About Jesus

About Jesus Steve Sweetman

www.stevesweetman.com

My Journey Through The Ecclesiastical Maze

Part 39

Wrapping It All Up

This has been a brief look at my 57 plus years of association with church, or as I call it, “My Journey Through The Ecclesiastical Maze”. I’ve tried to link my story to my understanding of Biblical truth, and I do say “my understanding”. You might well view things differently than me. I can’t be right on everything I say, although I’d like to think I am.

I’ve concluded my story with certain Biblical teaching that I believe is not evolutionary in nature. There’s lots to say about church from a Biblical perspective, but I’ll stop here. The nature of the Body of Christ and its implications should be fundamental to our approach to church. I feel we’ve departed from this aspect of church over the years because we’ve allowed extra-Biblical thinking to shape our approach to church. Therefore I also conclude that how we view the Bible is one of the basic problematic issues we need to address. In many instances we’ve adopted a post-modern stance. We want to experience the gospel without understanding its details. That won’t work. You’ll eventually depart from the gospel of Jesus if you ignore its details.

Over the years I’ve struggled with the idea about church being evolutionary in nature. I once believed it was. For those who believe church should evolve in all aspects, I’ll help you out with a few points you might want to use in your argument against me. Aren’t I so kind and helpful?

You might suggest that the choosing of seven men to help the leaders distribute food to poor Christians in Acts 6 was an evolutionary action. The choosing of these men did not necessarily come about because of Biblical teaching, but because of a need that arose in the church. Therefore, as other needs arise, the precedent to “adapt church structure to the needs of the day” has been set. I could counter this by reminding you that I do believe there are some aspects of church that do evolve over time. Still, the fundamentals should never evolve. Then, you might argue the point that these seven men evolved into a group called deacons. In response to this I might say, “okay, I give up on this point.”

Another interesting point you might want to use against me concerns the Apostle John, one of the original Twelve who lived longer than the rest. He died sometime around the end of the first century. Historians tell us that John was the lead elder at Ephesus . As I stated in the last chapter, by this time “plurality of leadership” gave way to “one man being in charge of this plurality”. It appears, even though I wasn’t around at the time to see it first hand, that John might well have been a one man leader over a group of elders in Ephesus . I can only trust the historians on this point. If they are right, John departed from plurality of leaders that I’ve viewed as the scriptural norm. You might suggest that John simply departed from Paul’s Gentile approach to church, not the scriptural norm. I might suggest that we don’t have enough information concerning what John’s leadership style looked like. From what we know of John, I don’t think he would have been an overly authoritarian leader, even if he was a one man leader over other leaders.

Then there’s James. Lots of people say James was a one man leader in Jerusalem . You might be right on this point, although I’m not fully convinced . I think there are some hints that can lead you to this conclusion, but no hard evidence to fully convince me. Besides, there was a slight tinge of evolution in the early church leaders’ thinking concerning allowing Gentiles into the church. James appears to have maintained his Jewishness more than Paul and others. For this reason he could have patterned the Jerusalem church after the Old Testament priesthood. Besides James, we know that Peter struggled over the Gentile issue. Peter needed a heavy duty vision from God to convince him that Gentiles could be Christians, and even after that he acted hypocritically at times. (Galatians 2:11 to 21)

Speaking of the Jewish nature of the early church, some feel the need to return to this Jewishness. They feel that the slow departure from this Jewishness which was complete by 140 AD was evolutionary in nature and should not have taken place. I do believe the church began with the Jews. The scriptural principle is, “to the Jew first and then to the Gentile”. I also believe that Jews still have a place in God’s thinking and in prophetic history. That being said, I don’t confuse the Jewish heritage of the church with what the New Testament teaches about salvation. Concerning salvation, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Also, the meaning of the Law of Moses in New Testament times clearly has taken on a new meaning and does not apply to Christians today. Still, Gentile Christians have been grafted into God’s family with its forefathers of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Romans 11:13 to 22)

So I’ve concluded that there are basic Biblical truths that are not evolutionary in nature. Beyond these truths we can express our relationship with Jesus to the world around us in ways that best meet the needs of society at any given time. The only caution I have is that these expressions should not take the place of non-evolutionary truths of scripture. But they have. For example, buildings that were once meant to be an expression of faith and a tool for service have become a financial burden that has distracted us from our mission. Denominations that might have begun with good intentions to express long forgotten Biblical truth have long since divided us into factions that do great disservice to Jesus. That’s why I feel the need to return to the simplicity of thinking that church is a body of real live human beings for the Spirit of Christ to live in. Each one of us is an individual part of this body. We have our own specific job to do. We are also joined to a few other parts of the body to function with them in the work of our Lord.

This has been my journey. This part of the story is now over. I pray that great strides will be made in representing Jesus as we should. Sometimes I think that we’re not much different than Israel in Old Testament times. We wander and stray just as they did, even though most of us would deny that.

I like what Larry Norman sang in his song entitled “A Small Circle Of Friends”. Concerning his friend Randy Stonehill, he sang, “I love you as we both crawl towards the Lamp”. We may think that we’re blazing a triumphal trail straight to the Lamp, meaning Jesus, but I think in reality we’re crawling more than anything else. So I do like Larry’s choice of words. Some of us are reluctant to take the next step towards Jesus. Some of us go kicking and screaming. Some of us fall, get up, and fall again. However we’re getting there, it seems to be “A Long Hard Road” for all of us, which just happens to be another Larry Norman song. I guess the 1960’s have risen up within me again and can be seen in my affection towards Larry Norman and his music.

Now that I’ve mentioned the 1960’s I just have one last thing to say to my contemporaries. I hope you’ve maintained the fervor you had for Jesus decades ago. From my standpoint, many of us have traded in our fervor for Jesus for traditionalism. The freshness of finding Jesus and being related personally to others in His body has been replaced by the routine of church that’s found in the ecclesiastical maze.

One last thought before I end. Church is only as good and effective as the individuals’ relationship to Jesus who are in the church.

So as I end my account, I repeat what the apostle Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:7, “consider what I say and the Lord give you the understanding in all things.” May Jesus help us all. We can’t do it without Him, and we should stop trying to do so.

last part

Home Page