Christian Community: The Church as Extended Household

 

Introduction

All believers could be thought of as members of God’s household (Eph. 2.19).  Yet individual congregations were, in themselves, ‘Christian households’—an extension of an actual household.  The characteristics of a home are different from other social structures or organizations, and so several characteristics of the home are shared with the church.  Ancient authors wrote on the nature of societies, aware of different practices, customs, laws, and constitutions.  They compared the household’s members, relationships, and dynamics to the city.  Christians, following the Jewish practice of the synagogue, understood a social unit that fit between the household and the city: the church.  Unlike the synagogue, however, the church was a house church, and in this way the relationship between the home and the church was even stronger.  This essay highlights several ways in which the Christian family household was extended into the church ‘family’ in the early Church.

1. Household Values: The home is a place for building others (strong and weak) up, living in harmony, and welcoming others.  These features of the home appear in the local church:

Romans 15:1-2 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

Romans 15:5-6 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,  6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 15:7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

2. Household Practices: Also, homes were places for fellowship and eating, and Christian worship was centred on them, especially in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts….   

Jude 1:12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves….

1 Corinthians 11:20-21 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.  21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

3. Social Interaction and Living Life Together

Social interaction was a strong feature of Greek and Roman cultures.  It was a feature of the home, marketplace, clubs, and temples.  Eating together was a feature of all these settings.  The early Church, too, saw social interaction as a key to the Christian life.  Hebrews 10.25 says,

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Luke records that the early church in Jerusalem ‘devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2.42).  Key aspects of the church’s social interaction were attending the temple together, eating together in one another’s homes, and worshipping God together (2.46-47).  Also, Jerusalem Christians even voluntarily sold their belongings and distributed the proceeds to those in need and otherwise held things in common (2.44-45).  Their interaction was not only social but also spiritual—with God, whose presence among them was evident through many wonders and signs done by the apostles (2.43).

4. Teaching in the Household: Education is always an important feature of the household, even if children go to school.  In the Graeco-Roman household, a slave may have been tasked to teach or watch over children, including disciplining them (the paidagogos).  Husbands were expected to educate their wives and hold them to the standards of the household.  Children were trained in the virtues and values of the household: education outside the home did not replace this.  The house church was also a place where teaching could take place during the day or night, whether in worship services or not.  We catch a glimpse of this ministry out of homes from a couple of passages in Acts:

Acts 5:42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.   

Acts 20:20-21 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house,  21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Titus 2, the age, gender, and social differences of the standard Graeco-Roman family are mentioned as groups receiving special teaching.  Other household codes, already found in philosophical writings (e.g., Aristotle, Politics; Economics) as the initial building block of society, were applied by Christian authors to the church (1 Corinthians 7; 1 Thessalonians 4.1-12; Ephesians 5.22-6.9; Colossians 3.18-4.1; 1 Peter 2.13-3.7).

5. Hospitality and Guests in the Household: One aspect of the home that served the saints was Christian hospitality.  Several verses from the New Testament seem pertinent for this point, beginning with the verse mentioning Stephanas:

1 Corinthians 16:15-16 Now I urge you, brothers- you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints-  16 be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer.

Romans 12:13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

1 Timothy 5:9-10 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,  10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.

Hebrews 13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

1        Peter 4:9 Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.

Household hospitality was also extended to strangers—a cultural practice that became a Christian value.  We read, ‘Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it’ (Heb. 13.2).  Paul offers a brief work about how to treat members in the church, strangers to the church, and those in opposition to the church: ‘Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.  14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them’ (Rom. 12.13-14).

A particular form of hospitality to strangers was the help one church might provide to missionaries from another church, as we read in 3 John:

3 John 1:5-8 Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are,  6 who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God.  7 For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.  8 Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.

Larger homes gave special attention to the hosting of guests.  Vitruvius Pollio says:

For when the Greeks became more luxurious, and their circumstances more opulent, they began to provide dining rooms, chambers, and store-rooms of provisions for their guests from abroad, and on the first day they would invite them to dinner, sending them on the next chickens, eggs, vegetables, fruits, and other country produce. This is why artists called pictures representing the things which were sent to guests “xenia.” Thus, too, the heads of families, while being entertained abroad, had the feeling that they were not away from home, since they enjoyed privacy and freedom in such guests' apartments (The Ten Books on Architecture VI.7.4).

Paul, committed to take the Gospel to the nations, took full advantage of this custom.  We see him making plans or accepting invitations to stay in the guest rooms of families:

Acts 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 21:16 And some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us, bringing us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge.

Titus 3:12 When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there.

Philemon 22 At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you.

1 Corinthians 16:5-7 I will visit you after passing through Macedonia, for I intend to pass through Macedonia,  6 and perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may help me on my journey, wherever I go.  7 For I do not want to see you now just in passing. I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits.

Titus 3:12-13 When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there.  13 Do your best to speed Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way; see that they lack nothing.

Thus we can see how helpful the Graeco-Roman concept of the home and its architecture was for the early Christian mission.  Paul could expect to find lodging in the guest rooms of these houses, receive people where he was staying to evangelise or teach them about the Christian faith, or be welcomed to other homes where the same activity would be welcome.  Also, as persons came to faith, the same homes could be used to entertain worshippers.

6. Inclusiveness, Membership, and Mutuality: The home also provided an interesting ‘space’ for ministry to everyone.  A Roman religion such as Mithraism was designed for males, particularly those in military service.  Judaism was typically for Jews, although God-fearing Gentiles were allowed to attend.  The openness of Graeco-Roman religion to various deities allowed people to attend various festivals and temples in the city.  However, Christianity was both more open and more closed in its worship, and the house setting was perfect for these distinctions.  It was more open in the sense that the home was the natural place for masters and slaves, males and females, adults and children, and persons of different ethnic groups (because of ethnic groups in the cities and because most slaves were foreign) to come together.  It was more closed in that Christianity was not an open religion fitting into the rest of polytheistic society but made the exclusive claim of devotion to one God.  It also held members to a holy standard of living.  It judged and excluded those who did not comply.  Worship and community were conducted in and through homes where others could be welcomed—either as extended members of the family or as guests.

One remarkable difference Christian life offered was in regard to the church as the basic, family unit.  This notion stood over against the notion of the individual believer as the basic unit—without ignoring the importance of every person. But individuals were also members.  Thus, for example, the church could be described as a single body with many members sharing their gifts for the benefit of others and the church itself (Romans 12.3-13; 1 Cor. 12.11-25; Eph. 4.1-16).  Such a Christian theology of the church did not argue for an equality in the sense that there were or should be no distinctions between people, such as masters and slaves, men and women, parents and children, or even Jews and Gentiles.  However, placed within the home, there was a mutuality (over against the ‘sameness’ of ‘equality’) that derived from the notion of family or body as a unit.  All were members of the same unit, and each worked for the mutual upbuilding and benefit of the others.  Everyone was a ‘brother’ in the family (among the many references in the New Testament, note several: Jn. 20.17; 21.23; Acts 1.15; 9.17; 15.23; 21.17; 28.14; Rom. 1.13; Philemon 16; Heb. 2.11-12, 17; James 1.2; 1 Pt. 2.17; 5.9; 1 Jn. 3.10-17).  Hebrews’ author says, ‘Let brotherly love continue’ (13.1)—the mark of the household church.  Even the runaway, Christian slave was a ‘child’ (in the faith?) to Paul and a ‘brother’ to the master: , familial relationships were extended to members of the household church and all believers:

Philemon 10-12, 16 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment.  11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.)  12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart….  16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother- especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

There was no equality in gifts but a sharing of gifts, and no equality of position but a mutuality in the family life.  Some had greater responsibility or were more ‘presentable,’ whereas others were less so.

The Christian church, however, did not leave these differences as they were.  Instead, they acknowledged that weaker members were indispensable, that less honourable members were to be shown greater honour, and that less ‘presentable’ members were to be treated with greater modesty (1 Cor. 12.22-24).  ‘Equality’ was not sameness in functions or roles or gifting or abilities but in the same care shown by each member to the others (1 Cor. 12.25).  Children did not try to be or did not insist on being adults or parents, but this did not mean that they were disadvantaged.  They were part of the family, with their needs met like everyone else.  They played the role that children play in the family.  The household codes in the New Testament, such as Col. 3.18-4.1 and Eph. 5.22-6.9, are there not to argue that everyone was equal in the sense of being the same but that everyone was part of a unit—the family—and that, if Christ were the focus of and model for everyone, the strife that erupts in that unit of the family could be removed.  The family was the smallest denominator for the household church in Christ, and its health extended into larger unit of the household church.  This might be seen rather clearly in that Paul’s description of the Christian household in Eph. 5.22-6.9 is the final part of a larger section in Ephesians addressing unity in the church, which starts already in Eph. 4.1:

Ephesians 4:1-3 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,  2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,  3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

7. Exaltation of the Slave and Service in the Household: Moreover, an even more remarkable understanding existed in the early Christian household church: the uplifting of the lowest role, ‘slave,’ as the one to model Christian life and ministry.  Christ himself took this role on behalf of the church: ‘For I tell you that Christ became a servant…’ (Rom. 15.8).  He took on the form of a slave (Phl. 2.7), and so did his followers (some translations may use ‘servant’ instead for the Greek, doulos):

·       James, (1.1) Peter (2 Pt. 1.1), Jude (v. 1), Paul and Timothy (Phl. 1.1) take the title to themselves

·       Christian prophets are called ‘slaves’ (Rev. 10.7; 11.18)

·       Moses—God’s slave (Rev. 15.3)

·       Paul identifies himself as a slave of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1.1; Titus 1.1). 

·       Epaphras (Col. 4.11) is called a ‘slave’ for his role in ministry 

·       Ministers in the church are the Lord’s slaves (2 Tim. 2.24-25a)

The slave’s modelling of humble service is representative of Christ’s incarnation, birth in humble circumstances, and obedience to the Father.  This humility is even extended to execution on the painful, humiliating cross.  And yet this form of service is held up as the key to peace and unity in the Christian home (Eph. 5.21-6.9), as each member models his or her role in the family after Christ. 

The humble, even suffering, service of a slave undoubtedly explains why the early Church seldom found ‘leadership’ language or thinking relevant to ministry. Instead of ‘leaders’ one finds ‘overseers,’ (episkopoi), people with oversight over certain tasks (ergon, 1 Tim. 3.1), such as hospitality, teaching, finances, and—as the head of a household—management of church members through respect and humility (1 Tim. 3.1-7).  The household manager is accompanied in the early home church in ministry by ‘deacons,’ persons who serve others (e.g., 1 Tim. 3.8-13).  All Christians were to see themselves as slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ (1. Revelation: 11.18; Rev. 1.1; 2.20; 7.3; 19.2, 5; 22.3), as Paul himself did (Rom. 12.11; 14.18, contrast 16.18), whereas actual slaves were to see themselves as free persons (1 Pt. 2.16; 1 Cor. 7.22; 1 Th. 1.9).  One can only hope that this simple study messes with so much literature since the 1970s/1980s about ministry as ‘leadership’.

8. The Home Business and the Church: The family home, as already indicated, was associated with a business.  The head of the household would likely have a slave or slaves who worked in the business, and, typically, freedmen remained part of the master’s business.  Moreover, the family head was likely a patron and had various people depending on him for one need or another.  Thus, the family was extended further into society than those (including slaves and freedmen) living in the house itself.  Persons in relation to the home or involved in business with it might show up to the house to conduct business for a certain portion of the day, and then the master with his freedmen and others might process to the marketplace for further business.  In this way, the home and family was associated with a wide variety of persons in different social roles.  The home and business relationships and the system of patronage enabled early church evangelism and church planting, especially with an apostle as guest meeting visitors in the home.  We can well imagine this with Paul in Corinth, staying with Aquila and Priscilla, who were fellow Jews involved in the same trade (Acts 18.3).

Conclusion

Thus, the church as a family expanded to include slaves and guests provided an excellent beginning to features of church life that bonded the members into a tightly connected unit.  Instead of a church that sought to have family (and other) ministries, it was itself a sort of family.  ‘Brothers’ and ‘sisters’ lived out the Christian life together in home settings.  The expansion of the family to a larger group meant that single people were included in the life of children, peers, married adults, and the elderly for their own benefit and for the benefit of the ‘family’.  Family values, practices, social interaction, life together, education, hospitality, inclusiveness, membership, mutuality, service, and business activity were features of the household that extended into the life of the church.

---------------------------- 

Earlier Post: 'How Do We Form Christian Community?'  (Lessons on community are considered in regard to an English village setting.  While not a Biblical study, the essay considers how aspects of community might be developed by Christians in light of the present challenges that undermine community.)

How Do We Develop Christian Community?

Introduction: The Loss of Community

How do we develop community, especially Christian community?  This question is the question of our day in a way that it perhaps has never been in the history of humankind.  From the invention of the automobile to Smartphones and Covid, community has been torn from the heart of our modern society.[1]  Church attendance has declined steadily as well.  Those communal institutions, such as schools and universities, have recently become hotbeds of hate, the inevitable result of Progressivism.[2]

Many Evangelical churches have contributed to the breakdown of community beyond their shuttering churches during Covid.  As Evangelicals abandoned the mainline denominations in the 1970s-2010 that themselves abandoned historic, Christian theology and ethics, some formed Evangelical denominations.  Many, however, became independent churches, lacking a larger, institutional community structure that could accomplish what was needed for missions and ministry, youth groups, camps, and K-12 education, including denominational ministry training in seminaries.  For many, the most successful independent church was the large megachurch in which some opportunities for community were possible precisely because of their size.  On the other hand, for many, if not most, these large gatherings reduced church community to a one hour, once a week worship service, and the community experienced around this was a ten minute chat after worship.  Making matters even worse, to build the large megachurch, a ‘Seeker Service’ notion of ‘church’ took urban areas by storm around the world, from the United States to Singapore, from Australia to South Africa, from the United Kingdom to Kenya.  These churches not only reduced community to a worship service, they also reduced worship to a surface level of Christian veneer meant to attract non-believers.  The result was that community lacked depth of conviction and was replaced with social interaction.  An aberration in Christian community also surfaced in the notion of a multicultural church.  As it turns out, community meant to be inclusive around diversity of ethnicities introduces race as a formative and definitive component of communal relations that undermines the focus of the Church on Jesus Christ.  Community becomes an end in itself and is humanistic rather than purposeful and Christocentric.[3]

To answer the question, ‘How do we develop community?’ in a time such as ours, I return to several periods in my life where I discovered meaningful community.  One was growing up on the edge of a town in Africa, where neighbours, schools, Boy Scouts, and the veldt developed me in joyful friendships of a by-gone era.  Without television, we played board games, read together, played and exercised together, and in many such ways experienced community.  Another time in my life where I experienced a higher level of community was in our village life in England, and this is the basis for my reflection on community in this essay.

Village Community and Its Lessons

Our village in rural Oxfordshire was only two hundred years old.  It was less developed than the surrounding villages, but it still had the rudiments of what constituted a community doing life together before the invention of the motor car.

Shortly after moving to the village, the surviving food shop closed.  It had been conveniently located across the street from the Church of England Primary School.  Parents would walk their children to and from the school, and they could pick up their basics on the way.  Milk was delivered to our front door in the early morning, and the milkman picked up some of the slack left by the departing shop.  He also delivered bread and a few other basics upon order.  A neighbouring farm sold eggs.  How long this had been the case I do not know, but it was located off ‘Cuckoo Lane’!

Village life centred around the Primary School.  Twice a day, parents greeted one another with their children on the way to and from school.  They chatted together while waiting for the afternoon school bell, making light conversation that sometimes turned into deeper relationships.  Plans were made for children to play together or meet at the market town’s leisure centre for racket ball lessons or a swim.  It was in this way that my wife pulled together a group of women to meet weekly to discuss Christian parenting, start an afterschool Christian programme for the children, and pull together a group that met in the Anglican church for a preschool children’s group.  Community life evolved out of the necessary gathering together around the life of our children, and this community life was the basis for Christian witness, ministry, and life together.

Off the main road, the village had a lovely Anglican church, with its graveyard.  People were reminded of the temporality of this life and the higher calling of the life to come in the midst of everyday life.  Life is about more than the present and more than work and play.  Few people attended the church, but they could not escape its witness to something more than temporal pursuits.  A deeper reflection on life beckons people to wider purposes that require communal life of a certain sort.  A block away stood the little Methodist Church.  John Wesley had been active in these parts of Oxfordshire.  The Methodist church was nothing so grand as the Anglican church, and by its modesty it had its own witness in context: God does not dwell in the institution of the Church built by the wealthy and powerful but in the hearts of men and women.  Wesley built community around Bible study, the pursuit of holiness, and deep Christian fellowship, ministry, and witness.

Near the Methodist church was the village green.  Many villages placed the green in a more central and prominent place, as in the neighbouring market town.  There, the grand Anglican church stood towering over the green, both statements about the centrality of community for a town.  Our green was tucked behind the Methodist church, but my children and I built lovely memories of cricket practice, playing at the playground, and cycling down by the commons, and villagers met for football and cricket matches.  In much earlier days, people also met at the end of the village at 'Wrestlers' Field'.  In-person, local sport creates community.

As life would have it, we had to tear ourselves away from our beloved village some years later and move to a new community development on the edge of an American city.  Our home was in the countryside just outside, and for necessary trips to the shops we could not help comparing how very different this new concept of town was from the English village or town.  At its centre were shops and a golf course.  A dangerous four lane road ran through the community, which was really only friendly to those with an automobile.  Pedestrians beware!  Instead of the church were shops; instead of the commons was a membership golf course around which were built wealthy homes--private palaces that easily isolated people from their neighbours.  Spirituality was ripped out of the central life of the community, and even any sort of community was barely possible around a coffee shop, theater, and ice cream shop.  Of course, our English market town had a bustling High Street with little shops, restaurants, a library, and a large grocery store.  Yet the High Street led up, not down, the hill to the buttercross, green, and church.

Our English village was surrounded by two copses and several farm fields.  By English law, footpaths were permitted around fields so that people could walk from one village to another.  Rambling through the fields and forests, past streams and rivers, taking in the beauty of the countryside or scrambling about some ruins from the Roman or Elizabethan era provided opportunities to converse with walking partners, or just to build father-son relationships.  I venture to suggest that beauty, especially creation’s beauty, is important for human flourishing.  Yet beauty is something best shared, and therein is another key to community.  The trashy songs of Evangelical worship bands have replaced the magnificent music of the church, its choirs and congregational hymn singing.  The warehouse church architecture, economical and functional as it is, fails to lift the soul to God as village churches once did.  (I suggest that cathedrals failed to do so, despite the intention, as they drew the worshipper more to the human achievement in itself rather than point people to God.  That’s me.)

Finally, our village produced a community that churches do as well through its greater relationships than with just one group of peers.  It is, firstly, a community of all ages that help and benefit from one another.  We even had a retirement home on the edge of the village in a lovely old manor with a beautiful garden.  Churches, too, need to bring people of all ages into each others’ lives.  Our village did not have a public house, which is a weaker version of local community fellowship and is not the greatest place for children.  Yet it was, as the name implies, offers communal fellowship around food and drink that is far stronger in the church and represented at the Lord's Table when rightly celebrated.

The English villages developed community well well for younger children, but teenagers and college students leaving the villages came under the lure or spell of the decrepit culture that England has become in its defiantly post-Christian pursuits.  What made the village a wonderful place for families with young children failed to carry children through high school.  We lived in England before the Smartphone or TikTok, the ‘social networking’ that builds false community and leaves too many youth isolated, anxious, and despairing.  The problem was that the central pieces of community, still evident but not fully or properly functioning in the village, were already crumbling because of television, rejection of Christianity, weak families, the Church of England’s pursuit of the world’s values, and so forth.  That is, the village community points to elements of community, but it was too compromised to sustain communal life for its youth.

The village model for the church not only needs to prepare children for life in the wider world but also to support them in their post-village journey.  This is where other institutions, organisations, activities, and so forth need to be set in place and experienced early to support and sustain the children.  Communal practices need to have become habits, and relationships need to be sustained.  Strong families and friendships of all ages, good practices, a clear vision, strong values, and good character are developed through community opportunities that extend beyond the village.  As the village relates to the market town and the market town to the city, so the village church relates to the town church and the town church to the cathedral.  Each offers or can offer additional levels and opportunities for community.  The local church needs the larger Church, which needs good institutions such as Christian schools, Christian groups at university, camps, training as Christians for a variety of services, ministries, and missions, Christian scouting (Boy Scouts, which I loved as a boy, is no longer an institution I would trust), and so on.

Conclusion

My grandchildren will grow up worshipping in churches, I am pleased to say, but the challenges that they face in their culture and context are so great that the church needs to figure out how to be a stronger community, not just believe, do good things, and worship correctly—all of which are essential for a healthy community, of course, but not enough.

I leave this narrative of my own experience of what developed community without trying to draw out a plan to fit all contexts.  I could attempt to draw points or lessons out more directly, but they would apply differently to different readers in their different contexts.  A reader in a New England village would read this differently from someone in a Southern town in America.  A reader in an English village would feel the strain on community in our day, but not to the extent of or in the same way as a reader in an Oxford, let alone Hong Kong.  So, it is probably best to leave the narrative as it is, hoping that it might spur some discussion one way or another for those reading it.  The village offers various dimensions of community that might help Christians think through the challenges they face in an age so deficient in community.  Of course, only the Biblical and theological teaching on the Church and its community is authoritative, but I find my English village provides a vision for community that encourages reflection on what we need to develop Christian community.

------------



[1] For a sociological analysis of this, see Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness (London: Penguin Books, 2024).

[2] Progressivism’s ‘inclusion’ leads to a reordering in which new groups are socially included while others are excluded, and its identity politics involves stereotyping and collectivism that introduces tribalism.  It also marches to Marxist ideology that divides individuals into groups, the oppressors and the oppressed.  Its social theory—Critical Theory—places people in generational, historical, racial, and gender categories that define one despite claims that one can choose one’s identity.  Consequently, there is no grace and no forgiveness, just guilt, punishment, exclusion, and oppression from an ideology that begins with ‘inclusion’ as a prime value.

[3] Some of my writing on this subject has appeared on this blog:

·        How and Why Paul Avoided Celebrating 'Diversity' as a Christian Value--and Why This Matters for Us

https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/how-and-why-paul-avoided-celebrating.html 

 

·        Not 'Multicultural Diversity' but 'Cultural Transformation': A Christian Reflection on Culture

https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2021/02/not-multiculturalism-but-cultural.html

 

·        The Church is Not a Zoo: Unity, Not Diversity, is the Church's Communal Value

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/6624706296388983899/4739873931284250808

 

·        The Rise of Identity Ecclesiology

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/6624706296388983899/5741602830197974311

 

Scotland's Proposed Ban on 'Conversion Therapy'

According to a report from Christian Today (30 March, 2024), Scotland's government is seeking to ban so-called 'conversion therapy':

The Scottish government says it wants to protect people "from the harm of conversion practices". Under current proposals, a crime will have been committed if so-called conversion practices have been "committed with the intent that the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity would be changed or suppressed". The recommended penalty is up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to £10,000, or both.

The report also notes that, while the Church of Scotland is in general agreement with the proposed ban, the Roman Catholic and 'other' churches are not because of religious freedom and the rights of parents. Indeed, opposition to 'conversion' itself seems to be at issue.  The Good News of the Gospel is good news because God's salvation has come to us, making it possible for us to convert.  It has come to us in proclamation by ministers of the Gospel, to be sure, but the Gospel itself is the news that God has sent Jesus Christ to deliver us from our sins and the power of sin over our lives.  The Good News is that we are being converted.

Paul's explanation of conversion involves the necessity that some are sent to those who do not know the Good News, that they preach the Good News, and that those who hear come to believe the Good News:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10.14-15, ESV).

The very basis of Christian teaching is faith, not coercion, but coming to faith is conversion nonetheless, and the preaching of faith has the intent of people converting.  Indeed, Christians would urge ministers of the government to convert to the Christian faith themselves.

The infringement on parents' rights is also a significant problem with the proposed ban.  The assumed authority of the government over the parents in the raising of children is indefensible.  After centuries of Scotland affirming Christian faith, Catholic or Protestant, the current government is about to fine and imprison those who affirm the Church's teaching in the Scriptures and throughout its history.  Christian parents are suddenly to be viewed as child abusers.

The Evangelical Alliance, for its part, is concerned that this ban proceeds from the premise that Christian teaching on sexuality is harmful (cf. the article in Christian Today).  They are quite right to do so.  In speaking about the dramatic conversion of practices witnessed in the Corinthian Church that he established, Paul says,

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified [made righteous] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6.9-11).

Two words are unfortunately collapsed by the ESV translation into the single word 'homosexuality'.  This was a translation error of significant magnitude.  The Greek has 'μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται', that is, 'soft men’ and ‘men practicing homosexual acts with each other'.  The term 'soft men' would refer to men identifying as women, since the word 'soft' was used of women in general and of men claiming and practicing a female orientation.  The second term is a direct reference to Leviticus 20.13, which condemns both men involved in homosexual acts with one another (cf. Leviticus 18.22).  The Apostle Paul's teaching is not innovative: it affirms God's Law regarding homosexuality (cf. also Romans 1.26-28; 1 Timothy 1.10).

The Scottish government's proposal would incarcerate Paul and fine him.  Paul, however, saw Christian conversion not only as a change of beliefs and attitudes but also of practices and orientations.  Conversion is described as a cleansing--'washed', as a separation unto holiness from unholy living--'sanctified', and a person being 'made righteous' (this is the better translation here of what the ESV, following other English translations, renders as 'justified').

The debate about 'conversion therapy' is peculiar from a Christian standpoint.  One of the problems that has arisen within the Church over the past century is the idea that pastoral care and counselling are therapeutic, sharing much in common with psychological therapy.  The truth is that pastoral care is grounded in Scriptural teaching.  Therapeutic counselling today seeks to help clients live authentically and healthily, largely by living true to their own convictions and orientations.  Pastoral counselling fails if it does not point out what God's Holy Word declares as truth, often over against what individuals believe or desire.  It is not about affirming the client but affirming Scripture, and thereby offering divine help to others.  Moreover, Christian pastoral care declares that the Gospel is a 'power' for salvation (Romans 1.16).  This power is indicated in the transformation of sinners and in the divine work mentioned in the quotation above of 1 Corinthians 6.11: 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God'.  Therapy is human counselling; pastoral care is Scriptural counselling and a ministry in the power of God.  Christianity invites people to faith because faith is faith, believing, not submission (as in Islam).  It is not faith if it is coerced.

Consider the occasion when a father brought his son to Jesus' disciples and asked them to heal the boy. The boy suffered from seizures and fell into the fire or water, injuring himself. The disciples were unable to heal the boy.  When Jesus later delivered the boy from a demon, he was healed instantly (Matthew 17.14-18).  This story--and others like it--attribute a spiritual cause to a physical ailment.  It accepts that a spiritual power must be confronted to deliver the boy from a situation that is accepted as harmful.  Christians see other situations in a similar light.  Indeed, Graeco-Roman writings that have no contact with Christianity understood the power of desire that drove people into debauchery and profligacy in various types of indulgences.  Graeco-Roman philosophy addressed ways to master temptation, to practice the virtue of self-control or temperance.  It recognised that, while some people willfully chose such lifestyles, others found themselves controlled by desire despite their will.  Christians taught that such exercises were futile as the problem went much deeper than what such therapeutic practices might address (cf. Colossians 2.20-23).  Paul well understood this: only by the power of God can people be released from the bondage of the will to sin.  A person living under the power of sin says, 

For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.  For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me (Romans 7.15).

The Christian is not left in this condition, however, because conversion means transformation by the work of the Holy Spirit.  A few verses later, Paul speaks to the Christian: 'For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death' (Romans 8.2).

This is conversion.  It is not therapy.  Indwelling sin is not extricated through human efforts but by the work of God.  If by therapy we mean some practical tips on how to live better, well and good, but only by the grace of God--His powerful, transforming grace at work in us--can we break free from the shackles of sin and live in obedience to God (cf. Romans 6).  Paul speaks of the Word of God that is 'at work in you believers' (1 Thessalonians 2.13).  God has begun a good work in us and will bring it to completion when Jesus Christ returns (Philippians 1.6).  We are God's 'workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works' (Ephesians 2.10).  Paul says, 

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ Jesus, he is a new creation.  The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.  All this is from God, who through Christ Jesus reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation....We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5.17-20).

God is in the conversion business, and He has entrusted to His people this ministry as well.  It is no therapy, but it is radical conversion, spiritual and moral.  It does recognise what God has called sin, whether acts or internal disorders or both.  It does teach right and wrong according to God's Word.  It does call for repentance, transformation, and living a holy life in the power of the Spirit.  May the Scottish ministers and those supporting them in their opposition to the Christian faith themselves experience true conversion.  To convert ones life to God is not coercion but freedom in Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit at work in us to live the righteous life.  'For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness' (Galatians 5.5).

The Second Week of Advent: Preparing for the peace of God

[An Advent Homily] The second Sunday in Advent carries the theme, ‘preparation for the peace of God’.   That peace comes with the birth of C...

Popular Posts