challenge of heresy, the need for orthodox teaching, and the urgency to separate false teachers from the faithful—not endless dialogue and false fellowship with them—was present in the earliest days of the Church.  

The following quotes from the New Testament on these issues are just as relevant for us today.  They come from a variety of authors (and Jesus).  They highlight three points that the Church needs to consider today: (1) error is ever present in the Church and the work of renewal and correction must therefore be a primary task of the Church’s mission; (2) unity is defined around agreement with Scripture, God’s commands, and affirmation of the Gospel,; (3) unity is not understood in terms of fellowship with those opposing the truth--not welcoming false teachers is essential for the vitality of the Church’s witness.

Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.  Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.[1]

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.[2]

For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.[3]

Certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.[4]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient.  Therefore do not be associated with them.[5]

Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.  Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them.[6]

There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them-- bringing swift destruction on themselves.  Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned.  And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.  The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment -- especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation while they feast with you.  They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin.  For they speak bombastic nonsense, and with licentious desires of the flesh they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error.  They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them.[7]

They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die-- yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.[8]

Wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived.  But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed….  All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.[9]

Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments.  Whoever says, "I have come to know him," but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, "I abide in him," ought to walk just as he walked.[10]

We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God's word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God.[11]

---

[1] 2 John 1:9-11.

[2] Matthew 7:15.

[3] 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

[4] Jude 4.

[5] Ephesians 5:6-7.

[6] Acts 20:28, 30.

[7] 2 Peter 2:1-3, 9-10a, 13b-14a, 18-19.

[8] Romans 1:32.  

[9] 2 Timothy 3:13-15, 17.

[10] 1 John 2:3-6.

[11] 2 Corinthians 4:2.

Conscience and Freedom

The Church: 17. Conscience and Freedom

Introduction:

We are witnessing a fascinating change in the 'experiment' of Western society in our day, a change that directly affects the Church and its mission.  The change, while multi-faceted, includes a fundamental adjustment being made in the very notion on which so much of Western society has been built since the 1600s--freedom.  The change involves a radical revision of the relationship between conscience and freedom.

The Peace of Westphalia

Go back to the beginning of the 17th century--in a pre-Enlightenment stage of European history--and you will find yourself in an intellectual and social conundrum: 'How can we affirm what is true when we do not have agreement about what is true?'  This places us right in the middle of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648).  It irrupted out of an attempt by the Holy Roman Empire to establish religious uniformity, i.e., Roman Catholicism.  Protestants revolted by forming the Protestant Union, and all the 'fun' began--German states lost 1/3 of their population in the wars!  The period is far more complicated than just a matter of religion, but in the settlement in 1648, some important affirmations were made that laid a foundation for Western thinking about freedom up until recent times.

First, it was affirmed, a prince could establish the religion of his own state within the Empire (this was an affirmation of a principle already stated in 1555 in the Peace of Augsburg).  Second, if someone held to a religion that was not part of the state religion, he or she could do so publicly during certain hours and privately whenever they wished.  (Of course, by 'religion' was really meant Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist--a sticky situation for those still outside the options!)

Richard Overton: Freedom in a Pre-Enlightenment Age

Indeed, outside the typical options for religion in Europe were Anabaptists, Jews, and Muslims.  One group, the Levellers, was led by a Baptist pastor by the name of Richard Overton (1599-1664).  In 1647, Overton wrote 'An Appeal .. to the Free People' and articulated three categories of rights: liberty for religious and civil practices, life (pertaining to economics, housing, education, sustainable living), and dignity in community (including being free to associate in a church of one's own choosing and vote or petition Parliament despite one's beliefs).  Here is the basis for much of Western thinking about freedom and society.  (And, yes, of course, there are other early precursors to later convictions, such as the Magna Carta's restriction of the King's authority already in 1215!)

The Roots of Western Democracy

Actually, a study such as this is full of fascinating history, philosophy, religion, and political thought.  Glen Stassen, a champion of human rights and a Christian ethicist, offered a chapter on the Christian origins of democracy in the West in his A Thicker Jesus (2012).  He explored the following:

*The Levellers and the notion of 'human rights' and the independence of faith communities from an established Church and civil authority (so also Roger Williams in Rhode Island)

*Reformed Theology's rejection of human sovereignty and the development of constitutional democracy

*The Free Churches' (Anabaptist, Quaker, Baptist) challenge of the lust for power

*Puritans' belief in human sinfulness (which kept its authoritarian inclinations somewhat in check)

*The Dissenters' advocacy of political reform based on a living faith (again checking the lust for power)

*Left-Wing Puritans' focus on the church as a 'gathered community' (voluntary) and on the Holy Spirit guiding persons in mutual discussion (thus recognizing people's right to speak)

*Christians in general and since earliest times learning from the Bible's stories of opposition and deliverance from established authorities doing wrong, such as the Egyptian Pharaoh, most of Israel's kings, the Jewish Sanhedrin, or the Roman Emperor.

Such movements in history connect freedom and democracy to thoroughly Christian movements in the history of Europe and America.  The language of human rights, however, has in our day been severed from Christianity in the West, and a secular version, long in the process of development from the time of Westphalia through the Enlightenment has morphed into something new in our own, Postmodern world.  The results of this story can be followed in Joclyn Maclure and Charles Taylor's Secularism and Freedom of Conscience (2011).

Previously negotiated patterns of life based on notions of freedom are constantly being challenged in this postmodern age.  What Stassen offers is a different narrative of freedom, showing its origins in Christian Europe--and Europe's Christian controversies.  What Maclure and Taylor offer is an analysis of the secular narrative of freedom and the challenges facing religion in the West today.  All this is essential reading for an understanding of the Church and its mission in our day.  If anyone wishes to follow the steady stream of 'attacks' on religious freedom, check out the daily stories on anglicanmainstream.org, christianconcern.org.uk, and now, especially,  http://www.globalchristiannews.org/.

Conscience and Freedom

So much might be said on this large topic.  But consider the change we are witnessing regarding the relationship of conscience and freedom.  Part of the American story is based in non-conformist groups (Puritans, Quakers, Huguenots, e.g.) leaving Europe for reasons of conscience: they were not permitted to practice their religion in the state-established Churches.  The conviction that religion is a matter based on a freedom of conscience is essential to non-conformist groups.  (It was, for that matter, the conviction of the early Church up to the 4th century--since the Church was a minority group and often persecuted.)

Conscience stands at the base of, e.g., the freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech is not what might be termed a 'first order' freedom; it is a secondary freedom, a freedom derived from the belief in the freedom of conscience.  It is a way of fencing or protecting the freedom of conscience, as is also a freedom to worship.  The freedom of conscience is deeply rooted in Christianity, despite hopeless and embarrassing examples to the contrary in Western history.  Despite the often failed practices of Christianity, particularly in Europe, the Christian faith is, at its very core, based in a theology that accepts the importance of conscience: it is a matter of faith or belief, not coercion; it is a matter of a changed heart, not merely external laws; it is a matter of a voluntary, gathered community, not an enforced public exercise; it has a mission, not a military; it witnesses to the truth and does not enforce a politically correct speech on others; and so forth.  Jesus criticised hypocrisy: conscience and belief are the foundation of freedom.

This connection between conscience and freedom, however, is now daily challenged in Western, secular society.  To be sure, the West is conflicted over its understanding of freedom and stands at a point in time when it is trying to figure out what it really believes.  Regularly, Christian freedom is being curtailed while space is being carved out for both the politically correct majority and for non-Christian minorities--such as Islam--even Sharia Law!

This confusion results from the long-standing desire in the secular West to separate freedom and rights from Christian faith (think Voltaire) while also affirming pluralism (especially since the Second World War and the demise of colonialism).  As long as Western nations treat Islam as an 'ethnic minority,' e.g., it will continue in this opposition to Christianity as a religion but affirmation of Islam as an ethnic minority.  This confusion stands at the heart of Barack Obama's refusal to say 'Islamic terrorism'--his invented political and social narrative requires him to ignore the role of religion entirely in the present, world crisis.  Only a secular West will find such a narrative credible.

Yet what of conscience?  We now have daily stories of persons forced to go against their consciences in support of freedom!  Instead of the development of freedoms based on conscience, we now have a notion of freedom that opposes conscience--what we refer to as 'political correctness.'  The Christian baker must bake a cake for a homosexual wedding; the Christian student or lawyer (two recent cases in the UK) must not voice their view that children are better off in a family in which the parents are a married man and woman; students on university campuses must not be allowed to speak freely about their views if they offend a privileged minority or a reigning majority; a person may not witness her Christian faith to someone of a different faith (another recent case in the UK); and so forth.

The root of freedom in a respect for conscience has been exchanged for a new freedom, rooted in the power of a certain class, philosophy, ideology.  Our Postmodern, Western society began with the vestiges of a notion of freedom that took conscience into account and therefore advocated the virtue of tolerance in society.  This has morphed, however, into a notion of freedoms of certain groups over others--tribalism.  Its tenets are secularism opposed to religion, personal freedom opposed to social good, authoritarianism opposed to voluntarism, law opposed to conscience, a notion of the 'good society' that allows no public dissent, a privatization of faith as opposed to faith-based community, and on the list might go.

Conclusion

The severing of the relationship between conscience and freedom is playing out in secular, Western countries today.  It is quite fascinating, albeit horrifying, to watch the emergence of this new social experiment.  In 1973, the US Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, determined that a woman had the right or freedom to seek an abortion (Roe v. Wade).  While this required imagining, against all wisdom, that an unborn child was not a person and therefore had no rights, the decision was still based on a notion of freedom that took conscience into consideration: this was the woman's right because her actions were based on her own convictions, not those of society.  The argument against this sad affair in American history at that time could still be offered on the same grounds of what constituted freedom: if one could argue that the unborn child--no more viable than a spouse on life-support after an accident (though often with more hope)--was nevertheless a human being, one could argue that one's own convictions were limited by the rights of others.  My conscience gives me freedom, but it cannot destroy the rights of someone else.  So much has changed since then!

Today, Western society has severed 'conscience' from its notion of freedom.  Now, a privileged group is seeking every which way to deny rights to persons who do not fit into their tribe.  In particular, Christians are targeted.  Actions approved by the ruling tribe are increasingly required of all despite people's consciences.  The result is that Christians are being shut out of life in public.  Their views on marriage--held by virtually every society since the beginning of recorded history--are now viewed as archaic and harmful--even hateful.  Their practices in business must be regulated by law, not by public patronage (choice).  Their freedom of speech is taken away through punitive measures because it does not conform to the privileged class's views.  Democratic elections (people voting their consciences) are rejected if they do not conform to the tribe's wishes.

Like the French Revolution, which imploded in on itself in one bloody revolution after another, the present experiment in Western freedom has within itself the seed of its own destruction.  Severed from a freedom of conscience, the notion of freedom becomes an anti-freedom, an authoritarianism, a tribal rule that shuts down freedom.  At what point will this experiment finally dissolve into an authoritarian persecution ala Robespierre or violent dominion ala the Emperor Napoleon?  At what point will its endorsement of purely secular narratives have to acknowledge the reality of religion after all--when Sharia Law has been established in Birmingham, England?  At what point will its disregard for nature and creation in traditional views of gender and marriage create the ugly, anti-family, coercive society of Plato's Republic or the non-viable society of self-centred couples co-mingling without the intent or ability to procreate?  (Every European country already is declining with a negative birthrate.)  And how many Christians will be persecuted for refusing to deny their consciences and refusing to sacrifice to the new, conscience-suppressing idol of postmodern tribalism?

Without conscience, the virtue of freedom becomes a vice, a coercive club wielded by the ruling tribe.