From the Cross to the Table

By Steven J. Brice

 

Abilene Christian University

Theological Reflection in Practice

Dr. Chris Flanders

3/25/14

     In the early 1800s, Richard McNemar was in the center of an ecclesiastical chasm. His 19^th-century Kentucky experienced many ecstatic revivals. Christians in Kentucky believed that they were experiencing a supernatural outpouring of the Holy Spirit. With this contemporary and differing experience of the Holy Spirit, it was evident that certain groups of people had different beliefs. McNemar, a minister in a local church, was being pressured by the elders to respond to the diverse views of the Holy Spirit. Knowing that his response may lead to division within the community, McNemar was perplexed. How should McNemar have responded?

The church of Jesus Christ is a place where diversity reigns.[1] Diversity can be defined as “the condition of being different.”[2] The diversity I am advocating for is a safe place where individuals who have different conclusions on a specific doctrine can coexist in a way where all parties are living into their liberties while not deeply offending one who has differences of opinion. The question that churches need to answer, both theologically and practically, is “how can the church maintain unity in the presence of diversity?” I argue that a studious, continuous understanding of the cross will, if practiced, compel churches to maintain unity in the presence of diversity. The cross is the center piece of our faith that every Christian is called to embrace.[3] Churches facing a reality of different ideologies must have cross-centered theologies to weather the agonizing, excruciating, and occasionally necessary possibilities of church splits.

Scripture

In thinking about a deeper understanding of the cross, Scripture is a primary source. During the Second Great Awakening, Scripture was both used and misused to justify ecstatic practices. One who criticized the revival’s misuse of Scripture was the great American Theologian Jonathan Edwards, who wrote,

“Another foundation error of those that don’t acknowledge the divinity of this work, is not taking the Holy Scriptures as an whole, and in itself a sufficient rule to judge of such things by…Those that I am speaking of, will indeed make some use of Scripture, so far as they think it serves their turn; but don’t make use of it alone, as a rule sufficient by itself, but make as much, and a great deal more use of other things, diverse and wide from it, to judge of this work by.”[4]

As a result of Edwards’s awareness and concerns regarding the usage of Scripture, in this paper, Scriptures will have a significant role in the conservation on unity. Scripture has much to say about unity in the presences of diversity.[5] Scripture will serve as a primary source to clarify how Christians in the church who differ on significant things can discover ways to find unity in the presence of diversity. The situation with McNemar was occupied with three biblical passages: 1 Samuel 10:1-13, Acts 2:1-13, and I Corinthians 14:29-33, 40. It is not the purpose of this paper to identify the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; therefore, these texts will not be useful. The purpose of this paper is to show that unity will be present among differing parties if both parties choose to embrace the cross for the sake of peace.

     The term “unity” is a broad term that can be given various definitions. In this paper, I am defining unity as an existing condition in which diverse peoples can find mutual ways to co-exist in peace. I argue that if my definition is to be practiced in the church, the differing parties must both be willing to sacrifice something for the sake of maintaining the bonds of peace.[6] For example, the Apostle Paul, who is traditionally known for being the author the book of Philippians, encourages his readers to practice various methods in order for the church to live in unity.[7] These various practices will lead one to resemble Christ as he is described in the Christ Hymn.[8]

An Old Testament Foreshadow of the Cross

New Testament texts highlight unity among believers being found through the cross.[9] As I move towards the cross to reveal the common unity that must be present among believers, the Old Testament offers rich insights that grounds the argument for the cross being the basis for our unity.

The Old Testament texts provide various historical snapshots of God offering salvation to his people. Although the biblical focus is specifically on the history of God’s chosen people, the entirety of human history is indirectly included. This is seen in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which discuss the whole world and its inhabiting people. The election and calling of Abraham does not contradict the reality that one man was chosen to bring blessings to the nations of the world. Connecting the grand redemptive scheme of God in the Old & New Testaments, Graeme Goldsworthy writes,

“The inclusiveness of the plan is seen in the Adam-Christ typology in the New Testament (Rom. 5:12-21; I Cor. 15:42-49), and in the goal of the gospel to create one new man in Christ uniting both Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 3:10-11). It is also seen in the grand vision of the book of Revelation of a new humanity and the return of Edenic bliss in the new Jerusalem at the centre of the new creation.”[10]

The Old Testament narrative provides glimpses of God seeking to bring all of humanity into unity with Divinity.

The Old Testament narrative highlights the rebelliousness of the Hebrew people towards God, yet in many ways, God creates opportunities for his people to be in covenant with Him. The word “covenant” describes an idea of two people being in a relationship with one another. Within a covenant, there is an agreed mutual understanding that two people will engage in a relationship of reciprocity. One of the primary indicators of a covenant between God and his people is a shared meal. An example of a covenant relationship in the Old Testament is the story of God and the children of Israel.

The book of Exodus shares a story of God’s people being trapped in Egyptian bondage. Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt was the oppressor of God’s people. As a result of this, the people were crying out to God. God then raised Moses to be the vessel by which God would graciously redeem his people. God promised his people that they would inherit a land that is flowing with milk and honey.[11] God did not simply want to redeem his people for the sake of their liberation, but he wanted to enter into a covenant relationship with them. God redeemed his people who were distant from him in order to establish an intimate relationship with them. Covenant and communion requires an intimate relationship between two parties.

Exodus 19-24 tells the story of God extending an opportunity to Israel to be a part of a covenant relationship with him. God led Israel to Mount Sinai where Israel could encounter God. Israel accepted the offer to be in this covenant relationship with God. As a result, God gave the children of Israel laws and guidelines that they would have to follow in different scenarios, while on their journey to the Promised Land. In addition, God invited his people to the table to commune with him. God invited the children of Israel to observe the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. In particular, the Passover meal was a time for Israel to remember the story of God’s gracious expression of redemption. A shared meal is a theme in the New Testament that invites different people (diversity) to sit together in harmony. For example, the Lord’s Supper is a space where believers of all kinds gathering around the table to remember the death of Christ. Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, male, and female all gathered as one to worship Christ. Differences between believers were sacrificed in order for the unity of the church to be a reality. The bread reminded the diversified Christian community that all was a part of the body. The wine reminded that diversified Christian community that everyone has sinned and have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus. As a result of the sacrifice of Jesus, Christians are in a covenant relationship with God.

Christ on the Cross

The Passover meal is significant, as it provokes one to think seriously about the cross. During the time of Egyptian bondage, God instructed the children of Israel to take the blood of the lamb and smear it on their doorposts. When the death angel saw the blood, the angel would pass over that house and move towards the house that was not covered with blood. In the Gospel of John, the author reveals Jesus knowing the time has come for him to depart from the world and to go to the Father.[12] Ronald Byars writes, “The Gospel of John sends signals that Jesus can be understood as the Passover Lamb. The lambs would need to be slaughtered on the ‘day of Preparation.’”[13] In Exodus, Moses instructed the Israelite people that they should slaughter the Passover Lamb, then gather hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and, finally, touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood in the basin.

In the Gospel of John, when Jesus called out in thirst, the soldier put a sponge full of sour wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.[14] Byars would argue that the hyssop is a strong indicator of the connection between the Passover and the cross. He writes,

“The detail is not simply an incidental one reported for the sake of a comprehensive account. Hyssop, rarely mentioned in the Bible, is clearly being used to connect the crucifixion with the blood of the Passover lamb.”[15]

In addition, although the soldiers broke the legs of the other men hanging on the cross to hasten the death, they did not break the legs of Jesus.[16] The author of the gospel of John claims that these things were to fulfill scripture that stated that none of Jesus bones will be broken.[17] This connects to the ordinance for the Passover in that it was forbidden to break any of the bones of the lamb.[18]

Jesus Sinless

Jesus did not sin, but on the cross he became sin for all of humanity.[19] Jesus bore the punishment for our sins, took our place on the cross, and paid the price for us through his suffering and death. Jesus paid the price for our sins in a way that no lamb or other animal could have ever done.[20] In discussing the connections and differences between the Old Testament sin offering and the New Testament sin offering, Gerald Bray writes,

“Reconciliation between God and sinners is more than simple expiation for the sins of the sinners. Expiation was both possible and provided for under the Old Testament dispensation, with an elaborate sacrificial system designed to take away any number of particular sins and offenses. However, these sins kept recurring and therefore expiation had continually to be made, which is why there was an entire order of priests whose main task was to do just that. The death of Jesus Christ put an end to the need for constant expiation, not because the sinners he redeemed ceased to sin but because his sacrifice was sufficient for all eternity.”[21]

The effects of the cross are permanent. There is nothing humanity can do to reverse the work of God as it is revealed and promised from the cross.

     God’s gracious response to the rebellion of his creatures was not solely displayed in Him allowing his creation to remain alive. God, in his deep love, decided to bring fallen human beings back into fellowship with himself. Those to whom God reconciles himself have to understand what went wrong and why it mattered, because if not, they will never appreciate what has been given. Humanity’s knowledge of good and evil had to be reestablished so that they would come to desire what God wants and not what they might prefer.

If Christians embrace the example of Christ on the cross, there will be more Christians sacrificing for the sake of relationships. What mattered most to God, was being in a relationship with humanity. This gives Christians an example of what should really matter and that is relationships with one another. In order for this to be a reality, Christians must embrace the cross. It is through sacrificing oneself where unity in the presence of diversity can become a reality.

Christians of the Cross

A major implication of the cross, according to Paul is the wall of division being broken down between Jew and Gentiles.[22] Tension between Jews and Gentiles were heightened in the New Testament church when Gentiles were invited and welcomed to be a part of the family of God. Jews were used to keeping their distance from Gentiles and for this reason, Jews believed the call of Christ to establish peace and love with the Gentiles were absurd.

Tensions between Jews and Gentiles were not simply based upon ethnic issues; there were also doctrinal and salvific issues. For example, in Acts chapter fifteen, there was a council at Jerusalem. Some individuals came from Judea teaching Gentiles that unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. The Apostle Paul, Barnabas, the other Apostles, and the elders decided to discuss the matter of circumcision. At the conclusion of their meeting, Peter uttered these words,

“My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”[23]

Afterwards, Paul, Barnabas, and James spoke and went on a mission to share this message. The significant highlight in this scenario is the idea that people with different beliefs sat together to discuss their differing beliefs.

Christians will not always agree on everything, but Christians of the cross will recognize that hostility born out of differences is not the way of the cross. Therefore, Christians of the cross will open the doors of opportunities for fellow Christians to sit and discuss the differing matters at hand. Like the Passover meal and the Lord’s Supper, Christians of the cross, no matter who they are and what they believe, must be able to sit together and talk.

Proposed Prescriptions from the Cross

Richard McNemar was in a situation where Christians disagreed with the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. As a consultant for McNemar, I have four suggestions McNemar should consider in handling this situation. First, McNemar should revisit the core foundational pillars of Christianity. Second, McNemar should invite the key individuals who have different beliefs to sit together, talk, and discern. Third, McNemar should courageously share his views on the matter while finding ways to promote peace among diversity. Last, McNemar should encourage the church to participate in the Lord Supper

Core of Christianity

It is important to discern the essential from the incidental; to distinguish between those things that are central and those that are peripheral. Knowing what lies at the core or heart of any matter is often the most important thing to understand. Once one understands the essence of a thing, then one is able to make sense of all the detailed parts and minor components. It is when one cannot get a clear picture of the sum and substance of a thing that we get confused, or end up wasting our efforts. This basic truth applies when it comes to our understanding of Christianity. McNemar should have asked, “What is the essence of Christianity? What is at the very heart and core of it? What one thing makes sense above all? What one thing is at the center, and all other features are simply in relation with it?

In some cases, when Christians have strong differing opinions on a specific matter, Christians tend to distance themselves from those who hold opposing beliefs. Christians who find themselves in situations such as these can easily forget the core of their faith, even if the core of their faith is being threatened by opposing beliefs. In some cases among Christians, there is confusion about what the answers are to the above questions, or a failure to answer them at all.

Having a common understanding of the core of Christianity will provide one with the framework needed to wrestle with anything that may question faith in Christ. Christians will never be the kind of people God desires them to be if they do not have a good grasp of the essence of Christianity. How Christians define the core of Christianity will dictate how they practice Christianity. This is important for the Christian at Cabin Creek to embrace because if they lose sight on the core of their faith, this division concerning the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church can create unnecessary friction between believers.

Communal Discernment

Like the Apostles, elders, and influential personals in Acts 15, it would have been ideal for McNemar to invite key individuals who have conflicting views on the role of the Holy Spirit, in the life of the church, to sit and talk. Acts 15 records the first major conflict in a New Testament church and provides a fairly detailed account of how that conflict was responded to by church leaders.

While I believe prayer, fasting, and other spiritual disciplines are of great worth, it is interesting that what we see in Acts 15 is a conversation about the matter between key individuals. I am not sure if they prayed or not, but the focus of the meeting was to work things out by having a conversation. Luke Timothy Johnson writes, “Luke shows how the decision to recognize the full status of Gentiles within the messianic community resulted from a complex interaction of divine intervention and human obedience.” [24] We do not know how long the conversation was, but what we can gather from Acts 15 is that statements were made by the key leaders, and people listened. God was present and the Holy Spirit moved in the midst of their conversations.

When healthy, respectful, loving, patient conversation occurs when controversy arises, half of the battle has been won. All the key figures, such as McNemar, the elders, the enthusiasts, and the ecstatic’s, must engage in the conversation. The leaders need to lead the conversation. Like in Acts 15, after the Apostles and Elders agreed on a belief, they had to determine how to communicate it to the church in Antioch. Once the council at Kentucky would have reached conclusion, the leaders would have had to communicate to the church.

The result of the inevitable conflict in Acts 15 was not a church-wide separation. The result was an encouraged church and an energized missionary effort to send the message of salvation by grace to everyone. The example of Acts 15 begins with conversation, giving all sides a fair hearing and a real effort on the part of everyone to listen. It included a compromise. The compromise maintained the integrity of a law-free Gospel. It would be Jesus, plus nothing. However, there was a personal and sensitive effort to consider the traditions, cultures, and backgrounds of all parties. There were some voluntary requests made and heeded, and it was communicated, in person, by appointed leaders of the church that had conviction and compassion. Conflict is inevitable, but destruction and division are not.

In addition, the attitudes behind the Passover Meal and the Lord Supper should set the tone for the time of communal discernment. Participants should reflect on the rich redemptive story of God, both in the Old and New Testament. The story of God saving all of humanity will soften the hearts of the sincere Christians who will be discerning the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church.

Public Faith

The Elders asked McNemar to share his views on the role of the Holy Spirit in the church. The position McNemar took may cause division. It may cause people to discredit his leadership. Nevertheless, McNemar should be bold about his stance on the matter. While doing so, he should execute his task in a way that promoted peace. For example, if McNemar is going to witness to his beliefs, he should say something like, Beloved, what is most important to me is maintaining the Apostle Paul’s command to maintain the bond of peace. Although, I believe this concerning the Holy Spirit, I would like to work diligently to find ways for all of us to dwell in unity. The predictive outcome should be to invite those who disagree with McNemar to partner with him in finding ways to dwell in peace and unity. Unity does not mean that one needs to neglect who they are. Unity invites diversity to creatively find ways to harmonize.

McNemar’s testimony to the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church needed to flow from a genuine difference that the Holy Spirit had made in his own life and the life of other Christians. Whatever McNemar believed, he had to compassionately want others to experience the Holy Spirit. Boldly witnessing to what one believes will provoke challenges. The early disciples were commanded to speak no more by some, but Peter and John said that God wanted them to speak even when others wanted them to be silent.[25]

The Lord Supper

The Lord Supper is a time where Christians gather around the table to partake of the bread, which represents the body of Christ and the wine, which is represents the blood of Christ. After studying and engaging in conversations regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, McNemar should encouraged that all parties sit around the table and remember Christ death on the cross. Whether the “Acts 15” model conversation led to unity or a church split, ending the experience with the Lord Supper is practical.

Finally, if the church chooses to accommodate for the different views of the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, the church can have two worship opportunities. For example, the first worship experience can be catered to the enthusiasts. As the first worship experience concludes, it can end with observing the Lord Supper. Those who have an ecstatic view of the Holy Spirit will participate in the Lord Supper with the enthusiasts. Once the Lord Supper has concluded, the enthusiasts can proceed by leaving the sanctuary while the second worship service begins, which is a catered to those who have an ecstatic view of the Holy Spirit.