Of Temples, Teachers, and Teaching

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?  If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)

Pulled out of the rest of the chapter, and left in English without explanation, these two verses can be thought to refer to individuals.  This use of the reference to 'temple of God' sounds much like chapter 6 verse 19 in which the individual is in view.  Here the church is in view.

Paul has been referring to the church as God's 'building' and now becomes more specific than 'building' calling them the temple.  And it's not just a 'temple' including the precincts and auxiliary structures, this word refers to the inner sanctuary, the dwelling place of the god.  As temples make up much of the structures in downtown Corinth, this would have been a ready reference for them to grasp.  For Paul's Jewish background, this would have been the 'Holy-of-Holies' or inner sanctuary of which it was a part.

So what?  It shouldn't surprise me that the Spirit of my Master dwells in my church, considering He dwells in the individuals in it.  The key point that I believe Paul is making is the destruction of said 'temple'.  In other words, the problems which have taken up his initial discussion in these first 3 chapters are destroying the church.  So the 'leaders' participating in or inciting the polarizing factions are destroying the church with their worldly human wisdom both in patterns of behavior and teaching.  They are the ones trying to build on Paul's foundation, possibly trying to replace his foundation, but building with hay stubble and straw.

While Paul makes allowance that those who build on (teach in) the church may survive the test of fire (v.15), here he says God will destroy the one destroying the church.  There's no 'salvation' in that phrase, whatever allowance Paul makes in verse 15.  Combining these two verses in the same context helps make my point that arguments over 'eternal security' versus 'apostasy of the saved' are difficult and amusing (for me anyway).  So, I'm moving on from there.

What I see here is a serious warning which in my formative religious tradition was both ignored and experienced.  In the denomination from which I come, 'church splits' were not only common, but disastrous.  And each ensuing disaster became a lesson not learned.  Small community churches of the same denomination on facing street corners contained people who would not even look across the street.  Years later some knew of the division, but not why, yet still maintained the distance.

In the church I grew up in, we never had a split that formed another church, but I do remember 'groups' leaving the church to join another.  I suppose a case can be made that there were some churches that started from one or more of those groups, but they never lasted.  Even so, the division itself was seen as a viable option, regardless of these teachings of Paul.

These divisions were not due to 'sin', violation of clear core Scriptural teaching, or anything approaching that.  They were over 'personality differences', they stemmed from selfish ambition, bitterness of heart, lack of forgiveness, and envy.  Ironically, these are the same things that prompted so much of Paul's writing, and therefore lots of teaching available to those willing to read.  And yet, knowing the words and allowing them to affect the heart wasn't happening.

So the lesson for me here is that I have to not only read these words, study their meaning and unpack their implications, but I have to permit my Master's Spirit to impress them into my heart, my soul, and my mind.  They have to directly affect my decisions, my choices, and my thought processes.  The warning here is that if I get 'off track' and begin teaching out of my own bitterness, selfishness, fear, and envy; I will be destroyed by my Master.

It sounds harsh but the church, the bride of Christ, is at stake.  It is my Master defending His beloved, His betrothed, which is obviously not me, but His church; of which I'm supposed to be a part.  So, perhaps teaching a belief that I can be His beloved apart from His 'bride' is actually a contradiction.  Wouldn't removing such a contradiction strengthen the 'temple of God' rather than risk destroying it?  Hmmm.

The Hard Road Back

But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe.  After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God."  When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:20-23 NASB)

Difficulty after difficulty, after difficulty, and yet Paul and Barnabas still go back through the way they came.  This is interesting for a rather obscure reason.  On a map, these two wound up in Derbe, which is really on the road to Antioch where they started.  It would have been shorter to go to Tarsus (where Paul was actually from), and then a short trip back to Antioch.  But they didn't.  They took the much longer route back the way they came; back through all the trouble they had experienced.

Why do that?  Why not move on?  The answer obviously lies in what they did as they passed back through.  They did the following: 1) Strengthened their souls, 2) Encouraged endurance in their faith, 3) Appointed elders, 4) Commended them to the Lord.  This was so important that it was necessary to risk their lives, and civil unrest to do so?  Yes, it seems it is.  So, in our culture and the churches within it, does this seem like a huge motivating factor?  Do people seem ready and committed to strengthen souls, encourage endurance in faith, to support leadership, and commend their fellows to the Lord with prayer and fasting?  Or are we more interested in our own petty squabbles?

Even if some were willing and interested in those four things, would they risk their lives for it?  To my shame, I would have to say probably not.  I include myself in this because I don't know if it has been my track record either.  In my church, I should be so focused on these four things I should be willing to risk my life to do them.  I should be willing to put myself in danger to encourage the faith of people, to strengthen the souls who attend, to support leadership, and in prayer and fasting, commend my brothers and sisters to my Master.  This should be something I do, not because I'm a pastor (because I'm not), but because I follow my Master and want the things He considers to be important to be important to me. 

Consider how different church would be if these four things characterized those who attend.  Let's forget membership for a moment.  Let's consider instead a level of commitment characterized by activity.  Forget the rolls and lets examine the "roles".  What if those walking through the doors had these four things at heart?  There are a lot of problems in churches today, finances, internal personality conflicts, relational stress, and response to cultural pressure to conform to America instead of Scripture.  So, what would these problems look like if these four priorities were common among those showing up for worship and all the other stuff that goes on throughout the week?

Well, finances wouldn't be a problem.  Giving is a heart and faith issue, not an economic issue.  If these four things were the priority, there would have to be faith necessary to give.  Besides, leadership can't truly be supported by those unwilling to give.  The heart that withholds is adversarial towards leadership, often perceived as "grasping" and dangerous (ironically, by grasping dangerous people).

Internal personality conflicts and relational stress would be almost non existent or short-lived.  How can people characterized by prayer and fasting for each other be at eachother's throats?  Think about what sort of conflicts would arise if those involved were motivated first by strengthening the souls and encouraging the faith of those with whom they were in conflict?  They'd be over things like being of service to them, breaking down barriers of pride to permit fellowship and service, standing strong in facing a crisis in faith.  I would welcome those conflicts!  Bring them on!  These would be conflicts where we would be fighting to face the enemy united as the body of our Master.

What about cultural pressure?  A church characterized by these four motivating factors would stand and face those pressures in strength of numbers in faith.  No problem.  Scripture would be held high and studied vigorously for the truths revealed by the Spirit.  The Spirit of the Living God would rule against the feeble abilities of human reason and philosophies.  It would be a simple thing with these four things in place to perceive the difference between the perspectives of our Master and the conflicting views of our culture.  We would be driven to divide the two very widely in our lives and in our church.

I suppose, in all of this, I have some work to do.  First in my own life.  Prayer and fasting is not something to take lightly, and it is not something done to address a light problem.  As it turns out, these attitudes are actually part of a conflict I see brewing in my own church tomorrow.  My church is on the brink of making an enormous mistake from which we may not be able to recover.  The Master of the universe seeks obedient people to use to do His work, and I don't think He's finding enough of them in our congregation.  The leadership of our church needs to address this issue in a united fashion.  Man I hate missing meals.  Oh well.  Perhaps going into this conflict hungry will help tone down my emotions.  They're running pretty high right now.