As I have been reading, there is also stirring in me a growing burden that I’d like to throw out here as well, for you consideration and of those who may read it. The burden is this, that the movements that are seeking a return to an expression of the Church according to the mind of God in His Son, are flying under, secondary and, therefore, sectarian banners. The banners of “Organic”, “Simple”, “House”, “Missional”, “Emergent”, etc… are distinctives that focus us on, and rally us around, matters other than the main point, which is Christ. They pitch the battle at issues of form, practice, expression, N.T. principles, ecclesiology, etc… rather than the essential and main issue which is Christ, central, supreme, and All in all. It is no different than the Corinthians flying under the secondary and sectarian banners of “I am of Paul”, “I am of Apollos”, etc… which Paul rebukes as carnal and divisive. In 1 Corinthians 1-3, He masterfully brings them back to Christ, and Christ alone as the main point and their only distinguishing foundation and unifying identity. Their divisive labels were evidence that Christ had been subtly supplanted from being central and supreme in all things, and His workers had moved into that place of preeminence in defining their circles of fellowship.

This matter of labeling is in our blood stream. From the first day that man was created, he has had the impulse to name things. (This was the first recorded activity of Adam.) It is part of our dominion-taking nature as man. When it comes to the Church, we likewise have the insatiable need and desire to label, name, classify, denominate, and identify. Whenever we do so with secondary labels and identities for the chruch, however, we do so with categorization in mind, which is an act of dividing and separating along certain lines other than Christ. When those secondary classifications become our “banner” and confession, i.e. “I am of Paul”, they become sectarian and serve to divide the Body of Christ. The IC/OC classifications of our present situation do just this, for instance.

The matter of the identity of the Church, however, is something that God has not left to man to decide. He has placed us into Christ and now “Christ is all”, or as Paul says concerning the body,”…so it is with Christ “. He is our identity both individually and corporately. His Identity is what integrates us. His Name is what unites us. His Name is “the name above every name”. All lesser names make divisive distinctions and classifications that stand contrary to the Person, Work and Spiritual Reality of Christ.

There is indeed a growing revelation in the Church of the centrality, supremacy and all-sufficiency of Christ in all thing related to the Church, and we are making great strides in returning to God’s Pattern for the Church, His Son. I am afraid, however, that we will only go so far if we do not return to the centrality, supremacy and all-sufficiency of Christ in this matter of IDENTITY as well. We will become just another “eccentric” movement that stands as a testimony to our incomprehensible ability to rally around lesser things. I pray that in what God is doing today, we will learn to rise above this carnal tendency.

In your previous post, you spoke of those things which are “prescriptive” and “descriptive”. I guess I could boil down what I am saying by affirming that Christ is Both to the Church:her only “Prescription” and her only “Description”. A truly Christ-centered movement will be centered in Christ as her only Identity, Description and Banner, to the glory of the Father.

May God deliver us from lesser fascinations, and restore us to the unity, purity and fullness of His Son in all things.

Love and blessings in Him, David B.

And as it concerns the Church, I’ve always been of the mindset that ALOT of the debate about what is or isn’t “organic” misses the reality that the church is able to evolve. Much of what was recorded in the book of Acts was just that–a recording of what happened, rather than how all things were meant to be…and so often, I think we end up doing damage to the text when reading back into the text what we think of something. When people see the church meeting in homes, IMHO, it is intellectually dishonest to use that to make a case that only in homes can true fellowship occur since it completely divorces the text from the culture of those within it…as Jews were HIGHLY cermonial/structured in their daily gatherings, going to synagouge and doing new things as well as family gatherings. It’s no suprise that many Jews are very much perterbed by the Church and don’t want anything to do with it—be it those labeled “organic” or organized–since so much of their culture is left out and we use what was said of them to make our own agenda….and then say that it was their agenda.

The book of Hebrews gives alot of insight on the matter. For in Hebrews 13:8, for example, the sacrifices were considered to be “praise” we give to the Lord—in remembrance of Leviticus 7:12 and Psalm 50:14 and what the scriptures say in I Peter 2:5 about us now being priests/God’s new design (temple included)…and in context with the Book, the Jews following Christ were being persecuted at one point due to their faith and distancing from aspects in Judaism. If these Jewish Christians, because of their witness to the Messiah, could no longer worship with other Jews in synagouge, they could consider praise their sacrifice—-one they could offer anywhere and anytime. This must have reminded them of the prophet Hosea’s words, “Take away all of their inquity and recieve us graciously so we will render the calvesof our lips” (Hosea 14:2). A sacrifice of praise today would include thanking CHrist for His sacrifice on the Cross and telling others about it….and as Paul mentioned in Romans 12:1-3, our lives are now to be a living sacrifice. These Christians could now be encouraged in their Jewishness, despite how Hebrews 10:32-39 describes the massive persecution that the Hebraic Christians were facing …

In Hebrews, the author is very specific in limiting what he says. An offering for sins is no longer needed and ruled out. But the other sacrificial offerings remain part of God’s order even after Yeshua’s death, as proven by Sha’ul’s activity in the temple at Acts 21:25-27 and his own offering of sacrifices which he himself speaks of at Acts 24:16-18. It was apart of their heritage to see worship as a very symbolic act—-much as it was for the Eastern Orthodox in seeing structure as a way of honoring the Lord.

With the destruction of the temple, sacrifical offerings became impossible; but if the temple is rebuilt, thank offerings, meal offerings, and praise offerings could be offered once again. ..for they were being given even as early as Genesis 4 with the ways others gave thanks unto the Lord in such a manner. When I read Hebrews, it seems the author of this letter does not proclaim the end of all aspects of ceremonial/symbolic worship…but rather, the end of animal sacrifices for sin and looking unto certain things for redeemption rather than seeing how it points to Messiah.

My apologies for anything I wrote that was too extensive, as what you touched upon was a subject I’m very passionate about as I’ve grown up experiencing Eastern Christianity for some time now at the fellowship I attend with those who are Messianic Jews of an Eastern Persuasion. and have enjoyed many of the people I’ve encountered in it (discussed here and here )..and what I’ve come to conclude is that while those in Western Christianity often have views divorced from what occurred historically, many in the West are now coming to see alot of the beauty in Eastern Christianity (i.e. the Church Fathers/Desert Fathers and Desert Mothers, Eastern Monasticism, Theosis, etc)…and yet still ignorant of how extensive it is when not realizing how even those within Eastern CHristianity are more diverse than others realize. For it wasn’t just Eastern Orthodoxy that was influential since Oriental Orthodoxy (i.e. Coptic Orthodox, Indian, Ethopian, etc) is something else that many don’t consider when it comes to discussions and debates on the Trinity.

The great fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 was, like the others, called by an emperor and supposed to settle the controversy over whether Christ has two natures (Antioch’s view) or one (Alexandria’s view). Out of the council came the Chalcedonian Definition, which articulated the doctrine of the hypostatic union: Jesus Christ was one person of two natures “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” But it did anything but settle the controversy. Eventually, through much bloodshed, most Christians in Egypt and the Middle East broke from the churches of Rome and Constantinople and founded rival Christian traditions. One of those traditions is Nestorianism (because of belief that Christ’s two natures were and are in some sense separate, even though unified in purpose), the other Monophysitism (because of belief that Christ’s two natures merged to form one—primarily if not exclusively divine).

With what I mentioned earlier on the work of Philip Jenkins, he attributed the Chalcedonian Definition to “political accident…whereas some attribute it to divine providence. For example, if emperor Theodosius II, champion of the Monophysite cause who condoned the Alexandrian murder of patriarch Flavian at the Gangster Synod in 449, had not been killed in a horse-riding accident in July 450, the Christian world may have become permanently Monophysite. Jenkins treats this crucial event, which made possible the defeat of Monophysitism at Chalcedon possible if not certain, as accident. Of course, many orthodox Christians view it as divine intervention.

As it concerns the monophysite disagreements at Chalcedon, its rather fascinating to consider the many sides of history that may get lost when it comes to discussion on the various debates others had on the nature of Christ–especially in regards to how many Oriental Orthodox have long noted that the term “monophysite” is something that doesn’t really reflect what they’ve always believed. Ethopian Orthodox would prefer to be called tewahido (made one)……and in their mindset, misunderstandings occurred more so over not understanding what another meant and then carrying that misunderstanding further over the years. Yet even in the disagreements, there was still much fruit.

"But if they did not fully understand the theology they believed, Christians knew passionately the kinds of religious thought thatthey loathed. They knew what they were against. Much of the debate at the time' consisted of identifying sets of theological ideas and giving them the name of some unpopular leader, so that believers could unite against a despised and demonized ism . And once something was an ism, it presumably represented that person's twisted and peculiar view of church teaching, rather than the pure serene of authentic Christianity. Whatever he actually preached, Nestorius became the central figure in Nestorianism, a theological trend that supposedly divided Christ's natures. Once this stereotype was established, it could be used to taint any theological approach with which the speaker disagreed. Theological debate became a game of guilt by association. Reading the denunciations of the time, we need to remember. that each faction tended to caricature and exaggerate the positions of its enemies.m[All the emphasis added by me.]“

The book pays careful attention to the construction of the mono/dual nature of Christ, whose “orthodoxy” was decided by successive vendettas, bribery, assault and slander, watching the fall of Nestorius in particular, a bishop who believed that Christ was both fully divine and fully human in the days of an orthodox declaration of the Christ of a single nature…He was declared a heretic, and we’ve spoken of the Nestorian heresy to this day. Though his theology was declared “orthodox” fifty years after he was deposed as bishop, as the Alexandrian bishopric lost its prestige to conniving Rome, it was pointless since he was already gone…exiled to a monastery in the desert of his enemies. Consequently, the Syriac church has been called Nestorian to this day….and amazingly, they have done MANY amazing things. Jenkins gave a more in-depth review on the issue of Christianity within the world of those who were within the “unorthodox” camps and showed how they spread it as well—as seen in the book he made entitled “The Lost History of Christianity.” .and for more one can go here to Armarium Magnum: The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins

And for some good reviews on the subject that may bless you, one can go online/investigate the following under their respective titles:

“Part 1, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 1 ”

Part 2, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 2

” “YouTube – Seaver College Distinguished Lecture Series – Phillip Jenkins”

Much of what Jenkins has brought to the table has been highly invaluable in discussing what Eastern Christianity has always brought to the table…and many are often unaware of it in a myriad of ways. And with Before going further, some scriptures on the subject of Christ dying: It does seem that the Nestorian Christians were often given a bad rap….and yet Nestorius never denied that Jesus was both fully God and FULLY man. They went on spreading the Gospel into the deepest parts of Asia, even as far as China—and having a radically different hermenutic than the Western Christianity and Byzantine Christianity since they were not trying to have State Power backing them up. Jenkins gives great detail with this….and I’m glad he noted where Nestorious was very much for the mindset that the natures of man/god were united, but he also felt that there was a clear distinction. Alot of it, as it concerns Nestorian views, were never about trying to make it out as if Christ did not have union/oneness. What they were focused upon was the reality that the way oneness/union of Divinity and Humanity played out were not necessarily in the sense of “fusion.” For them, Nestorianism (called dyophysitism) was simply for saying that two natures of Christ were united and yet they also remained seperated/distinct in order for the atonement to truly work. Never was that something that all in the Church ever had issue with. Additionally, one of best scholars around to consider on the issue is one known as Philip Jenkins. In one of his works, entitled “Jesus Wars” goes into exceptional depth in giving careful attention to the construction of the mono/dual nature of Christ, whose “orthodoxy” was decided by successive vendettas, bribery, assault and slander, watching the fall of Nestorius in particular, a bishop who believed that Christ was both fully divine and fully human in the days of an orthodox declaration of the Christ of a single nature.

. He was declared a heretic, and we’ve spoken of the Nestorian heresy to this day….even though it is anything but opposed to Christ. In the day when the church tended toward the Alexandrian Christology of Christ in one divine nature (physis), Nestorius came from Antioch, where they described Christ as having both divine and human nature eternally knit and one. The Alexandrians had already taken out one Antiochine Bishop in John Chrysostom….Cyril decided to repeat history with Nestorious. I was glad Jenkins noted what he did with Nestorius and thankful others are catching on..

. It is interesting to consider what occurred with the “two-natured Jesus” dynamic, as the Council of Chalcedon resolutely affirmed dyophysitism over monophysitism and miaphysitism, saying that Christ had two inseparable natures in one person…with his having a Divine Will (being God) and also having a Human side subject to limitations Jesus had to deal with (including learning, development, relying on the Spirit and choosing to submit his will to the Father’s). Both of those things were united/had to come together. THere was at one time acceptance of that mindset. Much of that, however, changed in the 6th century when discussion occurred again in debate…and whereas some disagreed with the older stances, many felt they were still appropriate. On dyophysitism, much of it actually goes in support with one of the views within Church History known as Binitarianism. With Nestorious ideology, many things make sense when it comes to the person of Christ. If you believe that Jesus was truly able to be tempted with sin…and yet had to be a man in order to redeem mankind, then one believes in distinction. If one believes that the literal body of Jesus rested in the grave while the Spirit of Christ went to be with the Father in Paradise (as He claimed), then one truly does believe in a Nestorianism viewpoint. Paul often expounded upon the role of the Holy Spirit in the Life of Christ and how dualistic it was, showing how Christ relied upon the Spirit for the Ministry and the Power of the HOLY Spirit to raise the Body of Christ from the Grave (as he noted in Acts 2:26-28, Acts 2:30-32, Acts 13:27-38, Romans 1:3-5 , Romans 8:10-12, Hebrews 9:13-15, etc )……with it being established that the Spirit of Christ was present with the Father…and this is said in light of what the Word says when Luke 23:46 ( Mt 27:50, Mk 15:37, Jn 19:30, etc) tells us that Christ gave up His SPirit…and while the Physical Body of Christ remained, the Spirit of Christ left…and scripture shows where His spirit would go: into the Father’s hands…..just like Jesus told the thief on the cross when saying “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), even though his Physical Body was still in the GRAVE…and very similar to how Stephen saw Jesus in heaven and asked Him to receive his spirit (Acts 7:55-60). The SPIRIT of Jesus is something that could NEVER be extinguished….

. 1 Peter 3:18-19 “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit19through whom[a] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, Other texts to consider are where he addressed the issue of Christ being God and yet explaining the reality of his coming with the emphasis on his being a man ( Phillippians 2, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 4:15, etc)–being perfected/living life as a Perfect man and experiencing growth/development as all men do in His PHYSICAL nature ( Hebrews 5:4-10, Luke 2:39-40, Luke 2:51-52, etc ) in order to aid us in our own growth of becoming like Him, both Co-Heirs with Him and “Sons of the Lord” ( Romans 6-8). For Christ’s divine authority is meaningless unless, with respect to his humanity, he has been raised from the dead…..as only a Resurrected Lord can be our cohem gadol, interceding with the Father on our behalf (Romans 8:34, Matthew 4:14, etc), only a resurrected man can be the firstfruits of the resurrection promised to us (Romans 8:23-29, I Corinthians 15) and only a resurrected Messiah can come to rule in glory and fulfill the universal Jewish expectation of final deliverance for the nations of Israel. .