Faith is one of the most pervasive terms in Scripture. From Genesis to Revelation, people are called to have faith, they demonstrate their faith, or they are rebuked because of their lack of faith. In many instances, “faith” is the difference between the children of God and the enemies of God, between the righteous and the wicked. But what did the authors of Scripture mean when they used the term “faith”?

The English term “faith” carries a range of meanings from trust and confidence to adherence to a set of religious principles. But, in Scripture, faith tends toward the former meaning: a strong trust or confidence in someone. In particular, faith is concerned with trusting or having confidence in God.

In verb form, translators often use the English term “believe.” Unfortunately, this term also has a wide range of meanings. Today, the term “believe” is often used to indicate a mental assent or agreement. Again, though, it may be best to think of “believe” as trusting God to do what he says he will do.

In Romans, Paul begins his letter by contrasting the difference between the righteous and the ungodly or unrighteous. But, what makes someone “righteous”? He quotes the prophet Habakkuk in saying that the righteous person is the one who lives his or her life by trusting in God. Notice that the primary verb in this statement is the verb “live.” Paul’s focus is not on a set of beliefs about God or facts about Jesus, but instead he focuses on a person’s life as a demonstration of trusting God. The righteous person is the person who trusts God as he or she lives day by day.

Certainly, the idea of trusting God includes knowing some information about God. It is impossible to trust God without knowing something about him. However, the opposite is not true. It is also possible to know much about God and, yet, not trust him. Throughout the Bible, faith in God is tied to active response to him. For this reason, James is able to state, “Faith without works is dead.” Those works, then, are actions that are taken in response to God; actions that demonstrate that someone trusts God.

In the same way, Paul clearly states that works alone is not enough to save anyone. As he wrote to the Ephesians, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV) While some have suggested that Paul and James contradict each other, that is not a necessary conclusion. In fact, both James’ statement and Paul’s statement work within the understanding of “faith” as trusting God. Those who are saved trust God, and those who trust God are saved. Similarly, those who trust God will demonstrate that trust by their actions, their works. Someone with this kind of faith will also have works. Someone without works does not have that kind of faith.

The connection between faith and works and the connection between James and Paul is clearer when Ephesians 2:10 is considered along with Ephesians 2:8-9: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10 ESV)

Jesus used the metaphor of “fruit” to describe these kinds of works – that is, the kinds of righteous deeds that result from living a life of trusting God. He told his disciples, “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.” (Matthew 7:16-27 ESV) Just as a fruit tree bears only a certain kind of fruit, so people living by faith in God (or not living by faith in God) will demonstrate a certain kind of “fruit” through the actions in their lives. The “fruit” does not determine the type of tree; the type of tree determines the “fruit.”

The actions in a person’s life, then, demonstrates to the world whether or not that person is trusting God. Certainly, stating creeds or singing praises or other types of speech can be a portion of those fruits. But, in Scripture, the primary “fruit” indicator is the loving action demonstrated toward other people, especially people who (apparently) do not deserve that love.

Or, to put this in James’ words, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:18 ESV)

The title of this post has been the (sarcastic) point of several of my blog posts, including one of my favorites called “A Cup o’ Joe or a Cup with Joe.” (By the way, if you jump to that post, make sure to read the comments. Those are some of the best comments on my blog… ever.)

Now, Kurt at “church then and now” has written a post on the same topic called “A Holiday Disaster – A Parable.” Kurt not only begins his post with a humorous “parable,” but he also continues by examining the problem of requiring others to be and act the way we think they should.

Here is Kurt’s parable:

It was one of the worst possible family gatherings imaginable. People showed up late. Aunt Mary was supposed to bring the salad but forgot. Uncle Sam was in charge of the meat. It was overdone a tough. Some of the cousins got into a fight with lots of name calling and even a few hard shoves. The dessert…we always have apple pie. This year we had chocolate cake. It just isn’t the same.

I was a bit frustrated, maybe even angry. Everything seemed different. I didn’t like it. Mistakes, change…I don’t like it at all. My first inclination, my knee jerk reaction, was to find another place to go for my next holiday meal. I am having a hard time. I don’t like this a bit.

I heard that a house down the street has nice people, a happy atmosphere, and wonderful food, including apple pie. I think I will go to that house next time.

It sounds funny when it’s a family reunion… but it seems the church is so much like that. We accept one another and fellowship with one another based on our levels of agreement instead of basing everything on our mutual relationship with God in Jesus Christ.

How much different this “family reunion” we call church would be and would appear to others (especially outsiders) if we accepted one another as God has accepted us in Jesus Christ.

Don’t miss the remainder of Kurt’s post. He has some good things to say in regards to accepting one another as God’s family.

According to dictionary.com, an elitist is “a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society.”

Last summer, when I start running, I began to hear advice from “elite” runners. Those were the people who could run faster or longer distances than most other people.

But, it seems there is a difference in connotation between the word “elite” and the word “elitist.” The term “elitist” usually refers to someone who looks down on other people because of their (assumed) superiority in some aspect of life or society.

Throughout Scripture, life with Christ is described as a process of growth and maturity. We do not start perfect in our understanding and life in Christ. Instead, we start as “babes,” and are intended to continually grow as the Spirit works in and through us.

If any of us look back on our lives with Christ, we will probably see changes in our beliefs, love, actions, spiritual gifts, relations with other people, etc. This is normal growth in the Spirit. Even Paul recognize that he had not yet attained full maturity, but he pressed on toward growing more and more in Christ.

But, it’s possible for any of us to forget where we once were and begin to look down on others who are not where are currently. In fact, there are a couple of passage of Scripture that indicate the same thing was happening even then.

For example, in Romans 12, Paul seems to address the possibility that some Christians thought less of others based on spiritual gifts:

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. (Romans 12:3 ESV)

Some parts of 1 Corinthians 12-14 indicate that some of the believers in Corinth may have had elitist thoughts regarding spiritual gifts as well.

Plus, when writing to the Corinthians, Paul indicated that some of them made have thought more highly of themselves (in comparison to other believers) because of their knowledge in certain spiritual areas:

Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. (1 Corinthians 8:1-2 ESV)

Before we look down our spiritual noses on the Corinthians (and perhaps demonstrate our own elitism), we should recognize that we can all fall into this trap. It’s easy to look down on others, even when they are demonstrating the same beliefs and/or actions that we demonstrated only a few years, months, or days before. But, just as God worked in us to bring us to where we are today, we must trust God to do the same in others. And, on top of that, we must remember that God is also still at work in our own lives. Tomorrow, he may reveal (and we may finally accept) that we are wrong about something we believe or do today.

There is no room for elitism among the body of Christ. Instead, as Paul wrote, we must always consider others as more important than ourselves – which is the exact opposite of elitism.

If you’ve followed my blog for a while, then you know that I love comments and I love replying to comments. In fact, I’ve always said that the discussions that take place in the comments of this blog are much better than the blog posts themselves.

Also, if you’ve followed my blog for a while, then you may have noticed that I’ve been much slower to reply to comments during the last week or so. I don’t like that my replies have been slower, but that’s the way it will be for now.

I’m involved in two big projects that are taking more of my time. Hopefully, as these projects get off the ground, I’ll be able to interact more here.

I want you to know that I appreciate your comments, and I wish that I could reply to them quicker. But, for now, I will probably continue to reply slower than usual.

Thank you for your patience, and thank you for continuing to read and comment on my posts!

Five years ago, I wrote a post called “Autonomous churches.” It was a follow-up to a post called “Autonomous individuals.” In Christ, we are not autonomous, either as individuals or as groups of believers. Instead, we are intimately and intricately connected to one another by the Holy Spirit that indwells us. Unfortunately, today, it seems that many specialize in separate and distinguish between followers of Jesus instead of maintaining the unity of the Holy Spirit.

———————————

Autonomous churches

In my last post, “Autonomous individuals…“, I began discussing a book by Abraham J. Malherbe called Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1977), specifically his chapter called “House Churches and Their Problems”. In my last post I discussed how the early Christians saw themselves as part of an extended household – a family. But, how did these early Christian “households” relate to other Christian “households”?

Malherbe continues:

As the church grew in a particular locality, more than one house church would be formed. The scarcity of information on the house churches in the first century precludes our having a clear understanding of their interrelationship. Paul seems to have known of at least three such churches in Rome (Rom. 16:5, 14, 15), and there may have been more than one group in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:17) and also in Laodicea (Col. 4:15). Although they may have formed separate communities, such groups were not viewed as being separate churches. Luke’s description of the church in Jerusalem is not clear on this point, but it does convey the impression that he thought of it as one church despite the smaller groups that composed it. This is supported by his (and the Pastoral Epistles) relating presbyters, or bishops, to cities rather than to individual groups (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5). By that time, however, more than one house church would presumably have existed in most localities with which the literature is concerned. More significant is that Paul and his followers, although they knew of separate groups in an area, wrote one letter to the church in that immediate area, apparently on the assumption that it would suffice for all the groups (e.g., Romans). On this understanding, the individual house churches would together have represented the church in any one area. [70]

Malherbe recognizes, as Scripture indicates, that there were different groups of Christians in a particular area (city). But, these groups did not consider themselves separate or distinct from other groups in the area. Instead, they considered themselves to be part of the same church. Also, Paul and others outside a particular city recognized all of the believers – and all of the groups of believers – in that city to be part of the same church.

As God formed the believers into households, He did not form them into exclusive households. Just as individuals now recognized that they were part of something bigger than themselves, the individual groups of believers also recognized that they were part of something bigger than that group. Thus, it seems from Scripture, that the distinct groups in a location – while recognized by themselves and others as a church – did not see themselves as truly distinct from other groups of believers in that same location. In fact, they also recognized a connection – though perhaps a looser connection – with other groups of believers in more distant locations. For this reason, Paul could label each group of believers meeting in a home as a church, but he could at the same time label all of the believers in a city as a church.

An autonomous church did not exist in the early days of Christianity. In fact, Paul reminds the believers in Corinth of this several times in his first letter to them. In 1 Cor. 1:2, he reminds his readers that they are not alone, but “together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (ESV) Similarly, Paul reminds them that all the churches share common beliefs, activities, and teachings (4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:34; 16:1). The church in Corinth – even the church at the city level – was not an autonomous church, but was to recognize itself as being in relationship with the wider church throughout the world.

Similarly, in Romans 16, Paul expects and encourages the various “home churches” in that area to greet one another, recognizing some level of association between the different groups since the “greeting” was certainly more than a wave or a handshake. Thus, as the believers from different groups encountered one another – either in an intentional or unintentional meeting – they recognized themselves as part of the same church, not as members of distinct churches with little to no relationship between the two groups.

Invariably, when this idea of multiple groups (churches) recognizing themselves as one church is suggested, the question of leadership and control arises. If the different groups are a single church, then who is the leader? Who is in control? Who is responsible for the “meeting”? To me, these questions indicate a lack of understanding of biblical leadership. Biblical leadership is not about control, but about service. The leader is the one who serves. Thus, the true leaders are not concerned with being in control, but with serving others.

Similarly, this idea does not mandate a city-wide hierarchy of leadership. Instead, it mandates humility, gentleness, patience, love – in fact, the whole fruit of the Spirit – in accepting others and treating others as members of the same body – which we are, whether we accept it or not.

The people that meet in the building down the street – those people that we like to make fun of – they are our brothers and sisters. The people that meet across town – those people with the strange practices – they are part of the body of Christ with us. The people that rent the school auditorium – those people who are a little louder/quieter than we like – they are part of our church. We do not do service to the body of Christ by separating ourselves from other brothers and sisters who may be different from us. Instead, we demonstrate our love for one another by reaching out to one another, serving one another, accepting one another, learning from one another, especially when those “one anothers” look or act differently than us.

The autonomous church is not found in Scripture. Instead, the church in the New Testament recognized its mutual relationship with other believers in their area and their mutual need of one another (interdependence), despite their differences. And, where the believers did not think they needed each other, the biblical authors wrote against those practices and teachings.

This is the 210th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word memorize, quote, and live by your favorite verses of Scripture, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32 re-mix)

(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)

More and more, as I read books about the church, authors are recognizing that in Scripture the church is not an organization or an institution, but people. Four years ago, I wrote a post called “The Church as Relational Organism.” In that post, I referred to a few quotes from a book that I was reading at the time. The author was emphasizing the relational aspect of the church.

This is more than rhetoric. If we truly view the church as relational instead of organizational, it will change the way that we interact with one another.

——————————-

The Church as Relational Organism

A few days ago, in a post called “What is a ‘traditional’ church?“, I mentioned a new book that I was reading: Missional House Churches: Reaching Our Communities with the Gospel (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007) by J.D. Payne. Primarily, I picked up this book because of the title and because it was written by a Southern Baptist. I haven’t read much concerning “missional” or “house” church from the perspective of other Southern Baptists, so I was intrigued by this combination.

Overall, I liked this book. As with almost all books, the author and I hold differing opinions on a few things. For example, when he is defining the Church/church (he uses “Church” for “universal church” and “church” for “local church”), I think he makes more of a distinction between “universal” and “local” than Scripture makes.

However, I appreciated his organic and relational definition of the church (I will use one term for both, like Scripture does):

What is clear from the Gospels is that Jesus came to establish a new community… The citizens of this new community were part of a divine kingdom and lived according to the kingdom of ethic that involved 1) love for the King, 2) love for others in the kingdom, and 3) love for those outside the kingdom. (26-27)

For the most part, the church today is defined and understood in institutional and compartmentalized concepts… On the other hand, the Scriptures advocate that the church… is primarily understood in relation to the kingdom of God through organic metaphors emphasizing 1) the relationship of believers to God, 2) the relationship of believers to one another, and 3) the relationship of believers to unbelievers. The church is primarily to be understood in simple relational terms. (35-37)

Similarly, when Payne discusses the various metaphors that the authors of Scripture use to describe the church, he begins with my favorite metaphor – the family:

The obvious meaning behind this metaphor is that the bonds holding together the citizens of the kingdom are as strong, if not stronger, than the bond of blood. Just as an earthly family loves, honors, protects, encourages, and cares for one another, the church must do likewise. (29-30)

My thinking about the church changed drastically when I began seeing the church as a family instead of seeing the church as an organization. I began interacting with people through the relationships that God created through his Spirit instead of interacting with people through positions and functions. We are brothers and sisters with the same father. That relationship is stronger than blood.

Matthew 23 is a very powerful chapter of Scripture. In that chapter, Jesus denounces the Jewish leaders of his day.

But, what would that passage look like today?

Dan at “Some Church Stuff” has written one possible account in his post “Matthew 23.” (A word of warning: Dan uses some language that some find offensive. If you think you might be offended by certain words, then just read my excerpt below.)

Note: Dan’s version is not like my “Scripture… As We Live It” remixes. He’s not modifying Scripture to show how we actually live contrary to what is written in Scripture. Instead, he’s wondering what that chapter would look like in a modern context.

This is how his version of Matthew 23 begins:

Pastors want to tell you what the Bible says, and a lot of what they say is true on a level but you couldn’t tell it from their lives because most of the stuff they talk about they don’t actually do. They weigh their followers down with all these insane rules and ridiculous expectations, but they don’t make any effort to help anyone. At the same time they make it look like they are always helping people. They do things like hand out giant checks to charity on the local news like some corporate America PR stunt, and they do all this because they want people to think they are awesome. They want people to look up to them and follow them and recognize them when they are at the grocery store and tell them how awesome they are and what great examples they are and what powerful teachers they are.

How close do you think Dan got with his version?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve enjoyed thinking through these questions this week. Primarily, my posts have revolved around the question of how God gets our attention when we stop listening to him.

Every follower of Jesus – from time to time – either for a short time or perhaps even for a long time – will find it difficult to hear or to follow Jesus Christ. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that we are no longer in Christ or that we are no longer indwelled by the Holy Spirit or that we are no longer children of God. Instead, it means that we have hindered the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Scripture uses the language of “quench” or sin or transgress or disobey to refer to this same situation.

So, since God loves us, he does not want us to continue in this state. What does he do to get our attention to to help us return to him?

We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. God can work directly in our lives to get our attention. But, of course, the problem is that we are already not paying attention to him. It’s possible that God can work in a different way in our lives to get our attention. But, it’s also possible that we will refuse to hear him in this new way also.

God also uses Scripture to get our attention – to show us where we have moved away from him. This means, of course, that Scripture would need to already be a part of our lives. When we are in a situation that we are not listening to God, it is not likely that we will begin to read Scripture. (Of course, it could happen.) However, if we have already been reading Scripture, then God can bring passages and stories and principles to our minds to draw us back to him.

Finally, God uses his children – our brothers and sisters in Christ who God has brought into our lives. If we have shared our lives with one another, then these people will know as we begin to ignore or neglect the work of the Spirit in our lives. They will know when we are not demonstrating the love of God. God can use them to get our attention and to help “restore” us to a state where we are listening to and following him again.

These three – the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, and the Children of God – are not distinct, of course. And, it is actually God working through the Scriptures and his children to do his work. So, we are always dependent on God to draw us back to himself. But, besides dealing with us directly via his Spirit, he also uses the Scriptures and his children.

Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” is jumping in with both feet (to use an old Southern expression). Check out his latest post “Cake.” What’s the point of his post: “My main point is this: a professional pastor’s job is mostly cake.”

Now, Eric is in the (fairly) unique position to be able to make this statement. He has been a professional, vocational pastor for a church organization/institution. He knows what the job entails. A couple of years ago, he resigned from that vocation, found employment in a “secular job,” yet continued the hard work of helping others follow Jesus Christ.

Here is part of Eric’s post:

In what other job do you get to sit in a coffee shop and study the bible for hours per week? In how many occupations can you literally set your own schedule each day (except Sundays of course)? What occupation outside of pastoring encourages going on missions trips and attending theological conferences while the church pays for it?

Seminaries are partly to blame for this situation. Pastors-to-be repeatedly hear how difficult it is to be a pastor. They are told that there is much suffering involved and that it will be a very difficult task. However, since they are “called to preach,” they must walk down this painful, lonely road.

You should read the rest of Eric’s post, especially the paragraph that starts with “To be fair, there are times when pastoring is difficult.” That paragraph offers another side of what he states above.

I don’t doubt that being a vocational pastor in a church organization is hard work. (I’ve never held that job position before, although I was headed in that direction at one point in my life.) However, I wonder, how much of that “hard work” is caused by someone doing things that God never intended one person to do?