Paul’s letter to the Ephesians has sometimes been described as the constitution of the church, but that’s not strictly correct. Paul didn’t write Ephesians to define what church is and is not, so it contains much more than the bare bones of a definition. Constitutions are (relatively) brief but very clearly lay out the essence and limits of something, be it an organisation like a business, a charity, or indeed a nation. They also spell out definitions of terms as well as the concept being defined, as clearly as possible. So if we want a constitution for the church, we must think in terms of something succinct, crystal clear, and complete but not providing unnecessary additional detail.
Why have a constitution?
The church has never truly had a constitution, some might argue it doesn’t need one. But recently I’ve begun to feel it does. Almost every denomination imposes customs and requirements on their adherents, over and above anything that Jesus taught. There are paid leaders and managers, forms of infant baptism, doctrine, so much encrusted over the basics. So much that can be seen as unnecessary when we compare it to the earliest forms of church as we find it in the New Testament.
Some form of declarative constitution might bring clarity to all this muddled confusion. Over the centuries there have been repeated reforms and corrections, but generally these have resulted in yet more varieties of belief and practice. A constitution might help us simplify and see some patterns in the prevailing mess; we should at least make an attempt to form one.
There are probably as many definitions as there are denominations, and that’s quite a large number; a constitution provides a reference point. The Bible, and even just the New Testament is far too detailed to be a definition; yet it contains everything we need to know and does not support the additions and concretions of the last two millenia.
The essentials, but no more
What else can we say about constitutions in general? The key point, I think, is that a constitution should contain everything essential but nothing beyond that, to bring clarity and focus. Constitutions are usually amendable both for corrections and for additions or deletions. There is normally an agreed process for amending a constitution.
So where would we begin for the church? As always, we must begin with our source – Jesus himself.
Jesus’ claims
Jesus made some pretty fundamental claims; the constitution will need to say whether we accept these claims or reject them.
He said that his father is the God of his ancestors and that he was there with his Father when the universe was conceived and created. He claims to have come into this created world like one of us, as an ambassador for and from his father, to reveal the father to us and to make it possible for us to communicate with the father again. So continuing with the results of part 1 of this series, we can add an additional clause about Jesus. Let’s put that new clause at the beginning, where it belongs.
The Constitution of church so far
1 – Jesus was sent by his Father to be present in the world to reveal the nature and the loving heart of the Father. He returned to his Father and deposited their Spirit to remain in his followers as a perpetual gift.
The Spirit lives within us, giving us the potential to continue the work Jesus began in this world – loving, reconciling, transforming, encouraging, guiding.
2 – Church is not a particular place or building. It is, instead, a particular people.
Church consists of every person following Jesus, but the term also applies to local church where it’s limited in time and place to a particular group or gathering meeting and working together more or less regularly.
3 – A named place is not required, people can meet anywhere convenient to them.
An informal name may be helpful to explain where and when meetings take place, but names are not intended (and should not be interpreted) to indicate any sort of hierarchy within, or separation from, any other part of church, even if those other parts regard themselves as different or separate.
We’ll continue adding and editing clauses of our Constitution next time, rearranging them as seems necessary and appropriate.
If you enjoyed this or found it useful, please like, comment, and share below. (If you don’t see those links, click the article’s title above the main photo and they will appear.) Send a link to friends who might enjoy the article or benefit from it – Thanks! My material is free to reuse (see conditions), but a coffee is always welcome and encourages me to write more often!
Why do we have and use the term ‘church’ at all? It’s come to mean those buildings in most towns and cities in the world where Christians gather on Sundays (and often at other times, too) to read Bible passages, listen to sermons, take communion, and in some denominations have one or more leaders at the front.
I made a start on a stand-alone article on this topic as one of my ‘Ad hoc’ articles, but thinking about it again more recently I felt it would make a good, stand-alone series that I could develop over time.
But something I didn’t consider was why we have and use the term ‘church’ at all. It’s come to mean those buildings in most towns and cities in the world where Christians gather on Sundays (and often at other times, too) to read Bible passages, listen to sermons, take communion, and in some denominations have one or more leaders at the front wearing funny clothes (or ordinary ones). That’s a sort of caricature of course. Churches and church members often do much more than that. They may run a food bank, hold evening meetings to study the Bible more deeply, visit local hospitals to visit patients, and a whole lot more besides. But these activities are not church; in a sense they are add-ons, though they are certainly good things to be doing in the communities where we live.
Places or people?
But why are they called ‘churches’ in the first place? This is something we need to consider; over time, people have used both place-words and people-words for gatherings. Church is a place-word and we could also mention a series of other place-words used in different times and languages to express the same concept. For example kyriakón / Kirche / kirk, as well as basilica, cathedral, and chapel.
All of these in one way or another are used to signify places of gathering.
Kyriakón is from Kyrios, the Greek word for lord or master. Kirche is German, kirk is Scots, and church is of course English. However derived they all speak of a place but significantly also of kingship, rule and authority.
In a Roman city the Basilica had the appearance of a traditional European church building. Two rows of large columns supporting arches and a high roof, with a semi-circular and sightly raised area at one end. So architecturally it was church-like but was not a place of worship. It was the Roman law court and the judges sat on the raised area in the apse (the semi circular end section). The idea of authority hovers there in the background again.
The Greek word cathedra simply means a chair, a cathedral is the ‘seat’ of a bishop. The word chapel is Latin, from cappa, a mantle or cloak. It entered English in the 13th century from old French.
Going back to Hebrew and Aramaic brings in other aspects. Hebrew was used in the Jerusalem Temple and to read the Old Testament scrolls in the synagogues. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic in everyday life. Synagogue is a Greek word and means an assembly or gathering, literally a bringing together (the New Testament was written in Greek and there were well-established Greek versions of the Old Testament as well). The Greek term packages up two Hebrew words, edah (congregation or community – a people word), and qahal (summoned or called together – a people/action/place word). After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, the Greek term synagogue was used to bundle up the senses of gathering, learning and intercession.
There were other words for the buildings themselves. Beit ha-knesset is the house of assembly, Beit ha-midrash is house of study/interpretation, Beit ha-tefillah is house of prayer.
No need for a name
Taking all of this together we can see that when we meet, wherever that might be, it’s a place, a gathered people, and has senses of assembling, study/interpretation, and prayer, as well as Lordship. So where can we gather to achieve all of that? Anywhere we like! We have only to agree a time and place to turn up together to pay attention to Jesus. Anywhere will do. It could be the temple courts, the upper room, my house, your house, a garden, a woodland clearing, a supermarket car park, or it could be somewhere we call a baptist church or a house church. The place itself is of no significance, all of the significance rests in the fact that Jesus is here and we are with him, that he is teaching us and we are learning ever more from him. Have you ever been in a place like that? Does it need a name? I’m going to provisionally call it a House of Presence or a House of the Spirit.
But the constitution of the Church doesn’t need to name things. So we won’t define a name in our constitution at all. We should include a note to say that a name is not required, it’s important to state that; because the name doesn’t help to define church. Why did the 1st Century believers talk about Lydia’s House. or the gathering at Corinth? Because they knew what we have often forgotten – it’s no more than a matter of convenience. We can (and should) meet anywhere; a river bank is enough, or a market place, someone’s home or a hired room.
It’s not the place that matters, it’s the people and the purpose that are significant, the presence of the Spirit of Jesus in his gathered people is what really matters. However, it’s worth mentioning that big spaces with hundreds of people are usually too large for very practical reasons. There’s a need to sit around with no more than one to ten other people. Everyone needs to know one another, like a family, everyone needs to be able to share freely what they’re reading or hearing from the Spirit. If it’s big and impersonal many opportunities will be missed. We can come together in larger numbers with a band of musicians to celebrate and sing our hearts out. That’s good too, but it’s a different kind of meeting. But it’s still an expression of church and life together.
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians has sometimes been described as the constitution of the church, but that’s not strictly correct. Paul didn’t write Ephesians to define what church is and is not, so it contains much more than the bare bones of a definition. Constitutions are (relatively) brief but very clearly lay out the essence and limits of something, be it an organisation like a business, a charity, or indeed a nation. They also spell out definitions of terms as well as the concept being defined, as clearly as possible. So if we want a constitution for the church, we must think in terms of something succinct, crystal clear, and complete but not providing unnecessary or irrelevant additional detail.
Why have a constitution?
The church has never truly had a constitution, some might argue it doesn’t need one. But recently I’ve begun to feel it does. Almost every denomination imposes customs and requirements on their adherents, over and above anything that Jesus taught. There are paid leaders and managers, forms of infant baptism, doctrine, so much encrusted over the basics. So much that can be seen as unnecessary when we compare it to the earliest forms of church or to what we learn from the New Testament. Some form of declarative constitution might bring much needed clarity to the current confusion.
Over the centuries there have been repeated reforms and corrections, but generally these have resulted in yet more varieties of belief and practice. A constitution might help, I think we should at least make an attempt to form one.
So first of all, why would we even want a church constitution? There are probably as many definitions as there are denominations, and that’s quite a large number; a constitution provides clarity and a reference point. The Bible, and even just the New Testament is far too detailed to be a definition; yet it contains everything we need to know and does not support the additions and concretions of the last two millenia.
The essentials, but no more
What else can we say about constitutions in general? The key point, I think, is that a constitution should contain everything essential but nothing beyond that. Constitutions are usually amendable both for corrections and for additions or deletions. There is normally an agreed process for amending a constitution.
So where would we begin for the church? As always, we must begin with our source – Jesus himself.
A good start would be to state that church is defined by everything that Jesus is and does and teaches and by nothing beyond that. Having leaders of a particular flavour or style and how we name those leaders are not fundamental. Whether you have a priest, a vicar, a pastor, elders or deacons, those are all secondary features of church life and practice. They cannot form part of the definition.
Let’s begin by saying church is a group of people striving to follow Jesus. I don’t think we can start in any better way.
So we’ll make that our primary clause.
The Constitution of church so far
1 – Church is not a particular place or building. It is, instead, a particular people
2 – A named place is not required, people can meet anywhere convenient to them.
We’ll take those as the first two clauses of our Constitution for now
If you enjoyed this or found it useful, please like, comment, and share below. (If you don’t see those links, click the article’s title above the main photo and they will appear.) Send a link to friends who might enjoy the article or benefit from it – Thanks! My material is free to reuse (see conditions), but a coffee is always welcome and encourages me to write more often!
Such lofty characters were dangerous and had unexpected powers over ordinary mortals. You did not want to mess with them. The moment he hears that Yahshua might be the son of the Jewish god he becomes seriously scared.
Greek commentary on John’s gospel dated 1190-1200 (Bodleian Library)
19:1-7 – The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilatus (Pontius Pilate) perhaps thinking he could get away with a lesser punishment than crucifixion, decided to turn Yahshua (Jesus) over to the Roman troops to be ridiculed and severely beaten. In this he was seriously mistaken, the Jewish authorities were not going to accept anything less than the death penalty. Pilatus twice told them that he could find no cause for any legal charge against Yahshua. There was no breach of Roman law here, but the Jewish religious leaders saw a huge and unsufferable offence against their religious traditions. What was a Roman Governor to do in the face of this? His job was to maintain Roman rule, to put down rebellions, make sure taxes were paid and that peace prevailed in his province.
It’s worth mentioning here that Rome had no problem with local kings and kingdoms. Herod was a king, client tribes and kingdoms throughout the empire were tolerated, even officially encouraged. A claim to be ‘King of the Jews’ or ‘King of Judea’ was not in and of itself an offence against Roman law or government. At the time of Yahshua’s trial and official innocence under Roman law, local kings were widespread in Gaul, in Spain, in Germany and in North Africa and the entirety of what is now Turkey. The Roman Emperor ruled over kings and kingdoms, peace (the Pax Romana) was required everywhere and a Roman Governor in each province was held responsible for keeping that peace. Herod Antipas ruled Samaria, but Judea had no king at this moment. Archelaus had ruled Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea but he’d been deposed by Roman direct rule due to poor government and mismanagement. We can, I think, be sympathetic towards Pilatus, who had to prevent violence and uprisings in his Provinces of Judaea and Samaria. If his verdict of Yahshua’s innocence was going to cause a riot or some kind of violence he would have to make a difficult choice, either calm the protest by crucifying this innocent man who claimed to be the Jewish King, or forcefully put down the growing crowds calling for the death penalty. The Bible passages about these events make his dilemma very clear.
Verse 7 is notable. Romans were religious people with gods of their own and temples in every city. Like the Greeks they had traditions and stories about super powerful men being sons of this or that god. Such lofty characters were dangerous and had unexpected powers over ordinary mortals. You did not want to mess with them. The moment he hears that Yahshua might be the son of the Jewish god he becomes seriously scared. He’s just had the man beaten and mocked.
19:8-16 – In verse 8 he goes back to check, and in verse 12 we’re told he wanted to set Yahshua free. So now Pilatus is afraid of an angry crowd that includes senior Jewish religious leaders, and also terrified that he’s dealing with the son of a powerful god. If he allows a riot to develop he’ll be in trouble with the Emperor, if he executes this man he’ll be in trouble with a god! The only way out is to transfer the responsibility to others; and that’s exactly what he sets out to do.
In the end, the Jewish leaders lie to Pilatus to force him to act. They tell him to his face that he is no friend of Caesar if he allows Yahshua to live since anyone claiming kingship opposes Caesar. As I explained above, this is patently incorrect; there are kings in many if not most Roman provinces, ruling with the local Roman governor on Caesar’s behalf. But the direct threat to Pilatus is being spoken openly and he acts in the clearest way possible. He sits on the judgement seat and tells the Jews plainly, ‘Here’s your King‘. He speaks the truth. Their reply is brutal and final, ‘Take him away. Crucify him‘.
And Pilatus hands him over to the Roman troops.
19:17-24– The Roman troops took charge and Yahshua carried his cross to the nearby Golgotha (Skull Place) where he and two others were crucified, one either side of him.
Pilatus’ notice attached to Yahshua’s cross stated the truth – ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’. The chief priests grumbled about these words, telling Pilatus, ‘Don’t write “The King of the Jews”, but “he claimed to be King of the Jews”. Responding grumpily, Pilatus told them, ‘I wrote what I wrote’. Pilatus understood who Yahshua was better than the senior Jewish clerics!
The soldiers took Yahshua’s clothes, sharing them out amongst the four of them. It would be a pity to waste them, perks of the job. They drew lots for his undergarment as it was woven as a single piece and they didn’t want to tear it. He hung naked on the cross until he died.
If you enjoyed this or found it useful, please like, comment, and share below. (If you don’t see those links, click the article’s title above the main photo and they will appear.) Send a link to friends who might enjoy the article or benefit from it – Thanks! My material is free to reuse (see conditions), but a coffee is always welcome and encourages me to write more often!
We talked with Matt and learned a bit about him, but left him there in the bus station. At home I discussed the situation with Donna and we decided to drive over to the bus station in the morning and bring him home. Matt was not as easy as Emily or Ash, but much less of a problem than either of the Davids.
Twice while we were living in Yatton, Judy and I had invited people to come and live with us, coincidentally they were both called David.
One David (Davey) was trapped in a bad relationship with another man in Bristol. He was also a drug addict, but he was mild mannered. I don’t recall how we met him, I think he might have phoned our number as we had a second entry in the phone book as the contact number for Horsecastle Chapel. Davey was hoping a church in a village outside the city of Bristol might help him break free of his difficulties and move on from his past. He was at least looking in the right direction (church) and I took him several times to meetings at a house nearby where some of our old friends were meeting regularly. It didn’t end well for Davey, although he was with us for a number of weeks, perhaps even a month or two, and although he was interested in hearing about Jesus and trying to follow him, in the end his past life had a stronger call on him and one day he just disappeared, we thought to return to the bad situation in Bristol that he’d wanted to break free from. There was nobody in our little circle of friends in Yatton who had the experience or knowledge to really help him.
The second David (Dave) was from Newcastle, he was an unkind, mocking kind of person, very demanding and uncompromising. After a short stay with us, he made it very clear that in his opinion we were rather deficient by comparison with the church in Newcastle that he had left. In the end he began an affair with one of our friends. She and Dave left the area, her husband ended up having to work full time as well as looking after the children and the family home. This was a disastrous failure for which Judy and I felt at least partly to blame. I phoned the pastor of the Newcastle Church (which turned out to be Pentecostal); he was sympathetic but told me that Dave was a very difficult challenge and had left under a bit of a cloud. After these two experiences I was not inclined to invite people to come and stay again for some years, though aware that as followers of Jesus we are supposed to be willing to help people who are lost, hungry or without shelter. But Papa had other plans and found ways of easing me into inviting people to stay.
St Neots
After Judy’s death, marrying Donna, and beginning a new job in a different part of the country, when a New Zealand friend (another David) decided to return to New Zealand earlier than planned, Donna and I were happy to give a room to his daughter Emily. She needed to live in the UK just a few more weeks to finish her A levels and qualify for UK citizenship and this in turn would allow her to work later anywhere in the EU. Emily got her citizenship so has that dual nationality – British and New Zealand. But her hopes to return for work in Europe were later shattered by Brexit. Emily was an absolute delight as a house guest; she is now married, has a medical degree, and is living and working in New Zealand.
The next house guest was Ash and later his three children from time to time for short visits. Ash’s marriage had fallen apart and he was in a difficult and stressful situation. He met one of our Small Group members through an on-line dating site and when we heard he was looking for somewhere to stay and had to leave his flat near the Welsh border at short notice, Donna and I offered to help. I met Ash and his Dad who had also driven up to provide more car space and between us, we got everything into the three cars. Ash proved to be resourceful, he quickly found temporary work that he could do from home to cover his costs and soon enough found a full time job. He moved into our Small Group friend’s flat and they later married, but things went very pear-shaped in the end. Ash had a very tough time but he never lost his willingness to work hard and do whatever was necessary to win through in every situation. Ash was another success story and a pleasure to share our home with. Emily and then Ash were two people used by Papa to draw me back into a willingness to invite others. Donna also enjoyed their presence in our home so she was also ready and willing to consider more.
The next house guest was Matt. On 5th January 2014, my friend Sean and I had taken hot soup and bread rolls into Huntingdon and found Matt in the bus station there, it was a popular haunt for the homeless as it was well heated and out of the rain. We talked with Matt and learned a bit about him, but left him there in the bus station (along with a flask of soup and the remaining bread rolls). At home I discussed the situation with Donna and we decided to drive over to the bus station in the morning and bring him home. Matt was not as easy as Emily or Ash, but much less of a problem than either of the Davids. At this time I was learning about the APEST gifts to the church and was involved in some of the Newforms meetings organised by Peter Farmer in Nottingham. I had begun writing JDMC as an APEST primer text and I took Matt and another friend, Kevin, to one of the Newforms meetings. After some difficulties Matt eventually left us, but continued to be involved in the coffee shop meetings I’d started. He brought us a mix of difficulties with some hopeful and helpful aspects from time to time.
On 21st August 2015, Peter and Dadka came to stay with us, using our spare bedroom. Donna and I already knew Dadka from the Open Door Small Group we were part of, sometimes meeting at our house. Peter and Dadka were Slovakians and Dadka’s mother also lived in St Neots. They were still with us when we sold our house in order to move across the country to Cirencester in the Cotswolds. In the end we pretty much had to throw them out in order to redecorate their bedroom, they were very reluctant to leave but push really had come to shove. They’d known for a long time that we needed to empty the house, but were not good at dealing with deadlines. Dadka had been a heroin addict but very much to her credit decided to give up the habit and was determined enough to succeed. We helped by providing all the necessary aids, and we also managed to get them an offer to stay at a nearby Emmaeus Community facility in Carlton, not far from St Neots. However, they turned the offer down at the last moment. In the end they returned to Slovakia and we’ve lost touch with them.
We learned a lot through making these attempts of welcoming strangers with a variety of needs into our home. Donna and I are wiser now (it comes through experience) and I understand that welcoming people with difficulties will always work better for a community of, say, ten or more people than it will for a single household. The early church held everything in common and supported one another socially, financially, and in dealing with difficulties. That depth of support was something we lacked and I do believe the community aspect is something we need to recover if we’re to be truly successful in following Jesus. We need to demonstrate and model community in a world that is largely forgetting what that looks like.
Making a start with APEST
This was an important time in my church journey during which I began to understand much more about the patterns of life and ministry within church. The practical aspects were being lived by Peter and Marsha Farmer and their friends in Nottingham and around the UK, much of the background theory was being understood and taught by Alan Hirsch and others in the USA and elsewhere. I’d already learned a great deal from people like Alan, Michael Frost, Tony and Felicity Dale, an online email community called the Koinonia Life Discussion Forum, Paul Young (author of ‘The Shack’), Peter and Marsha Farmer (Newforms) and many other people trying their best to live church community life more fully including the Community of Celebration and the Fisherfolk. Taking all of this together along with what I was experiencing in St Neots and previously in Yatton was illuminating, very encouraging and, frankly, character-building.
After reading a number of books about the topic and trying some things out in practical ways, I felt the need for an accessible, lightweight and introductory study guide to help people work through the basic ideas together in small communities. I called it Jesus, Disciple, Mission, Church or JDMC. It’s a free download from Journeys of heart and mind. It’s still being downloaded regularly, perhaps 10 or 12 times a week on average. Visit the article JDMC in the See also: section below if you’d like to read it or use it in a study group. The title is the pattern followed in the early church, though today we often change the sequence. We tend to begin with a church that is already established, send out missions, usually in other parts of the world, and feel we should ‘disciple’ the church members (even though disciple is not a verb, but a noun) and all too often we forget to include Jesus. The correct sequence is to share the great news about who Jesus is and what he does among the many people in our society who do not yet know him, show them how to join us in following him (becoming disciples), help them to fulfil the same mission (going out into the world telling people about Jesus and helping them make more disciples), and then get the new believers meeting and living as communities of Jesus followers. It begins with Jesus, and it ends with church. The free use of spiritual gifts (and the APEST gifts in particular) is essential for this process to succeed.
A mix of patterns
The Open Door Small Group we were in towards the end of our time in St Neots was a real example of this kind of community. We didn’t live together, but we cooperated a lot and not just one day a week, we were all good friends and accepted our differences as mostly positive things, recognising that our different strengths and weaknesses complemented one another so where one had a lack another might fill it. This experience too, added to the mix of discovered and lived patterns that I now believe to be truly essential for a deep and true walk through life in company with Jesus and a group of his followers. It’s something the church has a desperate need for, but rarely understands. It’s really something we have forgotten over the eighty or so generations since Jesus called his first disciples on the shore of Galilee. We need to get it back, and because we live in a time of civilizational churn and change we need to get it back urgently.
How did we lose it? By processes of dilution, encrustation, lack of imagination, a lost sense of purpose, and a grasping after power over simple love, and of position over simple gifting, and trusting ourselves more than we trust Jesus and his Spirit. We haven’t thrown it all away, at least not just yet. But we’ve rejected a lot of precious truth and replaced it with our best attempt to find ways that are less demanding and make it possible for us to swap challenging situations for more comfortable ones, to replace struggle with laziness. And, perhaps most damaging of all, we have accepted easy lives where we don’t even have to think daily about our motives or our willingness to follow Jesus in both attitudes and actions.
We have learned to judge as a form of self-defence because we don’t like being judged, and we’ve learned to run from effort because like lazy schoolchildren we prefer to avoid the work required.
Cirencester
And so the time came to move from St Neots to Cirencester. We packed our stuff, Donna drove over first with our cat, Erin. I saw the final items loaded on the removals van and then drove to the new house in our small, second car. Donna and Erin were already there, and we used the enclosed porch as a catlock: open the front door and enter the porch, check the cat hasn’t snuck in as well; after depositing her back into the house or confirming her absence from the porch, open the door to either the back garden or the street and leave the house. Pretty soon we discovered Cirencester Baptist Church and decided it was the best choice in town. We looked at the Small Group options as well but found our first option was not meeting during the summer and would be unavailable until September. In the meantime I began meeting with another CBC Small Group and became quite friendly with some of the people there, but it was frustrating for me to be so immersed in Bible study and prayer but with little or no opportunity to use spiritual gifts or talk about APEST and other matters. It felt like playing a piano with most of the black keys missing so being able to play in at most two or three keys. Very limiting.
In the autumn we joined the original group we’d had in mind, but Donna dropped out over time and for several years I was involved with both groups as one met on Tuesdays while the other met on Thursdays. More new friends and a bit more freedom in the meetings this time, I felt; so I stuck with the second group and still meet with them most Tuesdays. But I still want to use my gifts more fully and I’m not entirely sure how to move forward. But I know that Jesus knows and will lead me in whatever direction he chooses for me. I must wait to see what that will be.
So, what does Jesus think?
This is where the chickens come home to roost. If we asked Jesus about church today in Britain (or indeed, almost anywhere) what would he say about it? Would he commend us? In most cases, I don’t think so. He might ask us where we think he fits in to all that we are doing. He might re-commend us to pay attention to what he has commanded us. He might re-command us to go out and do everything he commanded the disciples, to teach people everywhere to fulfil everything he commanded us (and them) to do.
Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ (Matthew 28:16-20)
Where are we failing? Everywhere! We do none of the things he wants us to do. At best we watch while priests, vicars, pastors and elders do these things while the rest of us are spectators. The standard church seating arrangement announces and ensures that; but Jesus is our authority and we are all called by him to go, make, baptise and teach.
When did we lose our way?
Almost at the very beginning. Think about Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, the people there were already a derailment of what Jesus taught and commanded. Paul wrote to try to get them back on track. We, too, are a bit of a train-crash. We need to hear what Paul says, and especially we need to hear what Jesus says. Sometimes it seems almost too late for us. But it’s not too late, despair is not the way forward for us, obedience is. The only part of the train that still stands on the tracks is Jesus himself, all the carriages and trucks lie scattered and broken where they fell. We need to repair and rebuild according to the original design and plan, then get everything properly back onto the track behind Jesus and every part connected to him and to one another. And then, when Jesus moves we will all move in the right direction because the track is firm and ensures that the entire Matthew 28:16-20 train follows him, moving in the right direction.
Signals and points
Railways also need signals and points (switches if you’re North American). Sometimes the train should pause to avoid a collision, and sometimes we need a change of direction. The Holy Spirit, (the Spirit of Christ) provides both control and direction. Once the train’s back on the track and moving we must pay attention to the Holy Spirit for both safety and direction. He will tell us, ‘Wait a moment, I’ll tell you when to start moving again’ or he’ll say, ‘The track divides here, we’re heading left (or right)’. We ignore his guidance at our peril. Having been restored following a train-crash, believe me – you do not want to provoke another one.
If you enjoyed this or found it useful, please like, comment, and share below. (If you don’t see those links, click the article’s title above the main photo and they will appear.) Send a link to friends who might enjoy the article or benefit from it – Thanks! My material is free to reuse (see conditions), but a coffee is always welcome and encourages me to write more often!
This series takes a closer look at the APEST gifts, everyone has some measure of all these gifts, they form the DNA of church. Without them we would be no more than a scattered, random selection of individuals, but we them all active we become the body of Christ himself.
This series takes a closer look at the APEST gifts, everyone has some measure of all these gifts, they form the DNA of church. Without them we would be no more than a scattered, random selection of individual, but with them all active we become the body of Christ himself.
