Jesus is the sole and authoritative Head of the church.  You wouldn’t know it sometimes by the way we Christians act, but it’s true.  He brooks no rivals.  There are no challengers.  All claims to the contrary are illegitimate, including the claimants themselves.  Popes, priest, pastors, and bishops all fail.  Every corpuscle of Christ’s body belongs to Christ.

Jesus is the loving Head who rules and leads His body well.  But how does Jesus exercise His headship in His church?  It’s one thing to say that He is Head, it’s another to understand and recognize that headship as it’s implemented.

The most definitive way Jesus exercises His sole Headship is through His word.  To say that Jesus is the sole and authoritative Head of the church is to say that the church lives and acts under and by the word of the Lord.

The Word Commands

We might put it this way, using the words of Jesus himself: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46)  The church is built upon the Rock, who is Christ Jesus the Lord.  To be built upon the Rock means then obedience or submission to the Lordship of Jesus.  It is to be ruled by the word of Christ.  His word comes to us not in the mumbling uncertain tones of a beggar but in the booming edict of the King.  We live under that edict, under that word, not alongside it or above it.

As we hear and obey the commands of the word, the church lives under the Savior’s headship.

The Word Limits

Or, we may see the headship of Christ exercised through His word in a warning like that the apostle Paul gives to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4:6.  ”Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.”  The apostle understands that Jesus places certain limits on His people through His word.  So, we are not to transgress that bound.

Interestingly, Paul’s injunction makes clear that the way to avoid party spirit and divisions in the church–I’m of Paul, I’m of Apollos–is for the leaders to teach the church not to transgress the bounds of the word.  How often have we heard it said “This is Rev. So-and-so’s church”?  We know what’s generally meant by that.  But how often have we seen pastors who really think the church belongs to them?  Even one example is one example too many.  Christ exercises His headship by placing limitations on the body through His word.

The Word Tests

Finally, Christ exercises His authoritative headship through His word by testing the teaching and teachers in the church.  The Berean example is classic: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11).  Every church should follow the Berean example.  They were kept safely under Jesus’ rule because they turned constantly to Jesus’ word–even when the apostle was their teacher!  And God memorializes them as “noble” for both receiving the message and examining the Scripture to test what they heard.

Or, consider the apostle John’s caution to his readers in 1 John 4:1.  ”Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”  The word exhorts us to test or try every prophecy against the testimony of Christ, the gospel (vv. 2-3).  The Lord Jesus keeps His sheep in His fold and maintains His rule over them through the inerrant word of God which tries every form of teaching.

Conclusion

So, are you attending a church where Jesus is the sole and authoritative head of the church?  Is His headship demonstrable in the congregation’s adherence to His word–it’s commands, limits, and tests?  Is the word of God the plumb line in the life of the church?

Here’s why. I remember when Bill gave this talk a couple years back at the TGC pastors’ colloquium. It was powerful. Enjoy the read.

Tonight at our evening service, a dear sister prayed for our members’ meeting next week.  She prayed for the Lord to continue to bless us with the sweet unity and peace we’ve been enjoying for a long time now.  I was moved by the prayer, and deeply grateful for the evidence of God’s Spirit among us.  There are no conflicts in the church that I am aware of.  There are no signs of division or unresolved disagreement.  It’s peaceful.  It’s sweet.  It’s not easy; we’re all sinners.  But we’re redeemed sinners and God is giving us such mercy.  Things are good–actually, much better than good.  They’re great–imperfect to be sure, but great.

That’s why it’s a perfect time to post this powerful note from Christ Is Deeper Still.  Read, pray, repent if necessary.

How to wreck your church in three weeks

Week One:  Walk into church today and think about how long you’ve been a member, how much you’ve sacrificed, how under-appreciated you are.  Take note of every way you’re dissatisfied with your church now.  Take note of every person who displeases you.

Meet for coffee this week with another member and “share your heart.”  Discuss how your church is changing, how you are being left out.  Ask your friend who else in the church has “concerns.”  Agree together that you must “pray about it.”

Week Two:  Send an email to a few other “concerned” members.  Inform them that a groundswell of grievance is surfacing in your church.  Problems have gone unaddressed for too long.  Ask them to keep the matter to themselves “for the sake of the body.”

As complaints come in, form them into a petition to demand an accounting from the leaders of the church.  Circulate the petition quietly.  Gathering support will be easy.  Even happy members can be used if you appeal to their sense of fairness – that your side deserves a hearing.  Be sure to proceed in a way that conforms to your church constitution, so that your petition is procedurally correct.

Week Three:  When the growing moral fervor, ill-defined but powerful, reaches critical mass, confront the elders with your demands.  Inform them of all the woundedness in the church, which leaves you with no choice but to put your petition forward.  Inform them that, for the sake of reconciliation, the concerns of the body must be satisfied.

Whatever happens from this point on, you have won.  You have changed the subject in your church from gospel advance to your own grievances.  To some degree, you will get your way.  Your church will need three or four years for recovery.  But at any future time, you can do it all again.  It only takes three weeks.

Just one question.  Even if you are being wronged, “Why not rather suffer wrong?” (1 Corinthians 6:7)

From Josh Harris:

• Don’t love the church because of what it does for you. Because sooner or later it won’t do enough.
• Don’t love the church because of a leader. Because human leaders are fallible and will let you down.
• Don’t love the church because of a program or a building or activities because all those things get old.
• Don’t love the church because of a certain group of friends because friendships change and people move.

Love the church because of who shed his blood to obtain the church. Love the church because of who the church belongs to. Love the church because of who the church worships. Love the church because you love Jesus Christ and his glory. Love the church because Jesus is worthy and faithful and true. Love the church because Jesus loves the church.

“Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.  They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.  Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.  All the believers were together and had everything in common.  Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.  They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.  And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:41-47).

What do you think and feel when you read this description of the church in her first days?

Personally, I long for it deeply.  I think, How extraordinary and wonderful and glorious and needed.  Fall upon us Holy Spirit!  Come Lord Jesus!

It’s striking how mere the life of the church was, and yet how profoundly powerful was its effect.  May the Lord grant us such mere devotion yielding such glorious and lasting fruit!

Related Posts:

There Mereness of Church: Life Together

The Mereness of Church: Her Singing

The Mereness of Church: Its Mission

The Mereness of Church: Preaching

Tony Carter on Moody radio.

Ray Ortlund with a good brief meditation on the “large-hearted” and wrong-headed idea that we can be for the kingdom and not for our local churches. Read here.

From Ortlund: “We build great churches the same way we build great marriages — real commitment that makes a positive difference every day.”

Derek Thomas says, “If you love me, love my dog.” But he’s not really talking about dogs. Good meditation here.

That’s a question I’ve been rolling over in my head recently. It’s a big question. It’s a troubling question for me on many levels, not the least of which is it’s confrontation of my own faith or lack thereof. Asking “can” the church be reformed is tantamount in some respects to doubting God. Perhaps “will” is a better verb?

In any event, lots of folks are thinking these days that the church is in need of serious reform and has been for some time. That’s a near universal sentiment whether you’re on the theological conservative or progressive end of the spectrum. Almost everyone wants more of something to happen in the African-American church… more political involvement, more gospel-centeredness, more focus on health issues like the AIDS crisis, more faithfulness to biblical teaching regarding the church. And typically, if you want more of one thing (gospel-centeredness, for example) you are likely to want less of another (say, political involvement).

All of this really begs the question of what kind of reform one has in mind. And laced together with that question is some notion or assumption about what one should mean by the phrase “African-American church,” especially when you attach the definite article “the” before it. At this point… angels are beginning to fear to tread this path!

And along with what kind of reform, I suppose there needs to be some argument for why reform; what’s the problem(s) said reform needs to address. After all, how you define the problem will have much to do with what solutions appear feasible.

That there is at present very little consensus on what the problems are, what the African-American church should be, and then what reforms are needed… makes this a thorny issue. Al Sharpton’s Black church is very different from Ken Jones’ church which is very different from Tony Evans’ church. We could go on. And if we did, we’d then be confronted with the question of where is leadership for reform going to come from? The perennial questions: where are we going and whose got the map?

This is the first in a series of reflections. The posts, Lord willing, will consider the question of reforming the African American church in particular. But because I believe that any reform of this nature must learn from other “branches” of the church, I do hope that non-African Americans will join in and contribute.

Let me end this post with a brief problem statement that I’ll unpack in a future post(s), Lord willing. Put simply and bluntly, without nuance that will follow later, at the risk of offending many, but with the hope of provoking reflections and energy commensurate with the eternal life and death scale of this question:

The problem with “the African American church” (writ large) today is that by almost any historical definition she is not a true church.

Okay. That’s a sweeping statement. It doesn’t apply to all African-American churches by a long shot, but I think there’s cause to think it may apply to most, otherwise the calls for reform wouldn’t be as consistent and near universal as they are.

Let me end with what some might regard as an equally sweeping statement about “the African American church” when she was at her best. Put simply and bluntly, without nuance that will follow later, at the risk of offending many, but with the hope of provoking aspirations commensurate with the eternal life and death scale of this question:

“The African-American church” was once the home of the purest form of Christianity practiced on American soil and she can be the fulcrum of reform in not only the African-American Christian world but the larger Christian world as well.

Welcome to the discussion. Jump in with both feet!

This is the final post in this series. It’s been good thinking about some of these things and interacting with some of you. I do pray no one looks back on this series as anything other than one man rambling through a set of ideas and issues that concern him, and offering some very preliminary thoughts. Some of the comments have encouraged me in particular directions and others have challenged me to think more carefully about some of my own assumptions or blind spots. I’m thankful for both. And I hope this last post in the series is seen as an invitation for more comments agreeing or disagreeing.

We’ve been considering the question, “What is the relationship of the church qua church to the culture?” How should the people of God, as the people of God, understand and interact with the construct and reality called “culture”?

I’m leery about the phrase “engaging the culture.” It seems to me that some people see this as an end in itself. There’s talk about winning people by winning the culture. I really have to doubt this though when I see these same folks, placards in hand, shouting all manner of insult and barb at the people they’re supposed to be winning, or when I see folks under this banner “hangin’ out” with their non-Christian friends in non-Christian settings doing non-Christian things and calling it Christ-like. “Engaging the culture” seems too often to make the people secondary and the current state of things in “the culture” primary. And there is a certain tyranny of current events or fads that seems somehow to stand for “the culture” in any given moment. All of this I think is distracting.

I’ve maintained that there really are only two cultures to speak of: the cultures of God and man. I think this is a helpful construct to keep in mind on the question of “engaging the culture.” If there are only two cultures:

1. We don’t have to get caught up in analyzing and re-analyzing certain aspects of man’s culture.

Now this may be taking a mallet to some issues that require a scapel, but on the whole we shouldn’t be surprised that the ways of man lead to death, destruction and everything else contrary to sound doctrine. Our explorations of the “whys” need only center on what the Lord has shown us: man is depraved, the wickedness of his heart is deceptive and viral. I sometimes wonder if much of the Christian literature addressing post-this, post-that, missional this, that or the other isn’t really an intellectual exercise that tickles mental fancies but in the end diverts us from a fervent attention to the ways of Christ in the church.

I’m not dismissing apologetics or a helpful awareness of what’s happening around us. I’m asking whether we’ve gone too far because we’re enamored with what is at best a vague goal like “engage the culture.” The goal doesn’t even risk stating a victory condition–we can “engage” all day long and really not change a thing, or stick our necks out far enough to say we’re even trying to change something. The vagueness of this stated objective says a lot about the distraction that preoccupies us. It may also indicate that the terms of our engagement may have already been set by “the other side” and we’re not engaging from the strength of “our side.” Let us be about being the church, which is clearly detailed for us in God’s Word, and trust that the distinctions meant to be seen between God’s culture and man’s culture will be evident. The Lord seems to think this will be the case (for ex., John 13:34).

2. We can focus our efforts on what really matters: people.

This isn’t to say that ideas don’t matter or don’t have consequences. They clearly do. But one set of ideas have eternal consequences–those ideas we cluster under the term “Gospel.” And the consequences most prominently and clearly in view are consequences that affect the eternal state of people. In other words, the objects of engagement are people, not “culture.” Our enterprise is to aid in the great migration of people out of man’s culture and into the culture of God through a regenerating, converting, saving encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ by the proclamation of the Gospel. Our primary application of the Gospel and the Scriptures is to people and their eternal state before God. Applications to culture and society are important, but they’re a distant second and even then should be preparatory for the primary application.

3. Our stated goal is clear: the evangelization and discipling of the entire world.

That’s Jesus’ view in Matt. 28. That’s the Father’s view in Gen. 12. Our aim is bolder than anything I’ve seen stated in the “engage the culture” rhetoric so popular today.

The church’s goal is nothing short of the worldwide advance of the Gospel and the submission in joyful faith of all peoples to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior! That’s massive! It’s exciting! It’s glorious! And given the majesty of this agenda, it requires a singular focus on being and proclaiming the Gospel. And it requires our being serious about what that means for the people we’re proclaiming the gospel to. In the words of Bonhoeffer, “when Christ bids a man to follow him, he bids him to come and die.”

No more of this cheap grace stuff! In the gospel, we are bidding men to die with Christ so that they might really live and live eternally! And one thing they must daily die to is the pull and the sway and the sinful influence of their native culture so that they may live in the culture of God! Whether we describe this as the difference between the flesh and the Spirit, the world and the church, or God’s culture and man’s culture… we’re talking about death to the old man and life in the new. We’re talking about an exchange of citizenship, and with it an exchange of loyalties and mindset. We’re not so much concerned with “engaging the culture” (whatever that means), as we are defecting from it and bidding others to do so in Christ. Every Christian wears the ugly (in the world’s eyes) badge “Defector.” There’s a scarlet “D” emblazoned upon our chests, and we shouldn’t busy ourselves forgetting it by seeking to “engage the culture,” which too often and more subtly than we care to admit means “being like the culture.”

4. Who we are becomes clear.

In an earlier post, I maintained that one of the basic problems in the Christian world today is the identity conflict people experience. They’re torn between who they are to be in Christ and some other identities associated with man’s culture. Well, if there are only two cultures, it’s clear who we are to be if we’re in Christ. We’re to be distinctively Christian. We are to think (Phil. 2), act (1 Cor. 11:1), suffer (1 Pet. 2:21), and feel (Matt. 9:36, 14:14; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 5:2) like Jesus. Because we are in Jesus and He is in us… and greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world! If we’re busy being the church, living in the culture of God, we’ll do more to “engage the culture” than anything we can imagine by setting out to “engage the culture.” Let’s be ourselves and watch what happens to the culture of man!