James Wibberding

Our Souderton church celebrated its 100th anniversary yesterday. The event has caused me to research the history of this local church and has given me perspective on my own efforts to serve God. The local church began with great ambitions, then faltered, then grew over the next ten years by the work of an ambitious layman, then engaged in a long string of new initiatives. What strikes me is that few of these efforts created immediate, obvious success but all of them contributed to an impressive cumulative result. It suggests that our impact on the world has less to do with big moments than it has to do with steady service.

The root of sin is selfishness. This is clear at the moment of Lucifer’s fall (Isaiah 14:12-14) and at the moment of man’s fall (Genesis 3:4-6), when each tried to elevate self above their proper place before God. In light of this, I think we miss the mark when we make salvation the motivation to do good. Can we participate in God’s work to save us from selfishness by acting for the sake of selfish reward? It may seem like I am splitting hairs but I think this is fundamental. Unless we recognize that God wants to save us from selfishness then we will turn religion into a tool for selfish gain. We will focus on ourselves and end up worse than we would have been without it. Let me suggest that this is why, when God calls us to Christ, he calls us to unselfish service. Jesus once said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34).

I am doing a sermon series right now that approaches the book of Revelation as a collection of character studies. I think this is an interpretive angle that would reduce confusion for lots of people. It works pretty simply: The first time a character is featured, a visual description is given. Later in the story, key fragments of those descriptions are repeated to associate an apparently new character with the one who has already appeared. This takes much of the mystery out of what is happening as the story unfolds. Also helpful is understanding that the center of the story is chapter 12, where all three of the main characters appear: Christ (royal child), Satan (dragon), and the Church (woman). If anyone would like to test the theory, the featured descriptions of the main characters appear as follows:

Christ: Revelation 1:9-19

Satan: Revelation 12:3-12

Church: Revelation 7:2-16

As you may know, I conducted a comprehensive study of the biblical Sabbath experience a few years ago and shared some of my findings in the book Sabbath Reflections: A Weekly Devotional. But, I just discovered a new insight. I’m not sure I know what all it means yet but maybe someone reading this does and will submit a comment.

The insight emerges from the structural patterns of Genesis 1:1-2:3. Biblical authors often arrange their telling of stories in specific ways to highlight or link ideas. The whole of this passage is written in a clear overarching pattern but it is the ends of the pattern that say something about Sabbath.

Genesis 1:1-2 and Genesis 2:1-2 form the beginning and end of the first telling of the Creation story. But, more than being bookends to the story, they have a great deal of similarity.

• Both sections contain exactly 17 Hebrew word units (word counting is common in Hebrew literature to show connections).
• Both sections start with a creation declaration:
  • “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.
  • “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the hosts of them, were finished”.
• Both sections follow by giving the status of the work:
  • “The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep”.
  • “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done”.
• Both sections end by giving the status of God:
  • “And the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters”.
  • “So on the seventh day God rested from all his work”.
• Both sections are followed by a Hebrew sentence of exactly 5 words:
  • “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light”.
  • “And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy”.

The strong, and clearly intentional, parallel between these bookends of the story links the creation of light with the blessing and making holy of the Sabbath.

I shared this in last Sabbath’s sermon and a friend who heard it pointed out to me that with the introduction of light also came the formula for marking time (evening and morning). Since the sun and moon were not created until three days later, both light and time were coming from God himself. In fact, God created the sun and moon only the day before he began to create conscious life (animals and humans).

The fact that the biblical author links this idea of light and time emerging from God’s presence with the setting aside of Sabbath (the word for “made it holy” means to separate out) may explain why the formula of “evening and morning” is not mentioned regarding Sabbath like it is with the other six days. God’s presence is prominent again, so the sun and moon are insignificant. They matter the other six days as reminders that the day of God’s presence is coming again soon.

I haven’t connected all the dots yet but I think there is something profound here. Anyone have an idea?

Another part of re-simplifying our views of spiritual gifts (back to the original simplicity of Scripture) is recognizing the categories. 1 Corinthians 12 explicitly presents spiritual gifts as pieces of a larger whole (the members are pieces of the larger body). Yet, we usually consider spiritual gifts as a collection of neat idiosyncrasies (recognizing that our gifts make us special and different) but we don’t connect them to a larger whole to show how each piece relates to the others.

Perhaps this is because we don’t know how to understand the body metaphor or what it points to. But there is good news. There is a biblical church structure to be found. All the teachings about various spiritual gifts and all specific instructions to church officers should be understood in relationship to this biblical church structure. It emerges from the story of the early church as told in the book of Acts. The early church was driven to accomplish a simple but earthshaking mission so they structured their church around that goal. The mission was to take the gospel to the world (Acts 1:8) and the resulting structure was as follows:

• Fellowship: Some are called to oversee the social needs of the church (the biblical deacons; Acts 6:1-7).
• Guidance: Some are called to oversee the spiritual direction of the church (the biblical elders; Acts 14:23-15:1-6).
• Outreach: Some are called to expand the mission by reaching new areas (the biblical apostles; Acts 13:1-3)

Of course the references given above are only meant as samples of the larger picture (which can be easily deduced from a careful reading of Acts). But, the mission structure of the early church centers around the mission and is comprised of these three ministry areas: fellowship, guidance, and outreach. Those who are not called to lead in these areas are, apparently, called to help in one of them.

Let me suggest that the first task in identifying your spiritual gifts or how they relate to the church is identifying which of these three areas of ministry God had made you most passionate about.

Another significant idea emerges from 1 Corinthians 12. There, it describes the church body as Christ’s body on earth. In it, Paul explains that each member of the church is a member of Christ’s body (v. 12-14). He rebukes those who minimize the importance of another member (v. 14-19) and he rebukes those who minimize the importance of their own role (v. 20-21). And, in all of this, he never allows for anyone to be a member of the body/church and not be active in some part of its ministry.

Church leaders often forget that everyone is not given the same role, and so they implore people to join the latest initiative by appealing to their sense of Christian duty. This practice is so strong that, even when I relentlessly communicate that my own pastoral appeals for ministry involvement are not to a specific task but to the task God calls each person to, people hear them that way anyway. But, more tragic is that members often forget that being a minister for Christ is the only way to be a follower of Christ and a member of his body/church.

When we allow this mindset to remain, we not only cripple God’s witness on earth but we let God’s children remain unfaithful to him without sounding a word of warning. Is it too harsh to say that you are either a minister or you are not a member of Christ’s church? It is what Paul seems to suggest.

Science tells us that, in nature, things tend toward disorder–that time spawns chaos. In the church, I suspect the opposite is true. We take simple things and make them complex. This is certainly true of spiritual gifts. We read texts like 1 Corinthians 12 and make seminars, sophisticated gifts assessment inventories, and committees to direct spiritual gift development. No doubt these tools have served some people well but what the apostle Paul really meant to say was quite simple: God made you who you are for a purpose. In the Corinthian church, they had certainly noticed their unique approaches to life (There is evidence in the fact that Paul spends much of his letter telling them how to work together in spite of differences). The same is true for most of us. We don’t need spiritual gifts inventories or the like to tell us what excites us and what we’re good at. We just need to employ creativity in finding ways to use our gifts to serve him. It’s quite simple.

In a previous post, I suggested that appropriate Bible study let’s Scripture set the agenda. Let me explain what I mean. Much of Bible study is done to establish doctrine, which means that we look for specific answers when we open our Bible’s. This may be church doctrine or a personally relevant biblical doctrine. This, however, can blind us to the real biblical themes and cause us to see only what we choose to see. It can lock us in to our preconceived framework of truths and leave us without large pieces of the puzzle that will change the picture entirely. We should, instead, sit at the foot of Scripture and let God tell us what matters most to him. There may be times when we need to study specific topics but this study will be fruitful only if we have first let Scripture set the agenda and build the framework for our understanding.

One reason Christians splinter into so many denominations is that Christians don’t know how to study the Bible. When we sit down at the Word of God, strange behaviors take over. Instead of taking in the whole message and letting it guide our thoughts, we look for key statements that we can string together to support views we already hold. It is the only source of vital information I know of that people resist being informed by.

I think I have room to speak, because I am describing my own behaviors in a not too distant time. I would have never thought to take a collection of isolated statements from the morning newspaper and construct the day’s events as I thought they should be. So, why such behavior with God’s Word?

Before you claim innocence, consider this: Do you read the Bible with a study-guide or a concordance? Or do you look for the story as it unfolds before you? Broad reading is the only way to receive the message as it comes. After the big message has been received, filling in the details with a more directed study (i.e. concordances and study guides) is appropriate. But, I am convinced that the bread and butter of Bible study is broad reading.

I tuned in to the Republican presidential debate on 11/28/07, where candidates were asked whether they believe in every word of the Bible. The question made candidates obviously uncomfortable, and I don’t blame them. Unless you define what it means to believe the Bible, a yes or no answer may commit you to something you don’t actually believe. The incident reminds us that you and I need to know what we mean by it.

The candidates had various perspectives. Rudolph Giuliani said he believes the Bible but doesn’t think it should all be taken literally. His example was Jonah, whose fish story, Giuliani says, is an allegory that didn’t really happen but is there to teach a larger lesson. Mitt Romney affirmed his belief in every word of Scripture, with the caution that he might interpret it differently than you do. Mike Huckabee, who has a degree in theology, answered wisely in saying that Scripture is a revelation from an infinite God and can’t be fully understood yet deserves our belief. He added that some biblical issues are complex but we need to get serious about the clear ones first (like love and concern for fellow humans).

What do you mean when you say you believe in the Bible? Another source I have been reading answers that question for you. It is a book by Richard Dawkins, called The God Delusion. As the title suggests, he looks askance on religion. To ridicule the Christian faith, he sketches a picture of the Old Testament God as a petty, emotionally unstable tyrant, ready to snuff you out at the slightest misstep. He then attaches that view, and his perception of what literal interpretation means, to us Christians in order to dismiss Christianity as dangerous and absurd.

Does literal mean reading each verse or aspect in isolation and drawing conclusions? Dawkins does so, and the result is awful (but he is right that many Christians use the same philosophy of interpretation). Or, does literal mean reading broadly to understand what picture the pieces really make? I don’t know what Dawkins or Giuliani or Romney mean by literal but I do know which approach shows the most respect for Scripture as divine revelation. It is the one that seeks most to know what God actually means to say (broad reading to understand the big picture).

Perhaps Dawkins can teach us something. Maybe the common literalistic approach to Scripture will indeed lead us down a path toward divinely endorsed genocide and the stoning of gays and Sabbath-breakers. Perhaps the same Bible study methods we use to prove good doctrine could be used to prove devilish doctrine.

Two principles can help us out of danger. First, let the Bible interpret itself through broad reading. Second, always be sure Scripture sets the agenda.