I have added two new articles to my theology page. This last month I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject of end times theology in preparation for a housegroup I was invited to speak at. The passage in question was 1 Thess 4:13-5:11. I have taken some of the themes I found in the passage and turned them into two articles (in PDF format – you need Acrobat to read them):

Together Forever (1 Thess 4:13-18)
People of the Day (1 Thess 5:1-11)

I still have a long way to go before I feel I understand all that the New Testament teaches on this subject, but preparing the study helped a lot. Theologically astute readers will probably be able to detect my millennial position from these, though I do not state it explicitly.

I have been meaning to update my links to other blogs for quite some time now, and I have finally got round to making a few changes. There are a few more to be added, but I will mention a few now, and perhaps some more in a future post.

First is my friend Dan, who has named his blog “Life on Wings”, in honour of Ern Baxter, who had a profound influence on his thinking. Dan and I went to the same church and school, and both of us share a passion for all things Word and Spirit. He has a considerable theological book collection, and often quotes from what he’s been reading or listening to. He tends to write much more passionately and directly than I do, and so there is always potential for a good discussion in the comments.

Mark Roberts is a pastor, with a good amount of knowledge into the historical background of the New Testament. His posts tend to be long articles, serialised into chunks. As its nearly Christmas, perhaps you might want to check out his excellent series on the birth of Jesus which is what got me started reading his blog.

Parableman has been a long-term favourite of mine, mainly because Jeremy Pierce, the main contributor seems to share my passion for commentaries. He has a post that is undoubtedly become the main source on the internet for forthcoming commentaries. He also has a good knowledge of philosophy and his arguments are always very well thought through. He posts on some subjects that I have no interest in at all (Sci Fi and American politics), but despite that, there is lots here that I enjoy.

Sven has left New Frontiers and headed East (theologically at least), but remains one of my favourite bloggers. He has extracted the two sides to his character into two blogs – crazy Sven and theological Sven. Both are worth a read though you need the right sense of humour for the first.

Rob Wilkerson is a fellow Reformed Charismatic, and has done an incredible job maintaining an index of the recent charismatic blogger debate. The site is entitled “Miscellanies on the Gospel”, and the SGM distinctive love of the gospel shines through his posts. It is also a great jumping off point to other excellent Christian sites.

It’s time to consider what the New Testament pattern is concerning baptism, and we all know that this is a contentious issue amongst evangelicals, whether charismatic or not. Restorationists, however, are firmly in the “believer’s baptism” camp, and this is the position I will argue for. Baptism is a practise that we can find mentioned in many books in the New Testament, although as usual there is no one place that sets out an exact definition of how the ceremony is to be carried out.

For Believers

When we first encounter baptism in the New Testament – it is John’s baptism “for repentance”, and was clearly administered to adults. In Acts, again we see that people who believe are then baptised. It is presented as the logical next step to repentance and faith.

Those who argue for infant baptism generally make three points. First, reference is made to various “households” who were baptised. It is argued that this must have included infants. This is of course possible, but not necessary. As someone has pointed out (Fee I think), the word for household can sometimes include animals, but no one thinks they were baptised. If the general understanding was that baptism was something that those who had made some sort of “confession” underwent, then it would be taken for granted that the very small children would go through this at a later stage. Even proponents of infant baptism generally recognise the need for some later ceremony (i.e. confirmation) to make this important stage explicit.

Second, a parallel is seen between circumcision and baptism. There may be something to this, but it is not a very convincing case for arguing for extending baptism to infants. After all, only male children were circumcised. An extra stage needs to be inserted into the argument (Gal 3:28) to make it work. This view is also strongly linked to a certain view of being in the “covenant”, which Restorationists do not generally share.

Finally, it is pointed out that we have some records of the early church practising infant baptism. I am in no position to comment on the evidence or lack of it, and how early this went back, but for Restorationists, this is not a particularly important point. They are happy to concede that the early church may have wandered from the New Testament pattern in a number of ways, and so what exactly they did in regards to baptism is not thought to be binding.

Total Immersion

I believe it is much easier to demonstrate etymologically (what the word baptism means), logically (why rivers were used, when jars of water were to hand) and theologically (symbolising dying with Christ and rising to new life) that total immersion was the normal New Testament mode of baptism.

Public Profession

All the baptisms recorded in the New Testament are preceded by some form of public profession of repentance and faith – turning from an old way to follow a new one. These baptisms are also all performed in the presence of witnesses – usually family and friends, but often held in public places.

Apparently, many early churches had “baptismal formulas”, or creeds which affirmed the basic beliefs of the faith, some of which may even be quoted in various New Testament passages. Restorationist churches encourage people to give their “testimony” (although this is not insisted upon), and will usually speak a very short formula before performing the baptism (e.g. “on profession of your faith we baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”).

Hearing baptismal testimonies is often very encouraging and moving, although sometimes they do reflect a very limited understanding of the gospel. Perhaps we would do well to encourage candidates to make some form of creedal statement of faith as part or instead of this testimony. I thing this would be helpful, as baptism is usually linked to formally joining the church, which requires an assent to the doctrinal statement of the church, which is normally done privately (e.g. signing a form).

More to learn?

Baptism is a subject on which Restorationists feel very confident that the NT pattern is being followed. Yet there are two obscure verses concerning baptism, which people of all persuasions struggle to adequately fit into their theology. 1 Pet 3:21 comes very close to making baptism sound essential to salvation, an idea that evangelicals do not subscribe to. Perhaps it is just that it is inconceivable to Peter that a believer would not go on to be baptised. 1 Cor 15:29 talks about a practise where people were baptized “for the dead”, which barring an archaeological find that sheds some light onto this phrase, must remain an enigma.

This post carries on my recent exploration of how the Restorationist vision of having a church following the New Testament pattern actually works in practise. So far I have looked at liturgy, worship, and leadership. Now “communion”, which is the preferred name in Restorationist circles for the “Lord’s Supper”, “Breaking of Bread”, or “Eucharist”.

It’s obvious enough that the communion meal was important to the early church. Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 indicate that it was a regular feature of church life. But as with so many other aspects of church life, we are not given precise instructions as to how to conduct the meal, and how often to hold it.

The Restorationist churches I have been to all seem to follow a typical Baptist church structure. The Lord’s Supper comes at the close of a time of worship, probably once every four Sunday meetings, and follows a fairly fixed pattern – a Bible reading (usually 1 Cor 11), a prayer, and a time of quiet contemplation as the bread and grape juice are passed around.

I can’t help wondering whether we fail to properly appreciate this meal. Perhaps it is because it is not celebrated as a meal at all – only the smallest amount of bread and wine are actually consumed, and no one speaks to one another during the whole affair. Of course it is understandable why things are done this way – the logistics of providing a meal to over 100 people are not easy.

Another issue that many new churches have with the communion meal, is that it seems too liturgical and sombre for them. We are used to a very informal meeting style, and generally trying to be upbeat and happy all the time. As a result it can seem like an awkward intrusion into the normal program – something we do because we ought to, rather than because we want to. Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t feel that it is done in an inappropriate way – just that it doesn’t seem to be something we do really well.

For some time now, I have been thinking that the communion meal is perhaps something that small groups could be encouraged to make use of more. Meeting with up to a dozen people in someone’s home is an ideal setting to enjoy fellowship together. Time in prayer, worship and Scripture reading, with maybe a short meditation on one of the many rich themes found in the meal could be included. This way it doesn’t feel like communion is being squeezed into an already busy meeting schedule.

My first attempt at this was earlier this year, and I’m hoping to make this a more regular feature of the cell group I am leading. I still think there something very important about the whole church gathering together for communion, but if we are serious about following a New Testament pattern, then there should also be times when we break bread together in our homes (Acts 2:46).

After a bit of a blogging break, I want to return to thinking about the New Testament church pattern, and how Restorationism seeks to build churches that are faithful to this. A key text for Restorationist churches is Eph 4:11 which lists what are often referred to as the “Ephesians 4 ministries” – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

Cessationists believe that the first two ministries are no longer in operation in the church, but Restorationists strongly emphasise the need for all of them. The most controversial of these is apostles, but New Frontiers at least are happy to concede that there was something unique and unrepeatable about the original twelve, which puts most people’s fears to rest. Apostles are understood as those who relate to churches (particularly newly planted ones) in a fatherly way, giving direction and advice to the leaders, without having authority over them in an official denominational sense.

As important as these five ministries are, they are not understood to be exhaustive by Restorationists. Indeed, modern ministries such as “worship leader”, “small group leader” and “youth leader” are flourishing in charismatic circles, and supported by a wealth of training materials and courses.

But where do “eders / overseers” and “deacons” fit into the picture? Are these additions to the list of ministries? While I have never heard this explicitly expressed, I believe that the New Frontiers position would be that these are the only two “offices” in the church. In other words, anyone exercising a leadership or authoritative ministry is either an elder or a deacon. Most of the Ephesians 4 ministries would be exercised by the elders of a church, while those with the other “modern” ministries I have mentioned are understood to be deacons (although they would never be called this). I’m pretty sure that all the “apostles” in New Frontiers are also elders in their home churches.

Each local church is understood to be led by a group of elders, often with a senior elder (the pastor) being first amongst equals (theocracy is preferred to democracy in Restorationist church government). The church also would usually relate to someone with an “apostolic” ministry, who would meet with the elders on an occasional basis and provide some guidance, and prophetic direction. However, the elders are understood to be autonomous, and free to refuse the advice given (although this may result in the apostolic relationship being broken).

For complementarian groups such as New Frontiers, eldership is seen as male only, but the “deacon” ministries are open to all. So many female worship leaders, cell group leaders and youth leaders are to be found within these churches.

How faithful is this to the New Testament pattern? Richard Collins understands Eph 4:11 in a very different way. He sees it as expressing the diverse models of leadership that God is pleased to use in different churches. But as with the charismatic gifts, I would place more emphasis on the diversity within an individual church. So not everyone has the gift of prophecy, and not everyone has the ministry of evangelist, but we should desire all gifts and ministries to be operating within the local church.

So it boils down to three main levels of leadership:

1. Apostles – providing ongoing support to new churches, and ensuring they stay faithful to the gospel
2. Elders – initially perhaps only one, but quickly growing to a team of elders as the new church grows
3. Deacons – people given responsibility to lead in different areas of service as the elders see fit (see Acts 6 for an example of how a need was seen and met with the appointment of leaders)

While I don’t believe there is only one possible structure of church leadership, I do think that this general setup is preferable to some of the more complicated structures that exist in other circles. More importantly, I believe that it fits in well with what we see in the New Testament about church leadership.

Amazingly, my website passed 10,000 visitors this last week. I’m sure that most of these are just me checking to see that my site is working correctly, but they can’t all be me. Quite why people are tuning in to my incoherent ramblings I’m not sure, but since you’re reading this perhaps I can make a prayer request.

I am going in to hospital tomorrow (4th Oct) for an operation. It’s not a major one – I could well be coming home the same day, but it will be my first experience of surgery and general anaesthetic. Please pray that the operation will be successful, and that my recovery is quick. I will probably have about two weeks off work, during which I plan to do some reading and praying, which I hope will be a profitable time for me.

In my second post considering what the New Testament teaches and models about church, I want to think about “worship”. Worship has got to be one of the most hot topics in Christianity today. Many people will judge a church they have visited by whether they considered the worship to be “alive” or “dead”, or perhaps “reverent” or “flippant”. Various bloggers have been touching on the issue this very week, with “This Great Argument” launching a somewhat caustic attack on charismatic worship, and “The Blue Fish Project” highlighting the importance of the words we sing. When I lived in Dunstable, the church I attended went through a period of ditching the charismatic choruses in favour of hymns, and the tensions that can be caused by different approaches to worship have caused serious divisions in church. I realise that the word “worship” has more than one level of meaning. In this post I discuss the part of the worship service during which we express our praise to God through songs and prayers.

The New Testament is surprisingly silent on how worship should be conducted. But this hasn’t stopped many people from proposing quite rigid models. I have been to countless seminars on worship, from a variety of theological perspectives, and they have all tended to be preoccupied with the pattern. One speaker insisted that the first hymn be about God the Father and you could only sing about Jesus later. Another spent a good deal of time telling us about the hand and foot signals a worship leader could use to indicate a repeat of the chorus to the rest of the band. Another shocked the gathering of conservative evangelicals by declaring organ music to be “crap”.

In other seminars, I have heard how it is really important to be as undignified as possible, and that David danced completely naked! One speaker stressed the importance of avoiding songs by Graham Kendrick, as before you knew it, people would be raising their hands. Some insist that there should be no speaking between songs as this quenches the Spirit, while others are equally adamant that there ought to be a linking prayer or devotional thought between every song, during which the congregation must be seated. Some want the musicianship to be of the highest quality possible, while others claim that anything more than simplicity will detract attention from God.

The more traditional denominations that the early Restorationists left would have a church leader (typically an elder) choosing and announcing the songs, while the musicians simply provide backing music. Most Restorationist churches have now opted for the “worship leader” and “worship band” approach, with someone who is a gifted musician taking the role of selecting and introducing songs. This has the benefits of allowing the standard of music to be much higher, but at the same time can give the impression that leading worship is about selecting the best songs from the current Christian “Top of the Pops” worship song charts.

In this regard, the Restorationists demonstrate that they are not really trying to recreate early church worship. No one really believes that there were electric guitars, microphones, worship CDs and computerised words projections in the first century. Most would also admit that the role of “worship leader” was not as tightly defined as it is today. In other words, although we believe in a “New Testament Pattern”, we believe in recontextualising it to our own situation, rather than rigidly copying the style of a bygone age.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26, we see more than a hint that there was not one person responsible for choosing songs. Anyone could bring one in much the same manner that anyone could prophesy. There was a phase in charismatic churches where this was commonplace, but it has been many years since I have encountered it.

So if the New Testament gives us so much freedom, does anything go? Is there one model that is better than the rest. Perhaps I will offer what I think are some principles of the “worship” part of our meetings. More could be added I’m sure.

1. Worship songs are for all to participate in. Therefore the style of music should be such that most people like the tunes and can sing along. This rules out some genres due to the difficulty of singing them (heavy metal, rap, opera etc), but the older hymns and modern choruses both fit this criteria. A variety of musical styles will be needed to properly express the variety of emotions that the words of the songs convey – (e.g. joy, awe, peace, triumph).

2. The words of our songs should be of course theologically correct, but more than that, they can serve to teach us, inspire us, remind us of great Biblical truths, and give expression to our joy at God’s blessings as well as our trust in his grace during times of trial. Those who choose songs have a responsibility to select the best in terms of words, not just tunes. The words we sing do matter, and the subjects we sing about matter to. Lots more could be said on this one (perhaps a challenge some other bloggers might like to take up).

3. New songs are to be encouraged as they bring fresh ways of expressing old truths. Old songs too should not be overlooked as they enable everyone to join in right from the start, and often cover a broader range of subject matter than the very latest few songs do. I must commend the songwriters in the Sovereign Grace movement as coming out with some of the most excellent lyrics in their new songs, as well as being appreciative of the best of the older ones.

4. Those who are “worship leaders” should remember that songs are not the only part of worship. Prayers and Scripture readings at the very least should be incorporated, as well as space made for the diverse gifts of the Spirit to be used to edify the body.

5. It would help if we got over the tendency to evaluate times of worship purely on external measures – how many danced, or raised their hands, how many brought prophecies, and whether the band sounded really good. If worship is to be “in spirit and truth” then it matters most that everyone meant what they sang and entered in wholeheartedly. This is not to say that “what we felt” doesn’t matter.

A edify those time of worship that is truly faithful to the New Testament will glorify God, and present. There will be a sense of both the transendance and the immanence of God – both an appropriate reverence for him and intimacy with him. People will be drawn to worship as part of a community, and also find a context in which they can sincerely and genuinely express their devotion to God.

Its time to grasp the nettle on some of the issues that Richard Collins has raised. Is Restorationism a misguided endeavour, or is it truer to the New Testament than its critics are willing to admit? I hope to discuss the areas of New Testament church life that Richard mentioned in a few posts, and add a few more of my own. In each area, we ask is there a New Testament pattern, and if so, what is it? All of the areas are far too large for me to offer definitive answers, but

First up is liturgy (see his two comments here). It’s not a subject I’m an expert in at all, having encountered very little of it in the churches I have been part of. It is a very broad concept, but I want to focus on the practise of having set words or actions that the meeting leader or congregation are expected to use at different places throughout the meeting. One dictionary defines liturgy as “a prescribed form or set of forms for public religious worship”.

Now of course, in one sense every church has a liturgy. At the very least, most songs are sung with fixed words that everyone joins in. What’s more, most churches without a set liturgy will still have phrases they invariably use to welcome people, introduce the Lord’s supper, or close the meeting for example. Prayers too will follow similar patterns of words on a regular basis.

Obviously many charismatic churches will continue to make use of the liturgy they already had (e.g. charismatic Anglicans), possibly modified or relaxed somewhat. But Restorationist churches are typically very wary of liturgy (one notable exception being the Make Way marches devised by Graham Kendrick). For example, I have never heard a corporate prayer read out, or creed recited in a New Frontiers church.

The early church and liturgy

Richard highlights Phil 2 as an example of liturgy / creed in the early church. I would add 1 John 2 and 1 Cor 15 another probable examples. Maybe these passages were words of songs that the New Testament writers are quoting and adapting, or maybe they were spoken liturgy. The New Testament does not tell us, but early church history might point in the direction of there being more liturgy than Restorationists would care to admit.

However, I would want to balance this observation with a strong emphasis on the extemporaneous nature of much early church worship, particularly under the inspiration of the Spirit. We see in Acts and 1 Corinthians prayers and prophecies that came on the spur of the moment. There was no need for them to be either prepared before the meeting. The format of the meeting was such that there was room for contributions of all sorts from anyone (male and female). Paul’s long sermon in Acts 20 gives us an indication that he was quite happy to preach without a prepared script or a predefined end time.

Too much liturgy

We see then that there was a healthy balance between the prescribed and the free forms of worship. But where exactly should the balance lie?

There are problems with over-use of liturgy. It can become mechanical, said or sung without any thought to the meaning. It can leave people with the impression that they have worshiped simply because they opened their mouths, rather than engaged their heads and hearts. “These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me”

Similarly, the words of liturgy can become magical incantations that must be said at the right time and in the right way for something to be proper. Baptisms, marriages, and the Lord’s supper are examples of times when people are particularly eager to use the right form of words.

Too little liturgy

If we never give people forms of words (such as songs or prayers) that they can make their own, then there will be a tendency towards shallowness of expression in worship. Not many of us are good with words. Perhaps this is why the stereotypical charismatic prayer goes “Yeah Lord, we just really wanna say like really”. Good worship songs help us to express our praise in fresh and meaningful ways. This is one positive thing about charismatic willingness to embrace new songs – a new way of saying the same thing can bring out the meaning to a deeper level.

But Restorationists will likely never hear a set prayer in church, particularly not one of confession or contrition. I once heard Terry Virgo say that he did not feel these appropriate for public worship as we have had our sins forgiven. But Jesus’ disciples wanted to be taught to pray, and he gave them a model with remarkably broad scope given its short length. Restorationists may be reluctant to use extra-biblical set prayers, but making more use of those from the Bible would I think be a good thing.

In summary, I must admit that I am happier with less liturgy rather than more, which may well be nothing more than a personal preference. It seems clear to me that a balance must be found but lets be careful that the balance is found in the best of both worlds (see Sven’s hilarious charismatic liturgy for an example of how the worst elements of both approaches could be combined).

Most of all I want my worship to be real. What I say must come from my heart, not simply from my order of service sheet. I think this is at least part of what Jesus was getting at when he spoke of worshiping in “spirit and in truth”.

My posts on Restorationism continue to stir some interest, with Richard Collins weighing in with his assessment of what can be known of the very early church with a number of interesting comments. You can read three comments starting here and two more starting here.

I wanted to address his comments in a post, but I am now beginning to think that it will require a series of posts, as a huge number of difficult issues have been raised. But first I want to think about the factors that cause people like Richard to move beyond Restorationism, as indeed many of the early Restorationist leaders have done themselves (read Andrew Walker’s book for the details).

Richard was once part of a New Frontiers church, but now finds himself in the more historical denominations, apparently as a result of extensive reflection and reading on what the early church was like. He asks whether the zeal of those leaders who came out of established denominations to form house churches was somewhat misguided. It would appear that Sven is making a similar journey to Richard, as he retreats out of the narrow straits of New Frontiers to swim in the broader sea of Christianity.

While Restorationist churches often receive new members from the traditional denominations, delighted to have found something more “New Testament” than their previous church, what are we to make of those headed in the other direction, and for exactly the same reason?

Is it simply that “the grass is greener on the other side”, where the weaknesses of your home church are magnified in your mind, while the faults of others are not seen? This is a common enough reason for switching churches. Is it a “declaration of independence” – a sort of belated teenage rebellion, where those who have spent their life in one denomination start to become disillusioned with its exclusive claims to be the “real deal”? Could it be intellectual pride, as those who know far less dismiss the dissenter’s arguments without ever understanding them? Leaving to find a church that will recognise you for the true genius that you are might seem a promising option.

But these factors, though they may explain some “sheep transfers”, may still be too unkind to people like Richard and Sven. They are thinking people, who have eventually concluded that the Restorationist model is indefensible. They are always questioning their assumptions, exploring new avenues of thought, trying out different pronunciations of Shibboleth. This is found quite threatening by many evangelicals, and by questioning the assumptions, these people can find themselves marked out as problem people who are plotting a coup. They realise they have no future in ministry where they are, and make a (hopefully) courteous but prompt exit.

I found it interesting that Terry Virgo invited Philip Greenslade and Ian Stackhouse to speak at the New Frontiers leadership conference this year. While remaining committed charismatic evangelicals, these men are both deep thinkers who are not afraid to critique the movement they are part of. John Hosier also seems to be exploring how exactly New Frontiers contributes to the bigger picture of the church. So perhaps there is hope that future Richards and Svens will be able to stay in New Frontiers to help make sure that our zeal is properly tempered by knowledge.

None of this should be misinterpreted as me saying that we should celebrate those who publicly voice their criticisms of the essential truths of the gospel. It must be guarded (2 Tim 1:14). Neither am I suggesting that in a gloriously post-modern way we allow anyone to get into the pulpit and advocate whatever model of church life seems like a good idea to them. But even the fairly dogmatic John Piper has recently expressed the importance of receiving those who differ on the non-essentials. We need to revisit the lessons of Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8, and learn to be more accepting of one another despite our differences.