A Kingdom

A Kingdom, A People & A River
A New Paradigm For the Post Modern House Church Movement

Parousia Weekly Update Letter For The Week of April 10, 2006

"When a prophet is accepted and deified, his message is lost. The prophet is only useful so long as he is stoned as a public nuisance calling us to repentance, disturbing our comfortable routines, breaking our respectable idols, shattering our sacred conventions" (A. G. Gardiner as quoted by Arthur Wallis, "In The Day of Thy Power").

In This Issue:

House Church Reflections: Reality Isn't What It Used To Be (And Neither Is Our Theology)
A Time To Dance - This Friday (and every Friday), April 7

Dear Friends,

Long letter, so I'll keep this part short. Much is happening spiritually right now. The Parousia Network is on "Flood Watch" - something powerful is about to happen. I believe God is having us get our houses in order so that the River of His Spirit can flow! This is a critical time of watching, waiting and praying.

Blessings,
Maurice

House Church Reflections: Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be (And Neither Is Our Theology)

He was exiled - banished - five times (basically, once by every Emperor from Constantine the Great to Julian the Apostate - he had that "exile anointing" working for him! [sic]) and His life was threatened on numerous occasions. He endured the wrath of Emperors, who both feared and respected him, and suffered the impassioned hatred of his theological opponents, of which he had many. Yet His congregation came to love him and his fellow bishops came to give him the grudging respect which his faithful determination had earned. What was his "crime"? What had he done to create such division and to so disturb the peace and unity of the Church? And why should we care today? His "controversial stance" was to teach and defend the full deity of Christ in an age when there were many - both Emperors and bishops - who did not agree. His name was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and we owe our faith to his doctrinal fervor.

The first 350-to-400 years of Christianity were marked by many significant controversies. We in the house church movement like to emphasize the rise of house churches and their subsequent decline in favor of "basilicas" ruled by bishops, etc. (All true, but not today’s agenda). It was also the period of on–going persecution, and the formation and finalization of the New Testament Canon (settling the issue of which writings were to be considered "scripture" and which were not). But above and beyond all these notable issues, this was the period of a "pitched battle", a life-and-death struggle, between Christianity, paganism and numerous pseudo-Christian cults, off-shoots and challengers (gnosticism, neo-platonism, docetism, manichaeanism, and more) during which time Christianity was forced to answer one of its most basic questions: Who is this Jesus? Is He God, or merely god-like, or "divine"? Is He three-gods-in-one" or "one-God-in-three-persons"? Was Jesus a phantasm who walked the Earth in the appearance of being a man (as the docetists believed)? Was He fully God, or was he fully man . . . or both? And wouldn’t you know it, just when you think you’ve got it settled . . . here it comes again (but I’m getting ahead of myself).

Following "the Great Persecution" (the 50-year period which ended with the "Edict of Nantes" in 323 and the ascension of the Emperor Constantine) the Christian doctrine of the nature of God including the deity of Jesus, found its greatest defender in Athanasius (c. AD 296-373). As the archdeacon of the church of Alexandria, Athanasius accompanied his Bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. No less than 318 leaders of the church came to debate the nature of God. Specifically, they debated the issue of whether Jesus was fully God, sharing the same essence as the Father. Little did they suspect that it would take them and the church 56 years (from the Council of Nicea in AD 325 until the Council of Constantinople in AD 381) to settle the issue. "Athanasius, the eloquent and pugnacious archdeacon whom Alexander had brought with him as a theological sword, made it clear that if Christ and the Holy Spirit were not of one substance with the Father, polytheism would triumph. He conceded the difficulty of picturing three distinct persons in one God, but argued that reason must bow to the mystery of the Trinity." (Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 660). Athanasius and his supporters won the day and the Nicene Creed has been a cornerstone of Christian theology ever since.

Allow me to briefly digress and summarize four centuries of Christological debate into a paragraph. The person of Christ was the subject of much debate during the first 500 years of the Church. There were, in fact, two "schools of thought" on the issue. The "Alexandrian School" leaned toward emphasizing the divine nature, at the expense of Christ’s humanity, whereas the "Antiochene School" emphasized Christ’s human nature at the expense of His deity. In a period of 125 years there were four "Ecumenical" or "General" councils of the Church which dealt with the question of "Who is Jesus?" The Council of Nicea (AD325) considered and condemned "Arianism" which denied the full deity of Christ and demoted Him to a being created by God as an instrument for the creation of the world. The Council of Constantinople (AD 381) considered and condemned "Apollinarianism" which denied the full manhood of Christ by arguing that Christ’s human soul had been replaced by the Divine Logos. The Council also ratified and refined the Nicene Creed to combat on-going Arianism and confirmed the full deity of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Ephesus (AD 431) considered and condemned "Nestorianism" which maintained that there were two separate natures (one human, the other divine) and which denied the full union of the two natures in one person. Finally, the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) considered and condemned "Eutychianism" which claimed that Jesus had "one nature after the union" and denied that Jesus’ manhood was the same as ours ("consubstantial" - of one substance or essence). The Council of Chalcedon succeeded in bringing the two competing schools into balance by affirming both Christ’s full humanity and full deity, both being present and undiminished in one Person. Christ was declared "consubstantial with the Father" regarding His deity, and "consubstantial with us in manhood" regarding His humanity. The men who so passionately debated these matters, often at great personal risk, understood the stakes. If Jesus of Nazareth was anything less than fully man and fully God in perfect balance in one Person, then His substitutionary death upon the cross would be an inadequate sacrifice, unable satisfy the righteous divine demands of punishment for the sins of mankind. Nothing less than our salvation was at stake in the debate.

O.K.. Now, fast forward to today. As I have written in a previous e-letter (see my e-letter for September 30, 2005 The Emerging Church & the Challenge of Free Range Chickens - "And we’re the chickens" in our archives) we live in an age of "free-range chickens" and our house churches are no exception, increasingly resembling "free range chicken coops". We may occasionally assemble to engage in what M. Scott Peck (The Different Drum)describes as "pseudocommunity," but for the most part we "do our own thing," and that includes "believing our own thing." The "don’t tell me what to believe" attitude of many contemporary Christians is one we have imbibed from our Postmodern culture (see Module 2 of our new Equipping Workbook) which has rejected "universal truth" taught by others in favor of what Walter Truett Anderson (Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be) describes as "SCR" - socially constructed reality - things which are "true for me and my social group," but which bear no significant relationship to anyone or anything outside of that group - a "free range chicken coop."

Russian Christian, dissident and author Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn once observed, "In order to destroy a people you must first sever their roots." One of the fastest paths to the ultimate destruction of the contemporary church in all of its various manifestations (cell church, house church, emerging church, market place gatherings, campus church, etc.) is for it to become severed from the historic doctrinal roots which have defined the permissible boundaries of our biblical/historical faith and have distinguished it from out-right cults and pseudo-Christian pretenders. Bill Beckham, an internationally recognized leader of the cell church movement, has rightly and profoundly observed that "A Christian movement cannot sustain itself unless it eventually defines itself theologically."

One of the looming long-term challenges of the house church movement (indeed, of the "emerging church" movement), if it is to survive and thrive as a genuine movement, is the need to define itself theologically. And no where is this need for theological definition more critical than in our understanding of Christ Himself, which brings us back to Athanasius, the Nicene Creed and, yes, house church. I am particularly vexed and concerned over a specific teaching that is making its way through the church, and which I have heard articulated among house church teachers and advocates. It represents (in my opinion) an attack upon the deity of Christ, lowering Christ by denying his deity during his years on earth and emphasizing His humanity in order to make Him equal to us, or us equal with Him. Bear with me as I try to reduce this theological fire hydrant to a garden hose that we can all drink from without drowning. Here’s how it works.

In John 14:12 Jesus tells His disciples, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father." Profound questions quickly arise from this passage. If Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate when He walked the earth, then it would make perfect sense for Him (as God) to be able to do the miraculous things He did. We would expect God to be able to raise the dead, cleanse lepers, open blind eyes, heal sick people, etc. Fine. But where does that leave us mortals? We aren’t God, or even gods. How do we overcome the reality that Jesus was God and we are not? Because if we aren’t God, how can we be expected to do even the ordinary works of Jesus, much less the "greater works" promised by Jesus in John 14:12? A conundrum of no small proportions! I want to answer this question by reviewing what I consider to be two false answers which are currently being popularly and commonly taught and why I believe they represent a return to "Nestorianism" (i.e., separating the two natures of Christ, emphasizing His humanity at the expense of His deity). Then I want to offer what I consider to be a biblical answer which resolves the conundrum and prepares the Church for the "greater works" yet to come!

Answer # 1: The first answer which is being commonly offered even in house church circles goes like this (no, I’m not going to use names or identify people because I want this to be an admonishment-in-love for the whole church). While on earth Jesus voluntarily laid aside the exercise of His divine attributes in order to be "fully human." In other words, in the absence of the use of His divine power, Jesus was no more or less "powerful" than you or me. Instead, just like you and me, He relied solely upon the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through Him. Therefore, Jesus didn’t do anything that you and I can’t do by relying on the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now I have several problems with this proposed explanation. First, it simply isn’t taught anywhere in Scripture. Sorry. It just isn’t (hold your fire ‘til point #3). Second, it seeks to fulfill an unscriptural but perceived need to make Jesus like us - to make Jesus less than He is (God) so that we can be more than we are (human). In the end, one of us must deny our intrinsic nature. Either Jesus must deny His essential deity, or men must deny our essential humanity. Third, it is often justified on the basis of a faulty understanding of a tough passage, namely, Philippians 2:5-8 - "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond_servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Beginning in the mid-1800s some theologians in Germany and England began interpreting this passage (particularly verse 7) as meaning that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes while he was on earth as a man. This came to be known as the "kenosis" passage (from the Greek verb kenoo meaning "to empty"). The problem is that the passage itself no where teaches that Jesus emptied himself of His divine attributes. Rather, as theologian Wayne Grudem points out, the passage states that Jesus accomplished this "emptying" by "taking the form of a bond-servant," thereby equating "emptying" with "humbling Himself." Observes Grudem, "The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature." (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1994, page 550).

Answer # 2: This answer is (in my opinion) merely the logical – if not inevitable - extension of the first answer. It simply says that Jesus, when He walked the earth, was not God. When He came to earth Jesus "emptied" Himself of His deity, embraced humanity, lived as a man and relied solely on the power of the Holy Spirit to do everything He did. This is the "kenosis" theory gone-to-seed. I am not repeating this teaching as "hearsay", but as something which I have personally heard taught within house church gatherings, hence my concern (if it makes you feel any better, it is not a teaching unique to house church today).

My three objections to Answer #1 also apply to Answer # 2. But there is more. In my opinion, Answer # 1 above represents what I would call "Nestorianism Lite," whereas Answer # 2 represents full-blown Nestorianism which denies and destroys the unity of the Person of Christ by separating His two natures (the human and the divine) into competing entities, emphasizing one while diminishing and denying the other. The stakes are high in this issue. How high? Jesus Himself defined the stakes in John 8:24 when He said, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am (He), you shall die in your sins." This is one of several great "I AM" passages in which Jesus declares His deity by identifying Himself with the Old Testament Name of God (see Exodus 3:14). How do we know that this is how we should understand this formulation? Because this is how the Jews themselves understood what Jesus was saying: "Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy (i.e., claiming to be God), which the Jews would attempt again in John 10:31. Again, allow me to try and reduce this theological fire hydrant to a gentle garden hose that we can all drink from without drowning. To deny the deity of Jesus of Nazareth is to run the substantial risk of dying in your unatoned and unforgiven sins. For only a man who possessed undiminished deity in perfect union with undiminished humanity could offer himself as a sacrifice sufficient to satisfy the eternal demands of divine justice.

Before I offer my proposed solution to this dilemma (i.e., how can we do "greater works" than Jesus if He was God and we are not), allow me to make an observation and restate my position. First, my observation. We live in an age of what I call "anthropocentric" (i.e., "man-centered") theology. We pay lip service to how great God is, but at the end of the day, it’s really all about us. We are great. We are powerful. We are prophetic. We are Apostolic. We can proclaim. We are the "manifest sons of God." Teachers teach about the "anointing of Kings" resting upon God’s people and calling them to "rule" in the market place and elsewhere. Yet Paul never referred to himself (or any one else) as a king, but as a bond-servant, and specifically taught against such a "king" mentality in 1 Corinthians 4. One such teacher goes on to deny the doctrine of original sin and depravity (which only "makes sense" because you wouldn’t want to go around anointing and releasing "depraved kings" upon the world!). It really is all about us, our power, our greatness. We are Kings (sic).

As for my position, I am opposed to any teaching or doctrine that exalts men at Jesus’ expense. Jesus was and is God. You and I are not. Sorry. I am opposed to any and all misguided attempts to empower and equip believers for ministry and walking in "greater works" which requires that we diminish Jesus and make Him less than He was and is, while making us more than they are. We are not kings. Like the One Who called us, our Kingdom is not of this world. Or have we forgotten that? John the Baptist had it right when he declared regarding His own status with respect to Jesus, "He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30)

A Biblical Answer To This Dilemma

O.K. Critics are "a dime a dozen," and even when they’re right, they’re still cheap. It isn’t enough to simply critique (accurately) an errant belief, especially one in which the stakes are so high. And cheap answers to expensive questions tend to leave everyone unsatisfied. The question - and dilemma - which remains unanswered is simply this: How can we expect to match the works of Jesus and go on to do "greater works" if He was God and we are not? I believe the seed of an answer is found in the very verse which sparked the question: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father." The greater works promised here are directly related to Jesus’ departure to go to the Father. This was a consistent part of Jesus’ teaching, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." The teaching was clear and simple. When Jesus left to go to the Father the Holy Spirit would be sent to the church in a way which the people of God had never experienced before. This promised was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.




The image and promise of a River in the Old Testament now finds its fulfillment and outpouring in the New. The same God who planned our salvation and accomplished it without our help has also provided for His redeemed people to walk in power, gifts and works greater than anything we could have hoped for or dreamed of. This is about Him - and it always has been. Poured out on the day of Pentecost, the River of God’s Spirit is flowing and growing. Every great revival in the history of the Church can be explained and understood as the River of Ezekiel 47 flowing, growing and rising to a new level not before experienced in that generation. Revival is simply God’s River at flood-tide, inundating parched ground with more water-of-life than we have vessels to receive and hold. And it should come as no surprise that during such times the miraculous becomes common-place and "greater works" abound. Proving again (and again . . . and again) that it really is all about His greatness, never about ours.

Morning is about to dawn. The River of God’s Spirit is preparing to rise to a flood-tide not seen or experienced in living memory. Are you & your house church a vessel through which He can flow? Are you prepared to be overshadowed by His greatness and to discover what it means to be a bond-servant who has been granted the privilege of standing in His River?

A Time to Dance (and to "Wait Hard") - Next Meeting - Friday, April 14

Come join us as we "wait hard" on God. Our goal is to worship, pray and press in. This is the pursuit of God in the company of friends who are learning to dance with God and with each other. Please consider this your invitation to join us this Friday evening, April 14, 7:00PM at the home of the Shipley’s (Call if you need directions - 926-7743).

© 2006 THE PAROUSIA NETWORK of House and Cell Churches (www.parousianetwork.org)

TO SUBSCRIBE type SUBSCRIBE in the subject line of a blank e-mail and send it to Subscribe@parousianetwork.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE type UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line of a blank e-mail and send it to Unsubscribe@parousianetwork.org
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS E-LETTER TO YOUR E-MAILING LIST!