The problem with our fellowship and four ways to improve it

If there is a song that sums up visiting certain new churches, Pop Song 89 by REM does a pretty good job.

It's a sort of stilted conversation that sadly seems to take place all too often. We so rarely have much to say to visitors (or, dare I say, regular members) that efforts to be friendly, and it does so often feel like effort, descend into this type of thing.

If we think REM lay it on thick, The Smith's How Soon is Now cuts rather closer to the bone:

Though the song revolves around the chronic shyness of the protagonist (the existence of such people many churches have yet to wake up to and simply don't know how to handle them), the following lyrics capture the experience of many:


"There's a club if you'd like to go you could meet somebody who really loves you so you go, and you stand on your own and you leave on your own and you go home, and you cry and you want to die."

This experience extends well beyond the four walls of church buildings. Countless similar stories float around Christian conferences, fraternals and other inter-church gatherings. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people tell me how lonely they feel at such meetings and events. Sometimes the loneliest place in the world is amongst a crowd of other people.

I recall being invited to one meeting, entering the room, standing like a total lemon on my own whilst everybody else "networked" around me. I tried to engage a few folk in conversation where it was clear that talking to this no-mark oik - who was unlikely to do anything to advance their standing within the Christian world - was not high on their agenda. I found myself going and standing on my own, leaving on my own, going home and wanting to cry. It is made so much worse when one thinks these people should know better. Among Christians, especially among Christian leaders, these things should not be.

There is clearly nothing wrong with seeking beneficial links and finding other like-minded people with whom we can work together. In fact, the Bible encourages such things. But all too often, it descends into mere networking - akin to some professional business meeting - and becomes more about what is useful to me rather than mutual support and encouragement. In the worst cases, it becomes little more than crass self-advancement. How many links can I make? How much can I make of myself? If you are a "big name" I will make every effort to speak to you, if you are unknown you are not worthy of my time.

As a pastor, an inherent part of my job is meeting new people. It is networking, making connections with others, getting to know other ministers and Christian workers. In all honesty, it is a side of my job for which I feel ill-equipped and I do not relish. Not that I don't like meeting new people, or making new friends, or working together with others (I do) but I really struggle in this environment. It makes me feel uncomfortable and clashes with both my inherent introversion and my upbringing which emphasised never pushing oneself forward (1). It is only once I have warmed up to people, once we have gotten to know one another a little better, that I begin to feel comfortable and more able to be myself.

Whether at big conferences, fraternals, inter-church meetings, gospel partnerships or ordinary church meetings, here are four basic things we can all do to make our fellowship a bit better.

First, don't just speak to those who can do something for you. This includes only talking to new people so you can be spotted by your elders and leaders. Visitors and congregants are not there so you can clock when the pastor is watching so you'll be in line for that leadership position that just opened up. James certainly has something to say about preferring some people over others. Our friendliness, our help and our interest should not be partial. Talking to those who can do nothing for us is just as important as speaking to those who can. Our churches, denominations, fraternals and conferences are not just there for our own empire building projects. Nor are they there for our own personal advancement. If Christ died for you despite you being unable to do anything for him, we should be prepared to take an interest in those who can do nothing for us.

Second, take a real interest in the people to whom you speak. Just because you avoid the trap of ignoring those who can do nothing for you doesn't inoculate us against against the problem of showing absolutely no interest in them. Saying "hello" and having a conversation is of no value if we clearly aren't interested. If we look around the room for others to speak with, or are even as crass as to say, "I really want to talk to the elder/pastor/speaker" (as has happened on more than one occasion, in more than one church, to me), then our conversation will not give the impression we are bothered.

Third, don't just palm the person you are talking to off on someone else unless you really are committed to something else. Nothing says "I'm not interested" faster than a few cold nods and an immediate "have you met John?" Of course, there are times when we really do have other things that absolutely need to be done. But apologising, explaining and then introducing them to someone else will help far more than simply palming them off with no explanation. And no, wanting to talk to someone else more than the person you are speaking to, does not count as something more pressing!

Four, talk about things that actually matter. I have never been much of one for small talk. It is, for want of a better word, small. I am more interested in big things and enjoy talking to people who want to discuss big things too. I warm very quickly to people who are happy to jump straight to the big, weighty things. I suspect most others find superficiality a little dissatisfying too. By big things, I don't just mean weighty matters of theology, philosophy and politics (though they are big things that interest me). I mean talking with people about the big things that matter to them, whatever those things may be. To quote REM "should we talk about the weather" isn't really what it's all about.

Notes

1. To push yourself forward was (rightly or wrongly) often associated with arrogance. I suspect there is often a class thing going on too with middle class folk seemingly far more comfortable taking the initiative than me (I prefer to doff my cap and keep quiet)

Communion, individualism and your relationship with God

"that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:3)

One of the problems in the church - dare I say, especially within Evangelical circles - is that of rampant individualism which has, in turn, given rise to church consumerism. This individualism starts at our view of salvation (it's a personal thing between me and God) and soon works its way out into our church life and everyday Christian walk. On this view, church becomes very "me-centric". It is about what the church can do for me, how it makes me feel, whether it serves my particular desires and whether it helps to improve or impede my personal relationship with God.

I am always struck by the order of John's words in 1 John 1:3. He does not say - as many of us would expect - get yourself into a right relationship with God and then we may begin to have fellowship. Rather, he says we have come to you "so that you too may have fellowship with us". Only then does John tell us that such fellowship entails being right with the Father and his Son. In other words, John's view is first corporate and then individual, not the other way round. 

John also says in v4 "we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete". If John is writing in order to have fellowship, it follows that his joy would be complete in having such proper Christian fellowship with those to whom he writes. So whilst he is calling the readers into a relationship with God, he is actually calling them into corporate fellowship with the church which they cannot have without a relationship with God.

On this reading, our approach to church takes on a different edge. It is less about what the church can do for me and more about how I can build up the church. If this actually becomes the modus operandi of every individual member, each of us would be working to build up the others and each of us would find our own needs met by a series of people who are looking to build up people other than themselves. Our fellowship is primarily corporate, not individual, but we cannot have such corporate fellowship without an individual relationship with God.

All of that is by way of a long introduction to the issue at hand. Communion can be one of the places where church individualism is expressed at its worst. There is a mysticism that says communion is primarily about me and my relationship with God. It is the place where I reflect upon all that the Lord has done for me. Whilst that is certainly involved, I think this approach is to fundamentally misunderstand what we are doing at the communion table.

Communion is the family meal. It is the place where we come together to express our unity with one another in Christ and our ongoing association with this particular church. Communion is not primarily about your personal relationship with God. It is primarily about your corporate relationship with God's people which you cannot have apart from an individual relationship with Christ. By taking communion, we are saying we are unified with this church and we are united to them through our personal union with Christ. Communion is primarily corporate not an act of personal individualism.

That means if we seek to take communion outside of the corporate gathering of the church, we are really missing the point of the communion service. It is not a mystic act between us and God but a corporate act between us and the church with whom we are only unified in Christ. Anything that detracts from the corporate element of communion - regardless of how well-intentioned - will miss the point. The bread and wine are memorials of Jesus' body and blood but those symbols bear witness to the ongoing association of God's people in Christ. We do not take the emblems so they will impart grace but we take them to symbolise our corporate unity in Jesus, which we cannot have unless he is our personal Lord and saviour.

It is true that we are expressing our standing as believers in communion. It is true that we claim an ongoing association with Jesus when we take the emblems. But that is not all we are doing. In fact, it is not even primarily what we are doing. We are primarily associating with Jesus' church, claiming to be fully unified with them in Christ. 

If that is what we are primarily doing, then individual communions - or communion apart from the corporate body - misses the point altogether. Of course, we cannot be unified to the body without a personal, individual relationship with Christ and we affirm this in communion. But, we primarily affirm our unity to one another which only exists in Christ. It is Christ who bought our unity, it is the work of Christ on the cross and the ongoing work of the Spirit that actually unifies us, but it is our unity with one another in Him that takes centre stage. We can't affirm our unity without affirming our standing in Christ but we absolutely shouldn't make communion yet another means of pressing individualism in the church.

God does not "live at the church"

Perhaps you have had a conversation a little like the one in this video? Either it is in the context of whether church buildings - or "the sanctuary" - is particularly special or perhaps during a discussion of the 'where two or three are gathered' issue. I wonder who you side with?

First, let me rule out the worse argument. God does not "live in the church". Even during the era where anybody spoke of God dwelling in the tabernacle/temple, Isaiah and Jeremiah recognised that God was not confined to a tent or building.

Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." (Isaiah 66:1)

Am I a God at hand, says the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:23, 24)

Even Solomon, who eventually built the temple, got this point when he said "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" (1 Kings 8:27, cp. 2 Chron. 2:6, 6:18)".

Quoting Isaiah, Stephen says the same:

Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
“‘Heaven is my throne,and the earth is my footstool.What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,or what is the place of my rest?Did not my hand make all these things?’ (Acts 7:44-50)

So, scripturally speaking, the argument that God is everywhere is on better ground. On one level, God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent and therefore we are always 'in his presence'.

But, paradoxically, God did dwell in the tabernacle/temple (cf. Exodus 25:8,9; 40). However, given all that we have seen already, this dwelling place was not the extent of God's presence. Rather, it was a visible reminder that God specifically dwelt with a particular people. He did not 'live' in the building but rather chose to express his glory there as a visible sign that he was with, and for, this particular people. It marked a focal point for his special presence and glory rather than the total extent of his general presence. When people talk about the 'presence of God', they usually do not mean his general omnipresence but rather his special presence as manifested in the temple reflecting his association, and confirmation, of this particular people as his own.

Nevertheless, Daniel, Ezekiel and Jeremiah all prophesied a time when the temple building would be no more and what was confined to particular people within the confines of the building would be extended. Jesus also prophesied the destruction of the temple building, which came to pass in AD 70. Even before the temple was totally destroyed, at the crucifixion, the temple veil tore in two. Access to God had been opened and the glory of God would soon no longer dwell in the building itself.

God's special presence is neither limited to the temple building nor does he manifest his Shekinah glory everywhere. God has not confirmed one particular nation as his own - making a set structure impractical - nor does he confirm all people indiscriminately as his own, making the idea of his omnipresent dwelling impossible. Rather, as the NT states, God's people - made up of different tribes, tongues and nations - are God's dwelling place. As Paul says: "Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Cor 3:16).

All of that is to say the building is of naught. There is nothing especially sacred about the space in which we meet. God does not "live at the church". In fact, five minutes in any church that meets in rented accommodation quickly bursts any illusion that the pulpit stands on holy ground or the meeting hall represents hallowed ground (unless, of course, you think the school assemblies that happen there the rest of the week are sacred too).

At the same time, God does not dwell with all people everywhere. Though He is omnipresent, God dwells in the hearts of those who believe by faith in Jesus. God indwells people by his Spirit. Just as the Spirit dwelt in the temple (even though he was clearly present and active outside of the temple), He now dwells in the hearts of God's people (even though he still continues to be present and active in the world).

Buildings are just buildings whether they are allotted as church buildings or not. There is nothing sacred or special about them. God does not dwell in the church building. Rather, He dwells in his church. That is, He dwells in the heart of each and every believer. That also means He is no more present with us together than when we are alone. The Spirit fills our hearts with the presence of God and He can be no more present with us than when He is in us.

God is as present and active in my prayer time on my own as he is when I'm together with the church. God is as present and active in my life at home as he is when I gather with his people. God is present with me when I am on my own and He is present when me when I'm with other believers. The place where we meet and the time that we meet do not increase God's presence. God is either with us, or He is not. God is either dwelling with his people, confirming us as His own, or He isn't. God is either dwelling in our heart, by his Spirit, due to our faith in Jesus Christ or He isn't. If we truly want the presence of God, it is found in faith with Jesus Christ. If we have that, we have the Spirit. If we have the Spirit, we have God's presence, always present, dwelling in our hearts.

The first female bishop is the Anglican's AV referendum. The second may cause further issues

Having only just appointed the first, the CofE have now appointed a second female bishop. The Guardian report Rev Canon Alison White will accept a bishopric in the see of Hull. The announcement comes shortly after the first female bishop, Rev Libby Lane, was appointed as bishop of Stockport. Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, called it a "joyous day" and hailed the move as "fantastic".

Rt Rev Lane has already come under fire from some liberal quarters for not being quite liberal enough. Given that Conservative Evangelicals and High Church traditionalists were never going to wear the appointment, regardless of the theological inclinations of the appointee, it seems an ill-conceived move to appoint a woman who wasn't a thoroughgoing liberal. 

The group for whom this appointment was most welcome, and long overdue, is the more liberal wing of the church. To then appoint a mildly conservative, or even middle-of-the-road, candidate has caused the most receptive group to have their noses put out of joint because the appointment is not sufficiently liberal for them. This seems to be an exercise in shooting one's church body in the foot. Nobody, neither opponent nor proponent, got what they were seeking. This is the CofE's very own AV referendum; an attempt at progress which neither liberals nor conservatives actually want. As attempts at politically progressive acts that seek to uphold some semblance of unity go, this seems to be a total dog's breakfast.

No doubt, once again, we will be entreated to the next round of Conservative Evangelical hand-wringing. The lines will be drawn ("here I stand..." and all that), they will once again be breached, new lines will be drawn ("Here we really stand...") and they will be pushed. Inevitably, the current protection for Evangelical complementarians to reject the headship of a female bishop will be the next battleground.

In years past, I had little sympathy for Evangelicals that wished to remain within the bounds of the Anglican communion. My feeling was that the issue was quite simple: the church had departed from the gospel and the Evangelicals could either choose to remain in fellowship with non-gospel churches or remove themselves and join with like-minded gospel churches. In many respects, that choice remains the same.

However, the matter is wildly more complicated now. In the past, Evangelicals could have left over the denigration of the gospel. Having chosen not to do that, many are now faced with leaving over important, but secondary, external matters such as complementarianism and gay marriage. What the world would have seen as an exodus over gospel issues - a watering down of theology and an inability to have meaningful fellowship with churches that eschew basic gospel truth - will now simply be seen as a hissy fit by misogynists and homophobes who couldn't get their own way. Cries of "but this is a gospel issue" will be lost on those who see only years of increasingly errant doctrine, denounced as dreadful at the time but nonetheless tolerated to the point of remaining in fellowship, while the inclusion of women and homosexuals is the prima facie cause of schism.

Whilst we in the Free Churches may look on and wonder why such lines were not drawn decades ago, the CofE is where it is. The question has now become eminently more complex. Do Evangelicals remain in a church broader than the Norfolk waterways and risk increasing compromise or do they leave for the sanctuary of independency and risk a misconstruction of the basic issues? 

I have to say it is not a choice I envy. But one feels the "it's a gospel issue" boat sailed some while ago. One way or the other, there are choppy waters ahead.

3 reasons why I would admit paedobaptists to membership

This post has, in part, been encouraged by the question asked by Jonathan Leeming - of 9Marks - via Twitter.

I am a baptist. I have pretty well always been a baptist. I am personally convinced of credo-baptism and I lead a church that practices believers baptism by full immersion. I genuinely believe baptism matters and I remain personally unconvinced of paedobaptist arguments to the contrary. Our church practice is that only baptised believers can be admitted to church membership and will only conduct believers baptism by immersion.

With that said, it bears asking why our church is willing to admit paedobaptists to membership? I have previously tackled the question of whether we can do that consistently here (I argued we could). However, this position leads to cries from some baptist quarters that we, therefore, don't really believe in baptism as a criteria for membership. Alternatively, we may be charged with inconsistency in that we insist on baptism for membership, and only conduct believers baptism as a church, yet admit paedobaptists. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest 3 reasons why we admit some paedobaptists to membership (1).

Baptism is demanded by all churches

Throughout history, there have always been denominational differences and the issue of baptism is no different. There are those who will baptise babies (paedobaptist) and those who only baptise professing believers (credo-baptist). There are those who will baptise all infants (universal paedobaptists) and those who only baptise children of believing parents (covenental paedobaptists). There are those who baptise by sprinkling children and adults, those who immerse children and adults, those who sprinkle professing believers and those who only immerse professing believers. The reason for these differences has been picked over many times.

However, one thing remains clear: there are no Christian churches, no denominations, who do not see baptism as important. Whether Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or Free Church baptism is seen as highly important and a measure of obedience to Jesus Christ. Almost no churches would argue baptism, in any form, is of no value or importance. Very few would say it bears no relevance to membership (though, undoubtedly, some exist).

Our church is very clear that only baptised believers can be admitted to membership. Those who will not be baptised in any way, shape or form are deemed to stand contrary to the commands of Jesus Christ. Those who openly flout Christ's commandments naturally cause us to question their testimony (2). 

However, many who have undergone paedobaptism believe they have been obedient of Christ's command and equally do not believe they can be "re-baptised". Though we would continue to teach and encourage believers toward baptism by immersion (even those who have been baptised as infants), we do not want to force individuals to choose between their conscience (in light of the fact they truly believe they have been obedient to Christ on this issue) and joining the church in membership. This is not admittance of unbaptised believers, it is admittance of believers who have been baptised in an irregular way (3).

Paedobaptism is not without significance

As I argued here, paedobaptism is not entirely insignificant. Though it may have been done 'out of order' - in that it preceded, rather than followed, conversion - that does not undo the fact the later faith of the individual imbues it with some significance. Equally, though paedobaptism does not fully communicate the fullness of washing from sin, the dying/rising motif and union with Christ it is not totally bereft of such symbolism. It is therefore possible to consider paedobaptism - at the point one comes to faith - as retroactively imbued with some significance, though not full significance. It is, if you like, a partial or improper baptism.

Again, though the church would teach the importance of credo-baptism and encourage paedobaptists into full believers baptism by immersion, this does not undo the smaller significance of the paedobaptism itself. The individual has gone through the waters of baptism and is convinced such is an effective response to Christ's command. We, therefore, do not want to disbar such people from membership. Nevertheless, we would still want to encourage them into the fuller significance of credo-baptism and would not consider this a "re-baptism".

It is better than the alternatives

Faced with this question, we must assess the options available to us. As far as I can tell, we have three central options:

1. Ignore baptism as a criteria for membership
2. Refuse membership to paedobaptist brethren
3. Find an accommodating middle way

Option 1 seems rather a poor position for a baptist church. It is evident from scripture, baptism preceded church membership. It is also an obvious matter of obedience to Christ. To admit to membership those who have made zero effort to fulfill this criteria (leaving aside subject and mode for the time being), is a bizarre position. There is little, if anything, else we would tolerate as openly disobedient to Christ without calling membership into question. Baptism, it seems, should be no different. Allowing folk to remain openly disobedient to Christ whilst admitting them to church membership seems irreconcilable with more than just the baptism passages of the bible.

Option 2 is certainly a more consistent position. It upholds baptism as important and makes a clear distinction between what is, and is not, meant by biblical baptism. In many ways, I am sympathetic to this position. Yet, it seems unfortunate (to say the least) to lock out of membership those who are obviously brethren in Christ and wholly in line with your stance as a church but for this one issue. It equally leads to anomalies such as Reformed Baptist Churches, standing firmly in the Calvinistic tradition, who themselves would lock Calvin out of membership. Is it right to disbar brethren, not due to disobedience to Christ, but because their conscience won't allow them to be "re-baptised", irrespective of how we may view that mode of baptism? This is not a matter of obedience but an issue of how obedience is interpreted.

I, therefore, end up leaning toward option 3. This may seem like something of a sop. In truth, were this current point the only one, I'd be inclined to agree. Yet, given the two (more important) points above, I think this is a legitimate position. It is a means of not dividing the church whilst maintaining believers baptism by immersion as important. It makes Christ's command to be baptised of central importance whilst making allowance for improper, or irregular, modes. It recognises there is some value in paedobaptism without conferring on it the full value of believer's baptism by immersion. It lets believers baptism by immersion be taught as proper, and even allows credo-baptists to encourage their paedobaptist brethren to go through believers baptism by immersion, without breaking unity in the church.

I write this not to knock other practices. Each of these positions seeks to be biblically faithful and, in some measure, hold unity together with truth. I don't pretend this is anything less than a thorny issue in which each church must come to its own settled position. I merely offer my own here.

Notes

1. We wouldn't admit all paedobaptists to membership. Only those who can credibly (theologically) defend their paedobaptism
2. That is not to say those who are unbaptised are necessarily unbelievers. It is simply to say, those who refuse to get baptised - especially when they agree such is commanded by Jesus Christ - cannot wonder why we are surprised by their lack of desire to do as Jesus commands and suggest it may reflect an unregenerate heart
3. It's worth saying, we would baptise some folk by sprinkling where full immersion would be a danger to life or limb. Sprinking is not fully significant, it is not the proper mode, but it does convey something (not least, a heart willing to obey Christ) and is therefore adequate for membership if not the most full and proper sign

On the "stand up and greet time"

Thom Rainer recently produced a post on the top ten ways to drive guests from your church. He followed this up with a post here, after a slew of comments in relation to his inclusion of "having a stand up and greet time" in his original article. Tim Challies has responded to this with his own article: How I learned to Embrace the Stand and Greet Time. The following is my two-penneth.

In his original article, Thom Rainer highlights the extreme revulsion many guests have to the stand up and greet time in the service. His follow up article makes clear that many have, not only refused to come back to the church after such trauma, but left mid-service as a result. 

In his response, Tim Challies honestly admits that he too finds it awkward and difficult. However, he argues in favour of a stand up and greet time, basing this on two key arguments. Firstly, he wants to argue church is not all about me and my comfort. Sometimes we have to do things that are uncomfortable in order for the church to fulfil its function. Secondly, he argues church is for the believer. Though unbelievers should factor in what we do, he says, their comfort shouldn't take precedence. It is what builds up the believer that should be paramount.

So, what do these various articles present us with? Each makes valid points. When we work through them, we are left with three basic facts: (1) visitors - believers and unbelievers alike - despise stand up and greet times and will not return to a church if one exists; (2) church members should not make the church about their own preferences and comfort; (3) what happens in the church exists primarily to build up believers.

The question that remains is whether there is some way to hold these facts in tension. Some of us, I suspect, would be tempted to drop one of the assertions at this point. Most likely, if that's our solution, we either deny the problem of (1) or we reject the assertion in (3). Personally, I subscribe to all three statements but I believe there is a simple solution.

Firstly, although (2) is undeniably correct, it rather misses the point. (2) is only relevant to the discussion if stand up and greet times (a) actively build up the church membership and (b) that what goes on in the church only exists to build up believers. As such, though (2) could be relevant to the discussion, it is only relevant once we have determined (a) and (b).

At this point, we must address (3). It is certainly true that what happens within the church is primarily for the upbuilding of the membership. However, that does not mean the upbuilding of the membership is the only priority of the church. Indeed, if the church is concerned with mission, how we relate to those outside (especially if they have been brave enough to cross the threshold into a foreign church culture) is surely more than a footnote on our service. It is certainly true, the comfort of the unbeliever isn't paramount. Were it, there would likely be no real preaching of the gospel. But that isn't to say their comfort doesn't matter at all and we should ride roughshod over it because one element - indeed, one pretty small element - of the service might benefit believers but make unbelievers uncomfortable in the process.

That leads on to our answer to (a) - does a stand up and greet time actively build up the membership anyway? The sheer number of believing respondents - those who are sympathetic to the church - who seem to loathe stand up and greet times would suggest not. What is the purpose of the stand up and greet time? If it is to be welcoming - yet makes everyone uncomfortable - then it seems to have failed. If it is to build up believers, one is unclear how a forced handshake and contrived greeting (or, in worse cases, hugs and literal renderings of "holy kiss") do anything of the sort. It also begs the question what the point of being greeted at the door (and, in some cases, over coffee pre-service by several others) if we're all going to be forced to do it again mid-service.

On top of all this, there is a point that appears to have been missed in discussion. Are there any ways of welcoming unbelievers, building up believers and encouraging church members to look outside of themselves without making everyone uncomfortable or compromising the purposes of the church? It strikes me there are plenty of ways to do this. 

Most churches do this over tea and coffee before or after the service and train their members in how to welcome guests. Not only does this achieve the same purpose as the stand up and greet time, it actually exceeds it. The greeting (both the timing and the nature of it) are not contrived and forced. It means visitors are not "on display" when being welcomed and are not pushed into meangingless conversations they (nor the other participant) particularly want. It also means church members are built up all the more. Shaking hands and smiling politely at a brother or sister at an enforced point mid-service does not build up in nearly the same way as an intentional approach for a genuine conversation that was taken by choice.

So can we hold all three comments in tension. Yes, I think we can. Though church is primarily for the building up of believers, if believers are rarely built up by a stand up and greet time, it is not doing anything to achieve that purpose. Though visitors hate stand up and greet times, if it does little to build up many believers it seems perverse to insist upon it when neither the church nor the visitors gain from it. Though church members are supposed to look outside of their own comfort in order to build up the church, that doesn't mean we must persist with uncomfortable things simply because they are uncomfortable. Members need only be pushed outside their comfort zone when their comfort is stopping them doing something scripture suggests they should, or should not, do. If there is a way to build up other believers that makes us uncomfortable, we should certainly do that. However, it seems stand up and greet times are not one of them.

Church can build up believers without stand up and greet times. Visitors will feel more welcome without a stand up and greet time. Church members can be encouraged to build up the body over and against their own preferences without a stand up and greet time. Given all that, I'm unsure what is to be lost if we simply canned the practice. There seems to be much to gain by dropping it.

Six reasons to pursue fellowship, community and hospitality

Yesterday, I posted here on the cost of community, hospitality and fellowship. It's important we understand what true fellowship, real community and genuine hospitality look like if we are to have any hope of actually pursuing them. But, having done that, it seems worth giving some reasons why community, hospitality and fellowship are vitally important (despite the cost to ourselves). So, here are a few:

Jesus commanded it
It's always the natural place to start whenever we ask ourselves why we ought to do anything. Jesus commanded us to engage in fellowship, community and hospitality. In John 13:34f, he tells us the sign that we are truly believers is that we love one another as he loved us. Without spending time together, just as Jesus spent time with his disciples, we are going to struggle to do this. The Lord's command should be reason enough for us to do this.

Jesus modelled it
Jesus did much of his ministry in homes over meals. He reaches out to unbelievers this way and he trained his disciples this way too. The Last Supper and the feeding of the 5000 is recorded in all four gospels, Jesus meal with Levi is found in all but John's gospel and the feeding of the 4000 is in Matthew and Mark's gospel. That's four meals in thirteen passages. Add to that the meal at the houses of Pharisees (Luke 11:37-54 and 14:1-24), the meal with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and the meal that followed Jesus’ resurrection appearance on the Emmaus Road (Luke 24:13-34). Even then, the list of meals is not complete. Nevertheless, it is clear that Jesus saw fellowship, hospitality and eating together as vital to ministry. If, as John says, we are to "walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 John 2:6) that must include this form of fellowship and community.

The Early Church did it
We read in Acts 2:42-47 that the Early Church were devoted to fellowship and hospitality. The passage outlines precisely what their fellowship entailed: studying the word, praying together, eating together and spending time with one another in homes. Such hospitality and fellowship is pressed by Paul (Rom 12:13), Peter (1 Pet 4:8-9) and the writer of Hebrews (Heb 13:1-2) as well as being a central part of the criteria for church leadership (1 Tim 3:2; Ti 1:8).

It will make your joy complete
The apostle John speaks plenty about fellowship. In particular, his comments in 1 John 1:3-4 and 2 John 1:12 link our fellowship to our joy. In 2 John, the apostle is clear enough that his joy would be complete when he is able to physically spend some time with the people to whom he is writing. It doesn't take much to note that his presence with them, engaging in real fellowship, will complete his joy in a way that a long-distance relationship simply can't. In 1 John, his comments are even more surprising. He says "we are writing these things to you so that our joy may be complete" (my emphasis). Immediately prior to this comment, he says the reason they are proclaiming their message is "so that you too may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:3). So, John's joy will only be complete when he can truly enjoy the fellowship of these other believers. There is something special when we engage in true, genuine fellowship between believers.

It makes church discipline meaningful
It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people who profess belief will fall into sin. It is an even worse fact that some who profess faith within the church may not even be believers (cf. 2 Pet 2:1). Scripture tells us not to be surprised by such things but to be on our guard and swift to act when they become apparent. One such example of dealing with a serious disciplinary matter in the church is outlined in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul's clear guidelines for dealing with believers in open sin (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-2 & 9-13) make absolutely no sense if we have not already pursued, and enacted, true fellowship like this. If we never spend time together, eat together or share life together Paul's sanctions in 1 Corinthians 5 suddenly look totally toothless.

It will aid your growth
If Ephesians 4:11-16 is teaching anything, it is talking about how the church will grow its members. Principally, it is through the exercise of various gifts for the mutual upbuilding of the body. Certainly such cannot exist without a framework of fellowship and community. But, note also that Paul says as we speak "truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ". Again, it is incredibly hard to grow together and to speak truth into one another's lives without close fellowship and community. What opportunities are there to do this otherwise? Paul makes this same point in reverse in 2 Thessalonians 1:3 as does Peter in 2 Pet 1:5-8. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between our love, and fellowship with, one another and our growth in faith. As the one increases, so does the other.

4 ways community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us

We talk an awful lot about community, fellowship, hospitality and friendship in our church. In truth, there is no pretending that fostering genuine community - and all that goes with it - is easy. It takes work and it will cost us in one way or another. Here are a bunch of ways it will do exactly that:

Time
Community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us time. There is no getting away from the fact that we call it "spending time together" for a reason. It costs. For most people, time is a precious commodity and we all feel we need more of it. "I'm too busy" is the mantra and can usually be read as "I'm too busy for you". True fellowship requires investment in relationships. It demands our time and, if we are to have it, we must make time for it. Even on a basic level it requires time cooking for people, cleaning up after people, doing favours for people, helping people, listening to people, sharing with people. If we're not willing to invest time, we're not really willing to have fellowship.

Money
Community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us money. When we have people in our homes, we will have to spend money on extra food. We may have to run the heating for the comfort of other people (rather than for the thickness of our wallets). It may cost us money in petrol, ferrying people around here, there and everywhere. It may cost us money when we see friends in need and conclude 1 John 3:17 demands we actually help (rather than do a lot of talking about helping). Real fellowship demands our money. If our wallets are not in it, then we are not really in it at all.

Things
Community, fellowship and hospitality may cost us our things. When we have people in our homes, they may not look after things in the way we would like. We may have expensive furniture that people slouch on, drop food over and spill drinks on. We may have carpets that get worn, or stained, quicker than we might like. Things may get damaged because - as we all know - most people don't care about your things the way you do. Yet, God has given you all those things to enjoy and it is right to share them with others, just as Christ shares the blessings that are his with his people (even though we don't care for them as he does!) It is not terribly warm, friendly or hospitable to give people a list of items they are not touch or go near. To act that way is to treat them as children; it makes your hospitality something closer to patronage. If your things aren't included in your hospitality, then you're not really being all that hospitable.

Emotional energy
Community, fellowship and hospitality will cost us emotional energy. We may be happy to share our things, our time and our money but if we are not emotionally invested we aren't really engaging in proper fellowship. We cannot expect anyone to open up to us if we never open up ourselves. It is a thoroughly vulnerable position to be in - opening ourselves up to scrutiny and judgment - but unless we do so, we cannot expect anyone to make themselves so vulnerable with us. How can we expect people to confess their sin (and grow by putting away with the support of the church) if we continually make out we are perfect? When people are struggling, our emotions must be engaged otherwise we are not really all that concerned. Now, doing that is emotionally draining and tiring. Yet, if our hospitality and fellowship doesn't extend to our emotions, we may as well be hosting business networking events.

What do the Scottish Independence referendum and the Anglican Church have in common?

To the great relief of some and the consternation of others (on both sides of the border), Scotland have voted "no" in the independence referendum. The status quo is maintained and we remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whether it was fear of the unknown (or, fear of troubling knowns), the lack of a positive vision for an independent Scotland or simply that many Scots are more conservative than they let on, it is clear most did not share the belief of the Scottish National Party that Scotland is better as an independent nation. Sadly for those seeking independence, a referendum of this order comes around once in a lifetime and, for them, it seems the boat has sailed.

It occurs to me that discussion within Anglicanism mirrors, on some level, the Scottish independence debate. Calls for a mass exodus of bible-believing evangelicals from the Anglican communion have certainly been around for decades (possibly centuries). Yet, evangelicals within Anglicanism - despite their own growing discontent over an increasing number of issues - continue to hold fast their denominational allegiance.

Perhaps, like Scotland, it is a lack of any positive vision that is the stumbling block. It is one thing to heed the voice of Martin Lloyd-Jones and remove oneself from Anglicansim but it is quite another to do it without any positive vision of what to do thereafter. Breaking ties with all one has ever known is not as straightforward as one may think. There are a handful arguments advanced for remaining within the denomination which, without similar positive reasons to leave, mean making the break is not the no-brainer it seems to those of us in the Free Church.

Maybe it is simply a fear of the unknown (or, certain concerning knowns). Not only is it unclear what some would do after their disassociation but there are some known problems associated with leaving. Buildings, land and stipends are often tied up with being part of the wider Anglican communion. It would be no small step of faith to remove oneself from the denomination and trust that buildings, land and stipends (not to mention a raft of other things) will follow suit.

Alternatively, the issue may be one of timing. Many evangelical Anglicans I meet speak of "now as the right time" to begin making a stand on X, Y or Z issue. What is rather unfortunate is that Lloyd-Jones encouraged evangelicals to leave Anglicanism decades ago based on a commitment to the gospel. Today, discussion centres on issues of headship, female ordination and homosexuality rather than the gospel itself. Like it or not, even if evangelical Anglicans now decide the church has taken a step too far, it will be cast as a separation on the current issues, not on theological concern for the purity of the gospel.

As with Scottish Independence, the opportunity to make a stand on the right issue tends to roll around but once. Unlike Scotland, evangelicals within the Anglican Communion could still leave the denomination if they so choose. What is less likely is that they will be able to do so on both the issue, and the terms, they might like.

Can credobaptists consistently accept paedobaptists into membership?

I have recently seen three articles relating to traditional credobaptist views on baptism. Firstly, Bill Kynes at The Gospel Coalition outlines his view as a baptist willing to admit paedobaptists to membership. In response to this article, Jonathan Leeming at 9Marks argues this position is simply not credible. Finally, an independent yet related post by Andrew Wilson at Think Theology helpfully and briefly outlines the central problem (without giving any solution). Here, he considers the issue with the added complication of subscribing to a Strict Baptist position (which, I should admit, I do). So, comes the question, can baptists consistently admit convinced paedobaptists into membership?

Jonathan Leeming offers two central arguments as to why membership for the paedobaptist is simply inconsistent for the baptist. Firstly, he argues if you are willing to admit paedobaptists to membership you are, by default, a paedobaptist. Secondly, he argues baptism is an objective, subjective, and social sign. However, he contends there is no objective or social sign if the subjective belief of the individual is not present. He states the contention that the objective and social signs happen at baptism, whilst the subjective sign catches up retrospectively upon belief as an adult, is false as without the presence of subjective belief the objective and social signs simply don't exist.

His first argument is particularly poor. Simply because one accepts paedobaptists into membership - who themselves fully believe they have fulfilled Jesus' command to be baptised - does not make one a de facto paedobaptist. It is simply not true to argue that accepting the paedobaptist into membership is the same as telling yourself "paedobaptism is essentially okay". 

Leeming's appeal to views on slavery and abortion simply don't help his case. Firstly, the reason "pro-choicers" cannot credibly be anti-abortion is because they actively promote the right to choose. The issue is not that they personally oppose abortion, it is that they specifically and actively encourage it as an acceptable practice (whether they themselves would do it or not)! The convinced credobaptist is not actively encouraging, or practicing, paedobaptism. They do not carry out paedobaptism nor do they teach that it is the prescribed mode of baptism. Unlike "pro-choicers", they cannot in any serious way be considered to be promoting paedobaptist principles.

Secondly, the logic of Leeming's argument is flawed. There are many areas in which we allow individuals freedom but with whom we vehemently disagree. To take Leeming's argument to it's logical conclusion, we must say that permission of anything with which we disagree is, in reality, to support the act no matter how much we oppose it. That would mean Leeming himself must insist upon an American, theocratic Christian state or else he must be, in reality, OK with apostasy and false religion. Worse still, this view would mean God himself - who permits, yet does not condone, sin - must actually be OK with it really. The argument is clearly a nonsense.

The argument that there is no social or objective sign without subjective belief is much more cogent. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced this is insurmountable if one is Reformed (as 9Marks certainly are). If we hold to the traditional Reformed ordo salutis, we note that election, calling and regeneration all occur prior to conversion. Though I'm not sure I'd want to make this argument or press it too far (I am thinking aloud here), one could argue that paedobaptism mirrors the ordo salutis. Baptism, symbolising our regeneration, coming before conversion. Though it wouldn't be usual, nor the proper mode of baptism, if conversion did actually and really come later, it follows (on a reformed schema) that the person was elect at the point they were baptised (though they were unaware of the fact at the time). Therefore, we could view their baptism as effective in retrospect despite it not being the proper mode. Likewise, could one not argue the subjective belief - coming after the fact - makes good the social and objective signs? As above, though it is not the proper and usual mode of baptism, why could paedobaptism not be considered effective following conversion? Though it is 'out of order' does not necessarily mean it was ineffective altogether and carried no significance.

Kynes argues that humility (effectively, "I could be wrong") means he would not refuse to admit a paedobaptist into membership. This is not a good appeal to humility. If one is a convinced baptist, this is something of a moot point as he evidently doesn't believe he is wrong. If he did, he would practice paedobaptism alone, or as well as, credobaptism. That he doesn't promote paedobaptism suggests that he doesn't think he is wrong. Equally, this appeal to humility would not hold water on other issues. One would not argue that "I could be wrong" over the deity of Christ so we better admit those that reject this doctrine to membership. We rightly work out  our doctrinal positions prayerfully and then submit to what we believe scripture to teach. I don't see how this issue of baptism is any different. However, Kynes appeals to charity and theology seem more legitimate.

Of course, it is right that those in open disobedience to Christ should not be admitted to church membership. However, the committed paedobaptist would contend they are not disobedient; they have fulfilled Jesus' command to be baptised (albeit out of order and an improper mode). Based upon our agreement of the truth of the gospel and the nature of salvation, does charity not allow us to view the paedobaptism as retroactive? Indeed, as I commented above, the individual was elect at the point of baptism if conversion later truly occurs.

On this basis, I see no reason for baptists to be viewed as inconsistent for admitting paedobaptists to membership. The baptist is not encouraging paedobaptism nor teaching that it is a valid and acceptable mode of baptism. What they are saying is, given the conversion of the paedobaptist, the baptism can be considered "in effect" albeit out of order. As such, the baptist can consistently admit the paedobaptist to membership without condoning or promoting that mode of baptism. 

For the Strict Baptist, the addition of communion adds no further complication. If a believer is admitted to membership, that same believer is permitted to partake of communion. The issue for the Strict Baptist lies, not in the communion table but, in the admission to membership which has been handled already.

Steve Chalke, Evangelical Alliance & why Cranmer is wrong about a new schism

Yesterday, the Archbishop Cranmer blog commented on the expulsion of the Oasis Trust from the Evangelical Alliance (EA). EA have released a statement regarding the issue. Oasis have responded in kind.

His Grace is quick to note that "The EA do not expel members who support abortion; nor do they sever links with those who marry divorcees or accept pre-marital sexual relations as a forerunner of marriage. They do not even expel a member for repudiation of the foundational Evangelical doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which the Rev'd Steve Chalke terms "cosmic child abuse", as though God casually murdered His Son for the salvation of the world, and penal substitution is barbaric and utterly morally indefensible."

It is this that causes him to argue we now see a new schism in Evangelicalism. He states "And so we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." 

Worse still, claims Cranmer, the EA are themeselves guilty of this error. He argues removal of Oasis Trust from the EA is hypocritical since Gavin Shuker MP sits on their Council of Reference and has voted consistently in favour of gay marriage. This, says Cranmer, is hypocrisy and should see Gavin Shuker MP removed from the Council of Reference.

On two fronts, I believe His Grace has gotten this one wrong.

Firstly, in respect to Gavin Shuker MP, it is entirely possible to uphold the traditional Christian positions on marriage and homosexuality whilst allowing for a recognition of same-sex partnership in law. As Tim Keller has noted: "you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. Those are not the same issues. They overlap" (1). I have commented similarly here, here, here and here.

Now, I have absolutely no idea about the specific position of Gavin Shuker on marriage and homosexuality. But, it is entirely possible he holds a view not dissimilar to the Anabaptist position outlined by Keller. Unless Mr Shuker openly and repeatedly espouses a view that homosexuality is not sinful, his voting in favour of Gay Marriage is not reason to expel him from the EA Council per se. 

Neither does this represent any hypocrisy on the part of EA. As Cranmer himself notes, "the Evangelical Alliance has excommunicated the Oasis Trust simply because its founder has stated (time and again) his support for committed monogamous same-sex relationships". Unless he has repeatedly made similar comments in the public square, the EA are perfectly entitled to "excommunicate" Steve Chalke whilst retaining the counsel of Gavin Shuker. Should His Grace produce evidence that Mr Shuker has stated monogamous homosexual relationships are blessed by God and do not represent any form of sin, his argument may stand. In lieu of this, we cannot say the EA have erred on this issue.

On the matter of a supposed Evangelical schism, His Grace argues "we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." Evidently, this is a false classification of the two sides.

Though the EA may defend the traditional position on homosexuality, they fail to defend orthodox views on abortion, penal substitution and a range of other issues. For this reason, most Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals in the UK would describe the EA as outside the 'Conservative' or 'Traditional' camp. Given, as His Grace rightly notes, the differences between EA and Oasis Trust seem based on homosexuality alone (rather than the more heinous theological errors for which they should have withdrawn fellowship long ago), one struggles to see how they sit on different sides of a schism.

Surely, if schism exists within Evangelicalism, it is between those who uphold traditional, Conservative theological positions and those who do not. Clearly it is possible to hold to traditional, Conservative theology whilst not seeking such implementation in law. Yet, schism does not exist between those who accept legal recognition of certain positions and those who do not. Rather, it is between those who argue that scripture itself permits and blesses those things which are clearly sinful which we may, or may not, choose to legally permit. That being the case, despite his expulsion from the network, Steve Chalke and the EA seem to sit on the same side of the divide. 

That EA have said "thus far and no further" does not alter the fact that the lengths to which they were willing to go before expelling Steve Chalke well and truly write them out of ever being credibly labelled 'Conservative' or 'traditional'. Compare Spurgeon with the Baptist Union or Lloyd-Jones with the Evangelical Alliance itself. If you want to see real schism within Evangelicalism, they occurred long before the EA kicked Steve Chalke out of membership. If the lines drawn by Lloyd-Jones still hold (and I think they probably do), EA and Steve Chalke - despite their recent separation - still remain part of the same camp.

Notes

1. Keller has specifically clarified this statement. He says "In explaining the Anabaptist tradition, I was quoted saying, "You can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal." I did say that—but it was purely a statement of fact. It is possible to hold that position, though it isn't my position, nor was I promoting or endorsing the position. I was simply reporting on the growth of that view."

Crazy Busy

I found this deliberately awkward video quite funny so thought I would share. Enjoy!

For more videos explaining why Kevin DeYoung wrote this book and it's overarching message, visit here.

Four pertinent articles related to my saddest blog post

It saddens me somewhat, as a brief glance to the top left of this blog will confirm, that the most read post (rather more unfortunately headed by Blogger as 'most popular') is one about some controversy surrounding Peter Masters, the Metropolitan Tabernacle and two-stage separation. Sadder still is my suspicion the post gained this accolade because it happens to mention the name of an individual at the centre of a widely discussed issue. No doubt ardent supporters read the post, based predominantly on the name mentioned, to get affronted on behalf of the individual regardless of the issue presented. Likewise, unerring critics, on the basis of the name, read it to get irritated at the latest act of offence.

In light of that post, I would like to offer four related articles dealing with the issues of separation, division, discussion and learning in the church:

Dr Master's and Two-Stage Separation - From the Martin Marprelate blog, another take on Peter Master's two-stage separation policy.

"There is no doubt that separation from wickedness and apostasy is a command of God, but, ultimately, every church and every Christian is going to have to come to their own minds about Second-Stage separation. For my part, I cannot separate from my faithful brethren within the mixed denominations who are holding onto Biblical convictions in the midst of such deep darkness. I believe that such people need our support and understanding and that we should stand together, ‘Holding fast the word of life’ (Phil. 2:16)."

A Warning Against Division - R.C. Sproul offers a warning from reformation history concerning division within the church.

"I don’t know of anybody who’s a greater fan of Martin Luther than I am. But one of the low points of the Reformation took place in 1529 when an attempt was made to unify the Reformers of Switzerland and the followers of Luther in Germany."

How Do We Learn From the Idiot in the Room - Mez McConnell offers helpful advice for learning from those who do not come from our theological or ecclesiastical stable.

"Some people are so frustrating and annoying. That is a fact of life. It is unavoidable. Even the most sanctified and patient of us struggle with difficult people (just ask my wife). There is a danger though and it is this. Sometimes we hear something about another Christian or a leader and we make up our minds about them before we’ve met. Personally, my inner defenses always shoot up when I meet somebody I’ve never met for the first time and they say, “I’ve heard about you”. Sometimes, if I’m going to a meeting with a person I know is going to be difficult I steel myself to ‘just get through it unscathed’. It’s an ongoing war within my soul and I have to pray hard for love and forebearance. Sadly, it means that very often we miss out on learning something because of these (very often unspoken) prejudices."

How to Mentor Young Disciples When They Differ Theologically - Andrew Davis at The Gospel Coalition blog offers some helpful suggestions for mutual learning and discipleship.

"what happens when the men you are training up to be pastors and elders begin to develop differing theological opinions? How should a pastor approach these disagreements?"

Learning from the idiot in the room

Here is a great article from Mez McConnell titled 'Learning from the idiot in the room'. Let me strongly urge you to read it.

In it, he urges us to consider the following things when discussing with people from outside our theological/ecclesiastical "tribe":

• How is what this person saying challenging my long held beliefs?

• How have they arrived at their conclusions? What’s their (biblical) thought process been and how/why is it different to mine?

• Are my personal prejudices against this person (and/or their tribe) stopping me from really listening and engaging with this person? Have I made my mind up not to learn before we even start? Is this going to be more about debate and point scoring than mutual learning?

• Is there something I can actually learn here without compromising my doctrinal beliefs?

• Could I be wrong?

• Have I changed my mind about anything in the last few years? Have I ever, come to that matter?

Ask yourself (as I ask myself), how often do I do these things? Am I unable to learn from another person because of my own pre-existing prejudice? Is the idiot in the room really the person I'm talking to or the person in the conversation I know rather better?