John Mark Hicks

Shaped by Gathering

That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”  Hebrews 2:11b-12 (quoting Psalm 22:22)

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. Luke 4:14-16

Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. John 5:1

Jesus habitually attended weekly Sabbath synagogue meetings (Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke 4:16; 6:6; 13:10). The synagogue functioned as a community center throughout the week, but on the Sabbath it was a place of prayer, Scripture reading and teaching. Jesus participated in the weekly communal life of the people of God.

Jesus celebrated the mighty acts of God at the festivals in Jerusalem (John 2:13, 23; 5:1; 7:14; 10:22; 11:55). Jesus joined other believers for the priestly rituals of sacrifice, praise and prayer in the temple. He ate the Passover lamb, prayed in the temple, and discussed the kingdom of God with the people and their leaders. Jesus participated in the communal life of Israel.

In community—both at the local synagogue and at the national temple—Jesus communed with his brothers and sisters through word (teaching), table (sacrificial meals), prayer, and praise. In the temple he stood with his brothers and sisters to hear the reading of the Torah. He listened to the praises of the Levitical choir that reverberated through the temple courts. He watched the sacrificial rituals and ate with his community at God’s table. In the synagogue he repeated the benedictions, said the prayers and listed to the reading of Scripture. He was both student and teacher at the synagogue. Jesus entered the presence of God at the temple with thousands and prayed with tens and hundreds in the synagogue. Jesus worshipped the Father with his brothers and sisters.

This communal life rehearsed the mighty acts of God in the history of Israel. As a participant, Jesus was shaped by this hearing and rehearing of God’s redemptive work in history. Again and again Jesus renewed his mission, remembered his identity, and communed with fellow-believers as he stood for prayer and praise in the both the temple and synagogue.

This communal life was no mere addendum to his mission nor was it incidental to his faith. It was an intricate part of his spirituality. Participation in the larger community is an anticipation of the community that surrounds the throne of God. Indeed, it is more than an anticipation, it is a foretaste—an actual participation—in that heavenly assembly. Our earthly assemblies are participations in the heavenly reality; to gather here is to assemble there. To praise God in the midst of the congregation here is to stand before the face of God there.

Assembling before the face of God is not the by-product of God’s salvation or our solitude with him, it is actually the goal of God’s creative and redemptive work. God celebrates his victory over sin and death by gathering his people around him. When we assemble, we celebrate that victory with God.

This is the experience of Jesus himself. As he hung on the cross, he felt forsaken as the darkness enveloped him. God himself mourned as Jesus lamented, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” But embedded in the lament is also a hope, an expectation. Jesus hoped in God’s redemption; he knew God would deliver him. Jesus lament is the first verse of Psalm 22, and that lament also cries out for rescue and salvation (22:21). Jesus expects to again stand in the midst of the congregation of God’s people and praise the Father. He will declare the name of God to his brothers and sisters as he testifies about God’s redemption (22:22). In the assembly Jesus will celebrate his deliverance and the victory over sin and death.

This is one of the reasons I love to assemble with the saints. As part of a community, I remember that I am not alone.  Worshipping as community, Iam reminded of the story. And especially when I have a difficult week–whether with grief, or resentment, or anger, or tragic circumstances, or job hassles, or family strife–intentionally coming before the throne with others encourages me, empowers me, and ultimately transforms me.  The move from Friday to Sunday, the move from hurt to praise, the move from loneliness to community is what I experience when I assemble with my brothers and sisters; it is where I, like Jesus, join the communal anthem of praise and testify to the mighy works of God in the past, my present experience of them, and the coming of God’s kingdom.

The preacher of Hebrews encourages his hearers that Jesus is honored to call us his brothers and sisters and even now stands in the midst of the assembly to declare the praise of God. As we assemble and sing God’s praises, Jesus sings with us. He stands at the center of the assembly to declare the victory and praise the Father. When we assemble, we gather around him and follow him in celebration and praise. Wherever two or three are gathered together, Jesus is present with them (Matthew 18:20).

Questions for Discussion:

1. What did you find interesting about the habits of Jesus in terms of gathering with his larger community?
2. Why do you think this was important to Jesus? How did it shape him as a human being?
3. How does the use of Psalm 22 on the lips of Jesus and in Hebrews 2 give you a vision for what assembling (gathering) means?
4. What is your experience of assembly? What does it mean to you?
5. What is the function of the assembly for the people of God today?

James A. Harding was nothing if not passionate. His rhetoric in print could rattle chains and in homilies evoke tears, especially in his own eyes. Below is a good example as Harding lowers a firm and severe judgment against the growing position of rebaptism among Churches of Christ. I have highlighted a few lines which stress how he understood that rebaptism as practiced by the Texas Tradition of the Firm Foundation was heretical, sectarian and presumptuous. As you can sense, this was no “minor” disagreement. Unfortunately, I do not know the identity of the “Brother Editor” who penned the letter to Harding.

Harding wrote:

A brother, who is also an editor, in a private letter, writes to us as follows:

“I like The Way and hope it will succeed, for the warfare that it is waging is a holy one. We cannot have too many papers, if they are edited by close students of the word of God, who will make them reflect the spirit of the Master with the teachings of him and his apostles. From the attention you give to rebaptists, I conclude that you must have plenty of them in your country. I cannot but regard some of their notions as dangerous heresies. For instance, to require a confession of faith in a person, is the foundation of all creeds. The Nicene creed was formulated so that no one holding Aryan views could confess it, and rebaptists wish a confession that no one holding that baptism is because of the remission can make. But what a catalogue of confessions we would have to require if we attempted to provide in this way against other errors that are, indeed, just as dangerous! Universalists, soul sleepers, mystics, etc., would all have to be provided against, and we would need to require a confession that no one holding these heresies can make. [In other words, we would need a creed! JMH]

“I am constrained to believe, though I have never yet expressed myself publicly on this phase of the subject, that the only question that we have a right to ask any baptized person who applies to us for membership in the church is the one that Paul asked in Acts 19:3: ‘Into what then were ye baptized?’ In other words: By whose authority were you baptized? Where you baptized into the baptism authorized by John, or the one authorized by Christ? So to-day I believe we may ask: Were you baptized because the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, or some other church commanded it, or were you baptized understanding that it was by the authority of Christ? And no man nor angel can show authority for asking more. The premises by which we would prove that we may ask more would prove too much, because they would require us to aim a blow in our confessions at every error in Christendom; and in order that we might be able to do the thing in good form, a creed would be indispensable. The rebaptism agitation is plainly a step back to sectarianism, though all unmeant, of course, by its advocates.”

Thus far speaks our brother editor, and he is undoubtedly correct. To demand that a man shall understand that baptism is in order to forgiveness of sins as a prerequisite to baptism, and to stop with that, is the perfection of inconsistency; and, worse still, it is the adoption of the principle that caused all the creeds in Christendom; it is rank sectarianism. As we have repeatedly shown in these columns, the very word (“eis”) that connects baptism with remission connects it also with another and a greater blessing—greater inasmuch as the whole is greater than any of its parts. For example, we are not only baptized eis remission, but (which is a much greater thing) we are baptized “eis the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”—“into Christ.” All the spiritual blessings (of which remission of sins is one only) are found in Christ, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the marriage ceremony in which we are united to Christ, in which we receive the family name, the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the name “God,” so that we are henceforth called “the sons of God;” then, having been thus brought into the divine family, we begin to receive the promises of God, the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit; the daily protection, guidance, and blessing of God; the constant readiness of God to hear and answer our prayers, and so on. Paul exhorts the Colossians to give thanks unto the Father, “who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.” In baptism, he who believes with his whole heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light; he is delivered out of the power of darkness, and is translated into the kingdom of the Son of God’s love, in whom he receives the forgiveness of his sins: “For how many soever be the promises of God, in him is the yea: wherefore also through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us.” (2 Cor. 1:20.)

How any man can fail to see that it is inconsistent, unreasonable, and unscriptural to demand that the candidate for baptism must understand that baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, and not also demand that he must understand that he is baptized into (eis) the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy spirit, when the fact has been explained to him that the relationship in the two cases is expressed by the same word, “eis” (into), is one of the things hard for me to understand. I doubt if anything but the stupefying power of prejudice and party passion, of sectarian zeal, could also blind a man. I could as easily believe in infant membership, or sprinkling for baptism; and I believe that the prejudice which blinds the reimmerser, in this case, is as dense and as bitterly sectarian as that which beclouds the mind of the sprinkler or the baptizer of babies.

All that Christ demands of a man as a prerequisite to baptism is believe with the heart (intellect, affections, and will) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. He who demands more than this demands too much. He is more particular than God; he presumes to require of him who would enter into the divine family more than God himself requires. He exalts himself above God by assuming that he can complete that which God, for some cause, left imperfect. He is too wise, too good. To such a one Solomon wisely says: “Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?”

Of the man who has not been immersed, but who desires to be, we have the right to ask: Do you believe with your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and do you confess him as your Lord? (See Rom. 10:9, 10.) And of the man who has been immersed, and who desires to work and worship in fellowship with us, we have a right to ask: Did you believe with your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and did you confess him as your Lord? Who cannot see that the same state of mind and heart that prepares a man for baptism at my hands prepares him to receive the institution at the hands of any other?

The trouble with those people whom Paul immersed again at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) was, they did not believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead, nor had they confessed him as their Lord. They had only been baptized into John’s baptism for (into) the remission of sins. They had been baptized into John instead of into Jesus. But the baptism of John had ceased on the earth, and that of Jesus had been commanded. So Paul said unto them: “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Jesus.” And when they heard this, “they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” This is the only case of rebaptism in the New Testament. These people were baptized, in the first place, “for [eis] the remission of sins;” but they did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, nor were they baptized into him. When we find people who have been immersed; but who did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and who did not take him as their Lord, we ought to instruct them in the way of the Lord more perfectly; and when they do so believe and confess, we ought to reimmerse them. But no man has a right to reimmerse another who was baptized believing in Jesus as the resurrected Son of God and confessing him as his Lord. He who does it is “righteous overmuch;” he has made himself “overwise;” and he is in danger of destruction. Solomon says to him, “Why shouldest thou destroy thyself?” and Paul exhorts us to learn “not to go beyond the things which are written.” It is as dangerous to add to as it is to take from the word of God; and every division that has arisen among the people of God, so far as I remember, began in adding to, rather than in taking from, the requirements of Christ.

James A. Harding, “What a Brother Editor Thinks, With Some Comments Thereon,” The Way 2 (July 1900) 98 (emphases are mine, JMH).

JMH Comments:

1. Harding is a stickler for Alexander Campbell’s fundamental insight that all that is required for immersion is a trust in Christ, that is, to believe that he is the Christ, the Son of God (this confession–involving the affections and will as well intellect–includes repentance). 
2. Harding recognizes that a biblical baptismal theology is fundamentally about entering into a relationship with the Father, Son and Spirit rather than exclusively focused on the remission of sins as the design of baptism. That relationship is a “greater blessing” than the remission of sins itself because it is more inclusive of all the benefits God gives to his people through baptism. And clearly understanding the meaning of being baptized “into” the communion of the Father, Son and Spirit is not something any one fully understands at their baptism. Instead of understanding, believers trustingly obey and the Father gives what he promised even when we do not understand what we are receiving.
3. Harding recognizes that “rebaptists” are fundamentally sectarian in several ways.  (a) They add to the requirements of the Lord for salvation and thus bind something that God did not bind which places them in the position of exalting themselves above God.  (b) They divide the body of Christ by presuming that some are not part of the body when they are.  (c) They substitute a creed for the confession. (d) Their zeal to identify themselves as distinct from the Baptists has blinded them to their own factionalism.
4. The disciples in Acts 19 were actually baptized for the remission of sins under John’s baptismal commission. They were rebaptized because they did not understand the confession of Jesus as Lord and giver of the Holy Spirit. If rebaptists are consistent, according to Harding, then anyone who did not understand that God gives his Spirit through baptism (as a promise attached to baptism) should also be rebaptized.  Baptism is as much for the giving of the Spirit as it is the remission of sins. Indeed, Harding would stress that the giving of the Spirit–entering into personal relationship with God through the Holy Spirit–is more fundamental and a greater blessing than the remission of sins itself.

One of the more significant differences between the Tennessee and Texas Traditions is eschatology.

I use “eschatology” in the broad sense of the term. It is not simply about millennialism (though the Tennessee Tradition was generally premillennial). Rather, it involves how one understands the kingdom of God, how the kingdom relates to “worldly kingdoms” (civil governments), the dynamic nature of God’s actions in the world, and the nature of the new heavens and new earth (renewed earth theology).

James A. Harding strongly emphasized the eschatological nature of the Christian faith. At the 1999 Christian Scholar’s Conference, I presented a paper entitled “The Eschatological Structure of James A. Harding’s Theology” which I have now uploaded to my Academic page.

After a brief biography, the paper describes Harding’s understanding of spiritual conflict in God’s creation, civil government (which he shares with David Lipscomb) and millennialism. I conclude by stressing how his pneumatology fits the eschatological structure of his theology. The personal indwelling of the Spirit in the Christian is a central feature of Harding’s eschatological structure. It was a core value for him.

Of course, all of this was foreign to the Texas Tradition–no personal indwelling, no renewed earth eschatology, patriotic nationalism rather than sole allegiance to the kingdom of God, amillennialism (if any sense of millennialism at all), emphasis on the church rather than the kingdom, etc.  Here Tennessee and Texas were total opposites.

Leadership Series
Cordova Community Church, Cordova, TN (1998)

This material was presented in the form of 30 minutes of teaching followed by 30 minutes of discussion within small groups.

The new church plant was moving toward appointing their first shepherds. We probably moved too quickly as I think about it now, but this is the material we studied together. As with anything over ten years old, I would probably phrase things differently, emphasize different things, import some ideas that have become more significant to me (e.g., missional, eschatology, etc.), and rethink the way I handled gender in this series (e.g., I would definitely add Romans 16 into this discussion mix [some of that material is available in the series Women Serving God]and offer more alternatives for understanding 1 Timothy 2 [also available in that series). Nevertheless, it was a healthy study at the time and, for the most part, still is. Anyone who makes use of this, of course, will have to make their own judgments about what is helpful now and what is not…as even I would today.  🙂 

I have uploaded the nearly fifty pages of notes and discussion questions onto my Classes page for those who are interested.

The series had a theological and christocentric starting point.  Shepherds should shepherd as God shepherds; they should imitate the Good Shepherd in his humility, service and loving care. It moved through some of the classic texts on elders and ultimately ended discussing the relationship of evangelists (“located preachers”) and elders. 

Below is a list of the lessons:

1. Our Model: The Humiliation of God (Philippians 2:1-11).
2. The Divine Shepherd (Psalm 23)
3. God and His Shepherds (Ezekiel 34:1-22)
4. Jesus as the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-18)
5. Servant Leadership (Mark 10:32-45)
6. Jesus and His Shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4)
7. Priorities in Leadership (Acts 6:1-7)
8. Giving Elders Perspective (Acts 20:25-35)
9. Gender and Leadership (1 Timothy 2:1-2, 8-15)
10. Respecting Leaders (1 Thessalonians 5:12-15)
11. Qualities of Leadership I (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
12. Following Leaders (Hebrews 13:7-8, 17, 24)
13. Qualities of Leadership II (Titus 1:5-9)
14. Elders as Caregivers (James 5:13-20)
15. Leaders as Equippers (Ephesians 4:7-16)
16. Evangelists (1 Timothy 4:6-16)
17. Elders and Evangelists (1 Timothy 5:17-22)

Some are worthwhile, some are not; or, at least, some are more worthwhile than others.  🙂  You will have to be the judge.

“Ministerial Education,” Magnolia Messenger 11.6 (June 1989), 11, 14.

Building on J. W. McGarvey’s article on ministerial education (Lard’s Quarterly, 1865, 239-250), the piece argues for a liberal arts education plus additional theological education for ministers. It is tailored toward the institution at which I taught at the time and is thus contextualized in significant ways.  The article cites Lard’s Quarterly as volume 3 but it is volume 2.

“Tertullian, Gospel Advocate 130.10 (October 1, 1988), 51.

Tertullian is the fountainhead of Western theology and vocabulary.  This is a very general assessment of his importance at the request of the editor at the time.  Why did he ask for Tertullian?  I’m not quite sure. 🙂

““Are We Saved by Imputed Righteousness? (1) & (2),” Image 2.10 (May 15, 1986), 10, 17 and Image 2.11 (June 1, 1986) 16, 20.

We are justifed by the gracious gift of Christ’s righteousness. We are not saved by our own inherent righteousness, our own “doing” of the law. This piece does not take count of the “New Perspective” on Paul but nevertheless still stresses an important truth.

“The Heritage of Alabama’s Restorer: J. M. Barnes ” Gospel Advocate 128.9 (May, 1, 1986), 276-7.

Justice McDuffee Barnes was a representative of the Tennessee Tradition. Educated under Alexander Campbell at Bethany, he was a pioneer evangelist and educator in south Alabama. He was a frequent contributor to the Gospel Advocate in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

“Peter’s Hypocrisy and Ours, Gospel Advocate 128.8 (April, 17, 1986), 244-5.

When the people of God erect barriers to fellowship that are not soteriologically grounded, they follow Peter into his hypocrisy.  This principle still holds true, I think.

“No Private Interpretation,” Sound Doctrine 10.2 (April-December, 1985), 30.

2 Peter 1:20-21 stresses that the prophets of Scripture did not originat their own messages with their own imagination but were sustained by the Spirit.

“Compassion: The Basis of a Wholistic Ministry,” Image 1.9 (October 1, 1985), 18-19.

Matthew roots the ministry of Jesus in his compassion.

In the Fall of 2002, Rubel Shelly and John York preached through Hebrews at the Woodmont Hills Family of God in Nashville, Tennessee. They entitled their series “Strength for the Journey.”  At the same time I provided resource teaching material for the Bible classses and some small groups used that material as well. 

Rubel’s sermons are available here and John’s are available here.  Rubel and John identified the text and provided a summary of their homiletic point.  I then constructed a teaching resource based on their chosen text and summary. So, I followed their division of the text into chucks. 

Each lesson was divided into (1) Teaching Materials and (2) Teaching Options.  Under the teaching materials, I provided (a) exegetical notes and (b) pointed out what I thought was the theological substance of the passage.

I have uploaded the 106 pages of single space material to my Classes page.  I hope they are helpful to some.

Outline of Lessons 

1. Outline of Hebrews
2. Introducing Hebrews
3. God Must Really Love Us (Hebrews 1:1-4)
4. Fascinated by Angels (Hebrews 1:5-2:18)
5. In Awe of Moses (Hebrews 3:1-19)
6. Awed by Joshua (Hebrews 4:1-13)
7. Our Compassionate High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-5:10)
8. We are At Risk! (Hebrews 5:11-6:20)
9. Jesus: Eternal High Priest of the Melchizedekan Order (Hebrews 7:1-28)
10. Looking to Jesus: A Better Covenant (Hebrews 8:1-13)
11. Looking to Jesus: Ministry in the Heavenly Tabernacle (Hebrews 9:1-10)
12. Looking to Jesus: The Perfect Sacrifice, Part I (Hebrews 9:11-28)
13. Looking to Jesus: The Perfect Sacrifice, Part II (Hebrews 10:1-18)
14. So? (Hebrews 10:19-39)
15. Take Heart From Others’ Stories (Hebrews 11:1-40)
16. Eyes on Jesus! (Hebrews 12:1-13)
17. Why Even Think of Turning Back? (Hebrews 12:14-29)
18. A Final “Word of Exhortation” (Hebrews 13:1-25)

In an earlier post I quoted a piece from G. C. Brewer’s autobiography where he objected to the emphasis that some placed on the plan of salvation rather than on a personal savior. His comment came in the context of discussing the role of confession in the five-step (or is it four-step or three-step?) plan of salvation. Brewer did not think “confession” was a necessary part of the plan of salvation (1945).

This was quite a divisive topic at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. J. W. Jackson, one of the editors of the Firm Foundation, was even asked if a church should withdraw from a person who “contends that the confession before baptism is not essential to the remission of sins” (1897; he had earlier recommended excluding those who did not believe that baptism was for the remission of sins). To his credit Jackson advised bearing with the brother even though he believed that “faith in Christ includes the confession of that faith, for a faith that does not act is a dead faith and valueless.” But the question indicates the intensity of the discussion which did not abate throughout the next decade. J. R. Lane scolded David Lipscomb for his “denial of the clear teaching of God’s word on the subject” and his “presumption in doing in the name of Jesus Christ something that he says ‘no mention is made of in connection with any baptism in the scriptures!’” (1907).

There were three positions among Churches of Christ in the late 19th century: (1) the confession of faith before baptism was not a necessary condition of salvation (Gospel Advocate, Lipscomb, Sewell and the Tennessee Tradition generally), (2) the confession of faith before baptism was a necessary condition of salvation (Firm Foundation, McGary, Jackson, Savage and the Texas Tradition generally), and (3) the exact form of the confession in Acts 8:37 was a necessary condition of salvation (J. P. Nall, editor of the Word of Truth; cf. McGary, 1900).

The seriousness of the question is indicated by how the question is focused in the question “What must I do to be Saved?” which was a standard homily at the time. While A. J. McCarty complained that he had heard a supposedly “loyal” brother preach on the question “and he did not once mention the confession” (1898), Joe S. Warlick took pride in the fact that he “never” puts “confession in the answer” because neither Jesus nor any “inspired apostle ever included it in answer to the question” (1899). Warlick believed that “more than half” of the “strongest preachers in Texas” agreed with him (1900) though the Firm Foundation opposed him. The Tennessee Tradition (David Lipscomb, E. G. Sewell, etc.) also agreed with Warlick (though he did not call attention to this fact himself).

McCarty did not believe “any man” had a “scriptural right to be silent on this important item in the gospel plan of salvation” and whoever neglects it is “unfaithful.” He advised that those who do not teach and practice the confession should be marked and avoided as Romans 16 teaches. “Brethren, will we do it?” was his concluding question.

Warlick insisted that there were “only three conditions in the plan of salvation to the alien” and Jesus himself stated them in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; and Luke 24:45-47). “And the apostles in preaching to sinners never hinted at a fourth, but used only three” (1900). Warlick even offered $100 to the person who could “produce chapter, verse or any fractional part thereof” for this fourth step (confession) in the New Testament (1901).

All the editors of the Firm Foundation insisted on a confession of faith prior to baptism as a “necessary condition of salvation” in the plan of salvation. McGary, for example, believed it was “necessarily implied” in the Great Commission (1900). George Savage argued in this manner: “Since ‘the faith’ is the gospel, and since the confession is part of the faith preached everywhere to both Jew and Greek by the apostles of Christ, it follows that the confession is part of the gospel. Since the gospel in all its parts is essential to salvation, it follows with all fidelity to God that the confession is necessary to salvation” (1904). Confession, then, is one of the commands of the gospel just like baptism and therefore it is absolutely necessary to salvation.

Why was this so important for the editors of the Firm Foundation? What was driving the pursuit of this controversy? It is related to the rebaptism controversy. Since Baptists confessed that their sins had already been forgiven, this is not the “good confession” required in the New Testament, according to McGary and others. Referring to Lipscomb and Sewell as “unstable souls,” McGary believed that “were it not for the practice of receiving Baptists on their baptism (who did not make this confession when they were baptized),” it would not be an issue at all (1901). But Lipscomb and Sewell continued to insist that even Baptists were immersed upon a confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God—the same confession upon which Alexander Campbell himself was immersed. Consequently, they were forced, in McGary’s opinion, to deny that confession was a necessary condition since the confession Baptists made was not the same as the “good confession” in the New Testament.

According to McGary, the combination of accepting sect baptism and denying the necessity of confession as a condition of salvation far exceeds the seriousness of the “advocacy of instrumental music in worship and human societies in the work of the Lord.” Though the instrument and socities are “great evils,” they “do not begin to compare in their enormity of crime against God, with this most gigantic and presumptuous sin of virtually endorsing Baptist doctrine, which openly contradicts Christ” (1901). Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate were in error on the plan of salvation and this was more serious than instrumental music!

The confession and rebaptism issues, then, were bound up together for the Texas Tradition. Both commands are part of the gospel itself (the gospel includes facts, commands and promises–the standard mantra that enables “gospel” to include every command in the NT if so construed). Confession is a command by necessary inference and baptism for the explicit purpose to remit sins is based on reading “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 as part of the command. These particular gospel commands distinguished Churches of Christ from the Baptists. Lipscomb believed both “commands” were “ritualism” since they had been made an “essential form” where some “valued the form above the substance” (Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, pp. 97-98).

When the Tennessee Tradition does not agree, it essentially—according to the Texas Tradition—sides with the Baptists and undermines the distinct identity of Churches of Christ. Steps (4) and (5) in the Texas plan of salvation—confession and baptism for the remission of sins (see a previous post on this point)—function to distinguish Churches of Christ from the Baptists. In other words, this peculiar, distinctive and late (1880s forward) understanding of the “gospel plan of salvation” is sectarian in character and functions to exclude obedient believers (e.g., those who were immersed out of a trust in Christ in obedience to God) from the visible church of God, the fellowship of the church.

The debate over the place of “confession” in the plan of salvation, then, was but another part of constructing the 20th century identity of Churches of Christ. Anyone who grew up in the Churches of Christ of the mid-twentieth century can testify to the unquestioned assumption that there were five steps in the plan of salvation and the fourth one was “confession.” But it had not always been so among “us”! Historically, it became so out of largely—though not exclusively—sectarian motives.

For further examples of the Texas-Tennessee difference, see that category under “Stone-Campbell History” in the Serial Index.

Citations:

G. C. Brewer, “Confession and the Plan of Salvation,” Gospel Advocate 87 (26 April 1945) 233.

J. W. Jackson, “Question,” Firm Foundation 13 (30 Nov 1897) 4.

J. R. Lane, “Brother Lipscomb on the Confession,” Firm Foundation 23 (13 August 1907) 1.

David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, edited by J. W. Shepherd (Cincinnati, Ohio: Rowe Publishers, 1918).

Austin McGary, “Bro. M’Gary’s Good Confession,” Firm Foundation 16 (20 November 1900) 775.

Austin McGary, “Unstable Souls,” Firm Foundation 17 (10 September 1901) 4.

Austin McGary, “[Untitled Editorial],” Firm Foundation 16 (29 May 1900) 344.

George W. Savage, “The Confession—It is a Condition of Salvation—No. 2,” Firm Foundation 20 (20 Dec 1904) 4.

Joe. S. Warlick, “Bro. M’Gary’s Good Confession,” Firm Foundation 16 (20 November 1900) 774.

Joe S. Warlick, “Bro. M’Gary’s Good Confession,” Firm Foundation 16 (5 February 1901) 4.

Joe S. Warlick, “The True Position on the Confession,” Firm Foundation 15 (16 May 1898) 312.

David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, ed. by J. W. Shepherd (Cincinnati: Rowe  Publishers, 1918), p. 53. 

Question: “May a person who believes his sins forgiven submit to a scriptural baptism while thus believing?”

Answer:  “There is something unscriptural in the case as presented; but what is it? Is it the baptism, or is it the understanding of when a person is pardoned? If the latter, does that invalidate the former? This is the point of issue in this question, and it is continually ignored.  “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16.) The thing to be believed is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. A person that believes this, and, on this faith, is baptized, is scripturally baptized; but if he believe he has been forgiven before he is baptized his faith is unscriptural–that is, he mistakes the point in the path of obedience at which pardon is promised and can be claimed. Does a mistake as to the point at which God bestows the blessing cause God to withhold the blessing form one who, through faith, does what God tells him? If so, where is the precept or example that shows it? If it is so, it must be because God requires a person to understand at what point in the path of obedience a blessing is promised before he can receive it.  Does any one believe this? I have never found one that would affirm it. I have asked for a single precept or example in the New Testament or the Old Testament that would prove it. I have never seen one produced that was claimed to teach it. I can produce scores of examples and precepts from the Old Testament and the New Testament showing that a misunderstanding on the part of man as to when, in the path of obedience, a blessing was promised, or even of what the blessing was, did not prevent God bestowing the blessingwhen the point was reached. To deny the blessing would be given in this instance because the person mistook the point at which the blessing was bestowed is to set at defiance the teachings of God through the Old Testament and the New Testament, which were written for our example and admonition. God is pleased with the faith that does what he tells to be done without waiting to know when and how God will bless.”

Another Statement (pp. 52-53):  “Christ was baptized ‘to fulfill all righteousness,’ or to obey all the commands of God to make men righteous. (Matt. 3:15.) It is difficult to improve on the examples of Christ. All blessings and all the promises of God connected with the service of God ought to be proclaimed to encourage men to trust in and obey God. But when man does so trust God as to do what he commands, God accepts that service from the humblest of mortals, and man should throw no stumbling-blocks in the way of these little ones of God. There is no greater hindrance to the cause of God at this day than magnifying things not taught by God into questions that create strife among the people of God and divert their minds from the great work of saving men and women from death.”

My Comment:  Lipcomb consistently stresses (1) the example of Jesus and (2) the faith that saves.  If Jesus was baptized to obey God, then following that example is sufficient, and the faith that is required for baptism is a faith in Jesus and not a faith in the promise or blessing of baptism.  Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ and obeys God in baptism through that faith receives the blessings God promised in connection with baptism whether they know it or not (not only the remission of sins, but the gift of the Holy Spirit as well) and even if they had a mistaken notion of what God had promised.  God’s promises do not depend upon a perfectionistic understanding of what God has promised but rather are received through faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  God gives his grace (blessings) through faith and not through perfectionistic understanding.

A.  I have conducted several seminars on 1 Corinthians, especially for newer church plants (e.g., Kiev).  I have uploaded the lecture outlines and small group question materials for a series on 1 Corinthians that I put together for the Cordova Community Church in the late 1990s.  This was the congregation that Gary Ealy and I, along with others, helped plant.  Our method was to present some teaching material for 30 minutes and then we would discuss it in small groups for 30 minutes. There are sixteen lessons which I have uploaded on my Classes page in one document:

1. What Unites Us (1 Corinthians 1).
2. What Might Divide Us (1 Corinthians 3-4).
3. Community Standards (1 Corinthians 5).
4. Community Ethics (1 Corinthians 6).
5.  Healthy Marriages (1 Corinthians 7).
6. When Love is More Important Than Knowledge (1 Corinthians 8).
7. When Others are More Important Than My Rights (1 Corinthians 9).
8. No Presumption: The Lord’s Supper and Ethics (1 Corinthians 10).
9. Male and Female in the Worship Assembly (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).
10. Whose Meal is This? The Lord’s Supper or Ours? (1 Corinthians 17:17-34).
11. Body Language: Whose Job Is It Anyway? (1 Corinthians 12).
12. Love Language: Love Heals Disunity (1 Corinthians 13).
13. Worship: Rational, Emotional or Both? (1 Corinthians 14:1-25).
14. Order Rather than Chaos in the Worship Assembly (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).
15.  The Gospel: Our Foundation and Hope (1 Corinthians 15:1-19).
16. The Collection: Sharing God’s Gifts with Others (1 Corinthians 16:1-4).

B.  The second piece I have uploaded is my thirteen page handout for the Midwest Preacher’s Seminar in Wisconsin on September 22-24, 2000.  The seminar was entitled “Stress These Things: Theological Reflections on Titus.”  I have put it on my General page.  I structured the epistle in this manner:

Introduction (1:1-4)
     Salutation (1:1a, 4a)
     Theological Summary (1:1b-3)
     Greeting (1:4b)
Thematic Concern (1:5)
     Appoint Elders (1:6-16).
          The Character of Elders (1:6-9)
          The Character of False Teachers (1:10-16)
     Teach Sound Doctrine (2:1-3:11)
          First Directive (2:1-15)
               Moral Exhortation (2:1-10)
               Christological Ground (2:11-14)
               Encouragement (2:15)
          Second Directive (3:1-11)
              Moral Exhortation (3:1-2)
              Theological Ground (3:3-8)
              Warning (3:9-11)
Conclusion (3:12-15)
     Ministry Details (3:12-14)
          Ministry Partners (3:12-13)
          Ministry Purpose (3:14)
     Benedictory Greetings (3:15)

C. I have upload a presentation I made to Korean Ministers visiting America in the late 1990s on church polity to my General page. This document also served as a theological backdrop for leadership in the new church plant in Cordova, Tennesseee. It surveys a theology of leadership, the function of evangelists, elders and deacons, as well as the concept of a “leadership team” to serve a church. As evangelists instruct elders with knowledge and elders guide evangelists with wisdom, together they equip the church for ministry.

Connected Living: Levels of Community

The Triune God, of course, lives together in perfect unity, transparency and intimacy. The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Spirit and the Spirit loves the Father. They are one (John 17:20-25). Their community is unbounded; it is infinite.

Living life as a human, however, Jesus learned to live in community in bounded ways; he lived as a finite human being. He could not be intimate with everyone; he could not share his day-to-day life with everyone; and he could not even speak to everyone. Rather, he lived out his humanity as we live out ours—he connected with others at different levels of community.

We may call these “circles of fellowship” or “levels of community.” Whatever we call them the Gospel narratives indicate that Jesus experienced communal life in various ways and at different times. His experience is a model for reflecting on our own experience as we seek to become fully and authentically human ourselves.

The Levels

Solitude. Jesus took time to be alone with God—the Father and Spirit. This was foundational for everything else in his life. This time confirmed his identity and focused his mission. In this time we face our true selves and learn to love ourselves because we are loved by God.

Intimacy. Jesus shared life and feelings with Peter, James and John. They were his intimates with whom he could share experiences, burdens and fears that perhaps he could not share with others. We need people who know our secrets, to whom we confess our sins, and who will hold us accountable. We need people who know our stories, our true selves and before whom we are emotionally and spiritually “naked and unashamed.” Many have “covenant groups” but sometimes they are too large. Intimacy happens with three or four people, perhaps six, but rarely much larger than that.

Relationship. Jesus traveled with the twelve and a few female supporters. He ate with them, prayed with them, recreated with them, and served with them. They were his “small group” – a group of people which numbers between 10 and 20. These groups are not intimacy groups, but they are relationships which supply mutual support, social interaction, and even fun. These are the people who surround us with their love in times of tragedy and join us in celebration in times of joy. They share life with us. These are the people with whom we eat the “last suppers” or the “Passovers” of our life.

Community. Jesus also spent time with larger groups of disciples than the twelve. He gathered seventy disciples to send out two by two in Luke 10. In the setting of most of our congregations, these are the Bible classes we attend or the ministries in which we serve. They are twenty to a hundred people whose names we know and with whom we share a common interest or task. This level of community is generally task-oriented with less focus on inter-personal interaction.

Assembly. Jesus also went to the Temple to worship with the people of God, with the crowds and multitudes. He attended the festivals and synagogue assemblies. He stood in the congregation and praised the Father. Assemblies, of course, range in size from small communities (30-100 people) to crowds of people (thousands). But the focus of community here is not interpersonal interaction as much as the presence of God within the community. Here, together, we encounter God as one people; here we join the heavenly assembly of saints and angels to praise Father, Son and Spirit. And we are thereby encouraged and empowered as a community to embrace and pursue the mission of God in the world.

Living Community in Levels

At different times in our lives we emphasize different levels. Someone who has been hurt or abused by intimacy may only desire anonymity in the assembly for a period of time. Someone who has experienced loneliness in assembly may want to focus on developing intimacy with others. Someone who has for years focused on community tasks may discover a need to focus on solitude for a period of time.

There is no single way to slice this pie. Everyone is different and at different times has different needs. That is fine and leaders should have the patience to let people be where they are instead of forcing them into particular molds or church programs.

At the same time while community can happen naturally at all these levels, leaders may encourage believers to seek out community at every level in appropriate ways at appropriate times. Healthy congregations provide opportunities for the experience of community at every one of these levels. Leaders strategize how to best promote these experiences for their flock.

We cannot expect one form of community to supply the need for which another level is designed. We cannot expect a Bible class (community) to provide the intimacy that a group of three or four friends can. If we do expect it, then we will be sorely disappointed. Neither can an assembly be a “small group” where we know everyone. However, we can seek out each level of community so that our lives find balance, nurture and fulfillment just as Jesus found in his human relationships.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Identify what you find most valuable and helpful about each level of community?
2. What do you think makes each level of community different from the other? Why is it important to recognize those differences?
3. On what level of community do you need to focus more of your attention at this moment in your life?
4. How can the church guide people to or help them discover these different levels of community as part of body life?