Strong
Church/Weak Church 5
Last week, we examined the church at
Antioch and discovered that it had a veritable plethora of strengths as
described in the Bible. But it was not without flaws. In laying out all the
passages that discuss the Antiochian church, one weakness in particular stood
out to me, namely this: they allowed the weaknesses of a more influential
church to influence them negatively.
When we examined the church at
Jerusalem, the first and most influential church in the early period, we saw
that one of its weaknesses was an ethnically based division, racism, if you
will. It was at the heart of the divisiveness that necessitated the first
deacon selection. But that’s not all. We can see that this exclusionary attitude
– the church as a Jewish institution only – was explicitly passed on to other
churches around them.
Acts 11:19–20
19 Now they which
were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled
as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but
unto the Jews only.
20 And some of
them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch,
spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
We see in the above passage a curious
mix. There are those who are preaching unto the Jews only, but there are others
who are also speaking of Christ to the Grecians. The resulting church at
Antioch was certainly not entirely racist in this respect, but it did have
racist strains in it, and those strains evidenced themselves.
Galatians 2:11–13
11 But when Peter
was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that
certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come,
he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the
other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was
carried away with their dissimulation.
The problem here as I see it, is not
just ethnically based exclusion, though that is bad enough. It is a systemic
failure, a corporate abdication of the everlasting necessity of spiritual
discernment. Not coincidentally, it manifested itself when the preacher (Peter)
from the big church (Jerusalem) came to spread his influence.
I have no desire to leave the wrong
impression. Big churches are not bad by virtue of being big, anymore than
little churches are bad by virtue of being little – though there are more than
enough immature Christians on either end of the spectrum who view it so. Big
churches have strengths, as we discussed when looking at Jerusalem, but for all
that they are not inherently better or worse. A church, all churches, no matter
their size, are to be measured by the same stick: their likeness to Jesus
Christ.
Having said that, it is also
undeniably true that larger churches have larger everything – budgets,
ministries, buildings, reputations, and influence. Think of a rock thrown into
a pond, the larger the rock, the larger the ripples. As those ripples spread outward
in a concentric circle, they will impact everything within their path. So it is
with larger churches; as their ministries reach out into other local churches
in their Jerusalem, their Judaea, their Samaria, and their world, their
influence touches the smaller churches. The entire point of this post is that
this touch may be for either good or ill, and it is the task of the local
church to ensure that only the former gets through.
Brethren, we cannot check our brain at
the door for any man, any church, any paper, any fellowship, or any seminary.
Even the external ministries that we find most similar to us in spirit and
philosophy must be routinely examined. Their doctrine and practice must
constantly be put to the scriptural test, especially when that doctrine and
practice touch our own church.
External influences are often very
helpful, but do not accept any man whole cloth. Including the one writing what
you are reading this very moment.
Prove
all things; hold fast that which is good (I Thessalonians 5.21).
Excellent. Biblical. Balanced. Thank You! I am enjoying this series immensely.
ReplyDeleteAt this point in my study of the Scriptures, I believe the Grecians of Acts 11 were the same as the Grecians of Acts 6 (Hellenized Jews). This implies that it was Paul who "opened the gospel" to the heathen in a general fashion in the end of Acts 13 at Antioch (of Pisidia), not the scattered believers in Acts 11. Even Paul in Cyprus only preached in synagogues until he was brought to Sergius Paulus, who asked to hear Paul's message. And, it was news to the church at Antioch (in Syria) that the Gentiles had the door of faith opened to them (Acts 14:27).
ReplyDelete