Peanut Butter Christianity

One day my wife sent me to the store to buy peanut butter—specifically, natural peanut butter. In other words, no fake stuff. This seemed simple enough . . . until I arrived in the peanut butter wing of the grocery store. The options overwhelmed me—creamy, chunky, extra chucky, honey-flavored, jelly-filled, low fat, organic, and countless sizes, shapes, brands, and prices! George Washington Carver himself would have shaken his head in despair. I’m sure that managing that isle alone must be a full time job.

So there I stood, paralyzed with indecision, wanting nothing more than to just grab the cheapest jar of peanut butter and dash for the checkout. Instead, showing due diligence, I searched for “natural peanut butter” amidst the flashy brand names that virtually called out from the shelf like brochure-pushers on the Vegas Strip: “Pick me! Pick me! Don’t you remember all those commercials you saw as a kid? All those smiling faces? Those cool special effects showing golden roasted peanuts magically spread into smooth, creamy Jif [or Peter Pan . . . or Skippy]?”

Lured by the flashy labels, my eyes landed on “Skippy” paired with the keyword “Natural”! How convenient!

I snatched it off the shelf.

I felt rather victorious until I got home and took a closer look at the back label. I then discovered that “natural” peanut butter isn’t always a literal designation. Skippy’s “natural” peanut butter does include roasted peanuts, of course. But it also contains sugar, palm oil, and salt. That’s natural? Really? All those things naturally grow on a peanut plant? I guess from one perspective these ingredients are natural as opposed to, say, “supernatural.” And I couldn’t find any unpronouncable names like monosodiumtriglyceraticidipropylol! Furthermore, to be fair to Skippy, if we were to compare Skippy “Natural” to, say, that peanut butter-ish substance in a Reese’s Peanut Butter cup or a Butterfinger candy bar, Skippy looks like pure gold.

But is junk food peanut butter really the standard? When I contrast Skippy “Natural” with something like Krema Natural, I’m a little less forgiving. The ingredients list for Krema simply says, “Peanuts.” No salt, no oil, no emulsifier, no sweetener, no chemicals added to preserve freshness or enhance flavor. Just plain peanuts. Call me naïve, but to me that’s natural whether we like it or not. Shouldn’t peanut butter made of puréed peanuts serve as the standard for what constitutes “natural” peanut butter?

As I obsessed over the out-of-control peanut butter situation for the next several weeks, something struck me. This failure of most peanut butters to actually live up to the “natural” standard reminds me of the out-of-control state of too much Evangelical Christianity. If I were to liken authentic, classic Christian orthodox beliefs and practices to the truly “natural” form of undiluted, unmixed, real peanut butter, then the multiple forms of Christianity that diverge farther and farther from this standard become, well, less and less “natural.”

As Evangelicals, many of us have over the decades become increasingly accustomed to a particular form of Christianity, which, while it is still essentially Christian, has been so “enriched” by non-Christian ingredients meant to “enhance” the faith—or to make the faith more convenient or palatable or marketable—that the essential Christianity has become difficult to discern. And those who have become accustomed to this diluted form of Christianity have all but forgotten what the pure faith actually tastes like. In fact, many who are then exposed to a less adulterated faith—a form without all the unnecessary additives—find themselves disgusted by the original pure flavor, spitting it out and rejecting it as something foreign and inferior. Or at least unpleasant to the palate.

The great irony is that this purer form of Christianity is the authentic faith once for all delivered to the saints! The Gospel purely preached, the sacraments rightly administered, discipline properly maintained—nothing really fancy about these things. In fact, they are so simple to identify and maintain that churches focusing on these fundamentals and freeing themselves from the frills appear to most big-production glitz and galmmor Evangelicals like washed-out has-beens or incompetent wannabes.

To return to my peanut butter analogy, all those peanut butter products do contain peanuts, and so they can genuinely be called “peanut butter.” Similarly, to varying degrees the marks of authentic Christianity are found in most of the products that fill the shelves of the Evangelical church market. And to the degree that they retain those essential marks they are, in fact, Christian. Yet many forms of Evangelical Christianity have been so coated with sweetness . . . so mixed with artificial ingredients . . . or so drenched in candy coating that they are in danger of becoming cheap imitations that serve merely to distract from—not point to—the essential ingredients of the Christian faith. And just like additive-rich peanut butters that appeal to flavor rather than nutrition, far too many Evangelicals shop for me-centered feel-good church experiences rather than Christ-centered worship, discipleship, and authentic community. In fact, like sour faced kids who reject all-natural peanut butter, many Evangelicals turn their noses up at authentic Christianity and would rather keep playing at church than adjust their tastes to the real thing.

I believe we’ve reached a point in the Evangelical church market where it’s no longer enough to just read the front label. Now we have to focus in on the fine print and see what place is given to the true marks of classic Christianity.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 1

We’re seeped in a culture where preference rules. As a result, many American Evangelicals treat church like malleable clay to be molded and shaped into whatever form they think it should be. Our expectations for what a church is and what a church does too often reflect our personal preferences. We may prefer contemporary music or traditional hymns . . . dynamic youth activities or deep discipleship . . . personable pastors or powerful preachers . . . state-of-the-art facilities or stunning sanctuaries. But do these preference-driven churches really reflect the biblical marks and works of a church?

The solution to a preference-driven church mentality isn’t to compose a new “me-centered” wish list, but to identify and adopt God’s essential marks and works for an authentic and healthy church. When we do this we’ll be equipped to focus on our church’s central strengths and address inevitable weaknesses, establishing reliable criteria for recovering a lost identity. But first we need to remind ourselves of the fundamental marks and works of the church. And to do this, we need to have a bit of historical perspective.

During the sixteenth century Reformation, Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin sought to define what it meant for a congregation to be counted as an authentic Christian Church. They knew they couldn’t define themselves by medieval Roman Catholic standards under the Pope with his seven saving sacraments and rigid rituals. But amidst a growing diversity of Protestant practices, what could they identify as the essential marks of a true church? The Lutheran Augsburg Confession put it this way: “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered” (Article 7). Later the Westminster Confession expressed a united Protestant perspective on what it meant to be truly “catholic” in the Protestant (not Roman Catholic) sense: “This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them” (Article 15.4).

Of course, we aren’t bound by the original Protestant confessions, but as the Evangelical heirs of that great Reformation tradition, we should be just as careful as they were about answering the question, “What makes a congregation of believers a true and faithful church of Jesus Christ?” I find it helpful to think in terms of essential “Marks” and “Works” of a true church, incorporating biblical and historical emphases that have stood the test of time. In the remainder of this article, I want to briefly summarize these Marks and Works illustrated in the diagram. In later articles I will further develop each of these with concrete, practical suggestions on how they can be reinforced today. Though my terms are different, these Marks and Works fit the classic early church and Reformation “marks of the church.”

The pillar of essential Marks includes Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances. Orthodox believers are those who hold to the essential truths of the Christian faith—those fundamentals of the faith that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. It corresponds with the Protestant emphasis on the “Word of God purely preached and heard” (1 Tim 3:14–15; 2 Tim 1:13–14; 3:13–4:5). Order emphasizes the necessity of trained, trusted, and tested pastors, teachers, and shepherds of the church, to whom the orthodox faith has been entrusted to pass on to the next generation (Eph 4:11–12; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Tim 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:1–3). And the term Ordinances refers to the sacraments of the church, including baptism and the Lord’s Supper as closely associated with discipline and purity of the church’s members (Matt 28:18; 1 Cor 11:23–26; 1 Pet 3:21–22).

The pillar of essential Works includes Evangelism, Edification, and Exultation. Evangelism is primarily world-focused, emphasizing local and global missions. It includes invitation and initiation into the church through the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ (Matt 28:18; Luke 24:46–49; John 20:30–31; Acts 1:8; Eph 2:8–9). Edification describes the church’s role of building up believers in love and good works through the participation of its various members in their Spirit-gifted ministries, resulting in unity and maturity (Matt 28:19–20; Rom 12:4–8; 1 Cor 3:10–17; Eph 2:19–22; 4:11–13; Heb 5:12–14; 10:23–25). Finally, Exultation refers to the purpose, goal, and focus of the church—to glorify God the Father, through the Son, and by the power of the Spirit. The church must exult God through corporate worship and prayer as well as by a God-glorifying presence in the world (Matt 5:16; 25:34–40; Rom 11:33–12:2; Gal 1:3–5; 1 Pet 4:8–11).

If a local church is not consciously employed in the business of continually revisiting and strengthening the pillars of essential Marks and Works of the church, eventually these will erode, crack, and crumble. And it doesn’t take a structural engineer to predict what will happen to the structure when its foundational piers collapse! Personal preference and me-centered pragmatism can not determine what the church should be or what it should be doing. Only a careful reflection on the defining Marks and Works of a healthy church can keep us focused on what God wants us to be and do in the twenty-first century.

(To be continued…)

Answers for the World's Tough Questions Passport

How would you answer the following questions?

Is Jesus the only way to heaven?
Why does a loving and powerful God allow evil?
Is the Bible really God’s Word?
Is hell a real place?

Do you have answers? Would you be able to communicate your beliefs clearly, creatively, and with grace?

This third volume of Insight for Living's popular "passport" series, which I co-authored with the IFL Creative Ministries team, is "a quick-reference guide for some of the nagging questions and criticisms concerning Christianity." Including arguments from both reason and biblical revelation, this resource introduces the common objections or hang-ups you'll face when sharing your faith with others in our postmodern world. Then we give some simple tips on how to address these questions as well as additional resoucres to dig deeper.

You can order copies of the Answers Passport here.

Will God Annihilate the World? Part IV

(...Continued from Part III)

A Plea for Redemption, not Annihilation

Besides the exegetical concerns discussed in this essay, several other theological and historical matters should be brought to our attention.

I would like to especially appeal to my fellow premillennialists (whether dispensational or not), asking them to reconsider their belief in a re-created heavens and earth. Premillennialists of all people should stand against the “disposable world” perspective precisely because of their premillennialism. They ought to believe that Christ’s reign on this present world for a thousand years will remove the curse, spread the glory of God throughout the planet, and “Re-Edenify” the world. It seems strange that premillennialists, then, would teach that this same renewed world will be sent to God’s trash heap by annihilation and completely replaced by “Earth 2.0.” Those who view the release of Satan from the Abyss and his subsequent rebellion do not see God’s judgment on the Dragon and his armies in Revelation 20:7–10 as another period of tribulation like the seven-year conflagration that had ushered in the millennium. Rather, the rebellion of Satan and the final resurrection should be viewed as a “comma” within the eternal reign of Christ at the end of its first thousand years . . . not as an exclamation mark that ends Christ’s reign and the world. Why would God spend one thousand years removing the curse, perfecting creation, and re-populating the earth, only to destroy all matter and start over? This does not fit God’s ultimate plan of redemption.

And redemption is the key word. God’s plan is not one of surrendering to the destructive work of Satan and fallen humanity. Rather, His plan is to reverse the degeneration of creation through resurrection and regeneration. As our human bodies have been redeemed and will be resurrected and glorified, so the physical world will be redeemed, restored, and glorified at the return and reign of Christ (Romans 8:18–25). God’s redemptive purpose would be thwarted if He were to simply annihilate this creation and re-create it ex nihilo. It would mean that Satan succeeded at destroying God’s creation after all, and that God was either unable or unwilling to redeem creation through Christ. At stake is the ultimate cosmic defense of the goodness and greatness of God! At stake is the only Christian theodicy—that through Christ’s redemptive work this wicked, fallen universe will be reclaimed, restored, and glorified in a way that leaves no doubt that God is, in fact, all-powerful and all-good in spite of the millennia of distortions and degenerations experienced because of the Fall.

This view is also consistent with a proper incarnational Christology and all that this profound truth implies. The permanent character of the incarnation of Christ should itself be viewed as a promise that true deity is now inextricably connected to the fate of the physical creation. Christ is fully God—uncreated Creator. He is also fully human—created creature. The fate of both divinity and humanity, eternity and temporality, heaven and earth, are wrapped up in the destiny of this One divine-human Person. Colossians 1:19–20 says, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” All things in heaven and earth are summed up in Christ by virtue of the incarnational union of the divine and human natures. Therefore, the purpose of any judgment on this physical world is purification, restoration, and renewal, not destruction, disposal, or annihilation. Christ’s is a cosmic ministry of reconciliation, not divorce. His is a mission of summing up, not subtracting from.

Finally, it must be recognized that the view that God will create a new universe out of nothing after disposing of this universe by annihilation is not the view of the earliest Christians close to the apostles, but the view of the Gnostics who saw no need for a future physical universe. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 180), who grew up in the church of Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, explicitly rejected the idea that this physical universe was to be annihilated. He wrote:

For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment, that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but “the fashion of the world passes away;” [1 Cor 7:41] that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; and I have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause of the creation of this world of temporal things. But when this present fashion of things passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, then there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain continually, always holding fresh converse with God. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.36.1)

Even Irenaeus’s amillennial counterpart, Origen of Alexandria, writing by about A.D. 220, explicitly rejected the idea of a complete annihilation of the universe. After quoting 1 Corinthians 7:31 and Psalm 102:26, he wrote:

For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. For this renewal of heaven and earth, and this transmutation of the form of the present world, and this changing of the heavens will undoubtedly be prepared for those who are walking along that way which we have pointed out above, and are tending to that goal of happiness to which, it is said, even enemies themselves are to be subjected, and in which God is said to be “all and in all.” And if any one imagine that at the end material, i.e., bodily, nature will be entirely destroyed, he cannot in any respect meet my view, how beings so numerous and powerful are able to live and to exist without bodies, since it is an attribute of the divine nature alone—i.e., of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—to exist without any material substance, and without partaking in any degree of a bodily adjunct. (Origen,
First Principles 1.6.4)

Yes, this present heaven and earth will undergo an intense judgment characterized by fire. The very foundations of the world will be shaken. The principalities and powers of spiritual and political wickedness will be forever destroyed. But the world itself will undergo a restoration, transformation, and glorification. It will not be absolute annihilation, but an extreme make-over befitting a God whose goal is to reign—not resign—as King of all creation.

Will God Annihilate the World? Part III

(...Continued from Part II)

Peter’s Apocalyptic Problem

But doesn’t 2 Peter say that the universe—nay, even the elements—will melt with intense heat prior to the creation of a new heavens and new earth? Isn’t this a clear support for an annihilation of the present creation in preparation for a completely new creation? To answer this we need to examine Peter’s entire argument more closely. Let me first set up the general context of the letter.

Throughout Peter’s second epistle he makes reference to the coming judgment, which we call the tribulation—the judgment that culminates in the second coming of Christ on earth to establish His kingdom. In chapter 2 Peter uses past judgments as types of the coming judgment. He refers to the days of the flood, during which the “world of the ungodly” was destroyed (2:5). Sodom and Gomorrah are also examples. These cities were condemned to “destruction by reducing them to ashes” and they are thus an example of the coming tribulation judgment (2:6). Yet in the midst of these statements Peter reminds his readers that God knows how to rescue the godly from “tribulation” (2:9), referring to Lot as an example (2:7–8).

Peter then describes the character of the ungodly of this world who await judgment. He notes that they will “in the destruction of those [animal] creatures also be destroyed” (2:12). Peter also refers to the scoffers who make fun of those who are expecting the Lord’s return: “In the last days mockers will come with their mocking, . . . and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’” (3:3–4). Peter has in mind here the condition of skepticism and cynicism characterizing the end of the age.

In response to this skepticism about the Lord’s return, Peter again draws on the analogy of the flood in the ancient world—a world that was utterly destroyed. He writes: “It escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water” (3:5–6). So, just as the initial order of the world of humanity, animals, and even the earth itself was “destroyed,” leaving only a remnant to return and repopulate the earth, the future coming judgment will similarly destroy our present world. But in Peter’s mind the coming judgment at Christ’s return would be more severe, for instead of judgment by water, it will be judgment by fire.

Peter writes, “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3:7). Given the context of this passage in Peter’s letter, we must connect this coming judgment with the judgment of the world that accompanies the return of Christ, that is, the tribulation judgment. This is the anticipated “day of the Lord,” during which the current world system will be destroyed, just as the pre-flood world ceased to exist, having been replaced by the new order after the flood. Peter refers to this coming judgment as “the day of the Lord” that would come “like a thief” (3:10). There is no basis for understanding this as anything other than the anticipated tribulation period, to which Jesus and Paul had already referred in similar terms (Matthew 24:42–43; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; Revelation 3:3; 16:15). This coming judgment is what Peter describes with vivid terms of destruction:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! (2 Peter 3:10–12)

Who or what are the “elements” that will be destroyed? The Greek word stoicheion (“elements”) must not be read anachronistically as a reference to the atomic “elements” of modern science. According to Gingrich (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament), this term may refer to angelic beings in Galatians 4:3, 9 and Colossians 2:8, 20. In this sense, it may be a reference to the destruction of Satan and his wicked angelic hosts who currently reign over the heavens, but who will be destroyed and cast into the Lake of Fire—or, in the case of Satan, consigned to the Abyss—at the coming of Christ. This would fit the similar language of the removal of heavenly and earthly powers in Isaiah 24:21–22, a passage we’ve already examined above. It is also possible that the text refers to the destruction of earth, water, and air regarded as “elements” in the ancient world, which destruction we see described in great detail in the book of Revelation (Revelation 8:1–9:21; 16:1–21). This drastic change—not annihilation—of elements in judgment is also seen in Wisdom of Solomon 19:18–20—“For the elements (stoicheia) were changed in themselves by a kind of harmony, like as in a psaltery notes change the name of the tune, and yet are always sounds…. For earthly things were turned into watery, and the things, that before swam in the water, now went upon the ground. The fire had power in the water, forgetting its own virtue: and the water forgot its own quenching nature.” In any case, it would be very misleading to conclude that Peter had in mind the absolute annihilation of atoms or subatomic particles when he used the word stoicheion in 2 Peter 3:12.

So, Peter anticipates this judgment of fire as coming upon the present world system at the return of Christ, that is, in the final days of the tribulation. In a premillennial view of the end times, this tribulation period will destroy the present system, including all evil and sin. It will also include the destruction of demons and a razing of the world’s geography. The world that comes when Christ returns to reign on the new post-tribulation millennial order, then, Peter describes thusly: “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth,” qualifying this statement with regard to its righteous quality, not its creation ex nihilo: “in which righteousness dwells” (3:13).

Peter was no doubt familiar with the Old Testament background of his phrase “new heavens and new earth.” Peter’s reference to the “new heavens and new earth” must be understood in his own context of the anticipated coming of Christ in judgment on the present world during the tribulation and in light of the “new heavens and new earth” promises in Isaiah 65 and 66—both of which refer to the restoration of the world after the tribulation and during the reign of the Messiah and His saints over the redeemed earth.

Therefore, we must understand the destruction language of 2 Peter 3:10–13 as a vivid picture of judgment referring to the tribulation and coming of Christ preceding the millennial reign. It is not a reference to a post-millennial, pre-eternal annihilation or “un-creation” of the universe and its physical elements. Nor is the “new heavens and new earth” in Peter a reference to a re-creation ex nihilo of a world that has no relationship to the present physical world. Just as the pre-flood earth was renewed after the judgment of water, the current world will be renewed after a judgment of fire. However, Peter’s language implies that the coming judgment at the return of Christ will be just as severe as the world-altering flood of Noah.


Return to Revelation

It is in light of Isaiah 65–66 and 2 Peter 3 that we must understand John’s vision of the new heavens and new earth. To read this as annihilation and re-creation out of nothing would be to read into it meanings for “pass away” and “new heavens and new earth” that are foreign to the sum of biblical teaching. In fact, Revelation 21:3–5 actually interprets its own language precisely in keeping with the idea of qualitative renewal and redemption similar to Isaiah and 2 Peter. Note how the voice from heaven interprets the vision for John:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”

Revelation 21:4 interprets the symbols of the vision that heaven and earth “passed away”—“the first things have passed away.” What things are these? Not elements, not atoms, not molecules—but the evil order of things: the death, wickedness, grief, suffering, pain, degeneration, and deterioration that had long held all of these physical and spiritual elements in bondage. Look at the clear statement: “There will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

In light of this, I believe the greatest misunderstanding concerning the “new heavens and new earth” described in Revelation 21 has been to take the symbolic vision in Revelation 21:1–2 too literally rather than learning the meaning of the vision from the prophetic interpretation in 21:3–5 and the use of the same phrase in the Old and New Testaments. When we understand “new creation” language in light of the Bible’s entire teaching on this matter, we should conclude that this creation is bound for regeneration and redemption, not annihilation and re-creation ex nihilo.

(Concluded in Part IV...)

Will God Annihilate the World? Part II

(...Continued from Part I)

Qualitative Redemption, not Quantitative Replacement

The fact is that the passages that seem to suggest an absolute annihilation of the heavens and earth followed by a recreation out of nothing do not actually assert this. The original terms translated “pass away” do not mean “be annihilated.” The terms are neutral, referring simply to “going away,” or “departing.” Paul uses one of these terms, parerchomai, to refer to the old things of the believer’s life that have “passed away”: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away (parerchomai); behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). This implies an extreme makeover of a person’s life and character, not an annihilation of the old and replacement by the new. First Peter 4:3 uses the same Greek term in a similar sense: “For the time already past (parerchomai) is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles.” The time of former sin has “passed away.” So, this general term does not mean “be annihilated.” It simply means to go away. The question, though, is what “goes away”—the actual substance itself, its behavior, its form, its function, its existence? The mere use of the term “pass away” does not itself imply annihilation. It could refer to a radical transformation of the quality of something rather than to its absolute destruction.

Read in this light, two of the passages that seemed to suggest annihilation actually fit the perspective of a qualitative redemption. Remember the imagery in Isaiah 24:20? “The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard and it totters like a shack, for its transgression is heavy upon it, and it will fall, never to rise again.” Isaiah goes on with an interpretation of the imagery of the stumbling drunkard and teetering shack: “So it will happen in that day, that the Lord will punish the host of heaven on high, and the kings of the earth on earth. They will be gathered together like prisoners in the dungeon, and will be confined in prison; and after many days they will be punished” (Isaiah 24:21–22). So, the utter collapse of the earth refers not to the annihilation of the physical universe itself, but to the judgment of the sinful condition of that physical universe. This will include punishing the spiritual wickedness in the heavens as well as the human wickedness on the earth. God’s anger is directed toward spirits of wickedness and sinful people, not rocks, molecules, atoms, oceans, and air.

Similarly, the passage in Psalm 102:25–26 also suggests an extreme transformation rather than absolute annihilation. The Psalmist wrote, “Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment.” He then adds, “Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed” (102:26). The image implies an external change, like a person whose clothes become old and tattered. While the outer form is utterly changed, the inner person remains, though completely transformed and renewed.

But more directly related to our question regarding the new heavens and new earth, Peter uses the word apollumi (“to destroy”) when describing the judgment of the world before the flood (2 Peter 3:6). In that case he refers to wiping the earth clean, destroying life and land, but not actually annihilating the universe and recreating everything from nothing. In the case of the flood, Peter describes the destruction of the sinful quality of the world system—both in the earthly and heavenly realms. He was not referring to a literal de-creation and re-creation, but an extreme makeover of the physical universe and especially its human and heavenly institutions.

How “New” Are the New Heavens and Earth?

Revelation 21:1 says, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.” John says he had seen “the first earth pass away,” which was part of the vision of the heaven and earth fleeing from the presence of God in Revelation 20:11. Remembering that John had been seeing all sorts of symbolic visions throughout the book, we must allow the text itself to interpret what John is seeing here. The vision could refer to a complete annihilation and re-creation. But it could just as reasonably picture an “extreme makeover” of the present creation—a “new and improved” version that bears little resemblance to the past order of things. Thankfully, the Bible itself helps us properly interpret the vision of the “new heavens and new earth.”

The first place in the Bible where we find a description of the “new heavens and new earth” is Isaiah 65:17–25. We must read the entire passage to see exactly how this “new heavens and new earth” is described.

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing and her people for gladness. I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; and there will no longer be heard in her the voice of weeping and the sound of crying. No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed. They will build houses and inhabit them; they will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They will not build and another inhabit, they will not plant and another eat; for as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, and My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. They will not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity; for they are the offspring of those blessed by the Lord, and their descendants with them. It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the Lord.

One should recognize that the condition described as “new heavens and a new earth” in Isaiah 65:17–25 refers to the future millennial kingdom on this present earth following the tribulation judgments and return of Christ. This present world will endure numerous fiery judgments under the just wrath of God. All wickedness will be wiped clean, and then the world will be restored under the reign of Christ and His saints. During this thousand-year reign the curse of the Fall will be lifted, the earth will be repopulated by righteous survivors of the tribulation, and the inhabitants of the earth will experience a quality of life never seen in history. Satan and his demons will no longer be ruling over the heavens; that realm will be controlled by Christ and His saints. In short—peace, harmony, prosperity, and righteousness will reign supreme. This millennial condition of renewal and redemption—not a re-creation out of nothing—is what Isaiah 65 describes as the “new heavens and new earth.” Clearly, this is a qualitative newness.

Isaiah 66:15–22 also refers to the renewal of the current heavens and earth under the reign of Christ. Following a period of judgment, which we call the coming “tribulation” associated with the second coming of Christ, the earth will be renewed: “For behold, the Lord will come in fire and His chariots like the whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire. For the Lord will execute judgment by fire and by His sword on all flesh, and those slain by the Lord will be many.” This refers to the coming tribulation judgment. Nations will be converted and Israel will be re-gathered (Isaiah 66:17–21). And then God swears, “‘For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘So your offspring and your name will endure.’” All of these details refer not to the eternal state, but to the first thousand years of Christ’s eternal reign—the period often called the “millennium.” Thus, the “new heavens and new earth” in Isaiah’s prophecy refer not to a new creation out of nothing, but to a renewed creation under Christ after the present world system has been judged by the wrath of the tribulation.

In keeping with this same kind of “new creation” idea of redemption rather than re-creation, Paul refers to believers with “new creation” language in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Here believers have not ceased to exist only to be re-created ex nihilo. Rather, the salvation of a sinner is a regeneration, a renewal, a redemption—a buy-back of the old and a transformation into something qualitatively new.

(Continued in Part III...)

Will God Annihilate the World? Part I

Introduction

When I was a relatively new believer I was taught that the present world will be annihilated. Not just the animals and vegetation, not just the land and the waters—but the subatomic particles themselves would one day be dissolved into nothingness . . . utterly destroyed . . . obliterated. In its place God would then create a completely new heavens and earth—ex nihilo, “out of nothing.” This new heavens and earth would not merely be qualitatively different (“improved”), but quantitatively different (“absolutely new”).

But is this true? Will God utterly annihilate this present universe . . . or will He renew it? Will the original creation of Genesis 1 be rejected as beyond repair . . . or redeemed from its fallen, cursed condition?


“Heaven and Earth Will Pass Away”

Both the Old and New Testaments clearly describe a time when heaven and earth will “pass away” or “perish.” Psalm 102:25–26 says, “Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment.” This same Psalm is quoted in Hebrews 1:10–12. Similarly, Jesus famously said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). With vivid images, Isaiah 24:20 pictures the fall of the world: “The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard and it totters like a shack, for its transgression is heavy upon it, and it will fall, never to rise again.”

Perhaps the most definitive statements about the ultimate destruction of the universe are found in 2 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 20:11 and 21:1. Peter writes, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.” And John records his vision of the new creation in startling terms: “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11). And then: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea” (21:1).

Read quite literally, these Old and New Testament texts seem to carry a degree of finality—utter destruction of the present heavens and earth and a replacement with a completely new physical universe.

But there’s a problem, because Scripture also says . . .


“Heaven and Earth Will Not Pass Away”

In Psalm 148:3–6, all creation is called to praise God. We read: “Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all stars of light! Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He commanded and they were created. He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away.” Clearly the sun, moon, stars, heavens, and waters have all been established “forever and ever.” In fact, God’s decree “will not pass away.”

In Psalm 89:36–37 the promise of the eternal covenant with David and His descendents is linked to the eternality of the heavens and earth: “His descendants shall endure forever and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established forever like the moon, and the witness in the sky is faithful.” We know that this Davidic covenant is fulfilled eternally through Jesus Christ, the final Davidic King. So, just as the Davidic King will endure forever, the sun and moon, likened to the Davidic promise, must also endure forever.

Similarly, God solidifies His promise of everlasting faithfulness to His covenant with Israel by appealing to the continuation of the heavens and earth: “Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; the Lord of hosts is His name: ‘If this fixed order departs from before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever.’” If the heavens and earth were intended for absolute destruction in the future, then this promise of God to Israel could be broken!

These passages describe a creation that is not expected to pass away or be destroyed. In fact, the sun, moon, stars, and heavens could not cease to exist without disastrous implications for the faithfulness of God and the reliability of His promises.

So, which is it? Will heaven and earth pass away, as the Bible says? Or will heaven and earth be preserved forever, as the Bible says? Does the Bible contradict itself? Or is there a way to harmonize these two apparently contradictory truths?

(Continued in Part II...)

A Case for RetroChristianity

Naming an idea can be risky. The newly-named “idea” takes on a life of its own and can then be accepted, rejected, modified, ignored, loved, or despised. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to finally name that cluster of ideas that has been gestating for some years now—about fifteen, to be precise. I actually think the child was born a few years ago, but he’s been awaiting an identity—something that will distinguish him from his look-alike siblings that came before him. So, the name I’ve given my course of thinking is RetroChristianity. I will explain exactly what this means and why I chose this particular name in due time. But to do this successfully, I first need to name and describe a few other concepts in contemporary Christian thinking. These terms include “Orthodoxy,” “Heterodoxy,” and “Heresy.” To these common labels I want to add two more: “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”

By “Orthodoxy” I signify the correct view on the central truths of the Christian faith and a proper practice of Christian works. As a rule of thumb, orthodoxy is that which has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. The “all” includes those who people who intend to be counted among orthodox Christians and who have generally been regarded as such by other orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy means holding the right opinion about crucial Christian truths and acts in keeping with what Christianity has always believed about these things. Some things that fit this general criteria are: 1) God created all things out of nothing; 2) God is Triune: one divine essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) The eternal Son of God became incarnate through the Virgin Mary and was born Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one unique Person; 4) Jesus Christ died to pay for our sins, rose from the dead victorious, and ascended into heaven, waiting to return from heaven to earth to act as Judge and King; 5) The Holy Spirit moved the prophets and apostles to compose the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inspired, unerring norm for the Christian faith; 6) The Church is Christ’s body of redeemed, baptized saints who by faith partake of the life and communion with God through Jesus Christ in the new community of the Spirit. Some universal practices have included baptism as the rite of initiation, the Lord’s Supper (or communion, or eucharist) as the rite of continued fellowship, evangelism, missions, charity, worship, and Bible teaching. Many other things have been taught and practiced everywhere, always, and by all, but this sample list indicates the kind of central, crucial doctrines that mark one as “orthodox.”

Now this all sounds simpler than it actually is. Sometimes it requires a little bit of squinting in order to overlook minor blemishes on an otherwise hopeful history of orthodoxy. The reality is that without constant check-ups and regular cleaning, orthodoxy is subject to “truth decay.” This can happen to individuals, to churches, to vast communities, to entire generations. But don’t despair! One of the main functions of the Spirit of Truth is to guide the church into truth, to restore her to orthodoxy when she veers too far, and to breathe into her renewed vitality. The history of the church is filled with these revival movements that retrieve forgotten aspects of orthodoxy. So orthodoxy can never be taken for granted. It must be constantly re-received and re-taught. It is not passed down from one generation to another in the form of a creed or confession if that creed or confession is not faithfully and intentionally taught. Orthodoxy is not bestowed upon the next generation through the Bible if the Bible is not read and explained within the context of classic orthodoxy. There’s no such thing as orthodoxy by osmosis or trickle-down orthodoxy. It must be intentionally and clearly taught everywhere, at all times, and to all.

Moving on, I use the term “Heterodoxy” to mean, literally, “another opinion.” Heterodox teachings tend toward the margins of the received doctrines of the faith. And they sometimes teeter at the very edge. They still want to be part of the Christian tradition and still acknowledge the central Christian truths, but they also want to be unique, innovative, and clever in their theology and practice. They feel comfortable recasting traditional truths in nontraditional language. They sometimes want to rearrange, reinvent, reinvigorate, and reformulate the things that had been handed down to them. They like to surf the waves of the margins, buck the system, go against the grain—all within the community of orthodoxy. However, heterodoxy often results in an unintentional distancing from the normative center of Christian orthodoxy . . . and with a little push heterodox teachers run the risk of breaking free from orthodoxy’s gravitational pull and winding up in the bleak void of heresy. Heterodoxy is also often characterized by exaggerating a minor distinctive and trying to jam it into the center of orthodoxy. When a unique aspect of a person’s theology becomes the focal point, the true center of orthodoxy becomes marginalized and minimized. Thus, heterodoxy develops because of a failure to keep the primary orthodox truths front and center. Division, dissension, and destruction often ensue. Heterodoxy is cured by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

I use the term “Heresy” to describe doctrine that challenges and destroys the central core of orthodoxy. As such, heresy alone is damnable doctrine. It often finds its origins as a radical heterodoxy, but not all heterodoxy ends up in denying basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. Heresy differs from heterodoxy in that the heretic knowingly (not ignorantly), willfully (not accidentally), and persistently (not momentarily) denies a key tenet of historic orthodox Christianity. He or she rejects certain truths that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For example, somebody who denies the full deity and humanity of Christ is a heretic. The belief that Jesus of Nazareth did not literally rise from the dead is heretical. And the view that the Holy Spirit is a created being and not a fully divine person is heresy. Heresy is defeated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

Orthodoxy. Heterodoxy. Heresy. I think these categories are clear. Now, floating among Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy I see two tendencies, especially in free church evangelicalism. I call these tendencies “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”

“Metrodoxy” is a term I coined to describe trendy, faddish, and “cool” doctrines and practices that tend to take over contemporary churches, especially “megachurches” and megachurch wannabes. If you want your church to have greater cultural “impact,” to draw media attention, and to place itself on the map of evangelical Christianity, you must accept and live by metrodox values. These include relationship, not religion . . . contemporary, not conventional . . . relevance, not ritual . . . innovative, not obsolete . . . fresh, not stale. Metrodoxy thrives in metropolitan areas, drawing from a pool of young, energetic men and women who have excess time and money. This group is often impressed by a clever lingo, advanced technology, and trendy buzz. Anything perceived as boring, belabored, or bogged down gets snuffed. But amidst the excitement, metrodox churches tend to be in a constant state of identity crisis, needing to reinvent or re-brand themselves every few years. After a few phoenix-like rebirths, these churches eventually find themselves adrift, unsure of what they’re supposed to be doing or why. Of course, we find all sorts of ready captains prepared to take over and steer the ship toward some new and trendy port . . . but these navigators are usually not going back to classic orthodox beliefs and practices as their guides to lead them on. The result of this constant identity crisis is often a failure to identify and pass on what has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. So, extreme metrodoxy can be treated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

On the other extreme we find what I call “Petridoxy.” If the metrodox are too progressive and trendy, the petridox are frozen in time, unable and unwilling to change. They have been petrified. They tend to fear change as a great evil, not realizing that their own practices were themselves once quite new (and likely controversial). They often have a very myopic perspective on their own history, believing their way has stood the test of time. They have no desire to critically examine their narrow perception of so-called “orthodoxy” or to evaluate whether what they’re doing actually does help to preserve and promote central orthodox beliefs and practices. Petridox churches would just as soon die a slow and painful death than make major adjustments. Having lost sight of the fundamental goal of receiving, preserving, and passing on the faith once for all entrusted to the saints, petridoxy settles on one method of receiving, one manner of preserving, and one means of passing on the faith . . . and then it congeals in that particular form. Petridoxy therefore tends to be primitivistic, reactionary, ultra-conservative, and idealistically nostalgic. However, petridoxy can be softened by refocusing attention on the purpose of the church’s forms and structures: to intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

With this background on concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, heresy, metrodoxy, and petridoxy, I’m ready to explain the concept of “RetroChristianity.” The prefix “retro” means “involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past.” But in contemporary compound words, it indicates an attempt to bring the things of the past into the present, giving both the past and the present a new life.

First let me make it perfectly clear that RetroChristianity is not fundamentalism redivivus, a retreat back to Papal Rome, a pilgrimage to Eastern Orthodoxy, or a veiled attempt to promote a flaccid ecumenical faith. Rather it’s an honest attempt to more carefully navigate our received orthodox faith and practice through the precarious channel between metrodoxy and petridoxy, both of which can shipwreck the faith. Therefore, RetroChristianity wants to bridge the gap between the ancient and contemporary church without going to two extremes: 1) idealizing the ancient and condemning the modern, or 2) eschewing the ancient and seizing the contemporary. RetroChristianity has some things in common with the many “ancient-future” movements, while acknowledging that many forms of that trend can easily slip into just a new identity for metrodox churches . . . or drive headlong into the rocks of an out-of-touch primitivistic petridoxy. RetroChristianity tries to address the real practical questions of “how” we can intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all. It also draws much of its inspiration from the concept of paleo-orthodoxy and thus explores the foundational work of the patristic period. But it also seeks to move, in concrete practical steps, from that pre-modern, pre-Christian cultural context to our post-modern, post-Christian context.

Ultimately RetroChristianity means carrying on a constant dialogue with the past, but it also requires an actual practical connection with the present and an orientation toward the future. Therefore, it asks how we can and ought to teach and practice orthodoxy everywhere (that is, in every kind of church and ministry around the world), always (in every ministry opportunity, outreach, or service), and to all (young and old, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, men and women). RetroChristianity demands that the past first be reckoned with on its own terms. It can not settle for picking over the past for relevant bits and pieces that will make us feel more “connected” to our roots. It can’t stand for politely consulting the ancient Christians to make us look sophisticated. And it can’t naively transplant the past into the present as if the preceding centuries of development never happened. As such, the dialogue is a complex, time-consuming, strenuous work that requires the input of many. This includes patristic, medieval, and reformation scholars; pastors, teachers, and laypeople; denominational and free churches, and numerous others interested in genuinely engaging in either real transformation . . . or unashamed preservation.

[Ya'll] Be Filled with the Spirit

Probably a dozen times a year I’m asked, “How can I be filled with the Spirit”? The motivations behind this question, I think, are two: First, many traditions of sanctification have emphasized the filling of the Spirit as the key that unlocks the spiritual life. Being filled with (or by) the Spirit has been set forth as the one thing a believer must do to experience the fullness of the spiritual life. Second, believers struggling against temptation and sin are looking for an antidote. Like an immunization against a nagging illness, the experience of being filled with the Spirit sounds a lot like a spiritual booster shot against chronic temptation and sin.

But have we misunderstood the filling of the Spirit? Does that classic text have something more to say to the way we live together as a church rather than how we behave as individuals?

Certainly, we have clear examples of the Spirit filling individuals for service (Exod 31:3; Acts 4:8; 13:9). The filling of the Holy Spirit is always manifested through observable effects. These include wisdom, understanding, knowledge, skill, power, prophecy, healing, boldness, faith, joy, hope, and peace, among others (Exod 31:3; 35:31; Micah 3:8; Luke 1:67; Acts 2:4; 4:31; 6:5; 9:17; 13:52; Rom 15:13). So, one knows that an individual is filled with the Spirit based on the effects of the Spirit, which often correspond to the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22–23). If you see the fruit, you know the root. But this individual indwelling and enabling is only one aspect of the filling of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). Paul also refers to a community aspect of the Spirit’s filling. He describes the church in Corinth as a temple of God, indwelled corporately by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16). So, the filling of the Spirit occurs in individuals, but it also occurs in the Church community (Acts 2:4; Eph 2:22).

Almost everything I read about Ephesians 5:18 relates it to the Christian’s individual surrender, yielding, decision, or action that fulfills the command to “be filled with the Spirit.” But could Paul’s primary intention in that passage be the community’s experience of the Spirit rather than the individual’s empowering? When he uses the second person plural, is Paul saying, “Each and every one of you must be filled individually” or is he saying, “Let you all as a community be filled”? The negative command, “Do not be drunk with wine” is also plural, but its possible that Paul was contrasting an inherently selfish, individualistic pleasure (drunkenness) with a selfless, corporate participation (spiritual life). Possible . . . but we need to let the context of Ephesians 5:18 guide our interpretation.

Many point out that Ephesians 5:18 is a passive command. How do we obey a passive command—regardless of whether it’s addressing an individual or a community? Well, we may have to stop doing something that obstructs the Spirit, or otherwise allow the Spirit to do what the Spirit wants. If we emphasize the individual aspect of this command, the problem is a bit more difficult—I must personally must stop or start something to allow the Spirit to fill me. But if Paul intended to emphasize the corporate aspect of the Spirit’s filling, this opens up the fulfillment of the command to reflect mutuality—“one another” living in community, among which the Spirit is producing corporate effects.

In any case, the Spirit’s filling must involve both individual and community elements, though I believe the broader context of Ephesians 5 points us toward a corporate filling of the Spirit. In Ephesians 2, Paul compared the Church as a corporate body to a holy temple, “in whom you [all] also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (2:22). The rest of the epistle emphasizes togetherness, unity of the one body, corporate giftedness, and spiritual growth together (see especially Eph 4). Thus, the letter as a whole focuses on the corporate spiritual life. In fact, the immediate context of Ephesians 5:18 emphasizes this same corporate mutuality. Following the passive plural command to be filled with the Spirit, Paul attaches a series of participles indicating what being filled with the Spirit looks like. Note the corporate effects of this Spirit filling: speaking to one another with melodious thankfulness (5:19–20) and being subject to one another after the example of Christ (5:21–6:9).

Thus, it appears that the command to “be filled with the Holy Spirit” refers primarily to allowing the Spirit to work in and through our relationships with each other in the Church community. Of course, this requires individual responses and responsibilities as we submit to each other, look out for each other’s interests, meet each other’s needs, and allow others to reciprocate their love and concern for us. But Ephesians 5:18 has little to do with being filled by the Spirit in order to resist temptation, conquer sin, or lick a bad habit. That worn-out application of the passage doesn’t quite fit Paul’s point.

Read in this light, Ephesians 5:18 is extremely convicting to us as we consider our own local churches. It demands that we answer several probing questions. Is our church community filled with the Spirit? Do we exude the attractive aroma of unity, care, support, encouragement, subjection to one another, and uplifting, joyful attitudes? Or do we exude an odor of disunity, selfishness, criticism, discouragement, rebellion, and destructive, pessimistic cynicism? Ask yourself, as you wander the halls of your church, overhear conversations, or whiff the “whine” from the grapevine—do you sense the warm breeze of the Spirit? Or, instead of being continually filled with the Spirit, does your community seem to have outposts of the Spirit battling against a lingering insurgency of the flesh? Or is it even worse than that? Is our church building just a whitewashed tomb, impressive on the outside but lacking Spirit-enabled community life within? Think about your church—and about your participation in its spiritual health. Then answer this important question for yourself: Are we filled with the Spirit?

A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part III

Development of Complexity and Summary of the Model

The change from the apostolic to post-apostolic order in the local church was necessary to transition the newborn churches throughout the Roman world from the short time of dependence on the apostles and prophets to the long-term function of the churches without the apostles and prophets. In light of this new situation, the apostles and prophets reinforced their original offices of the elders (teachers, pastors, evangelists, etc,) and deacons (helpers, servers, ministers). Also, to maintain order and preserve the universal theological and practical principle of headship, the apostles appointed one of the elders in each church to serve as the overseeing elder, or “bishop.” At first this office of bishop appears to have been basically a prime among equals. The elders in a local church exercised considerable authority and held great responsibility, though the bishop provided central leadership, vision, and final authority on administrative matters, including the preservation of sound doctrine, the administration of the sacraments, and the general welfare of the elders and congregation.

As the centuries progressed, however, and especially as the church became a legal religion and then the favored religion in the Roman Empire, the office of bishop was seen as a position of great honor and power, no longer a prime among equals, but a separate and higher office than the elders. In this system the bishop had broad independent powers over large regions. The elders (soon called “priests”) were responsible for carrying out the bishop’s work in their local church parishes. And deacons were the ministers who assisted the priests in the local ministry. As the churches developed greater complexity of relationships among bishops, additional levels of oversight were developed, including archbishops. Ultimately the bishop of Rome claimed to hold the place of primacy over all other bishops and archbishops in the universal (“Catholic”) church.

We can therefore discern a development from a relatively “low episcopal” form of church order established by the apostles and their delegates, to a “moderate episcopal” form in late antiquity, and finally to a “high episcopal” form in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Episcopalian traditions. The “low episcopal” form actually seems to have functioned at a time when local churches had some degree of governmental autonomy, though they always had a consciousness of their belonging to a greater universal community of churches and bishops, and often corresponded, fellowshipped, and shared in ministry together. These were not what we would call “independent churches,” but “interdependent churches,” each with its own local church structure and headship, but actively engaged in a meta-community of churches both near and far. To draw on a modern analogy, these local city churches functioned as a loose association similar to the Evangelical Free Church or, perhaps, the Southern Baptist Convention.

Summing up, the basic contours of the early church order are fairly clear in both the biblical and historical records. The threefold order of overseer, elders, and deacons as the pastors, teachers, administrators, and ministers of the local church is so early and widespread that it seems inconceivable that anybody but the apostles themselves established this as the church order they meant for churches to follow after their departure. However, as history progressed, the original low to moderate episcopal structure became more and more complex and bureaucratic, resulting in a hierarchical system seen in the Episcopal, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and, to some degree, Methodist traditions. Though this episcopal model reflects the post-apostolic office of the “bishop,” it takes the office beyond the “prime among equals” we see in the early church to an almost monarchical status.

In reaction to this system many Protestants of the Reformed tradition, relying almost entirely on the apostolic model of elders and deacons seen in the Bible, as well as addressing their own State-sponsored church needs, developed a Presbyterian or Synod form of governance in which authority rested in hierarchical levels of presbyteries—local, regional, and national. Though this “presbyterian” system reflects the biblical and historical emphasis on the authority of the council of elders, it fails to take into account the post-apostolic appointment of the bishop as head elder and responsible leader of the local church. It also adds concentric rings of authority and bureaucracy that are not apparent in the Bible or the early church. In reaction to both episcopal and presbyterian forms, the Congregationalists, drawing primarily on modern concepts of constitutionalism, democracy, and independence, established a form of governance in which final authority rested in the local congregation of members meeting and voting. Strangely, such a church order does not reflect at all the apostolic or post-apostolic order, which over and over again emphasized the authority and responsibility resting on the shoulders of the bishop, elders, and deacons trained and qualified for the work of the ministry. Although congregations were the source of leadership and were often involved in approving the ordination of elders and deacons, they were not the primary center of authority.

It has become common for Evangelical pastors, teachers, and scholars—especially independent church Evangelicals—to say that the Bible does not have a prescriptive local church order, and that the question of church order is therefore up to us to determine what kind of governance works best in our own culture. Part of the reason why this idea has been so prevalent for so long is because it allows for unity between denominations and traditions that had at one time fought over questions of church polity and order. Saying the Bible does not prescribe any particular order allows us to live at peace with a plurality of church structures. However, the statement that the Bible does not present a church order can only be maintained if we fail to read the Bible in its actual historical context, looking at the obvious transition from the apostolic to post-apostolic ministry and allowing early Christian writings outside the New Testament to help paint a fuller picture of what this post-apostolic structure actually looked like. Sadly, Evangelicals have been great at studying the Bible, but not great at studying early church history—especially the earliest church history that would help them actually read the Bible in its historical context. In the last twenty-five years an explosion of interest in second century studies among Evangelicals has led many scholars to question the old, worn-out answer that the Bible does not prescribe a church order. Rather, I and many other scholars have come to critique many historical and contemporary forms of church governance, comparing them with the way the apostles established local church order near the end of their ministries. Though we patristic scholars may disagree on various details of how these offices functioned, the general contours of a biblical-historical model of post-apostolic church order are discernible.

To conclude, a biblical-historical model of local church order includes trained, qualified, and ordained deacons (who function variously as ministers, servants, assistants, etc.); trained, qualified, and ordained elders (who function variously as pastors, teachers, evangelists, administrators, etc.); and a single trained, qualified, tried, and tested overseer (also known as bishop, overseeing elder, senior pastor, etc.). Such a model incorporates the strengths of episcopal, presbyterian, and even congregational church models, while remaining faithful to the order established by the apostles.

A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part II

The Post-Apostolic Church Order (AD 70–)

In the previous post I described the prevalent local church order established by the apostles and their delegates during their ministry among the new churches throughout the world. However, because the foundational offices of apostles and prophets were temporary (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11), and because the apostles and prophets exercised direct control over their various church plants, this model of church order could not continue beyond their passing. That is, after AD 70, when many original apostles had been martyred or began to otherwise expire, the need arose for itinerant apostles and prophets to establish a more permanent form of church governance that would survive them. Such a post-apostolic church order would not only have to be in continuity with what was already established in the middle of the first century, but it would also need to be reproducible from generation to generation.

We see the emergence of this post-apostolic church order already appearing in the later New Testament writings as well as the earliest post-New Testament Christian writings. These non-biblical writings are not themselves inspired or authoritative, but because they were written by those who ministered alongside the first generation of apostles, they help us see what the apostles actually established as the normative church order. They become vital historical sources to help us read the Bible in its actual historical context.

In the second half of the first century (c. AD 50–100), the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) was written over the course of several decades as a basic “how-to” manual of church order, including an early Christian instruction on baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and other pressing issues. It was likely written by leaders in Antioch for use by churches in the region planted by that larger church. In any case, we see within the text of the Didache a transition occurring from the itinerant leadership of apostles and prophets to a more stable local ministry. In Didache 11.3, we read, “And concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel,” indicating that when Didache was written the churches were still under the roaming leadership of apostles and prophets. In fact, the Didache explains how these local churches and Christians can tell a true apostle or prophet from false apostles and prophets. However, anticipating that these foundational ministries would soon be passing off the scene, the Didache also says, “Appoint therefore for yourselves overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi) worthy of the Lord, meek men, and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honorable men together with the prophets and teachers” (Didache 15.1–2). The “prophets” and “teachers” most likely indicate prophets and early apostolic delegates such as Timothy, Titus, and others who had been established over local churches to shepherd them in their infancy. What we see here is a maturing of the churches and a transitioning from apostolic/prophetic ministries to local permanent offices. Among these offices, too, is an unnamed individual office of the preacher of God’s word: “My child, you shall remember, day and night, him who speaks the word of God to you, and you shall honor him as you honor the Lord, for where the Lord’s nature is spoken of, there is He present” (Didache 4.1). Here a distinct individual responsible for speaking the word of God may be singled out for special honor and respect, something we have not seen yet in the typical order of the apostolic period.

We also see this same kind of individual leader already present in the book of Revelation (around AD 95). In the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, Jesus repeatedly addressed the “messenger” (angelos) of each church: “To the messenger (angelos) of the church in Ephesus write,” “To the messenger (angelos) of the church in Smyrna write,” etc. Though some have taken this to refer to an angelic being, the term angelos in Greek is a general term that simply means “messenger,” either human or angelic. It is thus used of human messengers in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Genesis 3:2–4; 16:7–12; 1 Samuel 19:11–20) and in the New Testament (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24, 27; James 2:25). In Revelation 2–3, though, we can be quite confident that a human messenger is meant by angelos. In the Greek text of the messages in chapter 2–3, Jesus addresses the angelos in the second person singular, commending the “messenger” for the good done as well as condemning the “messenger” for his failings. Most people reading the English text do not realize that Jesus is not addressing the whole church in the second person plural, but the messenger (angelos) of each church, who is responsible for the welfare of the local church body (see especially Revelation 3:15, 17, 19). Angelic beings could never be condemned for sin and urged to repent, so angelos must refer to a human leader in the local church who exercised distinct oversight among the elders .

In another book, the Shepherd of Hermas, written in the city of Rome beginning at about the same time as Revelation, we see an indication of a man among the leadership of the church in Rome occupying a distinct position of responsibility. In Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.8.3, we read, “Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders (presbyteroi) who preside over the church.” Clement is singled out as the one responsible for representing the church of Rome to other churches, for he sends and receives messages, similar to the “messenger” of each church in Revelation 2–3.

Around AD 95, this Clement of Rome wrote a lengthy letter on behalf of the Roman elders to the church in Corinth admonishing them to unity after suffering from schism. In this letter Clement actually gives us an indication that the apostles did, in fact, establish a permanent church order intended to endure beyond the death of the apostles. Clement wrote: “And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [the apostles] appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi) of those who should afterwards believe” (1 Clement 42). A little later Clement wrote, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the overseer. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry” (1 Clement 44). Thus, Clement explains that the apostles established a permanent church order to endure in the local churches after their departure. This church order included the overseers (elders) and deacons (ministers). However, we also see that Clement himself is functioning as a supervising elder/overseer, with distinct responsibilities of oversight in the congregation. This is consistent with the individual called the “messenger” in the book of Revelation.

Within a few years, this threefold order of overseeing elder, elders, and deacons would be widespread throughout the entire Christian world, indicating that this was, in fact, the order established by the apostles near the end of the first century. By the early second century the three offices in a local church began to have distinct titles. Whereas Revelation called the lead elder the “messenger” (angelos), and Didache simply called him the “one who speaks the word of God to you,” the need developed to give this particular leader a consistent technical title. The name “overseer” (episkopos), which had originally been synonymous with “elder” (presbyeros) came to be used to describe this individual leader of the company of elders. Traditionally, the word episkopos is translated “bishop.” The “bishop” (episkopos) in each local church served alongside the company of elders (presbyteroi) and in conjunction with the deacons (diakonoi), and the “bishop” was himself one of the elders.

Around AD 110, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, had been arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by the Roman governor. While being transported by Roman soldiers from Antioch in Syria to Rome to be fed to the wild animals for entertainment, he was able to stop in several cities in Asia Minor and receive visitors from nearby cities. Through the letters of Ignatius we see quite clearly that the threefold order of bishop, elders, and deacons was widespread throughout Asia Minor. We know, for example, that Onesimus (perhaps the slave of Philemon) was bishop of the church in Ephesus: “I have received in God’s name your whole congregation in the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love who is also your earthly bishop (episkopos)” (Ignatius, Ephesians 1.3). We also know that Ignatius had been visited in Smyrna by leadership from the church in Magnesia: “I was found worthy to see you in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop (episkopos), and your worthy presbyters (presbyteroi) Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow servant, the deacon (diakonon) Zotion” (Ignatius, Magnesians 2.1). Also, the famous Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who was appointed to his position by John, spent considerable time with Ignatius while the latter was in Smyrna. At one point Ignatius made this reference to the need for unity and submission to the established leadership in the church in Smyrna: “Pay attention to the bishop (episkopos), in order that God may pay attention to you. I am a ransom on behalf of those who are obedient to the bishop (episkopos), presbyters (presbyteroi), and deacons (diakonoi); may it be granted to me to have a place among them in the presence of God! Train together with one another: compete together, run together, suffer together, rest together, get up together, as God’s managers, assistants, and servants” (Ignatius, Polycarp 6.1).

Through numerous early church writings and historians, we know that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, having likely been appointed by the Apostle John himself. We also know that in the church in Ephesus the bishop was Onesimus, perhaps the slave of the same name mentioned in Philemon. Many of these bishops, or “overseeing elders,” had been students of the apostles themselves and had been appointed to this position of oversight by the apostles, prophets, or their delegates.

Thus, what we see when the apostles and prophets pass off the scene is a distinct order of 1) overseer (episkopos), who was the presiding elder, or, in our modern term, the “senior pastor”; 2) the elders (functioning as pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.), who had individual home groups or areas of pastoral responsibility; and 3) deacons (ministers, servants, administrators) who assisted the pastoral work of the elders. The congregation was not in charge. There was no distinction between a pastoral staff and elder board, and therefore there were not two leaders—chairman of elders and a senior pastor. There were no elders who were not pastors, nor pastors who were not elders. The senior pastor was also an elder and accountable to them, though he was responsible for leading, shepherding, teaching, and guiding the elders and the whole congregation.

This is the post-apostolic order that was established by the apostles themselves to continue on after their departure.

A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part I

Introduction

The purpose of this series of essays is to present a picture of early church governance by tracing the development of local church leadership from the earliest apostolic period (AD 40 to 90) to the early post-apostolic period (AD 70–150). I will argue that the original first century apostles and prophets, knowing that their particular foundational offices were temporary, established a distinct and identifiable local church order, with the intention that this post-apostolic order continue after their deaths. This church order is discernible in the New Testament texts when read in light of the actual situation in the earliest post-apostolic churches (AD 70–150).

In preview, I will argue that the apostles and prophets of the New Testament church intended that local Christian churches reflect a three-fold office of episkopos (overseer), presbyteroi (elders), and diakonoi (ministers). Though the actual names and titles of these three offices changed over a period of about fifty years, eventually they settled on these particular terms to describe the offices necessary for administering worship, ministry, and service in the local church. Today we might call these offices “senior/lead pastor,” “elders,” and “deacons.”

The Apostolic Church Order (AD 40–90)

During the widespread missionary activities of the apostles (Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.) and their delegates (Timothy, Luke, Sosthenes, Silas, Clement, etc.), we see a simple twofold church order emerge, established by the apostles and based on the order of the original church in Jerusalem. In the Jerusalem church the original twelve disciples established the order of “deacons” to assist them in carrying out the work of the ministry (Acts 6:1–7). These “ministers” or “deacons” as they came to be called, were taken from the congregation and were ordained to their ministry by the apostles through the laying on of hands and prayer (Acts 6:6).

In Acts 20:17, 28, we see a clear description of the ministry of the elders in a local church. Near the end of his third missionary journey around AD 58, Paul made a brief stop in Miletus on the western coast of Asia Minor. From there “he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (presbyteroi) of the church” (Acts 20:17). We see that there was a clear identification of this group of leaders in that local city. After informing them of his determination of go to Jerusalem, he gave them the following charge: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopoi), to shepherd (poimaino) the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). From Acts 20 we see the convergence of three key terms used to identify the leadership in the local church: presbyeroi (elders), episkopoi (overseers), and poimaino (to pastor or shepherd). At this stage in the development of local church order, “elder” and “overseer” were interchangeable terms, and these officers of the church were responsible for the pastoral work. There was no distinction between pastors and elders; these terms described the same office.

A few years later (AD 61), Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians, in which he addressed “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi).” Thus, we are informed that the local church in Philippi had a leadership structure of overseers (synonymous with “elders” and “pastors”) and deacons (synonymous with “ministers”), distinct from the general congregation of “saints.” All of these offices, though, were under the direct authority of the apostles and their delegates.

At about the same time, Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus and revealed the distinct ministries current in the first century apostolic period. In Ephesians 4:11–12, he wrote, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists (euangelistai), and some as pastors (poinmenai) and teachers (didaskaloi), for the equipping of the saints for the work of service (diakonia).” In this list we see the foundational ministries of the apostles and prophets listed first. “Evangelists” may refer to apostolic delegates or, perhaps, to a type of leader in the local church (see 2 Tim 4:5). It is apparent, though, that “pastors and teachers” refer to those who are elders or overseers in the local church. It has been argued in the past that the Greek underlying “pastors and teachers” actually indicates a single office of “pastor-teacher,” but this view has been set aside in light of more recent research. Instead, it is best to see “pastors” and “teachers” as two types of elder and overseer ministries, so that within the office of “elder/overseer” there is a diversity of responsibilities: pastoral, teaching, and evangelistic. In any case, all of these offices were under direct authority of the apostles and prophets.

Near the end of Paul’s earthly ministry, he wrote his letters to Timothy, who was at that time in charge of the church in Ephesus. This is in continuity with the pattern of apostles and prophets (and their delegates) exercising direct authority over the local church leadership of elders and deacons. In this context, Paul wrote to Timothy, the “apostolic” leader in Ephesus, “If any man aspires to the office of overseer (episkopos), it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer (episkopos), then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will be take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:1–7). Here we see the general qualifications for the office of “overseer” or, as it is called in other texts, “elder.” The qualifications include teaching, managing, and shepherding.

Following this description, Paul deals with the other office in the local church, the “deacons.” He writes, “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach” (1 Timothy 3:8–10). He also gives qualifications for their wives and notes that they must be able to manage their own households well (3:11–13).

Paul then explains to Timothy why he is writing these things: “In case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (3:15). That is, Paul is both describing and prescribing how leadership in the local church should be ordered under the oversight of Timothy, Paul’s personal apostolic delegate. So we see emerging, with the absence of the apostle himself, a threefold ministry—the apostolic leader (Timothy), the elders/overseers/pastors/teachers/managers (the episkopoi) and the deacons/ministers (diakonoi).

It is important to point out that at this time some elders in the church of Ephesus were compensated for their service. First Timothy 5:17–18 states, “The elders (presbyteroi) who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’” The church at this time was undoubtedly compensating those who devoted their lives to full time proclamation and teaching in Ephesus. The fact that some elders were compensated for their pastoral work did not mean they ceased to be elders.

Paul wrote a similar epistle to his delegate, Titus, whom he left in Crete. He wrote, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders (presbyteroi) in every city as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). In his description of the qualifications for these elders, he uses the alternate term, episkopos: “For the overseer (episkopos) must be above reproach as God’s steward” (1:7). The responsibilities of the elders/overseers include moral qualities, but also the ability to “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” That is, the elders/overseers were primarily responsible for doctrine, teaching, and correction.

Around the same time (AD 63–64), the apostle Peter also made mention of the kind of apostolic church order that existed under the ministry and authority of the apostles and prophets. He wrote, “I exhort the elders (presbyteroi) among you, as your fellow elder (presbyeros) and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd (poimaino) the flock of God among you, exercising oversight (episkopeo) not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1–3). In this passage, the same trio of descriptions is used of this body of leadership: elder, overseer, pastor, indicating that these various responsibilities rested within the same group of leaders in the churches. In fact, Peter, an apostle, counted himself among the “elders,” even though he exercised direct authority over the others as an apostle.

I must at this juncture point out that this apostolic church order only prevailed as long as the apostles, prophets, and their delegates were present among the churches to exercise apostolic oversight and leadership. The apostles and prophets (Paul, John, Peter, James, Timothy, Titus, etc.) exercised authority over these churches, appointing and instructing elders, ordaining them to their offices, and serving as advisors and supervisors. Also, it was typical for each elder/overseer, probably in conjunction with a deacon, to be responsible for individual “home churches” within the larger city church. We see this described in detail in Paul’s letter to the Romans (AD 57–58), where he mentions several names and those congregations that met in their homes (Romans 16:3–15). That is, we are not seeing here a single body of believers with multiple leaders, but rather a single local city church composed of smaller groups, with each group under the care of an elder/overseer/pastor working with one (or more?) deacons/ministers. Thus, each local city/community church was composed of smaller identifiable groups each under the care of an elder and deacon.

A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part IV

The Problem of Contextualization

Though I have presented what I see as the contours of the biblical-historical local church order as it developed from the apostolic to post-apostolic period between AD 40 and 140, the practical question becomes, “Is this early church order descriptive or prescriptive?” That is, though the apostles and prophets established a particular church order in the late first century, are we Christians in the twenty-first century bound to this apostolic church order? We can approach this question with three models: primitivism, progressivism, or progress through perspective.

Primitivism seeks to adopt the ancient church order and practices, transforming our current forms to match—as closely as possible—the order of the early post-apostolic churches. However, such an approach fails to realize the unique historical and cultural situations of both the early churches and our twenty-first century churches. If the apostles had lived in twenty-first century North America, perhaps their order would have been different.

Progressivism seeks to reinvent Christian forms and structures for each new generation. A radical form of progressivism questions everything from doctrine to practice and has led many branches of Christianity into liberalism. But a more moderate progressivism tries to distinguish between form and substance, asserting that the message (theology) must be preserved, but its medium (method of communication) can change with new cultural contexts. In a progressivist approach to church order, the apostolic theology is important, but apostolic methods of doing church and ministry are often downplayed or ignored.

Progress through perspective seeks to adapt the apostolic teaching for the unique twenty-first century context. Generally, this mediating position is compelled to follow the apostolic teaching as its primary guide, but not in a way that forces a second century cultural form into a twenty-first century context. This position acknowledges that some things simply do not fit in our current cultures, but thinking through these issues is a difficult process that requires time, deliberation, and constant re-evaluation.

Where do I think we stand? In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul wrote, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” In light of this New Testament command, if we can actually determine the kind of local church order that was established by the apostles, I believe we are obligated to at least pay attention to it as we think about our own twenty-first century church order. It should not necessarily radically transform our current model, but as we seek to adjust our model of church order, the post-apostolic model should at least reasonably inform our decisions. As we make adjustments, it must be thoughtful and prudent, not merely pragmatic and convenient.

However, we must never forget that the apostolic age was very different from our own, and adopting the biblical-historical model without adapting it can be disastrous. For example, the earliest bishops and elders were hand-picked by the apostles and their delegates. Today we do not have apostles to appoint our pastor and elders. Also, the early churches enjoyed much more intimate inter-church community, so that each bishop and church was accountable to other bishops and churches in the region. Today our independent churches and separate denominations do not have this kind of mutual accountability. Another difference is that the early church did not have a complete canon of New Testament Scripture and therefore the bishop and elders had to be relied upon to preserve and defend the oral teaching of the apostles. Today we have a full canon of Scripture and final authority rests in the inspired, inerrant Word of God, to which all pastors and elders must submit. Similarly, the early church faced great challenges from false teachers, threats that demanded a strong leadership structure to provide doctrinal guidance in the midst of a hurricane of heresies. But today we have two thousand years of theological development and reflection, so that some of the issues that caused such concern in the early church are unquestioned by most believers. Differences like these must be considered as we approach the issue of how the biblical-historical model of church governance ought to inform our own approach. In short, we must proceed with caution.

However, I believe the model should serve to at least inform us as we think through questions of church order, especially in constitutionally-established independent churches and new church plants. As I reflect on “typical” (if I can use this term safely) tendencies in independent churches with regard to church governance, I would suggest considering the following, all of which would require careful, wise, and prayerful thought.

1. Consider unifying the pastoral staff and Elder Board into a single Council of Elders. I believe it is impossible to justify biblically or historically a separation of elders and pastors into two distinct groups. Biblically, all pastors must be elders. It seems permissible to appoint (i.e., ordain) certain elders to full time work in preaching, teaching, and evangelism, but being thus appointed does not mean these workers cease to be elders. (See 1 Timothy 5:17–18 for the biblical precedence of compensating elders for their pastoral work). In the biblical-historical model, elders did not merely oversee the work of pastors, teachers, and evangelists, but they were the pastors, teachers, and evangelists. Wouldn’t full time “pastors” as members of the elder board make the most biblical sense?

2. Consider appointing the Lead Pastor as Chairman of the Elder Board. If our “Lead” or “Senior” Pastor is functioning similar to the “overseeing elder” (episkopos) of the post-apostolic model, then should he not also function as the head of the Board of Elders? This would mean, of course, that we would consider restoring the Pastor to his biblical place as the head of the local church—not in a dictatorial sense, but in a sense of always being accountable to his fellow elders while providing the personal point of leadership. This would render the office of “Chairman of the Elder Board” redundant, as the Pastor would be the Chair.

3. Consider revising Elder and Deacon term limits. Nothing in the biblical-historical model suggests that elders and deacons in a local church served for a short time on a rotating basis. In fact, according to Clement of Rome’s recollection, the apostles had appointed presbyters until death. Would longer terms with less turnover better fit the biblical-historical model? Or, to keep elders and deacons accountable to the congregation, would two consecutive three-year terms and a sabbatical year of rest help create some greater continuity and stability? Considering that elders and deacons in the early church were appointed for life, would some modification here make sense?

4. Consider revisiting qualifications for Elders and Deacons. In light of the above suggestions, especially the possible return of pastors to the elder board and revising elder and deacon term limits, the question of qualifications for leadership would need to be revisited. Because elders were the teaching, pastoring, and preaching leaders of the early church, are we drifting from the biblical model if our elders are not functioning in these roles? Should those who are currently teaching, pastoring, and preaching be the elders (i.e., those who are already functioning as the biblical elders without the actual office)? Several questions here need to be asked. Since there is no biblical distinction between elders and pastors, should our elders be trained, ordained men, meeting the same qualifications as our pastors? Why should our requirements for elders be less than that of pastors? These are simply questions that need to be raised.