1 Corinthians 3:16-17

“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If someone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, which is what you are.”

— ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬-‭17‬‬ 

The concept of being the temple is both here and in 6:19. The main difference is that here the pronoun is plural. In 6:19, the pronouns are singular. This indicates Paul is talking about the group of believers collectively, i.e., the church. Since it is true that the Spirit inhabits individual believers (ch 6), it is also true that the Spirit inhabits the body as well. 

The context of this chapter is building on the foundation of Christ. Often we think of this as any good or fruitful work vs. being carnal or selfish. But because of the reference to the Corinthians’ argument over Apollos and Barnabas and Paul, this is likely referring to church leaders or those working in “ministry” (yes, I know we all should).

Their works will be burnt with fire/proving the motivation, stewardship, etc. So now Paul concludes that we are the temple (and because we are “in Christ” the true temple of God, this makes sense). 

I would take “anyone” then to be leaders/teachers. It could be the invisible infection of pride, dissension, etc (as Corinthians is known for). But the reference to all these other leaders makes me think Paul does not want any leader destroying the church or leading her astray. 

Leaders must be held accountable. God will discipline/punish those who ruin the church or defame her. The church is holy, set apart for God’s purposes. When someone diverts that mission or uses it for his own glory, that’s serious stuff. 

American Christianity and the Individualized Gospel

 [Queue overused joke/phenomenon of being scared or disinterested in talking to our neighbors vs. “the good ol’ days when everyone knew and talked to everyone else”]

Huge caveat here that this post is specifically focused on churches in the US. Why? Because that’s what I’ve experienced. Yes, I have travelled around the world but not extensively, and certainly not enough to speak about church elsewhere. And even these general statements are broad brushstrokes to be sure. Different regions of the US (and local congregations) cannot be judged by what’s said here. 

I would think generally, though, that the culture of the US is becoming more individualized. Sure, we come together for parties or sporting events or graduations. But by and large, we like to keep to ourselves, our families, and our immediate circles. The pandemic certainly didn’t help this. We were shoved into isolation for large portions of time, and we are still seeing side affects of this, regardless of age, occupation, gender, personality, and other background traits.

Individualism and commercialism go hand in hand. What’s in it for me? How does x or y benefit me? Commercials scream at us about how this product will make our life better. Politicians literally scream at us about how they will improve our daily living. We save for retirement to make future years more comfortable than they would be otherwise. 

Asking for help is usually a last resort. Admitting a failure or mistake is gut wrenching—mostly because culture or community or even friends/family may even completely abandon us. We are forced often to depend on ourselves.

Again, I can’t speak of cultures globally, and I don’t want to stereotype too much, but I know at least ancient cultures were not this way. Commitment to family and community was much stronger. (Of course, there were exceptions). I believe and have researched/heard a bit from others/friends/scholars that Eastern cultures typically have a closer bond. 

Culture is one thing. The real issue is when the Lone Ranger mentality creeps into the church. If I think that I can follow Jesus all by lonesome, I’m severely mistaken. Granted, people are morons. They make mistakes. They lie, annoy, and refuse to listen. They get angry and prideful. And that’s just those who claim to know Jesus.

I have been in a local church since before I was born. I have seen the best and the worst of Christians—well, not the worst. But I am well aware of our greatest sins throughout history, and I am appalled. 

And when I enter conversation with those equally disgusted, I concede much of our errors, and my errors. 

But this is not that time. 

This is a call to remember that the church is the bride of Christ. He loved/loves her. He died for her. And if anyone thinks they can love/follow Jesus and not the church, they don’t love Jesus.

Love is a weird word, though, because sometimes it can mean calling out our errors and flaws. Sometimes it can mean serving and being fully involved in ministry. Sometimes it can mean giving all we have to those in need. Sometimes it can mean cheering for others as they do what we are unable to do.

Here are some specific ways that this mindset of an “individualized gospel” can play out in the American church:

Attendance: This may seem too obvious, but if someone does not see himself/herself as integral to the body of Christ, he/she will not gather with other believers. We have seen this since the pandemic, and in many cases, that’s ok. I’m not arguing for putting people in danger. Personal health is an important factor, and everyone must make their own decisions. 

But as a chaplain I enter many homes where the recurring chorus is “We went to church up until the pandemic. Now it’s just harder to go.” And the patient may or may not have extended family nearby. But every time, my heart skips a beat, knowing there’s a whole community of people waiting with gross potato salad and stale rolls. A merry band of individuals to come pray, read books, sing songs, play Checkers, anything to make each day more memorable and bring joy. Could the local church reach out automatically and do all this? I suppose. But if someone stops coming for years, it’s awfully difficult to expect a church to keep up with illnesses or family history. At least inform them of the circumstances. 

Worship: This is no time to debate every lyric of Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation. If we put several hymns and modern CCM songs side by side, we would see strengths and weaknesses to each. Some of the same criticisms could be leveled against both. One of those is the “me-centered” ness that is usually ascribed to modern songs (and I would agree it’s more of an issue with newer songs). Salvation is about what Jesus has done for “me,” what “I” receive, “my” new life/rescue, etc. None of which is wrong, inaccurate. But we need a more balanced emphasis on two things: (1) God’s glory, which is the end of salvation and (2) a corporate view of salvation (see below)

Service/Missions: Maybe this doesn’t follow as much. But I wonder if it’s easier to give online or write a check than to give of time or energy due to an individualistic mindset. Would we rather give $100 than a week or two to serve? Or would we rather buy some groceries than go serve the poor in a low-income neighborhood or at the kitchen downtown? I don’t know. I haven’t surveyed anyone. Just thoughts.

Does it affect our theology?

Church language: How many times do we use the word “church” for its local vs. global use? Yes, the apostles wrote letters to local churches (perhaps to regions composed of local churches). Elders are appointed over local churches. Church membership is important on a local level; otherwise, the commands of accountability and authority are pretty moot. But I wonder if the 59 one another statements apply in a local or global context? Am I only supposed to forgive those in my local gathering? Definitely not. Am I only supposed to pray for those who come to the same building as me on Sunday? That’s silly.

We think of the global church once in a while, but a more consistent view would eliminate petty arguments. It would elevate the essentials within the church. We would be more unified. We would value diversity. We would focus on Jesus, because He unites all peoples in Him (Rev 7-8).

Atonement: I have been reviewing this major doctrine for a month or so, and I haven’t read any major books, yet. I like what I heard where the Bible doesn’t care about theories or view of “atonement.” It’s more like the death of Jesus is one of the most simple, yet complex events in history. The implications of it are drastic for all history. It’s mentioned throughout the NT, and nearly every song alludes to its effects. But the more I read the verses, I notice some repeated themes. Here are some of the major verses that mention substitution as we like to talk about Jesus’ death. 

Isaiah 53:1-12  Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.  (**Needs more notes later, but Isaiah has a couple passages on Israel as the “servant.” To apply the term to an individual here is possible. The NT certainly applies it to Jesus, but that’s looking back.)

2 Corinthians 5:21  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

Mark 10:45  For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Colossians 2:13-15 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Hebrews 2:17  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Romans 5:8  But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15  For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 8:32  He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Ephesians 1:14 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ...

Romans 5:17-19 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

I can’t discuss all these passages here. NT Wright would say, “Ok, now let’s go back to the Gospels and see what the story is behind the crucifixion.” But the one thing that jumps out at me here is that Jesus always died “for all,” “for many,” or simply “for sin.” 

What’s missing? Me, my, I. Did Jesus die as a sacrifice? Yes. Did He did instead of someone? Sure. Instead of me for my sin that deserves just punishment for all eternity (i.e., God’s outpouring of wrath)? If you want to say it that way. 

What makes much more sense to me through the narrative and in these passages here is the idea of corporate solidarity. Whether it’s Adam or Israel, both failed. Paul says, In Adam all died. Israel failed in her mission as well. Corporate solidarity has an individual represent a group. It’s similar to covenantal headship, where the family head represents the family. Jesus came and represents Israel, fulfilling her mission, obeying the Law perfectly. As He is murdered unjustly, He is able to become the Suffering Servant and take her sins onto Himself.

Multiple theories of atonement can be simultaneously true.

My point here is that we nearly always see Jesus dying for sins of the people. And if I as an individual am “in Christ” then my sin is forgiven as well. I love when I see tweets about not accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. I personally accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Big difference.

Personal/Individual

We do have one verse with the 1st person singular pronoun, but this seems to be unique.

Galatians 2:20 

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

V. 16-21 is heart of the letter and v. 17 has the plural “sinners.” Paul seems to be using himself as an example here. He discusses his relationship with the law, how it brought death, but also how he fulfills its demands “in Christ.” (Not to mention the whole NPP debate in v. 20 with “faith” vs “faithfulness” of the Son of God.) 

I am not really trying to persuade any one of anything. I’m just thinking through the texts and what makes most sense to me at this point. Even in Galatians 2:20, there’s unity “with Christ” so corporate solidarity is in view. Jesus giving life “for me” doesn’t mention sin directly here, though it is relevant to the passage. This seems to combine the themes of conquering kingdom, rescue, and also substitution. Nevertheless, it’s one verse that has a singular pronoun vs. all the others with plurals, and I would suggest our teaching reflects the same ratio.

This is not to resort to the heresy of thinking someone gains eternal life simply because of “religious heritage” or association. “I’ve been in church my whole life” or “my dad’s a preacher” excuses. This is still an individual decision, but I will probably emphasize the corporate side of the atonement or at least look for it throughout Scripture. And I will look for ways to emphasize community, both local and global over this me and Jesus religion.

In conclusion, for this subject, I never understood the theology of the atonement within the narrative of the gospels (as a kid or even now as adult). I know and believe the truths. I know the verses. But how does a voluntary, even every day occurrence of a death translate to a sacrifice for all mankind, or a payment, or fill in the blank on a cosmic scale? I think this makes much more sense in a corporate, representative sense. And of course, I as an individual am part of the people who gained life and forgiveness because of Jesus’ death. Nothing really changes except a renewed focus on belonging to a group. 

We could probably find other areas of theology where an individualistic mindset is harmful, such as eschatology (trying to get to heaven vs. building for kingdom community). But I think this is sufficient for now. 

4th of July

Let me be frank and upfront in case the main point gets lost in the paragraphs below: I am so incredibly thankful to be living in America, and I have tremendous memories of celebrating our freedom as a teenager and young adult. I've been surrounded (and related to) veterans and first responders, including within churches I am a member of and at jobs I have held, and I always do my best to thank each one personally. Their daily sacrifice is more than I can imagine. 

I have had discussions with those who live elsewhere in the world, and there are definitely some attractive conclusions I hear about cultures and locations. I dream of traveling more as finances become steadier and schedule allows, but I have always been content and grateful for my upbringing.

However, being grateful for America does not compare to my love and loyalty to Jesus. There is no comparison.

This is not a post about church and state, or America's issues (or blessings). This is not an argument for how to repair any social issue, or how to improve the church's witness. That may just take several years (with some new directional choices depending on which church and which direction has been chosen recently).

I am simply addressing one issue that may provide insight into how the church views the state, because the past several years have forced me to reconsider this. I never thought much about going to church and hearing the four or five patriotic hymns, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, hearing a sermon about how awful America (or her churches) are, waving flags around, or having prayer circles for grand revival. And some or all of that may or may not be familiar with you (or some or all of that may be repulsive to you).

But I don't want to argue about flags in church. Or saying the Pledge. If we start by yelling about order of service or decorations, we talk in circles, and nothing is accomplished. The waters get muddy. 

I like to debate sometimes, but yelling and frustration just gets old after a while. And heated passion on a topic like this is understandable. Conclusions are assumed to be indicative of one's level of patriotism. But if we've learned anything the past several years, it's that no issue is clear cut. There's background, context, and multiple layers to each conversation.

So to cut through all of that, I only have one question. One fundamental question to consider before we decide how to arrange services on July 4 (or any other patriotic holiday):

What is the purpose of gathering together in the first place?

Why do we come together on Sunday? I would hope it's something like to worship the one true God, to proclaim the gospel (and not just for the unbelievers who may come but also to refresh His followers), to edify the discouraged, to equip saints for further ministry, to express dependence on God in prayer and song, to fellowship with believers and share experiences together in unity---all this to the glory of God.

Something like that.

Have you seen or experienced an extravagant service about "God and Country" or "God Bless America"? If not, try First Baptist Dallas. I'll let you reach a personal conclusion on how much of the previous paragraph is occurring within that service.

"But Kevin, it's just one week. Besides, we're told to pray for civil leaders." Ok, we can pray for leaders. Of course--by all means--any role of leadership deserves prayer. But praying for leaders seems to imply a heart of prayer lives inside the pastor, the elders, the congregants. In my experience, it's really easy for someone to royally bash anyone in government they despise and then fulfill 1 Timothy 2 and Romans 13 in a two-minute prayer on July 4 (begging for revival). 

So a full service devoted to these things? Probably not necessary. Focus drifts from what is essential on the life of the believer, and the emphasis is placed on the secular. The things below. The kingdom(s) of this world.

One biblical passage that could support a service like this would be Jeremiah 29 (oh, don’t say v. 11). The people of Israel are getting antsy in exile and false prophets are telling them they are going home soon. Jeremiah has other ideas (from YHWH). He says to plant vineyards, build houses, and get comfortable, because it’s going to be a while. Then v. 7 says to seek the peace and prosperity of Babylon. Pray for it, because if it prospers, Israel will prosper. 

I can get inside the heads of many, many preachers who want to see the church in exile (true, from 1 Peter), but their attitude towards America is rarely the same attitude that Israel had toward Babylon. The church is not ethnic Israel (obviously), the church is not America, and Israel is not America. If America prospers does the church prosper? Maybe, maybe not. If America suffers, does the church suffer? Maybe, maybe not. Here’s the main point—the church does not depend on America’s wellbeing. There’s a whole world beyond our borders where the name and kingdom of Jesus is expanding.

So here's the litmus test that I have found so helpful. I’ve read several articles and social media posts on the issue, and one thought always shines bright (and it applies to any day, but especially on these special occasions). 

Could our worship service be transported to another culture? 

Or perhaps more likely, what if someone from another culture/country were sitting in our service? Would they still be able to sing, listen, and respond?

Of course, there will always be barriers of culture and language. We cannot translate every idiom or preference for everyone who may cross our path. But if a refugee finds solace within the doors of my church, and I spend an entire hour singing about my country, praying for God to bless her, and teaching my people how to improve her status in the world, he/she may be confused. How is that message applicable? How does it edify him? I cannot expect her to pray for my home country. 

The church is universal. The gospel is for all peoples, and that is what binds us together. I have more in common with a brother or sister around the world in a completely different culture than a completely atheist neighbor across the street. 

If I plan a worship service, it must reflect this global bond.

Again, this is really not a post about the Pledge of Allegiance or the existence of flags in service or praying for America or tribute videos. But if you’ve ever felt that tension while sitting in a service about America, thoughts wandering through your head, “Does this count as worship? What are we worshipping here?”—then maybe the worship service has ended and something much more secular has begun (though well-intended).

I agree with others who have articulated much better and with far better reasoning/support that patriotic celebrations are appropriate and may even be necessary at times. (Some groups of individuals may even disagree with that statement, and I would be open to their concerns and having open dialogue. Though we may disagree, I understand hurts and grievances run deep.) But the time for these celebrations is not a specific block of time that we mortals have devoted to worshipping the Almighty. 

One could argue that our lives are worship, "all days are sacred now" according to Paul. So who gets to decide which block of time is more important than any other. It's a double-sided argument, I suppose. Either we appreciate blocks of time to gather as an assembled body (locally) for worship, edification, and ministry with our gifts (not to the neglect of doing these elsewhere throughout the week) and focus our attention on the God alone, or we devote our entire lives to Him, implying nothing sacred may ever stir our hearts or exit our mouths (I'm speaking of devotion to another cause, team, idea, goal, or yes, country). It's a tense conversation to have, but worthy of the deepest thoughts and considerations.

The last several years only surfaced some deep misplaced loyalties among churchgoers. Perhaps returning to a singular focus in our worship times will weed out some of this division, polarity, animosity, and disunity. Imagine that. Focusing on Jesus may remind us of what we have in common--even with believers around the world.