Jesus' humanity, deity and the power of the Spirit

I posted some time ago, here and here, regarding Jesus' humanity, mission and anointing by the Spirit. It seemed to cause quite a stir in certain quarters. There was particularly some concern expressed over Bruce Ware's The Man Christ Jesus.

In my previous posts, I argued the miracles of Jesus did not prove his divinity. Rather, they proved his anointing by the Spirit for his specific mission from God. I went on to argue that Christ lived his life in the Spirit, yielding perfectly to his power, such that the works he did were not acts of his deity but were done in his humanity by the Spirit's power. It is his perfect human life accounted to all true believers and this same Spirit given to all true believers.

Following his excellent The Good God, I recently received Michael Reeves latest book Christ Our Life for Christmas. Thus far, it is excellent and can be highly recommended. One particular point pressed by Reeves is that the Son (or Word) of God never acted alone. He always worked in conjunction with the Spirit (as in Genesis 1, when the Word of God is spoken into the darkness borne by the Spirit). Reeves argues, in relation to the incarnation, "And as it had always been,so it was when the Word became flesh: he did all that he did in the power of the Spirit".

I was particularly struck by the force of his argument. He goes on to comment:

Born in the power of the Spirit, he lives and acts as a man in the power of the Spirit. At his Baptism in the Jordan, the Spirit anoints him, then sends him into the lifeless wilderness just as he had once sent him into the lifeless void in Genesis 1. Returning to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, he announced and defined his ministry in the synagogue at Nazareth using the words of Isaiah 61: 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour' (Luke 4:18-19). So he healed, did good, and drove out demons - all in the power of the Spirit (Matthew 12:28; Acts 10:38). Later he would offer himself up on the cross by the Spirit (Hebrews 9:14) and be raised from the dead by the power of the Spirit (Romans 8:11)

In line with Ware's argument, Reeves states "Christ shows what it is to be a human, fully alive in the Spirit. And he is the head of a new, Spirit-filled humanity: all in him share in this anointing of his".

The importance of this cannot be missed. Though the impeccability of Christ must be defended, we mustn't miss the distinction between why he couldn't sin and why he didn't sin. As God, Jesus Christ could not sin yet, in his humanity, the reason he did not sin was because of his perfect reliance upon the power of the Spirit.

It is this distinction that means Christ's perfect life, lived in the Spirit, can be fully accounted to those who believe by faith in him. If the perfect righteousness of God could simply have been accounted to us, as God, Christ's humanity would have been unnecessary. Likewise, if Christ shifted at will between his deity and humanity during his ministry, it seems there would be aspects of his perfect humanity that could not be accounted to us (as he would have lived them out under his deity). Similarly, the call to "walk as he walked" must be rendered wholly impossible because he would have walked as God, in his deity, something we can never aspire to do. Instead, in his humanity, Christ perfectly yielded to the power of the Spirit - the same spirit he gives to all those who believe by faith in him and who are united with him in his death.

It is equally why believers, who receive the Spirit upon conversion, are now able to live lives that are truly and actually pleasing to God. Not in our own power, suddenly changed to be "good", but in the work of the Spirit in our lives when we yield to his power. Thus, when we sin as believers (and we always will until we reach glory), it is not because we have no means to put sin away (as when we were unbelievers) but rather because we are not fully yielding to the power of the Spirit at work in our lives. It is a tendency to yield to the call of sin (which we could only do as unbelievers) rather than the power of the Spirit (which we are now able to do as believers).

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.

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.

Ministries essential to the church: when no ministry might be better

What ministries and roles are so fundamentally important to the church that, were we to do away with them, it would cease to function?

Our church recently held a conference titled 'Serving without Sinking', based on the book of the same name. John Hindley, author of that book and founder of Grace Church Manchester, spoke helpfully on our motivations for serving Christ.

Many good things were said but two particularly stuck with me:

1. There are usually fewer ministries necessary for the life of the church than we think. There may be good ministry opportunities, and many excellent things to do, but Jesus managed perfectly well before they existed and doesn't insist they continue come what may
2. Perhaps it is better to have no ministry at all than one that badly reflects Christ. For example, it may be better to have no children's work than one that reflects Christ falsely through the motivations and actions of those serving

John suggested the areas of service necessary for your church to function: (1) someone to open up the building; (2) someone to preach. Other things, it was suggested, may be good and have their place but are not fundamentally essential.

If that is the case, are we better placed to strip away all extraneous areas of service - singing, children's work, etc - until there exist people whose motivations for serving Christ are right and who will, through those acts of service, properly represent Jesus? Are we best to stop certain activities until those running them serve based on their love for God and that of other believers? 

What is better: to have unsuitable individuals serving in the church - non-members, divisive individuals, those who make service about themselves, etc - or simply to have no non-essential ministries until suitable individuals are able to serve gladly, willingly and properly?

Need may be a good motivator for service but if that is our only consideration perhaps our service will do more damage to the cause of Christ.

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.

Two interesting posts on approaching ministry

Here are two interesting posts on approaches to ministry.

The first, accessible here, deals with the issue of using ministry as a means of personal fulfilment. I have touched upon this here, specifically in respect to those of us trying to find ministry opportunities. However, the post to which I have linked deals with this same underlying issue but in relation to its dangers once we have undertaken a specific ministerial role.

The second, accessible here, deals with issues related to ministry and church planting. Specifically, it discusses the importance of having a sound hermeneutic by which we can successfully handle scripture. It offers a warning that although our theological conclusions may be true, predominantly because those to whom we have aligned ourselves are sound, without a good hermeneutical base our theological inclinations can change as quickly as our ephemeral infatuations with big personalities and we stand little chance of training up others to handle the word effectively.

Both helpful posts and worth a moment of your time.

Church climbing, pride and why I'm not like you

Church climbing is a particularly repellent activity. Treating the church as though there is some sort of greasy pole to climb really irritates me. The people that do this are not difficult to spot and are replete in our churches. 

I am sure we all know the sorts I mean - you can spot them a mile off. They are the ones looking for position in the church, those desperately hoping to catch the eye of elders and ministers. They shoehorn theological training into conversation, the places they have preached are mentioned apropos of nothing and, serendipitously, their latest set of sermon notes happen to fall out of their bible right in front of the minister. If they are musical, they happen to be at the piano after the service, just 'messing around' of course. They name-drop in the hope you may know and respect the people with whom they are connected. They are networkers, talking to all and sundry without ever really finding out about, or listening to, those whom they are speaking. They ask you about these same things to find out where you stand in the church pecking order. They cosy up to those who can get them on and laud it over those they perceive as inferior. They are the proud, superior church climbers seeking position and recognition.

It seems clear that this is nothing short of pride. It is a pride that assumes theological training is the same as knowledge and wisdom. It presumes you do not have training, or your training is worse than mine, so I understand things on a level you do not. It says I have experience in preaching, missions, childrens' work, music, or whatever, that really set me apart from others. It thinks, if others really knew about my background, education and abilities they would see that I really should be given position in the church. In fact, I really should be leading things in some way. Of course, these people never quite frame it in this way. Nevertheless, that is essentially the heart of this sort of self-promotion. It's the idea, if people really knew what I can do/have done, it's just obvious that I am the best person for the job. That is the heart of it and it is an ugly, repellent sin.

Now, I accept, I may have mentioned some of these things during conversations in church. Of course, when I do it, I'm not showing off and am certainly not seeking position in the church. When I raise these things it is because I want to be useful in the church and, how can I best be used if people don't know my experience, background and training? I'm not being proud when I claim my qualifications outflank yours, I'm just stating a fact acknowledged throughout academia. When I talk about my years of experience in preaching and missions I'm just highlighting that I may be able to serve the church in this way. The difference between me and you is: I'm not church climbing, I'm just factually stating my experience. Nevertheless, even though theological training, preaching experience and background in missions are never mentioned as a qualification for office in the church, it's pretty clear once you know these things about me I should be in the running. I'm not being proud, I'm just trying to make the most of my gifts and serve the church as best I can.

I'm not a church climber. It's just that, when all is said and done, my experience and training put me in a strong position to serve the church. In fact, I could serve the church all the more if I am given an office and it's pretty clear my experience lends itself to that. I am being servant hearted, trying to use all my gifts where they will best be utilised by the church. When you do it, you're being proud and grasping at position - that's obvious. When I do it, I'm really serving the church and seeking to make the most of my gifts. When you do it, you are a proud church climber. When I do it, I'm being a humble servant of the church. 

That is presumably why I find church climbing so irritating and offensive. If you really understood things the way I do, you would see how much more qualified I am than you for position in the church. You go about crassly stating your experience and qualification in the hope of a role for which you are clearly ruled out both inherently, by your pride, and comparatively, compared to me. I, on the other hand, just make known these things because, of course, the facts will speak for themselves.

When you do it, you're a proud, arrogant, misguided church climber. When I do it, I'm a humble, servant-hearted individual seeking to serve the church as best I am able. When you do it, it's definitely a sin, we all see that. When I do it, and if I'm given a role, it's for the church's good.