11. GOD’S HOSPITALITY AND HOLISTIC EVANGELISM

The thesis of this essay is that one of the most important Christian virtues possessed by the effective evangelist is hospitality. The practice of household hospitality by Christian saints and elders is an image or copy of God’s hospitality, seen as He invites us into His house to eat at His table. Because the modern church does not understand the importance of the Lord’s table, and because Christ‘s supper is not visibly displayed week by week, the virtue of hospitality is not clearly understood in our day. As a result, numerous less-than-effective evangelistic techniques have developed that do not take advantage of the Biblical model. In order to reform our evangelism, we need to reform our churches, so that God’s hospitality is made visible to all.

The virtue of hospitality is repeatedly enjoined in the New Testament. Elders in particular are to be given over to hospitality (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:8), for they especially are to display the grace of God in the world. Every Christian is to practice hospitality, however (Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9). The presence of these exhortations to practice hospitality presupposes the need for such exhortations: it is easy to lapse into a convenient lifestyle and ignore hospitality; thus, the exhortation is needed. Especial praise is accorded those who show hospitality to strangers. In some cases, hospitality to strangers means hospitality to traveling Christians (Matt. 25:35, 40 + Matt. 12:50). Other verses speak more generally of entertaining strangers (Heb. 13:2), and in yet other places, the entertainment of unbelievers is clearly in view (Job 31:32; 1 Tim. 5:10).

The last verse mentioned, 1 Timothy 5:10, distinguishes between hospitality shown to the saints and that shown to outsiders, for the phrase “washed the saints’ feet” is in part a reference to the practice of hospitality (cf. Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam. 25:41; 2 Sam. 11:8; Luke 7:44; John 13:5). Here as elsewhere we are enjoined to do good to all men, but especially to those of the household of the faith (Gal. 6:10).

The repeated injunctions in the Old Testament to care for the alien and sojourner in the land are reflections of the concept of hospitality (see, for example, Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:34; 25:35; Num. 35:15; Deut. 10:19; 27:19; 31:12; Jer. 7:6). The stranger was under the protection of the LORD, in His house (land), having crossed the threshold of His house (the Jordan), and thus being entitled to hospitality.

The only persons excluded from Christian hospitality were excommunicated persons (1 Cor. 5:9-13) and perhaps false teachers (2 John 10). As regards the latter passage, John Stott in his fine commentary on the epistles of John points out, first, that it is only teachers, not all adherents to false teaching, who are to be excluded. Stott also points out that the specific heresy was the denial of the true doctrine of incarnation, not some lesser matter. Third, Stott calls attention to the fact that the epistle is written to a house-church, and thus it is likely that the prohibition is actually to the church, not to individual households. The church must not extend an official welcome to a false teacher (i.e., allow him to teach in their midst); possibly an individual Christian household might show hospitality to the false teacher in an effort to correct his errors.^[1]

Holistic Man

The Biblical virtue of hospitality, specifically, ministry to the whole person in a structured environment, points us to the Biblical concept of man. Here we arrive at one of the major errors that has cropped up historically in the church, for the Bible teaches neither a bipartite nor a tripartite view of man. Rather, the Scripture teaches that man is a unity, not composed of several parts, but acting in several dimensions or spheres of life. Man is a spirit in bodily state, not a spirit housed in a body. It is Greek philosophy that teaches that man is a soul or spirit housed in a body. The reason for this is not hard to understand.

Pagan man senses, indeed knows, that he will continue to survive after death. It is clear from his experience, however, that the physical body will die. Thus, pagan man assumes that there is some immortal soul living inside his body, which soul or spirit is his true self, and this soul will go on living in some other place after the physical body dies. These conclusions are very logical, but are founded on the false premise that death is a natural phenomenon. The Bible teaches that God never intended man to die, so that death is a most unnatural phenomenon. True, the personal self-awareness of each human being is sustained by God apart from his body after death, but this is an unnatural situation that will be remedied finally with the resurrection of all bodies at the last day.

What makes men different from animals is not that man has a spirit but that man is the image of God. Both animals and men are quickened and kept alive by the Holy Spirit, and this is the meaning of such often misinterpreted passages as Genesis 2:7,7:22, Ecclesiastes 12:7. The Bible has a holistic view of man.

This is not to say that all aspects of human life are equally important for all purposes. It is the religious dimension of human life, man’s relationship to God, positive or negative, that is primary above all else. For this reason, cultural and personal transformation must begin with, and be ever grounded in, a proper relationship with God. The religious dimension of life is most important, not because the soul is the most important “part” of man, but because the whole man’s relationship with God is the most important of all aspects of his life.

Under the influence of Greek thought, Christianity began to hold that man is divided into various parts or faculties, and that the most important of these parts is the intellect.^[2] This notion is called the doctrine of the primacy of the intellect. Because the brain was regarded as the most important part of man, the most important work of the church was to communicate intellectual information to that brain. Thus, instead of the primacy of the Word, the church fell into the primacy of preaching.

What the Bible teaches, however, is the primacy of the Word in the work and worship of the church. This means, of course, the Word read, proclaimed, and taught, but it also means the Word sung (in Psalms, Bible songs, and Psalm-like hymns), the Word prayed, the Word obeyed and implemented from house to house, and the Word made visible and experienced (in the sacraments). A church that practices the primacy of the Word will have a healthy balance among all the elements of worship and life, and will not be a preacher-centered church. The primacy of preaching, however, leads to the primacy of the preacher, the so-called “three office view,” and all the problems attendant with that.^[3]

The Primacy of the Preacher

There are two large problems that afflict the overly intellectualized church: the primacy of preaching and the problem of revivalism (next section). The primacy of preaching means the primacy of the preacher. It is understandable that the Reformation resulted in a great emphasis on preaching and teaching the Word. For centuries, little or no such instruction had been carried on. Incredible ignorance prevailed all over Europe. Moreover, when the Reform began, the established church strongly opposed the teaching of the Bible. Thus, the Reformation was forged in a crucible in which one of the principle elements was preaching. All the same, the Reformers did not hold to the primacy of preaching in the sense that their later followers did. John Calvin, for instance, wanted the Lord’s Supper to be administered in connection with every preaching service, for the Word should always be made visible when it is preached. The Reformers emphasized the singing of the Word, and the congregational praying of the Word in the use of set prayers drawn from Biblical language.

The magistrates in Geneva and elsewhere did not want the sacraments to be administered regularly, however, and Calvin, having no choice, had to go along. As a result, Christ was less visible and the preacher more visible. As time went along, the Reformed churches, especially in the English-speaking world, lost sight of the value of frequent communion, and often relegated the Lord’s Supper to an annual observance. The use of prayer books came to be frowned upon, out of reaction against the abusive enforcement of their use by the English state, and thus Biblical praying was lost. In time, the book of Psalms came to be viewed as a strange, Old Testament book, not really suited for New Covenant worship. Isaac Watts produced “New Testament paraphrases” of the Psalms, inserting the name of Christ (and “Great Britain”) at those points he deemed appropriate. Eventually the Psalms fell into total disuse, and all that was left were non-inspired hymns. The early Reformation hymns were very Psalm-like in character, preserving the primacy of the Word; later hymns became more and more light and frothy, less and less like the Psalms.

Thus, we face a situation today in most evangelical and Reformed churches in which the reading and preaching of Scripture is the only way in which the Word is made manifest in the lives of the saints. This is a real loss for the people of God. The result is the primacy of the preacher. The preacher not only does the only really important thing in the service (preach), he also composes (if he even does that) the prayers that are prayed, and he prays them by himself. It boils down very often to worship by proxy, exactly what the Reformation fought against. Only in the Lutheran and Episcopal churches is there more than a minimum of congregational participation, because of the use of prayer books.

Since all that is left is preaching, the act of preaching takes on dimensions foreign to the Bible. Preaching has become a great rhetorical event. Sermons ought to open with a stunning introduction, proceed through three alliterating points, and conclude with a gripping application. People should be stirred, moved, etc. The full-orbed worship of Scripture, with congregational prayer, singing, and the Supper has been lost, and this leaves the people psychologically starved, so the preaching must make up for it. The history of the church becomes the history of preachers. People leave one church and seek another on the basis of who is preaching. If one is in a church with bad preaching, there is nothing else to look forward to in going to church: no worship, no real singing of the Word, no sacrament. Everything hangs on a man, and that man is not the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is a story of a certain young preacher who was not very effective at his task. One Sunday he ascended into the pulpit to find a note that read, “Sir, we would see Jesus.” After several weeks of this, the young man broke down and began to preach Christ in earnest. Doubtless the young man needed some such exhortation, but the request to see Jesus was erroneously directed to the pulpit. The reading and preaching of the Word is that we might hear Jesus. The Bible emphasizes the hearing of the Master’s voice, not the seeing of His face. Jesus Himself was so ordinary looking that He could, at times, disappear into the crowds. After arguing with Him for three years, the Pharisees could still not remember what He looked like- He looked like everybody else- so they had to hire Judas to lead them to Him. On the road to Emmaus, His disciples did not recognize His face, but their hearts burned when He taught them the Word. It was when He broke bread (the Lord’s Supper) that they had the experience of recognition, that they “saw” Him (Luke 24:13-32). If we would see Jesus, we need to restore the visible Word as the complement to the audible Word.

What about preaching? In the New Testament and in the early church, preaching (heralding) was something done to outsiders, persuading them to repent and believe the gospel. Preaching is recorded for us in the book of Acts, for instance. Within the church, however, what went on was teaching. The teaching elder did not stand to teach, though all stood for the reading of the Word. Rather, the teacher sat enthroned while he explained the text in simple language, without rhetoric, and made some applications. It was a family meeting. (See, for instance, Luke 4:16, 20.) When the Gospel became established in the Roman world, the influence of Greek rhetoric began to be felt, and ministers began standing to “preach” to God’s people, delivering polished oratory for edification of the saints. Augustine, for instance, initially went to hear Ambrose preach not because he wanted to learn about the Bible, but because he wanted to improve his rhetoric and Ambrose was greatly remarked as an orator.

Because so much of the Reformation occurred within state churches, the Reformers and preachers treated the church members as if they were unsaved people in need of the new birth. This was doubtless necessary at that time, but it is not the normal Biblical way to view the church. The Baptist churches to this day continue to treat their church members as if they were unsaved, and so they preach to them. If the churches are healthy, however, with good doctrine and sound discipline, the elders should not treat the people as goats-in-disguise but as true sheep, and teach them. Those who are not truly converted will eventually rebel against the teaching of the Word. There is no need for rhetoric and flamboyance, for “preaching.” What is needed is simple, direct teaching. The notion that there must always be “a word to the unconverted” during a worship service is unbiblical rubbish.

All this is to say that of course the Word must be read and expounded in worship, whether the minister stands or sits enthroned. Such exposition should, however, be direct and simple, not rhetorical. Spurgeon must not be our model in this respect. Let the preacher keep the people’s noses in the Book, not their eyes on his posturing. Many of us enjoy listening to good rhetoric and brilliant “preaching,” but as often as not this kind of thing only gets in the way of simple Bible exposition and application. The Word, not the preacher, must be paramount.

The Tragedy of Revivalism

An intellect-centered ministry of worship leaves holistic man unsatisfied. His emotional and physical aspects are not dealt with on a normal, regular basis. Thus, the second problem that afflicts such churches is that the “irrational” side of man manifests itself in unhealthy ways. The situation in early America was very often this: the weekly service consisted of a few verses of a Psalm or two, droned in the slowest singing imaginable, together with a very long prayer (one hour), either prepared by the preacher or made up on the spot, followed by a very long sermon (two hours or more). Then, once in a great while, there was a “communion season.” The Lord’s Supper, a great mystical event, would be administered, and there would be many special sermons leading up to it over the first couple of days of the conference. The people tended to get all worked up in anticipation of this extraordinary event. It is no accident that the earliest revivals broke out at communion seasons.

Soon the revivals were a regular part of church life, regular in the sense of being expected from time to time. At the revival, people’s physical and emotional outbursts were given full play, from “barking” to the jerks (and after the revival, illicit sex).^[4] Eventually there came a split between the anti-intellectual churches and the anti-emotional ones. The emotionalistic churches drifted into liberalism, since they had no real doctrinal interest. The intellectual churches also drifted into liberalism, because their emphasis on the intellect left them open to the supposedly irrefutable fruits of modern Biblical research. Small groups of conservatives have remained in both groups: mystical pentecostalists, and intellectualistic Calvinists and dispensationalists. Men were making an unnatural and unbiblical choice between the mind and the heart.

The rationalistic or intellectualistic conservatives have been plagued by irrational movements in their midst for a great many years now. Psychologically starved members, unfed by lecture- sermons, seek out more fulfilling ministries, and sink into the quagmire of American know-nothing-ism. They are attracted by a screaming “fundamentalist” preacher, for at least he stimulates them. They may try tongues, or some other “Spirit-led” movement. They may mix their intellectual religion with screaming at the weekly chaos festivals of the American Football Religion. They may seek meaning in group-grope, touchie-feelie sessions in which all participants are to pare and bare their souls to each other.

Sometimes the irrational is standardized and becomes part of a sadly truncated religious establishment. The primacy of the intellect is replaced with the primacy of the will or of the emotions, and it is the preacher’s job to stir up one or the other. Such is the case (pardon my frankness, brethren) with most of the Southern Baptist churches. The “altar call“ has become a weekly ritual (pseudo-sacrament). Each sermon is preached as if the congregation were a bunch of goats-in-disguise. Unhappy Christians, searching for more, ritually re-dedicate their lives to Christ, only to find in time that they have lapsed back into the same stale life- style. How can Bible teaching take place under such circumstances? The people get a bare minimum of teaching, and a little emotion as well, but are still unsatisfied because the Word is still locked up to a great extent. Pastors pray for reawakening, and redouble their efforts to convert their congregations, but to no avail. What is needed is exposition of the Word, and an emotionally satisfying worship service that matches the psychology of holistic man.

What is needed in all these churches is a restoration of two Reformation principles that have been effectively eclipsed. First, the Word must be restored to primacy, in place of the primacy of the preacher. By this we mean the Word read publicly to a standing congregation, the Word explained simply and quietly to God’s people, the Word applied in an encouraging manner to God’s people, the Word sung in Psalms (preponderant Psalmody), Bible songs, and genuinely Psalm-like hymns, the Word prayed in prayers drawn from the language and concerns of the Bible, the Word (Christ) made visible and really present every single week, the Word eaten and rejoiced in.

Second, the congregation must be encouraged and trained self-consciously to participate in worship. This means (yes, let it be said) prayer books, so that the people can read aloud in unison the great Bible-based prayers of the church, and can follow the teaching elder when he prays. The congregation needs to be told that Christ is really (in the Spirit) present at His Table, and they need to eat the food Jesus gives them. By eat, we mean eat: a good chewable hunk of bread and a good-sized glass of real shalom-inducing wine. This, not the “altar call,” is the kind of active participation the Bible sets forth for the people of God.

Fulfilled, well-taught, fed, happy Christians will naturally be better evangelists. No longer will people be invited to “our church” because it has a fine gymnasium or because the preacher dresses up like an Indian chief for the amusement of the congregation. People will be invited to the fellowship of the Word, and the congregation will be excited about the Word. The unsaved visitor cannot, of course, participate in the Lord’s Supper, but he will see there displayed to his view the glorious privilege of the saints.

The restoration of the primacy of the Word in the churches is not optional, nor can it wait. There are many desperately important matters that the churches must be about, but none more important than the restoration of the Word and the exaltation of Christ in worship. Worship is the heart and central training ground of the church, for in special worship we come directly to the special presence of Christ, and this is the foundation of all personal and social transformation.

Familistic Culture

The church must not only implement the whole Word of God to the whole man, but it must do so in the proper God-given context. That context is a familistic culture. The family or household reflects the image of God. God is a Trinity, three Persons in One. They share a community of essence and of life, which we call covenant life because this shared life entails a personal-structural bond. The three Persons relate one to another personally by means of love and communication, and structurally by means of conformity to their own character (law), and by means of an order in which the Father begets the Son, and the Father and the Son send the Spirit.^[5] They are joined in being, but also joined in a covenant bond, which has only been broken once, when the Son on the cross cried out, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”

Mankind, the image of God, reproduces this pattern at the created level in the family. Right in the Garden of Eden, God established the family and its boundaries (Gen. 2:24). The family is a covenant bond, which includes personal (love and communication) and structural (law and hierarchy) aspects. Ephesians 3:14-15 states that all human families derive their name, that is, their character, definition, and interpretation, from God the Father. Human culture is an outworking of religion, and the outworking of the Trinitarian faith is a familistic culture.

Many of the basic powers of society are given by God to the family: children and their rearing, property, inheritance, and care of the poor.^[6] The plan of salvation, covenantally administered, is administered familistically, so that the sign of the covenant is administered not individualistically but by households.

The state and the church are different from the family, and have powers and duties that the family does not have. The state has the power of the sword and the church has the power of the sacraments (binding and loosing). Both state and church, however, are seen in Scripture as organized by households. It seems that in the Patriarchal era, when all of society was organized by households, the father was ruler both of “state” and of “church,” with his firstborn son as deputy and heir (cf. e.g., Gen. 13:4; 14:14, 18; 24:15 + 50, 53, 55, 59, 60; 43:33; Deut. 21:17; Heb. 1:2, 5, 6, 13 + Gen. 48:17f. Heb. 5:1-10). In the providence of God, Moses received his training under such a patriarch, Jethro (Ex. 2:16, 21). When, however, Moses attempted to implement the traditional patriarchal mode of government (Ex. 18:13), the sheer number of disputes among over two million people made it impossible. Thus, Jethro’s advice was to establish circles of courts above the household level to handle the ministry of order, seen in Ex. 18:21-22. It must be noted that this power structure is extremely decentralized: a familistic, household-based culture.

As regards the church, the family retained its importance in sacramental worship, in that the sign of the covenant was placed upon society at the household level, and in that the celebration of Passover was organized by families (Ex. 12:4; 2 Chron. 35:12). Nonetheless, the Lord saw fit to remove the ecclesiastical duties from the firstborn and erect a special clan, the Levites, to perform these duties (Num. 3:12-15,40-51; 8:16-19). The Levites, however, were only a temporary ecclesiastical arrangement, being a perpetual bloodline, thus typifying the eternality of Christ‘s Lordship over the ministry of worship, and being tied to the Aaronic sacrificial order (Num. 8:19), which has been fulfilled and superseded (Heb. 7:4-28).

The family was the central institution of society in the Old Covenant and Old Creation. Adam was head and priest. Society was organized in a patriarchal fashion. Genealogy was very important. Indeed, the Levitical priesthood, which substituted for the firstborn, was still maintained according to a genealogical principle. Because of sin, however, this first family is wrecked. Instead of protecting his wife, Adam set her forward to encounter the serpent. Instead of agreeing with God that she was fundamentally deceived, Adam tried to escape responsibility by putting the blame on her. Hatred between husband and wife soon matured to become the murder of brother by brother. The first family, thus, was shattered by sin.

Jesus stated that the greatest enemy of His new Kingdom would not be the Babelic power state, but the old fallen family (Matt. 10:16-21, 34-37; Matt. 12:46-50; John 2:3-4). The new Kingdom would stand as God’s new family, and thus directly challenge the claims of the first, fallen family (cf. John 1:12). Thus, the Old Covenant provision that family responsibilities take precedence over holy war is no longer operative in the New Covenant: Allegiance to Christ must come first (compare Luke 14:15-27 with Deut. 20:5-7).

The new family of the Church does not, however, simply replace the biological family. Rather, the new family puts the old to death only to grant it new, resurrection life. It is for this reason that it is so important to practice household baptism. Household baptism confesses that the old family unit is dead, and must be buried, for it is in need of rebirth.

Moreover, not only is this necessary when the family comes into the Kingdom the first time, it is a weekly necessity as well. Just as the bread is ripped in half, and the blood separated from the flesh in the sacrament, so also the family must be torn apart, coming under judgment, and then reconstituted in the sphere of resurrected, transfigured life. Thus, in the ritual of the Lord’s Supper, each member of the family must commune independently of the others. In worship, it is Christ as Husband who feeds each member of His bride. It is a false, Mormon-like practice for the husband to take the bread and give it to his wife and children. It is only afterwards, on the basis of the sacrament and what it represents, that the natural family is reconstituted. It is only when the natural family is subordinated to the church - the new family - that the natural family can be restored.

Thus, while the church is governmentally organized by families, it is not liturgically organized by families. During worship, each stands as an individual before Christ, the Divine Husband. The Lord’s Day is the Day of the Lord, and on the final Day of Judgment each will stand as an individual. A very good illustration of how this works out in practice is seen in Acts 5. Notice that Sapphira was not judged and found guilty in union with her husband. Rather, she was interviewed separately, on the clear assumption that she was separately responsible for her own actions. The fact that she chose to stand with her husband rather than with the church is an illustration of what it means to choose the old family over the new. During worship, in times of judgment, the husband never speaks for his wife. When joining the church, both the man and the woman must answer the questions. Both must answer the questions put to them when they bring a child for baptism. The wife must take the sacrament directly from Christ’s representatives, not through the mediation of her husband.

Since the church restores the world, however, after worship is completed the natural family is restored. After the transformation that takes place in worship, the principle that the husband is head of the wife is secure. Indeed, it is precisely the breaking down and rebuilding action of the liturgy that secures the order of the natural family, and thus restores Biblical familistic culture.

The baptistic worldview of American evangelicalism does not perceive that the family structure as such is dead and must be renewed in the Kingdom. While evangelicals are very concerned about the family, its structure is not related to the specific work of the church. The church is seen as dealing with individuals, but not seen as taking hold of the family as such and transforming it. Baptistic evangelicalism thus tends to separate the natural family from the foundation and reinforcement of the new family, the church.^[7] Books on Christian family life abound, yet few if any refer to God’s new family as the foundation for the restoration of the natural family. The natural family is simply enjoined to keep a bunch of rules - good in themselves - apart from the transforming life of the Kingdom. As a result, pressures and expectations are place on the natural family that it cannot bear, and rampant divorce is the present-day result in American evangelicalism.

The restoration of the natural family in the Kingdom is seen in the organization of the New Covenant church (Acts 2:26; Rom. 16:5,10,11; 1 Cor. 1:11,16; Col. 4:15; 1 Tim. 5:13; 2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19; Philem. 2). The logical pattern for organizing the New Covenant church is that found in Exodus 18, with the elders over tens (houses), and fifties (local churches) and hundreds (the churches in a city), etc. This seems, indeed, to have been the pattern in the early church.

Early on, however, the church departed from this familistic structure. The higher elders (over hundreds, thousands, myriads; that is, bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs) were to function as advisors and shepherds to the younger, lower ranks of elders. In the event of a judicial case appealed to them, the elders would sit together as a court, for adjudication is a joint power. There would be little legislation in the church, for the Bible was the legislation, and there would be little administration, for the Spirit was the Administrator. Soon, however, in naiveté perhaps, the church adopted the imperial form of the Roman empire. Bishops became monarchs, not shepherds. This is the imperial stage of the church, and it continued down to the Reformation. These monarchs tended to replace the Bible and Christ as the Law and King of the church.

The Reformation broke with the imperial form and substituted the bureaucratic form of the church. Instead of familistic elders over tens, the elders sat as bureaus, boards, and committees, ruling over the churches. Or else the pastor acted as dictator. Instead of being courts of appeal, presbyteries and synods became ruling bodies in a legislative and bureaucratic sense, again tending to replace Scripture with church laws.

This bureaucratic form of the church is thankfully dying now. Churches are instinctively returning to cell groups, meeting in homes of elders, and in small groups.

The bureaucratic form of the church turns rulers from foot washers into distant dictators.^[8] The result is that people do not really know any of the elders, and suspicion abounds as to what the elders are doing. This is aggravated when the board of elders becomes close-mouthed and secretive. The problem, however, is in the structure. Rule in the church is to be by means of foot washing (hospitality) as much as by giving orders (Mark 10:42-45; John 13). Christ rules by being present with us, by being our Host and having us over to His house for dinner, even by being our Servant! The elders, who are to imitate Christ, must do the same.

Why do churches assume that all the elders must be acceptable to and rule over the entire congregation? This is not the pattern seen in the Bible (cf. Acts 6:1-6). If a congregation has several sub-groups, each sub-group should elect its own elder to be elder over that particular house-church. These elders over tens (or twelves)^[9] will meet together to compare notes and to settle judicial cases, but it is not necessary that the elder over the poorer people be regarded as socially perfect in the eyes of the upper class people. Paradoxical as it may seem, such a decentralized structure will not lead to greater divisions but to fewer problems, for people’s needs will be met effectively, and suspicion will disappear.

The house-church is not the only level at which the churches are to be organized. After all, the church “at Ephesus” was also considered a church, not simply a court of the church. At each leve1 however the church is a household and its primary gathering is at a meal.^[10]

The Gospel Invitation

Is there a Gospel invitation? To many evangelical Christians, the answer to that question is an unqualified “yes.” Some calvinists, reacting against the misleading character of the “altar call,” seem less interested in inviting men to anything than they are in sending men away to think about the message they have heard. The answer to this conflict is to understand that the Gospel invitation is an invitation to come into Jesus‘ house and have supper with Him. The psychological instinct in the “altar call” is correct: Men should do something and come somewhere in response to the call of the Gospel. Physical response, holistic response by the whole person, is the proper response to the Gospel. It is a perversion to hide the Lord’s Supper from view and to ask men to make some hidden, inward motion of the “soul” in coming to Christ. The Biblical gospel addresses the whole man, and the whole person is expected to respond.

To come into Jesus‘ house to eat His Supper, a person has to cross the threshold of the house. That threshold crossing is the sacrament of Baptism. We do not invite men to be baptized; we invite them to come in and eat, but they must cross the threshold and be baptized before they can sit down. In the parable of the wedding supper (Matt. 22:1-13), one man shows up without the proper garment. Obviously, he did not come in through the door, or he would have been washed and given one (cf. also John 10:1-9).

It is interesting to note how the Greek philosophical influence has gutted Scripture of its clear meaning for so much of Christendom. In Revelation 3:20, for example, Christ asks to be admitted to the church so that He can participate in His own Supper! This, however, is instinctively read by the modern mind as “asking Jesus into your heart,” which the passage really has next to nothing to do with. Revelation 3:20 is speaking of the covenant meal.

Similarly, the parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1-13) and the entire discussion of the Gospel in Luke 14:1-24, as well as such passages as Isaiah 55, are read as if only some inward “spiritual” matter were under consideration. Not at all. The invitation is to a real meal, one at which Christ is present as Host. Real food, physical food, is to be eaten.

From the Garden of Eden to the Tree of Life in the book of Revelation, shared food is a sign of the covenant between God and His people. The Scriptures have so much to salon this that one scarcely knows where to begin. Melchizedek shared bread and wine with Abram (Gen. 14:18). God shared a meal with Abraham (Gen. 18). When Jacob and Laban made their covenant, they shared a meal (Gen. 31:44-46). The Passover meal was the sign of God’s covenant to Israel in Egypt, and down through the ages thereafter. At Sinai, when God established the covenant with Israel, Moses and the elders ate with God (Ex. 24). At the Feast of Tabernacles, the people were to eat in the presence of God and rejoice (Deut. 14:22-27). In the wilderness, the people ate manna and drank water from the rock, both of which were sacraments of Christ (John 6; 1 Cor. 10:1-5). The milk and honey in the land (house) of promise were tokens of God’s presence and blessing. And we can go on and on, not to speak of the other feasts in Israel, and the Peace Sacrifice that the family shared with the priest and with the Lord.

Are these all “spiritual” meals? Away with such internalized Greek nonsense! Of course what matters most is the presence of Christ, and fellowship with Him, but He has ordained that fellowship to take place at a meal. He invites us over for supper every week, and we decide to eat with Him four times a year. Do you think He might possibly be offended? He invites His enemies, in the Gospel, to join Him for dinner, but we encourage men to contemplate an absent Christ in their souls. Is our evangelistic display askew?

The Lord’s Supper is not some mystery kept hidden from the view of the world. Nor is it some mystical rite to be kept “special” by infrequent observance. It is as simple as dinner with Jesus, and more profound than any theologian can ever fully understand.

The Lord’s Supper does not have an exclusively backward orientation. It is a Medieval perversion to focus only on the death of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The emphasis in Scripture is equally on the active presence of Christ at His Supper, and on the Supper’s prophecy that He will return. Holy Communion is not a morbid event, but a feast. Let the churches celebrate it as a feast, before the eyes of the world, so that the unconverted will realize the full extent of what they are being invited to partake of.

The Time of the Feast

Christ, as God, is present everywhere. Christ, as King and elder Brother and Guide to His people is present with them all the time. The question is whether there is any special presence of Christ associated with special worship, or is all worship the same?

The church has always affirmed, because of clear Biblical indication, that there is a distinction to be drawn between Christ‘s general presence and His special presence, between general six- day worship and special sabbatical worship. The presence of God is marked by special blessing and curse (Ex. 3:7-14; 6:1-8; 20:5,7, 12; Ps. 135:13f. Is. 26:4-8; Hos. 12:4-9; 13:4ff.; Mal. 3:6; John 8:31-59). In the New Covenant, this special blessing and curse is attached to the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:17-34). Christ, then, is specially present at His Table.

Also, the Day of the Lord is the great time of blessing and curse. The sabbath day is the Day of the Lord, or the Lord’s Day. The association is all important. We are told in 1 Cor. 11:31 that judgment is associated with Lord’s Day worship and the Supper. This is the time of the coming of the Lord, when He comes specially to be present with His people.

Everything in sabbatical worship stems from the concept of special presence. The special regulative principle of worship is an expression of the special regulation of special worship. The special day is an expression of the special time of special nearness of the Lord. Special blessing and curse is attached to the observation of sacramental worship. The special institution of worship (the church), with its special officers elders flows from special presence.

Historically, Calvinism has not always been clear on this. Some, such as John Calvin himself, affirm the special regulative principle of worship, but do not distinguish between the sabbath or Lord’s Day and the other days. If we take a consistently sabbatarian approach, then the special regulative principle only applies to special sabbath worship. Thus, informal voluntary feasts, such as Hanukkah (John 10) or the festival of the incarnation (Christmas) are not bound to the rules governing special sabbatical worship.

The special time is clearly the sabbath. Some have argued that just as space has been decentralized in the New Covenant (no more central sanctuary, but now Christ is present wherever two or three gather), so also time has been decentralized, so that we choose the time of special worship. Against this notion are two considerations. First, it does not follow that the decentralization of space means the flattening of time. Time has no “center,” and the sabbath is not one center but a repeated series of special times. Moreover, second, the references in the New Testament to the Lord’s Day imply that the special time for worship continues.

The testimony of the book of Revelation is particularly important here. John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day. The reference to being “in the Spirit” (1:10) is a clear reference to Special Presence, particularly since John was caught up into heaven and participated in the heavenly worship service (Rev. 4, 5). The sound of the trumpet (1:10) was the call to special assembly (Num. 10:3,4).

Further, we ought simply to recognize that we do not meet with God for special worship when we choose, but when He appoints. That appointment is the sabbath or Lord’s Day.

Man is a cyclical being, and the seven-day and seven-year work-rest cycles are part of his makeup. Violations of that cycle lead to sickness and death. God will have the entire cosmos operating together on that cycle, angels included (Rev. 4,5). Thus, we do not choose our own personal sabbath, unless we are engaged in some unavoidable work of “mercy or necessity.”

When does the sabbath begin? The Biblical day seems most clearly to begin at sundown, according to the testimony of creation (Gen. 1:5, etc.) and of redemption (Ex. 12:6, 14). Passover was held beginning at sundown, and the Day of Atonement, specifically called a sabbath, ran from evening to evening (Lev. 23:32). Since the Day of Atonement was the preeminent sabbath of sabbaths in the Old Covenant, coming in the seventh month, and characterized by fasting as well as rest, the rule of evening to evening is surely established for the sabbath.

The New Testament clearly teaches that the Old Covenant sabbaths are abolished (Col. 2:16-17). Interestingly, the New Testament institutes the Lord’s Day, or Day of the Lord, in the place of the Old Covenant sabbath, so that it is proper to speak of the Lord’s Day as the Christian sabbath.^[11] The Lord’s Day, however, is not spoken of as a day of rest but as a day of worship. This raises the possibility that the day of rest, for some people, might be another day than the day of worship -as indeed is the case for ministers and for those engaged in works of mercy and necessity. For the most part, worship and rest should coincide, as they do in Christ.

The Lord’s Day clearly begins with sunrise and continues after sunset. The sunrise is a sign or token of the New Covenant (Mal. 4:2; 2 Sam. 23:4; Is. 60:1-3). On the first Lord’s Day, Jesus met with the disciples after sunset and shared bread and wine with them then (Luke 24:29-43; John 20:19). The preaching of the Day of Pentecost came in the morning (Acts 2:15), while the Lord’s Supper was eaten on the evening of the Lord’s Day (1 Cor. 11:20-22, 33-34).

On balance, then, it seems that we should ideally begin our restored-creation-sabbath rest on Saturday night (unless we must rest some other day), have a preaching service Sunday morning, and the Lord’s Supper Sunday night. All things considered, the Lord’s Supper is an evening meal, as was the Passover, so the most appropriate time for special Eucharistic worship is Sunday evening. The fact that people brought their meals to the Agape Feast (Love Feast) before eating the Lord’s Supper shows that preparation of food is not forbidden on the Lord’s Day. Thus, we may wisely and joyfully re-institute the Biblical Agape Feast (covered dish supper) for Sunday nights, at least occasionally.

The Lord’s Supper is not optional on the Lord’s Day. The Bible never contemplates divorcing these things. God commands our presence at His table. Ordinarily, it is not wise to set up extra communion services on other days of the week. It is true that the New Covenant is a kind of perpetual sabbath and Lord’s Day, but this does not eliminate the special weekly Lord’s Day. In times of revival, such as are seen in Acts 2:42, 46 and in Calvin‘s Geneva, daily preaching services may occur, and perhaps the Lord’s Supper would be appropriate on a daily basis.

In the writings of theologians, there is a preoccupation with the question of whether or not the efficacy of the sacrament is the same as or different from that of the preached Word and general daily faith. This question arises only because the Biblical unity of sabbath, proclamation, sacrament, and gathered priesthood has been ripped asunder. The Bible cannot answer questions concerning the supposed sacramental status of the sabbath, or what there is “extra” about the communion service. As Calvin pointed out, the sacrament is in the nature of a miraculous visible seal to the preached word.^[12] Just as Word (authority), Presence, and miracle (power, control) go together in the Scripture, so Word, Presence, and sacrament go together in the New Covenant.

If we distinguish the sabbath day from the six cultural days, and sabbatical activity (special worship, rest, and recreational delight in the works of God and man) from cultural activity (creative work and labor in restraining the curse), we can also distinguish the special presence of Christ, as heaven is opened on the sabbath, from His general presence with His people on the cultural days. Thus, we can distinguish an informal Bible study or a Wednesday night meeting from a sabbath worship festival. Moreover, we can distinguish the official gathering of the priesthood under the leadership of special priests (elders) from general informal gatherings of the priesthood on the six cultural days for Bible study. It is the power of the special priest to bind and loose, to admit to sealing ordinances or to excommunicate, to place God’s blessing on the people (not merely to invoke it, Num. 6:23-27) and to curse God’s enemies.

Thus, the special efficacy of the sacraments is part and parcel of the special efficacy of sabbath worship, the blessing of special priests, the special “official” proclamation of the Word, and pre- eminently the special presence of Jesus. The difference between this and daily Christian experience is not normative, as if something different in the way of principle were involved; nor is it existential, as if we exercise some other kind of faith; but it is situational, carried out on the sabbath day in the special presence of God, the angels, the spirits of just men made perfect, and the gathered priesthood (Heb. 12:22-25).

To rip the eating of the sacrament out of this setting has two effects. First, it perverts the revelation of Christ in worship; just as to have ripped out a piece of the Tabernacle furniture would have perverted the revelation of Christ under the Old Covenant. Thus, God’s people are confused, and do not experience the fullness of revelation, of the Word. Nor is their need for the covenant meal, and for sealing ordinances, satisfied. As a result, God’s people will seek substitute experiences elsewhere.

Second, ripping the sacrament out of this regular sabbath worship setting makes it into something special and mysterious. The question is then raised, what is the special mysterious efficacy of the sacrament? This tends toward superstition among the people, whereas weekly observance and rejoicing in the covenant meal would prevent that.

The Lord’s Supper is the covenant meal, and the Lord’s Day is the day of judgment. As we break the covenant through sin during the week, we come to the Lord on the sabbath, confessing our sin, accepting His judgment, and renewing the covenant. The broken covenant is re ratified ceremonially on the sabbath. Thus, there is a covenant recital, rehearsing the deeds and the law of the covenant. We rehearse the deeds of the covenant when we say the Creed, and we rehearse the law when we hear the proclamation of the Word. The covenant is renewed, and sealed once again by the covenant meal. This is not to say that we lose our salvation during the week, only to regain it on the sabbath as a result of covenant renewal. Rather, we must distinguish among three different things. First, there is the total removal of sin from us in Christ, as He died for our sins on the cross, and as this is applied to us definitively when we are born again. Second, there is the daily cleansing from experienced sin that comes, based always on the work of Christ, as a result of our confession and repentance (1 John 1:9). Third, there is the sacramental signing and sealing of cleansing. It is not only baptism that serves as a sign and a seal. The weekly sacramental cleansing from sin adds, as it were, a seal to the daily repentance we have engaged in during the week. The weekly covenant renewal is a weekly (sacramental) clearing of the deck.

This is why the Corinthian church was in such gross sin: They came to the covenant renewal supper, but refused to forgive one another, holding grudges right into the next week. The meaning of the weekly sacramental cleaning of the slate was lost on them. The faithful Christian rejoices in the fact that God has not only forgiven him all sin in Christ, but God forgives his daily sins as he confesses them, and seals that forgiveness in the weekly covenant renewal.

Covenant Bonding

Man was created to participate in the covenant life of God, though obviously not in the being of God. Adam was created the son of God (Luke 3:38), and a son is a member of the family covenant. Sin broke that covenant, and since life itself is a covenant phenomenon, given by the Holy Spirit, the breaking of the family covenant community spelled death for the ones cast outside (Gen. 2:17). The restoration of covenant community and life was only possible if God Himself should become the substitute for man’s punishment, and experience covenant exile and death on man’s behalf. This the Lord Jesus Christ did for His people (Mark 15:34). As a result of His death and resurrection, God’s people are restored to covenant fellowship and life (John 17:21-23). The covenant is reestablished through blood unto resurrection life.

All covenant bonding in human life is an extension and replica of the covenant life of God. This means that the covenant of marriage, of the family, and of the household involves a community of life. Since ordinary life comes to us through food, a community of life is a life of shared food. The boundary of the household covenant is established by the supper table. Those who eat at the same table on a regular basis are in covenant union, sharing covenant life, which comes through food. (Notice the emphasis on food in the Bible starting in Genesis 2. The household of Israel shared common food, having been told in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 what to eat and what not to eat.)

Because of sin, however, all covenant bonding is destroyed. The man attacks his wife, and she attacks him (Gen. 3). The children fight and kill each other (Gen. 4). Thus, all covenant bonding must be reestablished in the sphere of resurrection life and through blood. The marriage bond is reestablished through the blood and pain of the wedding night. The parent-child bond is reestablished through the bloodied birth of the infant. The bond of, adoption is permanently established through the bloody boring of the servant’s ear at the master’s doorpost (Ex. 21:6). The God-man bond is reestablished through the blood of the sacrifice and of circumcision.

These are all threshold experiences in which a person passes through a door into a house. Because of sin, the door must be bloodied, so that the passage through the threshold is a passage through death to resurrection life. Thus, the door of the human body is bloodied in marriage and in childbirth, and the door of the house is bloodied when the slave is adopted into the family (from then on being known as a “homeborn” slave).^[13] Once established through blood, the covenant is renewed through the evening meal -those of the same household eating the same food together. This is simply an extension into common life of what we find in the church as well: the threshold experience of entering the land was the passage through the Jordan River, and the daily food was the milk and honey of the land. The threshold experience of entering the special priestly covenant with God was circumcision, and the covenant renewal was the Passover. In the New Covenant, the threshold experience of entering the house is the cleansing of baptism, and the covenant renewal is the Lord’s Supper.

Thus, covenant bonding is a resurrection phenomenon, and covenant life is in the sphere of the resurrection. To the extent that the unbeliever experiences covenant bonding in his marriage, family, business, etc., to that extent he is borrowing capital from the resurrection, crumbs that fall from the Lord’s Table. This is common grace, the goodness of God that leads to repentance. If he will not improve on these graces, he will lose all covenant life, and be isolated apart from all community by himself in hell forever.

Covenant life, resurrection life, then, entails a social bond, a bond between God and man and between man and man. Thus, the idea of community is inseparable from that of resurrection life. The sacrament of life, in which Christ‘s resurrection life is imparted to us, cannot but be a community-creating experience.

To eat Christ‘s body and drink His blood, then, entails participation both in His death and in His resurrection. These cannot be separated. In that the body and blood are separated, we participate in His death, covenant renewal. At the same time, the bread represents the unbroken life of the church, and the wine represents the life that is in the blood (Lev. 17:11, John 6:53). The Spirit is the life. As life is in the blood, and as the blood sustains the body, so the Holy Spirit sustained Christ, and now sustains us. To drink His blood is not only to participate in His death, but also to drink the life of the Spirit, resurrection life. This resurrection life is covenantally bonding, and creates the community symbolized by the one loaf (1 Cor. 10:17).

In the Bible, the entrance of a man across the threshold of God’s kingdom and into covenant life also meant bringing his whole household with him. The boundaries of that household can be seen from Genesis 2: 24 and those passages indicating that slaves were included in the household. When a son or daughter leaves the household and cleaves to a spouse, a new household is established. Before such a time, the son or daughter is included in the father’s household, for as long as he or she eats at the father’s table.

All those who eat at the household table are included in the covenant with God, at least during the historical administration of the covenant. (If a son or a slave does not mix faith with the covenant promises, he will be cut off from the eschatological fulfillment of the covenant.) Both children and slaves were circumcised (baptized), and both participated in the sacramental meals (Passover, Peace Sacrifice, Feast of Tabernacles, Lord’s Supper).

The Scripture plainly states that the infants and children under the Old Covenant ate at the Lord’s Table. This is found in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 and John 6:31-65. In these passages, both Paul and Jesus teach us that the manna and the water provided for Israel during the wilderness were true Spiritual food, the same food as the Lord’s Supper. It is not the precise substance of food that matters, but the Spirit Who comes to be with the sacramental food and Who gives life. The Spirit came to be with the manna and water in the wilderness, with the Passover meal, with other Old Covenant meals, and He comes to be with the Lord’s Supper today.

What this means is clear enough. The children ate the manna and drank the water. Indeed, there was nothing else to eat or drink. The passage in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 associates this with baptism: all those baptized in the Old Covenant were entitled to eat the Lord’s Supper (Note that it does not say that all, including children, were circumcised in the Red Sea crossing, but that they were baptized. This is a proof text for infant baptism.) This does not mean that all were saved, for “with most of them God was not well pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.” Those who were initially included in the historical administration of the covenant by baptism did not all persevere in faith so as to attain to the eschatological fulfillment of the covenant. At any rate, we can see that the Lord has invited the children to His table; do we dare to turn them away, as the disciples did, and received Christ‘s rebuke (Matt. 19:13-15)?

Slaves, including those not personally converted, also ate the Passover in the Old Covenant. All purchased slaves were circumcised when they became part of the master’s household, according to the express command of God. (Ex. 12:44; Gen. 17:12f). The act of circumcision made the slave into a covenant member, in the same class as the “native of the land” or Israelite (Ex. 12:48; Lev. 15:29), able to partake of the Passover, which no foreigner could partake of (Ex. 12:43-45).

A newly purchased slave would not even know the Hebrew language, let alone be inwardly converted. It would take time to teach him Hebrew, and then to explain the covenant of God to him. Notice, however, that the slave was circumcised in ignorance, and admitted to the Lord’s Table in ignorance.

This seems strange to modern Americans because of the influence of individualism. The Bible however, is covenantal, not individualistic. The household is included in the decision of the covenant head, and it is only as the members of the household mature that they are expected to continue in the covenant on their own. Under the influence of humanistic individualism, however, Baptist theology has grown up. The Baptist doctrine is that baptism symbolizes a person’s individual faith and regeneration, so that only such persons can come to the Table of the Lord. This, however, is not what baptism means in the Bible. In Scripture, baptism is God’s claim of ownership and God’s promise of salvation. In the sense that it is a claim, baptism creates an obligation to obey God’s Word. In the sense that it is a promise, baptism is the Gospel, and creates an obligation to exercise faith in God. Thus, the Reformation faith exhorts its children (and slaves, if there are any) to improve on their baptisms, to mix faith with the promises. The promise is for you and to your children, we are told (Acts 2:39), just as it was for Abraham. The promise must be mixed with faith to be effective, for there is no automatic salvation. Baptism, however, is not man-centered, a sign of faith, but God-centered, a sign of the promise. Thus, baptism is administered first, and then faith is to follow. The Bible does not teach us to baptize indiscriminately, but to baptize by households. Those who share table fellowship with the covenant head of the household (wife, children, and slaves) are included in the household covenant, and baptized. They also belong at the Lord’s Table.

When Jesus invites us over to His house for a dinner, He does not tell us to get a babysitter and leave the kids at home. They are invited, too. They cross the threshold with their parents, and sit with them at the meals.

Current-day practice, however, often assumes that baptized children must go through some experience, to the satisfaction of some spiritual examiner, before they can be admitted to the Lord’s Table. There is not a shred of evidence in Scripture for this additional demand. If we are going to treat our children as unregenerate until they have gone through some mystical experience, we had better not teach them to pray, or even permit them to pray. Away with such hymns as “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong; they are weak, but He is strong.” That song is a lie, if children are not even allowed to eat Jesus’ food.

The Biblical perspective is clear. We teach our children that Jesus is their God and Savior. We teach them to pray, and we teach them the laws and precepts of the kingdom. Baptism is God’s seal of covenant membership, and entitles the child to all the benefits of the covenant. If the child later on breaks the seal and rejects the covenant, he is to be excommunicated; and this presupposes that he is already a communicant member.

Indeed, the Bible indicates that the fetus participates in Jesus‘ Supper. We all know that unborn children get their food from their mothers, in the “natural” sense. Indeed, one of the traditional ways to calm down a violently active fetus is for the mother to sip a small glass of wine; it puts the baby right to sleep. But, does this fact really apply to “Spiritual” food, in the sense of the Lord’s Supper?

Yes, there is Scriptural evidence that it does, and it is found in Judges 13: 7, 14. When the angel of the Lord appeared to the wife of Manoah and told her that her son (Samson) would be a Nazirite from his earliest days, He told her not to eat or drink anything a Nazirite should not eat or drink. Now, the reason the Nazirite was forbidden to drink wine and eat raisins was not because of any physical influence these would have (Numbers 6), because there is no special physical influence associated with raisins and grapes. The reason was quasi-sacramental: During the course of his work, the Nazirite was not to participate in the good fruits and blessings of the Lord. This was as a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who took upon Himself the curse of the covenant during His life, so that we might experience the blessings of the covenant during our lives.^[14]

The fact that the mother of the Nazirite was to abstain from the fruit of the vine means that the Spiritual-symbolic character of food pertains to the child as much as to the mother. Indeed, this would be obvious if we were faithful to the Scripture and used wine in communion, for then the effect on the fetus would be noticeable. At any rate, those who believe that children do not belong at Jesus‘ table should excommunicate all pregnant women during the terms of their pregnancies. Only in this way can we be sure that no children are partaking. If this seems extreme, it is only because the theological position that prohibits children from eating the Lord’s Supper is extreme.

What is the relevance of this for evangelism? It should be obvious. In an age when the family is breaking down as never before, and when there is, moreover, great alarm over this breakdown, the church must make clear that Christianity has the answer. Evangelism is not exclusively individualistic, but covenantal. We are not out simply to convert individual people; we are also out to convert families. Part of the display of the Lord’s Supper week by week needs to be its familial character. Away with the nauseating individualism which has done so much to wreck the family during the last two centuries! The invitation to the wedding feast is extended to the whole family.

Analogical Hospitality

Now that we have considered how God would have us display His hospitality in worship, let us return to a consideration of how we as Christians should evangelize by hospitality. Just as we are to think God’s thoughts after Him, so we are to live God’s life after Him. This “imaging” of God is called analogical living. Just as God sets a pattern of hospitality, inviting people over to His house for dinner, so we should imitate that pattern. The perfect context for evangelism is the Christian home.

We may contrast this practice with the more common method of going door to door. When we knock on the stranger’s door, we are at his mercy. He mayor may not let us in. He is immediately suspicious of us: What are these people doing? Are they Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or some new cult (like serious Presbyterians)? Moreover, if he lets us in, we are on his turf. It is his house, his castle. And this is as it should be. God in His common grace grants to the unbeliever the joys and privileges of having a family and a household. It is indeed his house, and we are invaders. We are speaking to him in his context. Moreover, he cannot see anything of how Christians live, so we cannot give him a whole- life message. The situation is not only awkward, but it is relatively ineffectual. The gains to the church from this method are minimal. That is not to say that God never blesses visitation evangelism, but that it is not a very strong way to witness.

Now, if I have a neighbor family over to my house, I have the opportunity to display Christian hospitality to them from the moment they cross my threshold. I am in control of the situation, and it is a Christian environment. They observe Christianity in action. They eat my food. They observe the devotions conducted at my table. Without invading their privacy, I can explain Christianity to them. And even if I do not give them the Gospel with a direct verbal appeal, it is set before them unmistakably in all that they experience while in a Christian home. The advantages of this method of evangelism are obvious.

Of course, this means that I must have my Christian household in order. Probably the main deterrent to hospitality evangelism, and hospitality in general, is the fact that the Christian family sees itself as too disorderly and not a good witness. An untidy house with a sloppy housekeeper will effectively keep the covenant head of the home from inviting people over. Bickering parents, undisciplined children, poor leadership by the father, are all too often found in Christian homes as well as in pagan ones. The Christian household, however, must analogically reflect the order found in the kingdom of Christ. Christians must honestly face up to the disorder in their own lives and homes, for judgment begins at the house of God. Then hospitality will be a real possibility. Most children will act up when company is visiting the home, because the children are made to feel insecure by the attention the parents are giving to outsiders. The issue is not whether children act up or not, but whether the outsider will see Christian parents handling the problem in a Christian manner (e.g., giving extra love to the kids). The churches must double their efforts to raise up orderly Christian homes, as a prelude to hospitality in general and hospitality evangelism in particular.

Since elders should be the leaders in the church in her imitation of God, no one should be an elder who is not given to hospitality. The diaconate, the apprenticeship for the elders is characterized by “waiting on tables,” or training in hospitality. Because there are great expenses connected with frequent hospitality, all elders (and deacons also) should be given money to help with this. (See 1 Tim. 5:17, which presupposes that all elders are given some honor [money].)

If it is questioned whether we should invite unbelievers to our table, the answer is that our table is not the Lord’s Table. It is related to the Lord’s Table analogically, but it is not the same thing. The household table is a feature of common grace and of common life, an outflow from the Lord’s Table. It is a blessing that partakes of covenant bonding and is a benefit of the resurrection, but until the end of history it is an institution of common grace. Abraham extended Patriarchal hospitality to any stranger traveling by. The stranger in the ancient near east was always entitled to three days of hospitality, regardless of his religion. While in Abraham’s house, the stranger was under the protection of Abraham’s household God, who in his case was the Lord.

Similarly, our hospitality can be and is to be extended to anyone except persons excommunicated from the church. When in our houses, the visitors are under the protection of our God, the Lord Jesus Christ. This enables us to tell them about Him, and to invite them to put their own households under His covenantal canopy. In this way, the unbeliever sees the whole Christian lifestyle, a style of life that he cannot help but wish were his own, since his own marriage and family life is in bad shape.

It is much more difficult and takes much more skill to witness for Christ in a strange house, with its own alien household gods. Such a difficult task is not for every Christian, but requires gifts and skills of a special srt, akin to the work of casting out demons, since going into a strange house is often going into a demonized environment. The space enclosed by a house is a real defined space, a place. For this reason, the question of what gods or God is ruling in the house-place is not an idle question. There are such things as demonized or haunted houses. How much better is hospitality evangelism, when the stranger is in a Christian house!

One of the sad side effects of the notion that every Christian should be involved in visitation evangelism has been the production of truncated, simplified presentations of the Gospel. This kind of thing goes hand in hand with the Greek notion of the soul and the primacy of the intellect, since the Gospel is reduced to a personal individual decision to accept Jesus into one’s “soul,” and not the adoption of a new lifestyle. As a result, the actual message gotten out this way is only a small part of the whole Gospel. Hospitality evangelism, on the other hand, addresses the whole man in the context of his whole family, and in the environment of the Christian household. Hospitality evangelism is more natural and conversational, and can range over the whole spectrum of the Christian life. The Gospel is as wide as all of life, and hospitality evangelism enables us to make that point clear in a way that visitation evangelism usually cannot.

Summary and Applications

The modern church has confused preaching and teaching, so that it preaches to the saints instead of teaching them and building them up. The proper place for preaching is the marketplace, the highways and byways, which today means primarily the media. If the local newspaper will not give you a weekly column, then take out advertisement space and put in a brief, hard-hitting message for the times. Remember that you are not advertising your own church, but you are heralding the good news in the marketplace. The same thing applies to the use of radio and television.

At the same time, the media is not the place to conduct a worship service. When worship services are broadcast, the teacher tends to become a preacher, trying to save the lost instead of building up God’s people. Also, worship services should not be broadcast because the people of God are supposed to gather for worship, not sit at home. The Lord’s Supper is an indispensable part of worship, and can only be partaken of at the church.

The modern church has failed to make visible the Word of God, confusing the saints as to the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, and confusing the holistic nature of the evangelistic invitation. The Gospel addresses the whole man, invites him and his family to the Lord’s feast. This is sadly obscured today. The mysteries of the kingdom of God are open public “mysteries.” The Word is displayed through preaching the Gospel to the unbeliever. This is the active form of evangelism. All of the Christian life, however, and especially worship, are passive forms of evangelism. The unbeliever who visits the service of worship should hear the Word taught and sung and prayed, and should see the covenant meal displayed before his eyes, even though he does not participate in it. In this way, the worship service, though not oriented toward evangelism, performs an evangelistic function in displaying the worship of God.

The emphasis on visitation evangelism has produced a lot of simplified Gospel tracts and methods, but little transformation of society. While door-knocking is usually necessary in starting a church from scratch, the Bible indicates that hospitality evangelism is a much preferable method under ordinary circumstances. While it is true that Christ is a Visitor, the Biblical concept of visitation is usually connected with judgment. While it is still day, we should show Christ as the gracious Host, Who invites people to His home for a feast.

End Note

Although the Bible gives no evidence to support the so-called three-office view, it does not thereby exclude the possibility of experts and specialists among the elders. It is clear that all elders have the same powers and authority. The modern notion that only a teaching elder can “preach” is rubbish. The idea that ruling elders admit to the Lord’s Table but only teaching elders can administer the Table is nonsense, and nowhere to be found in Scripture. The tendency of this error is once again to surround the Lord’s Table with superstition, so that the teaching elder “consecrates the elements” or “sets the elements apart from ordinary use.” What is supposed to happen at this point in the service? There is no ritual of consecrating the elements in the Bible or in Protestant theology. It is the people, not the elements, that are to be consecrated to God, and set apart.

Expertise is another matter. In 1 Timothy 5:17 three levels of reward for expert service are mentioned: the normal situation in which the elder receives some pay to offset the time and money he puts into kingdom work, the elder who does exceptionally good work and should receive double pay, and the elder whose expertise lies in the area of Biblical teaching and who should also receive double pay.

In a largely illiterate (pre-Gutenberg) society, the man who could read and write had a real skill. Such was the scribe in the Old Testament, such as Shaphan in 2 Kings 22:8,10. He read the Law of God for Hilkiah and Josiah, who apparently could not read it for themselves. The scribes, by New Testament times, were expert students of the written Word. This expertise continued into the New Testament church. Special expertise does not, however, qualify any elder for special powers. Indeed, the qualifications for elders are almost entirely moral, not intellectual (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). The notion that the primary skills of the eldership are intellectual, the three-office view, is a byproduct of the Greek primacy-of-the-intellect philosophy.

In the post-Gutenberg era of universal literacy, it is to be expected that whatever boundaries between teaching and ruling elders have grown up should begin to break down. This is a good thing, and a real bonus for the churches. It should be encouraged and enhanced.

Public teaching, however, need not be the only area of expertise recognized by the churches; counseling is another. Throughout its history, the church has always labored in the “cure of souls,” and the ministry of counseling is not only a real skill that should be remunerated, but it is also an excellent means of evangelism, particularly in an age of social collapse.

If we employ the model set out in Exodus 18, we might have higher ranks of elders. It must be kept in mind, however, that the elders have two functions: shepherding by means of teaching and advice, and rendering judgments in judicial cases. The former is a personal function, the latter a joint power that requires the elders to sit together as a court. The concept of ascending courts does not place in the hands of higher elders any special powers, such as the power to administer sacraments, or to administer the “rite of confirmation.” Nor are the higher elders either administrators or legislators for the churches under them since the Spirit is to administer the loosely-organized churches, and the Bible is her legislation. Higher elders give advice and counsel to junior elders, and handle appeals from lower courts. That is all.

The Bible actually teaches, by the way, only one office in the church: the office of ruler (priest-king-prophet). The church ruler guards the sacraments (priestly), rules (kingly), and teaches (prophetic). The only other office in Scripture is the office of ruler in the state (see Zech. 6:13). Each elder should have a diaconal assistant, and the deacons should assist the elders generally in their work. This would be more obvious to us if we lived in an age in which job training was by apprenticeship instead of by university education. Some of the great deacons in the Bible who later became elders are Joshua, Elisha, the twelve apostles, and the seven deacons of Acts 6.

The notion that elders rule and deacons serve is unbiblical and pagan, and completely contradicts the message of Mark 10:42-45. The idea that elders minister to spiritual needs and deacons minister to material needs is a nice, tidy piece of Greek philosophy, but has no foundation in the Biblical holistic view of man. Since the deacon is the apprentice, he will wind up doing the “dirty” work, and this means the more material and less directly Word-related tasks (2 Kings 3:11; Mark 6:41-43; Acts 6:2ff.) These are not two offices, however, but the relation between master and apprenticeship.

While we are on this subject, it might be well to note that the minimum age for rule in Scripture is 30 years of age (Gen. 41:46; 2 Sam. 5:4; Luke 3:23). They marveled at Christ‘s wisdom when He was twelve, but He did not ask them to submit to His authority until He was thirty. He was wise; the modern evangelical and Reformed churches are incredibly stupid in this regard. They ordain men to become super-elders (three-office “ministers”) who have no experience at all, have never been deacons, have had only three years of book learning, and are about 25 years old. A more incredibly moronic system of training can scarcely be imagined. It is no wonder that the church is in the shape it is in. Paul told Timothy not to let people despise his youth, when Timothy was at least 35, and Rehoboam was called a youth when he was 41 years old (1 Kings 12:8; 14:21). The word ‘elder,’ after all, does mean older.”

Of course, after a century of ignorance and compromise there are very few older elders in the churches. It may be and usually is necessary for younger men to take the lead; this is not the Biblical norm, however, and the young men should be aware of the dangers in their undertaking.