What did and did not make the 1st century Church great

In our new series on the book of Titus, we are looking at the attributes of "ordinary" Christianity.  1st Century Christianity grew at a tremendous rate.  Within a generation, church tradition holds that there were churches from Spain to India, Rome to Ethiopia.  We know that by the second generation there were churches in London and the Arabian peninsula, despite severe, specific opposition by the Roman empire and despite numerous internal conflicts.

We will be preaching through the book of Titus over the next few weeks, looking at the attributes of the church in the 1st century.  At New City Church, we long to see the power of 1st Century Christianity operational in 21st Century Columbia, Missouri.

During my studies for this series, though, I've found interesting the things that did not contribute to 1st Century Christian growth.

To be honest, the more I studied the New Testament, the more shocked I was at my own misconceptions of early Christianity.  

Below are factors that I thought contributed to the growth of early Christianity, but are simply not attributes of the church as described in the New Testament:

1.  Relational Harmony:  I often think of the first century church, hanging out in someone's house for hours on end, with people of all walks of life interacting with each other like brothers.  There may have been some of this initially (Acts 2:42ff seems to reference this), but it quickly faded.  By Acts 6 we have one group of widows complaining about the preferential treatment of another group.  We find key leaders with severe disagreements (i.e. Barnabas and Paul).  By 50 A.D., James needs to remind people that they should not give preferential treatment to the rich (which suggests that they were), and Paul needs to remind people that being a Christian precludes racism (which seems to have been a significant problem).  We find factions (1 Corinthians 1-2), heresy (1 and 2 Timothy, Galatians, Colossians), selfishness and disagreements.  The apostles worked to destroy all of these sins, as they are inconsistent with the message that Jesus died in our place, for our sins, but Christianity spread, not because of the relational harmony of the church, be despite the lack of relational harmony.

2.  Miracles:  There were certainly miracles in the era after the resurrection of Jesus.  Miracles sometimes resulted in dramatic growth of the church.  Sometimes, however, they backfired.  Up until Acts 14, miracles seem to be a regular part of the gospel proclamation.  In Acts 14, however, Paul heals a man and the city in which he is preaching erupts in celebration--for the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes.  Paul ends up getting stoned and miracles largely disappear from the regular practice of Paul.  There is every reason to believe that miracles largely disappeared after the life of the apostles, yet Christianity spread even faster in the second century (without miracles) than it did in the first century (with occasional miracles).  I believe in miracles.  I've seen some happen.  The church grew, however, despite the disappearance of miracles.

3.  Simplicity:  If you read popular treatments of 1st century Christianity, the simplicity of the message is often a major emphasis as an author seeks to explain how a rag-tag group of rural fishermen brought the Roman empire to its knees.  I'm not sure where this comes from, but it is certainly not the New Testament.  The idealized Jesus of Americana may be a simple, Buddha-like teacher that strolls around Judea uttering pithy one-liners, but the Gospels show us a different person.  Who would consider Jesus teaching in John 14-16 "simple?"  We are still wrestling with understanding how God can be One and Three as the New Testament describes him.  We are still trying to figure out what Jesus meant by "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him" (John 6:44).  Peter calls Paul's teachings difficult to understand, yet the church grew, not because it was simple, but despite its lack of simplicity.

4. Christian Super-stars:  We Americans seem to be particularly prone to hero-worship, and there were certainly plenty of heroic figures in 1st Century Christianity. Rodney Stark recently published a book(Cities of God, HarperOne), however  that compared the travels of one hero (Paul) with the rise of Christianity, to see if there was any correlation between Paul's travel itinerary and which Roman cities had churches by the end of the first and second centuries.  Interesting, there was no correlation.  Many of the cities that Paul traveled to had major churches, but just as many other cities, ones that he never traveled to, had major churches.  It seems that Paul was one of many traveling church planters and that his work was special only because he happened to be followed in the book of Acts and he happened to write letters that we have recorded in the Bible.  God spread Christianity using heroic figures like Paul and by using dozens of ordinary folks that remain nameless.

5.  Lack of hypocrisy:  Churches today are frequently accused of massive hypocrisy, and often it is true.  Its true at New City Church, because its true at my house.  I preach a bigger gospel than I live.  But so did Peter.  After Peter's message at Pentecost, after his message at the Jerusalem council, both touting the all encompassing nature of the Gospel, we find Paul rebuking Peter for practicing racial distinctions (Galatians 2).  Paul tells the Corinthian church that they should probably stop practicing the Lord's Supper because they are corrupting Communion by the class-ism.  Paul has to tell people to stop stealing (Ephesians 4:28), stop lying (Colossians 3:9), get a job (2 Thess 3:12) and he even walks several churches through the process of handling members that sin (Galatians 6, 1 Corinthians 5).  If we assume that Paul was addressing real situations every time he gave a command, then the 1st Century churches were full of inconsistent, normal, sinful people, just like us.  And yet the church grew.

What made the first century church great? Why did it grow and spread so quickly?  It was not that they had outstanding teachers/organizers, nor their simplicity or lack of hypocrisy.  It did not spread because of miraculous events or because the churches were nice and friendly.  The church grew because the Holy Spirit changed people's hearts as the good news of Jesus was proclaimed by ordinary people.  If sins can actually be forgiven, if God can be related to as a friend and not as a judge, if Christ is remaking the world in a better way, if God had to die to reconcile us to our Creator, if this good news is true, then the world will change if we proclaim it, despite our hypocrisy, our complexity, our weakness.


But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
(2 Corinthians 12:9-10 ESV)

Is excellence a biblical or an American value?

Excellence is a commonly touted value in nearly every segment of life.  Businesses, athletic teams, luxury hotels and churches are all seeking this elusive thing called excellence.  A recent post on the Gospel Coalition website even suggested that  lack of excellence suggests a heart problem, a lack of the "awe of God."

Is excellence really a Biblical value?  Does the Bible actually suggest that excellence is a value in and of itself?

I believe that excellence is not a Biblical value, but an American value.  I think there are two lines of thought that suggest this.

First, almost all choices, including the one of excellence, involves competing claims for resources.  Let's use preaching for example, as it is the situation with which I am dealing.  To what degree should I seek excellence in my sermon this Sunday?  Surely the Gospel is the very power of God.  Surely the sheep that I have been commissioned to care for with my sermon are those purchased with the very blood of Christ.  Surely the church, through word and sacrament, is Christ's mechanism to care for that which he spent his own blood to purchase.  So what demands more excellence that my sermon?  Such a question is too simplistic to be useful.  Practically, how many hours should I spend to create excellence?  If sermonic excellence is a value, in and of itself, the number of hours that I spend would need to be high.  Is 40 hours too many?  Is 50 more appropriate for those blood bought children of the living Christ?  60?  But wait.  Christ has called me to to be a lay pastor, father of 3 with a job that requires 50+ hours a week.  Should I skip dinner with my children, or their bedtime hymn singing to work out excellence in my sermon?  Is it impossible for Christ to call a man to bivocational ministry, or a family or something like eating or sleeping if he has also called him to preach? So, of course, there is a call for balance.  Christ called me, and the apostle Paul to bivocational ministry.  I'm both a father and a pastor and a doctor and a neighbor and a friend.  As a pastor I'm called to help my friend process Romans in the same week I prepare a sermon on Mark.  But any call for balance suggests that excellence is not a value in and of itself.  I'm not aware of any relevant Biblical command for excellence (the Gospel Coalition article offered none), we simply have commands to love ("the most excellent way") and to work hard (Colossians 3:23).  Love and hard work will often create excellence, but will often be unwilling to take the project the last step that excellence requires.  My sermon may be good, but teaching my children or giving pastoral counsel will often preclude me from making it truly excellent.

Second, the Bible does specifically preclude excellence in some ways. Apparently, Paul's ministry in Corinth was being reconsidered by the church there due to his lack of excellence (or at least perceived excellence).  "His bodily presence is weak and his speech of no account..." (2 Cor 10:10).  Was Paul not excellent? If his preaching was not excellent, it was purposefully not so.  1 Corinthians 2:1-3: "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.  For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.  And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling..."  He acknowledges that many would find his message "folly" (1 Cor 1:18).  Paul is never accused of excellence, and in Paul's mind, excellence was not equated with power.  He was content with weakness, because in weakness, not strength was power (2 Cor 12:9-10). He even suggests that what the world would call excellence (eloquent wisdom) would limit the Cross' power (1 Cor 1:17).  So, again, excellence is not a value in and of itself.

Should then the sermon this Sunday be done sloppily? I need to pursue a wisdom, but not one of this world.  My hope on Sunday is not that my sermon would be excellent (such excellence is often about impressing people, honestly, not about those sheep for whom Christ died), but my hope is that the wisdom that I will proclaim is a supernatural wisdom (1 Cor 2:6ff).  That in making the word of the Cross plain, the Holy Spirit will accomplish excellency in the hearts of the people hearing the sermon.  Does that mean I work hard?  Of course.  Does that mean I can sleep Saturday night, know that Christ will speak to his sheep, through my mouth, despite my less than excellent sermon? Yes.

So I do not believe that excellence is a biblical value, in and of itself.  It certainly is a value to many Americans, but any Gospel excellence must also embrace the Biblical contentedness with weakness and Paul's purposeful lack of eloquent wisdom.  Any wise attempt at balancing competing callings must both recognize that each calling is from the risen Christ and that he may call you to do 8 things well rather than 1 thing with excellence.  Is there a "Christian excellence"?  Probably, but it is so different that what the world calls excellence that any comparison must be carefully clarified.  The professionalism that the world calls excellence has taken over many aspects of the way the church makes decisions and it has surely resulted in the Cross being "emptied of its power" in many circumstances (1 Cor 1:17).



Personal note:  Is such a line of thought an excuse for a lack of awe of God?  Not always.  Sometimes sleep is just a realization that I cannot be excellent at everything.  It takes wisdom to know whether I should be a pediatrician and a pastor or drop one or the other for the sake of the excellence of the other.  Thus far, I believe that that last step (for me, in this question) from good to excellent is more about my ego than about children getting better health care or Christ sheep being fed.  

The Gospel in Preschool language

Jesus calls us to both proclaim the good news that he has died to pay the debt we owe God for our sins and to proclaim this good news (aka the Gospel) in a way that can be understood by everyone.  One of the reasons for creating new churches is to proclaim the unchanging message of the Gospel to the changing world in which we live.  One of those varying perspectives on the world that we need to bring the Gospel to is our children.

Matt, my 5 year old, had a good day yesterday.  Several of the other children in his preschool class got in trouble, which in his class, as in soccer, means you get a yellow card, and if you are really bad, a red card.    Apparently, it was one of those preschool days for his teacher.  Matt, apparently the good example, was lauded with toys, extra recess time and high praise.  He enjoyed it.  Maybe a bit too much.  The praise of men (or preschool teachers in this case) is a highly addictive and a very dangerous drug.  Not that his teacher did anything inappropriate, she is using using the law to restrain evil behavior and encourage proper behavior (which is one of Calvin's three proper uses of the law).  But what should we do with Matt?

Will encouraging him only support the kind of Pharisee-like behavior that Jesus says pushes you further from His Kingdom?  

If Jesus says that thieves and prostitutes are closer to the Kingdom than the religious, how should we support "proper behavior?"

Here is part of the conversation I had with Matt.  I am hoping it helps some of you to move beyond parenting by law towards parenting by grace, the process that I am struggling to come to grips with.

Dad: Matt, what happened to the kids that got red cards?

Matt:  They lost recess time.

Dad: And what happened to you when you got a green card?

Matt: I got something from the prize box.

Dad:   I am really glad you got a green card from your teacher.  Do you think Jesus got red cards or green cards?

Matt:  I'm sure he got only green cards!

Dad: Did you know, Matt, that in God's world, both you and I got red cards from God?

Matt:  (confused look).

Dad:  God doesn't want you to even have mean thoughts about your sister, let alone hit her.

Matt:  (horrified look).

Dad:  But Jesus got a green card and gave it to you, so that even though you deserve a red card, you will get to go to God's prize box, which is life forever with God.  Isn't Jesus great?

Matt:  (Nod and a smile).

Life is rarely this simple.  For every one time we get that far in such a conversation, we have a dozen conversations that get interrupted by a belch or my analogy breaks down or a wild younger brother that needs milk or 10,000 other problems.  But my goal is to create in his mind the paradigm of grace: we are acceptable to God, not because we are good little boys, but because Jesus was good and died in our place, paying for our sin with his own blood and giving us his record of good deeds in place of our record of evil.  Though Matt was good this time, he will be evil many other times.  And it is critical that he knows that he will never measure up to God's standard, no matter how proud his dad is.  It's also critical that he knows that when he fails, whether in some horrible way or in some more socially acceptable way, Jesus Christ has already died to pay his debt and reconcile him to God.  

Why you should consider joining a church plant.

We often use the term “church planting” to refer to the starting of new churches.[1]  Why would someone want to join a “church plant?”  This post offers a few reasons.

Church planting is about Jesus, or it should be.    Even a cursory reading of the New Testament reveals that Christ's plan to destroy the work of Satan, redeem people from every nation and bring glory to God gets accomplished through the Church.  Why would we want to accomplish the mission of Jesus without using the methods of Jesus?  Isn't that a bit presumptuous?  A love for Jesus must translate into a robust view of the church, and starting new churches simply utilizes the original strategy to accomplish the Great Commission.  The Book of Acts, for example is the story of the Gospel coming to the Roman world through the agency of the Church.  Today, we need to bring the same good news to our American landscape (as well as hundreds of groups of people that have no access to the Gospel) through the church.  

1.     You want to see Jesus transform a city.  Most modern experts consider church planting to be the most effective way of reaching people that do not currently believe in Jesus Christ.  Church planting is more effective than crusades or home visitation programs.  Newer churches do pull some people from existing churches but are made up disproportionately of previously unchurched people.  If you want to be involved in reaching people with the gospel, there is no more effective strategy than starting a new church.  New churches reach new segments of the city that are not currently being reached.  They may reach a new physical location or a new demographic.  More people preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ using different techniques and different methods often results in more people hearing the gospel in a way that they can understand.   Tim Keller’s essay “Why Plant Churches” is an excellent summary of this idea. 

2.     You feel called by God to use your spiritual gifts, but your current church does not need you.  The New Testament is clear that each of us has been given spiritual gifts that are to be to the benefit of others.  Often, however, churches only need a limited number of people with certain “gift-sets.”  Church plants often desperately need additional people.  One well established church may have 5 or 10 men that can preach, while a new church plant may have only 1.  Maybe God has 10 men in a city with preaching gifts so that Gospel will be proclaimed in 10 different ways and in 10 different locations, rather than each guy getting to preach 5 times a year.  If we have been called by God to sacrifice to get the message of Jesus to more people (Colossians 1:24-25), then maybe Christian leaders should emphasize sacrifice more than comfort.  Of course it’s comfortable to only have to serve every 4^th  week, but what if more people could be reached if we were willing to work every 2^nd week, let alone every week?

3.     You are an entrepreneurial sort of person that loves helping new things get started.  Let’s face it: some of us enjoy getting new things started.  There is a thrill in being on the front lines, being creative and having the pressure to have to get the job done.  I think that this is from God, and exists for the purpose of staring new churches.  If God’s solution for the problems of the world is the Church proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then he will also give entrepreneurial skills to people to get such organizations launched.  It may be that your entrepreneurial itch is the way that God begins to reach a city.  Don’t neglect it. 

So consider joining a church plant (such as ours, though there are others in Columbia), and let’s see what God will do (1 Samuel 14:6).

---

[1] Of course, churches are really just practical expressions of a spiritual reality.  The Bible both refers to the spiritual reality, that all Christians are a part of the same spiritual family (the Church) and the practical reality, that Christians relate to each other through organized relationships, or (churches).  There is evidence even in the New Testament era that each city would have multiple expressions of the Church, often meeting in homes or small meeting halls.  And though these expressions of the Church shared common theology, values and similar practices, they may have had separate leaders, meeting locations and membership rolls.  For example, Paul's greeting to the church at Rome (Romans 16) includes a greeting to the church that meets at the house of Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16:5) and also separate greetings to an additional 25 individuals, many of whom are noted to be leaders in the church.  If the population of Rome was 1,000,000 (as is commonly thought), and Christianity was essentially illegal, it is reasonable to assume that these leaders lead multiple "churches" throughout the city.  They likely knew each other, worked together on common projects, but found that practically, meeting in multiple locations had advantages.  Furthermore, we know that the original Christian church in Jerusalem met both publicly and in various houses (Acts 2:46).  

Sermon mp3's

New City Church weekly sermons will now be on Facebook.  

On my first Easter in a Bar

New City Church meets in a bar, a club with a bar, actually.  The Bridge is a concert venue that has a bar, and (more importantly) they allow us to rent their space on Sunday mornings.  They have built a great venue and we are grateful that we get an opportunity to utilize their space and equipment.  We really had no other options: churches, schools and movie theaters were not open to us renting from them.  Frankly, though, I couldn't imagine a better venue.

But can you have church in a club?  

Isn't a church supposed to be a "holy" place?  Isn't a church opposed to what is happening at a concert venue?  Isn't The Bridge the last place for a church?

What is it that makes a place "holy"?  Holy means to be set apart.  What makes a building, bricks, wood, drywall and pipes "holy" is not the shape of the structure, the color of the glass or the name on the sign, but the presence of a Holy God.  And God dwells not in buildings, but in a people.  His people.  The church is not a building or an institution, but an assembly of people that belong to Jesus Christ, in whom His Spirit dwells. Because of His presence, the building is transformed into something holy.  The ancient Jewish Temple served as the earthly shadow of the throne room of God.  He was said to dwell in it, and it was certainly holy.  At the Cross, Jesus changed everything.  He did away with the necessity of shadows (such as the temple, sacrifices and food regulations) and brought the reality.  The reality that the Jewish Temple pointed to is not a church building with stained glass, but the church, that is, any assembly of people who have put their hope in Jesus (Ephesians 2:21-22).  In fact, what is going on at a club in downtown Columbia is so holy, that the Jewish high priest (who could enter into the Holy of Holies of the Jewish Temple) is not holy enough to participate.  

What makes us holy, of course is not us.  I'm certainly completely polluted and defiled.  But when Jesus died on the Cross, my debt was paid.  He gave me his record of good deeds as a gift.  Because of the Cross, then, I stand in the presence of God completely holy, despite my apparent flaws.  We, as New City Church, could not be more holy.  Oh we have issues, big ones actually.  We are often mean, rude, inconsistent, arrogant, faithless, timid, anxious, depressed and impure.  And, because of Jesus, we are the very dwelling place of God.  And so, for an hour on Sunday mornings, there is no more holy place in the Universe than a bar in downtown Columbia.  See you there on Easter.  

Why I think country music is more biblical than contemporary Christian.

I recently read a blog post that really resonated with me.  The author was doing nothing new (a Christian taking shots at contemporary Christian music), but her reasoning got me thinking. I think the author was the first person that I have read that explained what is wrong with CCM.   I've also recently became a fan of country music.  I'm actually not sure why, though I think I am starting to figure it out.  For some reason singing about driving an International Harvester is meaningful to me, though I work in an air conditioned office.  

One of the critiques of contemporary Christian music is that it is out of touch with reality, especially biblical reality.  Christian music gives little acknowledgment to the reality of human sin, the wrath of God against sinful humanity and the need for a Savior.  There is plenty of celebration of vague things like the love of God, but little recognition that Christ had to die for the love of God to be directed towards us.  Actually the sentimental view of life described in Contemporary Christian music resembles closely the Christ-less Christianity preached in many churches.

At least country music acknowledges a more realistic view of life.  Whether it is celebrating a red Solo cup or feeding beer to horses, Country music deals with the realities of life, death, love, justice, injustice and generally celebrates the joys of simple life.  The book of Ecclesiastes does this as well.  I really think that country music and the book of Ecclesiastes is discussing the same reality.  How many country songs sound like Ecclesiastes 5:18 "This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them--for this is their lot and be happy in their toil--this is a gift of God" (NIV, e.g. Chicken Fried)?  Ecclesiastes also discusses the meaninglessness of wealth (Ecclesiastes 5:8-17 and Little Big Town's Boondocks), the virtue of honesty (Ecclesiastes 5:1-7, White Liar, You Lie) and justice (Ecclesiastes 3:17, Beer for my Horses, Courtesy of the Red White and Blue) and the joys of family (Ecclesiastes 9:9, Watching You) and work (Ecclesiastes 9:10, International Harvester).  While certain songs are certainly inappropriate for kids, so are some passages of the Bible (the Noah with the cute animals in pairs is the same guy that is naked and drunk in the next chapter, thank you, red Solo cup).    Some country songs are downright Christian (e.g. compare Psalm 51 to Chris Young's The Man I Want to Be).

Admittedly I am comparing the best of Country to the worst of CCM.  The big glaring deficiency, however is the lack of a Savior that will come and die in our place, for our sins. Country just does a better job Oh for a day when music will help us "see and savor" the God that has created a way for sinful people like us to enjoy him, the God that brings more joy that horses, women, red Solo cups or honky-tonk.