International Church of Christ

When I was an undergrad student in Southern Ontario there was a lot of talk about a campus movement called the International Church of Christ (ICOC), which had some idiosyncratic doctrine and cult-like tendencies.  My wife Leslie encountered this group first hand at the University of Waterloo where she was invited to a Bible study on campus.  This 'Bible study' turned out to be a bit unusual - she wasn't allowed to take her own notes, and she wasn't allowed to invite any friends.  Other friends have had similar experiences with the ICOC.  Fortunately, Les didn't stick around this group for long and looked for fellowship elsewhere.

I almost forgot about the ICOC until yesterday when we discovered that they are now active at Concordia University where I am currently serving.  I did a little reading up on the movement tonight and was encouraged to hear that they have made some significant changes during the past 10 years.  Apparently the ICOC is an offshoot of the 19th century Restorationist Movement led by Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone during the Second Great Awakening.  They are essentially a Fundamentalist faction of the mainline "Churches of Christ" (in the same family as the "Christian Church" or "Disciples of Christ").  One of the distinctives of this family of Restorationist denominations is their unique combination of believer's baptism and baptismal regenration.  The ICOC seems to have had a more exclusive view of baptism than their mainline brethren , viz. no true baptism and therefore no salvation outside of their particular churches.  Since the resignation of their autocratic leader in 2002, the movement appears to be dealing with its more significant theological issues and abuse of power.   I'm not sure what to expect from the ICOC this year at Concordia, but I was very encouraged that they at least seem to be moving in the right direction.  For a more detailed article from the Christian Research Institute (Hanegraaff) see the following link: http://www.equip.org/articles/icoc-international-churches-of-christ-in-upheaval .  I'd be curious to hear if anyone has had an experience with the ICOC since 2003.

Pseudonymity in the New Testament?

As I'm working my way through the Pastoral Epistles, the question of Pauline authorship naturally comes up.  The general consensus among modern day New Testament scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul, or possibly that some genuine Pauline fragments were later expanded and used in order to combat heresy in the Ephesian church.  Advocates of this view give the following reasons:

1. The cities and events recorded in the Pastoral Epistles do not fit into Paul's three missionary journeys as recorded in Acts
2. The vocabulary and grammatical structure of the Greek (ie. omission of article) are so different from Paul's other "genuine" epistles that they could not possibly have been written by the same person
3. The ecclesiastical situation described in the Pastorals reflects a second century setting
4. The heresy Paul is combatting in these letters is Gnosticism (which didn't emerge until the 2nd century)

 Furthermore, high profile and moderately conservative New Testament scholars such as Bruce Metzger claim that Pseudonymous writings were a legitimate genre during the first century that would have been accepted without question.  Since the original readers didn't share our modern standards of plagiarism, it is anachronistic, they say, for us to view these books as forgeries.  Instead of getting too worked up about the importance of apostolic authorship we should listen, rather, for the authentic apostolic "voice" regardless of who wrote them.

This sounds well and good, but what is really at stake here??  In my own view, quite a lot!  For starters the primary teaching regarding the inspiration of Scripture is found in 2 Peter and 1 Timothy.  If we reject apostolic authorship of these books, we bring into serious question the authority of Scripture and the Evangelical doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture.  Secondly, these books claim apostolic authority and contain statements of eyewitness testimony.  The author of 2 Peter states, for example: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty....we ourselves heard this very voice from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain."  It stretches the limits of credulity to think that first century readers could have accepted a statement like this as authoritative  if it was not written by Peter himself who was an eyewitness to the Transfiguration.  Secondly, most of the New Testament instruction regarding church order and structure are contained in these books (ie. qualifications for elders and deacons).  If these are not genuine apostolic instructions, then it seems that we Protestants are more dependent on the traditions of the early church than we'd like to admit.  Thirdly, this theory brings into question the legitimacy of the canon of Scripture, since apostolic origin was one of the primary criteria taken into consideration when the canon was being formed.  If 2 Peter was initially accepted into the canon because of its Petrine authorship, it raises the question whether it should still be considered part of the canon now that we 'know better'.  It also raises the question of whether the church should reconsider other pseudonymous writings that were rejected as spurious.

In response to the objections listed above, I offer the following responses:

1. The Pastoral Epistles don't fit into the chronology of Acts because Paul was eventually released from prison in Rome and went on a fourth missionary journey to the Western extreme of the Empire (probably Spain).  He was later arrested and condemned to death under Nero. Clement's own writings seem to confirm this hypothesis since he speaks of Paul taking the gospel to the Western extremities of the Roman Empire.
2. The objection based on vocabulary and grammar is a classic example of begging the question, where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise.  Liberal minded scholars exclude the Pastorals a priori then proceed to argue that these  epistles don't contain "Pauline" language.  Its much more likely that Paul, an well educated man, had a much wider vocabulary than we give him credit for.  Also, the pastorals deal with different subject matter than the earlier epistles and so we would naturally expect him to use different vocabulary.
3. If we accept the hypothesis that the Pastoral Epistles were written at the end of Paul's ministry (based on external testimony from the early church), there is little reason to conclude that ecclesiastical structure couldn't have progressed to reflect the situation described in Timothy and Titus.
4. It is impossible to say for sure that the heresy Paul was combating was full blown Gnosticism.  There were certainly first century precursors to gnosticism.  New Testament scholars still have not reached a consensus as to the nature of the Colossian heresy so perhaps we should reserve our judgment here in the Pastorals too!
5. The internal evidence of the New Testament call into question the common theory regarding the acceptability of pseudonymous writings for Christians in the first two centuries (cf. 1 Thes 2:2).  Paul sometimes signs his letters with a special mark to ensure their authenticity and to defend against forgery.  I personally have a hard time believing that he would have approved of a well meaning disciple putting words in his mouth long after his death.
6. It seems a bit presumptuous to claim that we know more in the 21st century about what is and is not Pauline than the early Church Fathers who accepted the Pastorals as authentic.  The only person that I know of who rejected  their authority was the notorious heretic Marcion, who also rejected the Gospels and the Old Testament.

Ashamed of the Gospel?

"Nevertheless, I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed" - 2 Tim 1:12

I wonder how many of us who profess faith in Jesus Christ are in actual fact ashamed of the gospel?  If I'm honest with myself, I will need to confess that I am a lot more like Timothy than Paul - I struggle every day with timidity and shame in spite of my calling to do the work of an evangelist. This is partially related to my personality (I'm a recovering ISTJ), but it goes even deeper than that.  Although I share the gospel with university students on a regular basis, I still struggle with fear and self doubt almost every time I step on campus.  In our 'enlightened' society which has relegated the story of Jesus to the realm of myth and fairytale, confidence in the gospel can dissipate all to quickly once we step outside of our private refuge, and as a result, our witness for Christ is neutralized.  If you really think about it, why would Satan need to resort to more drastic forms of persecution to silence and marginalize the North American Church when our own self doubt and shame does the job more effectively?  Imagine how different Canada would be if we Evangelical Christians (still a significant although declining demographic) could openly and honestly proclaim with the apostle Paul "I am not ashamed of the gospel" (2 Tim 1:12).  Instead we openly worship God on Sunday morning and cower in fear and shame for the rest of the week.  Should it surprise us that non-believers have a hard time believing the gospel when we're harbouring internal doubts about it ourselves?   The Muslims I encounter every day in Montreal are not ashamed of their beliefs!  The Mormons I see every week on the Montreal subway are not ashamed to proclaim historically indefensible myths!  Most people in our society no longer feel shame to promote what was once considered in Western culture to be unspeakable immorality!  Why is it that we Christians cower in fear and make up excuses when it comes to sharing the gospel of our Lord and Saviour?  Are we really so concerned about using methodology that has the potential to offend, or is this merely a handy excuse to justify a deep seated sense of shame?

 Perhaps the root cause of our collective and individual shame is revealed in the second half of this verse. We "believe" the gospel (ie. in the sense that we assent to a series of truth propositions about Christ), but we do not truly know the One on whom we have believed.  Notice that the apostle doesn't say "I know what I have believed", but rather "I know whom I have believed". For many Christians living on this side of the Enlightenment, faith has more to do with intellectual assent to certain truths about Jesus than it does with a dynamic relationship with the living and active Word of God (Jesus Christ).  To borrow a concept from the late Missiologist and TEDS professor Dr. Paul Hiebert, we Western Evangelicals are more concerned with "bounded set" thinking (ie. you're defined as a Christian based on what you profess to believe) rather than "centred set" thinking (ie. you're defined as a Christian so long as you're moving toward the "center" - in this case, relationship with Christ).  The former has more to do with dogmatic precision (orthodoxy) while the latter has more to do with relationship and spiritual progress (ongoing sanctification).  I personally becoming more convinced that we need to place a greater emphasis on the latter while keeping orthodoxy front and center.   My working thesis as I'm thinking through this issue is that shame in the gospel will disappear (or at least diminish) as we translate our knowlege about the salvific activity of God in history into experiential knowledge of the living and active Jesus, through whose Spirit "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts" (Rom 5:5). If we come to the conclusion that we are ashamed of the gospel, we need to ask ourselves very seriously whether we truly know the One on whom we have believed or only know about Him.   Christianity is more than signing a statement of faith - it is experiential knowlege of the living and active Word of God who initiates and pursues relationship with us.

In a pluralistic and secular society which has turned moral truth on its head and treats the truths of God's Word as though it were one opinion among many (and a foolish opinion at that!), it will take more than intellectual assent to protect us against the sins of shame and unbelief - it will require nothing less than intimate, experiential knowlege of Christ.  I for one am determined by God's grace to grow in this area over the next year.  Perhaps it is time for us Sunday morning Christians to 'fess up to our cowardice, come out of the closet, and profess publically what we believe privately without reservation, without apology and without shame (and of course in a spirit of wisdom, love and humilty).  If Jesus wasn't ashamed to hang on a cross and die and to become a curse for sinners like us, then what right to we have to be ashamed of Him and His gospel?