OK, so I am a believer that the western church has lost sight of the truth about church. It has been indoctrinated to accept the Catholic model or at best a biblically rehashing of the Catholic model, but not actually a Catholic model.
OK, so what if you thought the western church has not only falsely represented the purpose and form of church, what if they have also falsely represented Jesus Himself. Why not, after all, if they have missed the teachings of scripture could they not also have missed the teacher!?
I'm not saying you are not saved, but that the Jesus we are shown is not fully the real Jesus. After all you walk into an Anglican church and tell me, that with all the robes and ceremonies that they truly represent the real Jesus.
But what if the Bible gives a clear sign as to who the real Jesus is? That would be an easy test wouldn't it, quite simple really? Just measure the sign again the represented Jesus and see whether the two match up!! For years I have known this misunderstanding of things but tonight I heard it put in the terms I have explained here. Here is the verse that gives the test:
"39But Jesus replied, "Only an evil, faithless generation would ask for a miraculous sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so I, the Son of Man, will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights" Matthew 12:39-40
Three days and three nights! Does your church teach that Jesus was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday? If so then it isn't the Jesus whose sign is that he will be in the ground for three days and three nights. It is no biggy! They might even say, "What does it matter?" What it matters is that if they are not willing to change the traditional view to match the scriptural view then they are prepared to compromise scripture for the sake of tradition!
Paul said, "4You seem to believe whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach about a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed." 2 Corinthians 11:4.
I have known for years that Jesus would have been crucified on the Thursday. The Passover has a double Sabbath and that the Jews did not permit for anyone to be crucified on a Sabbath. This is why they broke the legs of the other two to make sure they died quickly. However, Jesus was already dead. They took him down and buried him on then. Otherwise you only get two nights between Friday and Sunday. This was the Jesus that Paul preached, who is preaching "another Jesus" whose sign is not to have been in the ground for three days and three nights? Well, it started, of course, with our good old friends the Catholics!! The question is, why are we perpetuating their falsehood?
Was it, as some say, that it doesn't mean a literal three days and three nights?! Well, what kind of a sign is it if it wasn't literal!? It is the same as saying Jesus couldn't count to three! "Well my sign will be a chariot riding across the sky", "well, when I say chariot I mean donkey and when I say sky I mean saned!!" When you look at how literally Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament, there isn't much room to anything other than, "If He said it He meant it!" Otherwise what is His word worth. There are those who think they have a special insight because they know how to interpret these things, but that is an elitist club of intellectual snobs. If you can't trust Him to count to three how can you trust Him with your salvation?!
This brings into my minds fresh doubts, I am supposed to be being inducted as a member of the local church on Sunday, do I want to join an institution that peddles falsehood!?
Friday, 30 May 2008
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Enbiggenning your capacitude!
I am one of those who sees the Parable of the Talents in Matthew as referring to the tribulation. Although Matthew's Gospel is my favourite Gospel, and have no problem with it being scripture, I think it is a Gospel that will really come to life in the tribulation, in fact I believe it would do the church good not to have it in it's cannon but wait until the tribulation before using it. Anyway that is all an aside really.
"11The crowd was listening to everything Jesus said. And because he was nearing Jerusalem, he told a story to correct the impression that the Kingdom of God would begin right away. 12He said, "A nobleman was called away to a distant empire to be crowned king and then return. 13Before he left, he called together ten servants and gave them ten pounds of silver£ to invest for him while he was gone. 14But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say they did not want him to be their king.
15"When he returned, the king called in the servants to whom he had given the money. He wanted to find out what they had done with the money and what their profits were. 16The first servant reported a tremendous gain—ten times as much as the original amount! 17‘Well done!’ the king exclaimed. ‘You are a trustworthy servant. You have been faithful with the little I entrusted to you, so you will be governor of ten cities as your reward.’
18"The next servant also reported a good gain—five times the original amount. 19‘Well done!’ the king said. ‘You can be governor over five cities.’
20"But the third servant brought back only the original amount of money and said, ‘I hid it and kept it safe. 21I was afraid because you are a hard man to deal with, taking what isn’t yours and harvesting crops you didn’t plant.’
22"‘You wicked servant!’ the king roared. ‘Hard, am I? If you knew so much about me and how tough I am, 23why didn’t you deposit the money in the bank so I could at least get some interest on it?’ 24Then turning to the others standing nearby, the king ordered, ‘take the money from this servant, and give it to the one who earned the most.’
25"‘But, master,’ they said, ‘that servant has enough already!’
26"‘Yes,’ the king replied, ‘but to those who use well what they are given, even more will be given. But from those who are unfaithful, even what little they have will be taken away. 27And now about these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king—bring them in and execute them right here in my presence.’" Luke 19:11-27
This passage in Luke is slightly different and more likely fits the church.
Anyway, The point is each of us is given a measure of something. Faith, love, hope, emotional capacity, courage, understanding, you name it, if you have a thing, you generally have it in a measure. Jesus wants us to increase. There have been books upon books on the "Prayer of Jabez" who prayed that God would increase his borders.
Since the beginning of time, lions have been lions, they do what lions do. Rabbits have been rabbits and do what rabbits do. Humans on the other hand have increased in there capacities. It is one thing to ask God to increase us, but nothing if we are not prepared to increase! Solomon increased his understanding, he studied everything. We are not necessarily supposed to increase in that which we haven't been given. For example, I am presuming that I am not to increase in my ability to play football, I don't play football or even like the sport must at all. However, there are so many areas in life where we should view ourselves as "learning", "growing", "developing", "maturing" and so on. Can we learn about love? Can we learn about faith? Can we increase both? Yes, so why shouldn't we? Should it not be on our agenda, our timetable of learning as if we were at college?
Even in the practical stuff. Would you like a promotion? Would you like to get on better at work? In relationships? All of this too can be learnt, if we are willing to learn. We are told to ask God if we lack wisdom, we should not settle for "Well, that's life I suppose!" Wisdom, in the Old Testament, means "skill in living!" If you have ever seen someone with a skill making something look easy then that is wisdom. It is something that is learned and practiced. When a skilled person makes it look easy, what you don't see is the hours of mistakes, what you do see is the result of not giving up when failures come, as they do!
Phil MacGraw said that the first life law is,"You either get it or you don't, if you don't, find out what you don't get and get it!" As someone involved in educating children I can tell you, I can stand their telling them something until I am blue in the face, but if they aren't prepared to apply themselves to what I want to teach them it is pointless. It is no different with us and God, God can show us how to increase, but if we are not prepared to increase then it is pointless!
"11The crowd was listening to everything Jesus said. And because he was nearing Jerusalem, he told a story to correct the impression that the Kingdom of God would begin right away. 12He said, "A nobleman was called away to a distant empire to be crowned king and then return. 13Before he left, he called together ten servants and gave them ten pounds of silver£ to invest for him while he was gone. 14But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say they did not want him to be their king.
15"When he returned, the king called in the servants to whom he had given the money. He wanted to find out what they had done with the money and what their profits were. 16The first servant reported a tremendous gain—ten times as much as the original amount! 17‘Well done!’ the king exclaimed. ‘You are a trustworthy servant. You have been faithful with the little I entrusted to you, so you will be governor of ten cities as your reward.’
18"The next servant also reported a good gain—five times the original amount. 19‘Well done!’ the king said. ‘You can be governor over five cities.’
20"But the third servant brought back only the original amount of money and said, ‘I hid it and kept it safe. 21I was afraid because you are a hard man to deal with, taking what isn’t yours and harvesting crops you didn’t plant.’
22"‘You wicked servant!’ the king roared. ‘Hard, am I? If you knew so much about me and how tough I am, 23why didn’t you deposit the money in the bank so I could at least get some interest on it?’ 24Then turning to the others standing nearby, the king ordered, ‘take the money from this servant, and give it to the one who earned the most.’
25"‘But, master,’ they said, ‘that servant has enough already!’
26"‘Yes,’ the king replied, ‘but to those who use well what they are given, even more will be given. But from those who are unfaithful, even what little they have will be taken away. 27And now about these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king—bring them in and execute them right here in my presence.’" Luke 19:11-27
This passage in Luke is slightly different and more likely fits the church.
Anyway, The point is each of us is given a measure of something. Faith, love, hope, emotional capacity, courage, understanding, you name it, if you have a thing, you generally have it in a measure. Jesus wants us to increase. There have been books upon books on the "Prayer of Jabez" who prayed that God would increase his borders.
Since the beginning of time, lions have been lions, they do what lions do. Rabbits have been rabbits and do what rabbits do. Humans on the other hand have increased in there capacities. It is one thing to ask God to increase us, but nothing if we are not prepared to increase! Solomon increased his understanding, he studied everything. We are not necessarily supposed to increase in that which we haven't been given. For example, I am presuming that I am not to increase in my ability to play football, I don't play football or even like the sport must at all. However, there are so many areas in life where we should view ourselves as "learning", "growing", "developing", "maturing" and so on. Can we learn about love? Can we learn about faith? Can we increase both? Yes, so why shouldn't we? Should it not be on our agenda, our timetable of learning as if we were at college?
Even in the practical stuff. Would you like a promotion? Would you like to get on better at work? In relationships? All of this too can be learnt, if we are willing to learn. We are told to ask God if we lack wisdom, we should not settle for "Well, that's life I suppose!" Wisdom, in the Old Testament, means "skill in living!" If you have ever seen someone with a skill making something look easy then that is wisdom. It is something that is learned and practiced. When a skilled person makes it look easy, what you don't see is the hours of mistakes, what you do see is the result of not giving up when failures come, as they do!
Phil MacGraw said that the first life law is,"You either get it or you don't, if you don't, find out what you don't get and get it!" As someone involved in educating children I can tell you, I can stand their telling them something until I am blue in the face, but if they aren't prepared to apply themselves to what I want to teach them it is pointless. It is no different with us and God, God can show us how to increase, but if we are not prepared to increase then it is pointless!
Monday, 26 May 2008
Esau I have hated and Jacob I have loved!
Wow, I want to review a talk I heard last night. I was just starting to think there seems nothing out there I haven't heard!! I know I haven't heard it all and I know that God is infinite, but there comes a point where you feel like there is little left that speaks to you. That's not trying to be big headed, it is a fact of life I think.
Anyway, last night I heard this guy talking about Esau and Jacob. It really spoke to me. At least I think it spoke to me, it seemed to be very helpful in looking at how I approach life and work.
There are three players aside from Esau and Jacob: God, Isaac and Rebekah. God and Rebekah both love Jacob and Isaac loves Esau.
Let's have a look at the first passage:
"29One day when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau arrived home exhausted and hungry from a hunt. 30Esau said to Jacob, "I’m starved! Give me some of that red stew you’ve made.
31Jacob replied, "All right, but trade me your birthright for it."
32"Look, I’m dying of starvation!" said Esau. "What good is my birthright to me now?"
33So Jacob insisted, "Well then, swear to me right now that it is mine." So Esau swore an oath, thereby selling all his rights as the firstborn to his younger brother. 34Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and lentil stew. Esau ate and drank and went on about his business, indifferent to the fact that he had given up his birthright." Genesis 25:29-34.
Before we start I want to say that as far as I'm concerned God probably loves Jacob because he wanted God's blessing and Esau didn't, it wasn't how he got the blessing, but the desire for it that pleased God. The guy last night was saying that God doesn't actually rebuke Jacob though even though later he tricks his dad and brother.
Right, it doesn't say, as I had been led to believe, that Esau didn't catch anything. The point is he had spent so much time hunting for the sake of hunting, he hadn't taken any time to cook what he caught. The Guy was saying that there are Esau nations and Jacob nations. For example Russia and Africa produce a huge amount of resources but are very "hungry" nations, other nations process what they produce.
Isaac probably liked the fact that Esau worked really hard, but his hard work left him needy. Jacob didn't work as hard but his work gained him what Esau had! Some people value hard work, but what is the use of hard work if all it produces is sweat and hunger?
Ecclesiastes 10:10 says, "10Since a dull ax requires great strength, sharpen the blade. That’s the value of wisdom; it helps you succeed." Often hard work is the result of a lack of wisdom. Excessive working comes from a lack of understanding of the overall process. Had Esau been interested in feeding himself he would have cooked something earlier. It makes as little sense as a country that produces gold and diamonds having people in it that are starving!
"1When Isaac was old and almost blind, he called for Esau, his older son, and said, "My son?"
"Yes, Father?" Esau replied.
2"I am an old man now," Isaac said, "and I expect every day to be my last. 3Take your bow and a quiver full of arrows out into the open country, and hunt some wild game for me. 4Prepare it just the way I like it so it’s savory and good, and bring it here for me to eat. Then I will pronounce the blessing that belongs to you, my firstborn son, before I die."
5But Rebekah overheard the conversation. So when Esau left to hunt for the wild game, 6she said to her son Jacob, "I overheard your father asking Esau 7to prepare him a delicious meal of wild game. He wants to bless Esau in the LORD’S presence before he dies. 8Now, my son, do exactly as I tell you. 9Go out to the flocks and bring me two fine young goats. I’ll prepare your father’s favorite dish from them. 10Take the food to your father; then he can eat it and bless you instead of Esau before he dies."" Genesis 26:1-9
Here we see something of Isaac loving Esau as a hunter, yet all Jacob had to do was go and get two goats from the heard!! Esau would rather hunt all day, whereas Jacob had realised that all you need to do is catch a male and a female and you can have a steady supply of goats!!
I once heard an audio book based on Richard Branson's business philosophy. He said that the difference between a millionaire and a 9 to 5 worker is the mindset! Esau would never be a millionaire, he works hard but for what? He has to sell more than he makes buying what he needs. There was a lot of stuff there about selling tomorrow's provision for today's need. But regardless of what belongs to tomorrow or today, there is a basic economic balance that if you spend more than you make buying what you need you will go hungry!
Jacob on the other hand sold what cost him very little to buy something very precious.
There was an analogy from the guy, he was from Ghana, a place that produces a lot of gold. But Ghana doesn't process gold. He had a gold ring, that gold ring cost 20 more than the gold was sold for. They were not adding value to what they produced.
It really spoke to me about this idea of adding value to what we do. Making sure the axe is sharp. Not being foolish about what we make. For me it is about making sure that add value to what I produce. A farmer who sows more seed than the crop he produces will soon go hungry. If there is one thing I am not very sharp with it is money. I have always worked to earn money to pay for what I need to get over having to work! That is the same as Esau. Working made him hungry and he sold more than he had just to get over the effects of working. Whether it's holidays, alcohol, media, rent whatever, we have nations of people in debt. In my conscience it feels unscrupulous to be trying to thrive when so many are hungry, but should I allow myself to be hungry in sympathy!!? Surely not. I think that is my biggest obstacle.
Anyway, last night I heard this guy talking about Esau and Jacob. It really spoke to me. At least I think it spoke to me, it seemed to be very helpful in looking at how I approach life and work.
There are three players aside from Esau and Jacob: God, Isaac and Rebekah. God and Rebekah both love Jacob and Isaac loves Esau.
Let's have a look at the first passage:
"29One day when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau arrived home exhausted and hungry from a hunt. 30Esau said to Jacob, "I’m starved! Give me some of that red stew you’ve made.
31Jacob replied, "All right, but trade me your birthright for it."
32"Look, I’m dying of starvation!" said Esau. "What good is my birthright to me now?"
33So Jacob insisted, "Well then, swear to me right now that it is mine." So Esau swore an oath, thereby selling all his rights as the firstborn to his younger brother. 34Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and lentil stew. Esau ate and drank and went on about his business, indifferent to the fact that he had given up his birthright." Genesis 25:29-34.
Before we start I want to say that as far as I'm concerned God probably loves Jacob because he wanted God's blessing and Esau didn't, it wasn't how he got the blessing, but the desire for it that pleased God. The guy last night was saying that God doesn't actually rebuke Jacob though even though later he tricks his dad and brother.
Right, it doesn't say, as I had been led to believe, that Esau didn't catch anything. The point is he had spent so much time hunting for the sake of hunting, he hadn't taken any time to cook what he caught. The Guy was saying that there are Esau nations and Jacob nations. For example Russia and Africa produce a huge amount of resources but are very "hungry" nations, other nations process what they produce.
Isaac probably liked the fact that Esau worked really hard, but his hard work left him needy. Jacob didn't work as hard but his work gained him what Esau had! Some people value hard work, but what is the use of hard work if all it produces is sweat and hunger?
Ecclesiastes 10:10 says, "10Since a dull ax requires great strength, sharpen the blade. That’s the value of wisdom; it helps you succeed." Often hard work is the result of a lack of wisdom. Excessive working comes from a lack of understanding of the overall process. Had Esau been interested in feeding himself he would have cooked something earlier. It makes as little sense as a country that produces gold and diamonds having people in it that are starving!
"1When Isaac was old and almost blind, he called for Esau, his older son, and said, "My son?"
"Yes, Father?" Esau replied.
2"I am an old man now," Isaac said, "and I expect every day to be my last. 3Take your bow and a quiver full of arrows out into the open country, and hunt some wild game for me. 4Prepare it just the way I like it so it’s savory and good, and bring it here for me to eat. Then I will pronounce the blessing that belongs to you, my firstborn son, before I die."
5But Rebekah overheard the conversation. So when Esau left to hunt for the wild game, 6she said to her son Jacob, "I overheard your father asking Esau 7to prepare him a delicious meal of wild game. He wants to bless Esau in the LORD’S presence before he dies. 8Now, my son, do exactly as I tell you. 9Go out to the flocks and bring me two fine young goats. I’ll prepare your father’s favorite dish from them. 10Take the food to your father; then he can eat it and bless you instead of Esau before he dies."" Genesis 26:1-9
Here we see something of Isaac loving Esau as a hunter, yet all Jacob had to do was go and get two goats from the heard!! Esau would rather hunt all day, whereas Jacob had realised that all you need to do is catch a male and a female and you can have a steady supply of goats!!
I once heard an audio book based on Richard Branson's business philosophy. He said that the difference between a millionaire and a 9 to 5 worker is the mindset! Esau would never be a millionaire, he works hard but for what? He has to sell more than he makes buying what he needs. There was a lot of stuff there about selling tomorrow's provision for today's need. But regardless of what belongs to tomorrow or today, there is a basic economic balance that if you spend more than you make buying what you need you will go hungry!
Jacob on the other hand sold what cost him very little to buy something very precious.
There was an analogy from the guy, he was from Ghana, a place that produces a lot of gold. But Ghana doesn't process gold. He had a gold ring, that gold ring cost 20 more than the gold was sold for. They were not adding value to what they produced.
It really spoke to me about this idea of adding value to what we do. Making sure the axe is sharp. Not being foolish about what we make. For me it is about making sure that add value to what I produce. A farmer who sows more seed than the crop he produces will soon go hungry. If there is one thing I am not very sharp with it is money. I have always worked to earn money to pay for what I need to get over having to work! That is the same as Esau. Working made him hungry and he sold more than he had just to get over the effects of working. Whether it's holidays, alcohol, media, rent whatever, we have nations of people in debt. In my conscience it feels unscrupulous to be trying to thrive when so many are hungry, but should I allow myself to be hungry in sympathy!!? Surely not. I think that is my biggest obstacle.
Saturday, 24 May 2008
The Church, so what's wrong with it?
If you listen to a modern church minister you will be impressed with the size and potency of the modern church. They have powerful teaching, spirit filled worship, miracles and they have oversees and local mission programs that are changing lives and winning souls for Jesus. So, what's wrong with that? Why knock it? If it ain't broke don't fix it, right!?
A couple of posts ago I wrote about the idea that form and function go hand in hand. What we see is something akin to a large business empire that has built up, it's revenue comes from the giving of it's members, that kind of makes it a club! This business has overseers and managers who run it and organise it. It is the church of the business age. The church of the empire (the Roman Empire) clearly reflected the empire. The church of the independent nations reflected the time when Countries were forming their own independence. And now we have the church of the business age. That means that the church is following the world's trends!
So, we have a members' club that is run as a business and follows the world's trends. What is wrong with that? Businesses are about performance. And performance is the key word. The barking that goes on before the minister walks out and says, "Peace be with you all!" is reminiscent of the dressing room of a theater where the players and stage crew may be having all kinds of problems but once they walk out onto that stage the performance is maintained.
The point is it isn't meant to be a members' club, it is a kingdom, which belongs to the king. It isn't meant to follow the world's trends it is meant to follow the pattern of scripture. It isn't meant to be run as a business but as a family.
If I sit there on Sunday being preached at, rather than engaged in fellowship, the only time I can open my mouth is during the songs, I have no choice over the songs, then where is my input? I know some will be saying, "You only get out of it what you put into it!" But I'm not allowed to put anything into it!
If the church is run according to a business model then what about the employees? Is it taken for granted that every business' employees get on together, grow in love with one another, encourage one another and so on? No! There are lots of businesses whose employees are very unhappy. There are lots of churches where the congregations are very unhappy. We blame the management, but it isn't the management so much as the model. It doesn't automatically fit that if you have the right model you will be happy. I should think that there are people who wouldn't even like the Biblical picture because they might actually feel like they are expected to say something. Actually they aren't! There are plenty of times when people don't say anything. But that is their choice. At the moment we have no choice.
Is church meant to be the place of mission? Actually no! We think that if a person feels like they want to be part of the church they need a job! That's business again! The point of family is we all get to say something and when we leave we all have our jobs to go to. So an evangelist doesn't need a church to put on an outreach mission so he can preach, an evangelist is energised by the fellowship, encouraged in what he is called to do and goes out and does it. Now, if he is needing an organisation behind him then by all means set one up, but that isn't church. It is like the missionary societies today. We have those because there is more potency in a specific organisation than expecting every church to get involved in mission work. The organisations are made up of Christians from several churches, what unites them is not their geography but their calling.
How often do you walk into a church where the pastor is a bible teacher and the church is effectively a bible college, or the pastor is an evangelist and the church is effectively a mission centre? God did not set up the church to be structured to support the ministry of one man. He set it up to support the ministry of everyone. This is why we are told in 1 Corinthians 14:26, "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." When you come together "everyone has!" Now look at a modern translation of the same verse, notice how it has been translated to fit the way church is done, what chance has a person reading this translation got of seeing the truth?
"When you meet, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in an unknown language, while another will interpret what is said." This is the New Living Translation!
You sit in your church and one does the singing and one does the preaching and everything agrees with scripture! Only scripture has been changed to fit. What they haven't yet been able to do away with is the speaking in tongues reference!! They will have to work on that until it does actually fit most people's experiences of church! But we have moved from a situation where everyone can contribute to where there is only an expectancy of one doing it all! Now forgive me for daring to say this, but if we only serve one master and His pattern has not only been twisted out of recognition, but His word has been twisted to fit, then who do you suppose is the real author of how we do church? Who gains the most from Christians being denied the right to function as God intended? Who would make plans to orchestrate a church that is following the world's system and not God's? It isn't rocket science is it!!
A couple of posts ago I wrote about the idea that form and function go hand in hand. What we see is something akin to a large business empire that has built up, it's revenue comes from the giving of it's members, that kind of makes it a club! This business has overseers and managers who run it and organise it. It is the church of the business age. The church of the empire (the Roman Empire) clearly reflected the empire. The church of the independent nations reflected the time when Countries were forming their own independence. And now we have the church of the business age. That means that the church is following the world's trends!
So, we have a members' club that is run as a business and follows the world's trends. What is wrong with that? Businesses are about performance. And performance is the key word. The barking that goes on before the minister walks out and says, "Peace be with you all!" is reminiscent of the dressing room of a theater where the players and stage crew may be having all kinds of problems but once they walk out onto that stage the performance is maintained.
The point is it isn't meant to be a members' club, it is a kingdom, which belongs to the king. It isn't meant to follow the world's trends it is meant to follow the pattern of scripture. It isn't meant to be run as a business but as a family.
If I sit there on Sunday being preached at, rather than engaged in fellowship, the only time I can open my mouth is during the songs, I have no choice over the songs, then where is my input? I know some will be saying, "You only get out of it what you put into it!" But I'm not allowed to put anything into it!
If the church is run according to a business model then what about the employees? Is it taken for granted that every business' employees get on together, grow in love with one another, encourage one another and so on? No! There are lots of businesses whose employees are very unhappy. There are lots of churches where the congregations are very unhappy. We blame the management, but it isn't the management so much as the model. It doesn't automatically fit that if you have the right model you will be happy. I should think that there are people who wouldn't even like the Biblical picture because they might actually feel like they are expected to say something. Actually they aren't! There are plenty of times when people don't say anything. But that is their choice. At the moment we have no choice.
Is church meant to be the place of mission? Actually no! We think that if a person feels like they want to be part of the church they need a job! That's business again! The point of family is we all get to say something and when we leave we all have our jobs to go to. So an evangelist doesn't need a church to put on an outreach mission so he can preach, an evangelist is energised by the fellowship, encouraged in what he is called to do and goes out and does it. Now, if he is needing an organisation behind him then by all means set one up, but that isn't church. It is like the missionary societies today. We have those because there is more potency in a specific organisation than expecting every church to get involved in mission work. The organisations are made up of Christians from several churches, what unites them is not their geography but their calling.
How often do you walk into a church where the pastor is a bible teacher and the church is effectively a bible college, or the pastor is an evangelist and the church is effectively a mission centre? God did not set up the church to be structured to support the ministry of one man. He set it up to support the ministry of everyone. This is why we are told in 1 Corinthians 14:26, "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." When you come together "everyone has!" Now look at a modern translation of the same verse, notice how it has been translated to fit the way church is done, what chance has a person reading this translation got of seeing the truth?
"When you meet, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in an unknown language, while another will interpret what is said." This is the New Living Translation!
You sit in your church and one does the singing and one does the preaching and everything agrees with scripture! Only scripture has been changed to fit. What they haven't yet been able to do away with is the speaking in tongues reference!! They will have to work on that until it does actually fit most people's experiences of church! But we have moved from a situation where everyone can contribute to where there is only an expectancy of one doing it all! Now forgive me for daring to say this, but if we only serve one master and His pattern has not only been twisted out of recognition, but His word has been twisted to fit, then who do you suppose is the real author of how we do church? Who gains the most from Christians being denied the right to function as God intended? Who would make plans to orchestrate a church that is following the world's system and not God's? It isn't rocket science is it!!
Friday, 23 May 2008
Theology, Schmology
What is theology? Right, let's throw away all the stuff that is extra scriptural. Church tradition and human wisdom that contradict scripture, are "other gospels" and I have not time for them, they claim that God is a flake, He says one thing one minute and changes His mind the next. The theological term for changing your mind is repentance and we are told God doesn't repent.
OK, in a very simply stroke I have narrowed it down to only that which is accepted as the authoritative inspired word of God. That's where we look to find out about God and what He wants. So what is theology? Jesus summed up the whole of the Old Testament, "The Law and the Prophets" as love. Love God and love your neighbour. So theology has to be the definition of love. It is the definition of God's love and the definition of how we are to love God and one another!
That doesn't mean that our theology should deny all of the truth within scripture. but that all of that truth is summed up in love. Any understanding of "truth" that cannot be included in the definition of love is a clear misreading of scripture. As it was Jesus Himself who said that all of it was summed up in love!
For the Christian there are three commands, Love God, love one another and love our neighbours (including our enemies!)
The first looks like this, We love God by,
Worship and discipleship.
We love one another by,
sharing our gifts and through our giving of ourselves (Including, money, talents and time)
We love our neighbours by,
Witness and good works.
So everything in scripture can be summed up in those six areas. We are either learning about,
worship
discipleship
ministry
self sacrifice
witness
or good works.
I really like the phrase "Greet one another with a holy kiss!" where Kiss is the acronym, Keep It Simple Stupid!!
Is that too simple! For example where does "Eschatology" the study of end times come in? Personally, I would put it under worship and no where else. It is worship to appreciate that God has a plan that He has revealed to us.
OK, in a very simply stroke I have narrowed it down to only that which is accepted as the authoritative inspired word of God. That's where we look to find out about God and what He wants. So what is theology? Jesus summed up the whole of the Old Testament, "The Law and the Prophets" as love. Love God and love your neighbour. So theology has to be the definition of love. It is the definition of God's love and the definition of how we are to love God and one another!
That doesn't mean that our theology should deny all of the truth within scripture. but that all of that truth is summed up in love. Any understanding of "truth" that cannot be included in the definition of love is a clear misreading of scripture. As it was Jesus Himself who said that all of it was summed up in love!
For the Christian there are three commands, Love God, love one another and love our neighbours (including our enemies!)
The first looks like this, We love God by,
Worship and discipleship.
We love one another by,
sharing our gifts and through our giving of ourselves (Including, money, talents and time)
We love our neighbours by,
Witness and good works.
So everything in scripture can be summed up in those six areas. We are either learning about,
worship
discipleship
ministry
self sacrifice
witness
or good works.
I really like the phrase "Greet one another with a holy kiss!" where Kiss is the acronym, Keep It Simple Stupid!!
Is that too simple! For example where does "Eschatology" the study of end times come in? Personally, I would put it under worship and no where else. It is worship to appreciate that God has a plan that He has revealed to us.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
The Church: form and function!
Going back to what we were looking at with the church, the idea that the biblical church is pretty much the opposite in form to how it is now:
- Elders are members, also called pastors and bishops, their role is one of function within the church rather than position over it.
- They met in houses; buildings designed for a family gathering, rather than a public building designed for a service.
- They had a full bring and share fellowship meal rather than a token of a meal in silent introspection.
- Everyone contributed to the worship and ministry of the meeting rather than one or two doing all the ministry and everyone else playing the part of a spectator.
- Decisions were made by a consensus vote rather than the leadership or elected committee.
If we look at this picture we see that there is a difference in the "form" that the church takes. Architecture tells us that "form" dictates "function." For example if you are designing a building for a family to live in, the form of that building needs to help the family to function as a family. Where ever you go around the world you will find that the living areas of families vary tremendously, but they have the same basic forms. You will find: a sleeping area, a food preparation area, an eating area, a relaxing area, a utility area and a sanitation area. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about a tented community like Native Americans or a high rise city area. The same basic form of family dwelling is recognisable, whether some of those areas are communal areas, outside, or all in the same room, they are all there.
It is clear that the form a thing takes is very elastic to perform its function. We could argue that as long as decisions are being made, as long as ministry is taking place, as long as the last supper is being remembered it really doesn't matter what form it takes.
We would have to argue that in order to adhere to the church we have today. Some people are so determined that what we have today is better than what they had then that it makes me wonder why. Who benefits? There is a saying that people do what works - they get payoffs! Who is getting what payoffs? Is it the "ministers" who are getting status, celebrity and income? Is the the people who can turn up and be done to rather than put the effort in? Is it that they can have a religion of introspection rather than fellowship? These would be the logical payoffs of changing the form so dramatically from the original blueprint.
If I were designing a car to transport a family and put wings and a propeller on it you would say that's an aeroplane, not a car! The form has changed so the function has changed as well.
The clear functions of the early church blueprint were to create fellowship, a true sense of belonging to a family, the size and geography of which was manageable ( Not many people can have close fellowship with 500 of their best friends!!) There was protection against "strong leaders" in everyone having a vote. Everyone was encouraged and enabled to develop in sharing in ministry. So that was the function of the early church, and that is a contrast to the function of the church today!
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
The Pool at Bethesda
As I read the Bible I often come across bits that puzzle me. One of those bits is a totally amazing thing that always gets overlooked. Every time I read the story of the healing of the man at the Pool of Bethesda, it pops into my head and then lost as I carry on reading the story.
Here we are told an angel cam down and stirred the waters and the first person in after that was healed!! Why? How did it get started? How was it announced?Why did God decide to do this? Had no leper been healed in the pool?
It also gives credence to things like the Roman Catholic ideas of healing pools.
Also, who was the angel? In the old testament, the term "The Angel of the Lord" can often be seen as pre-Jesus appearances of God the Son.
It can often be that theologians are quiet when it comes to some things like this. Here we have one mention of something that is authenticated by the writers of Scripture. We are not told they believed they would be healed, but that they were healed. Why only one pool? Why here? God isn't usually random in His dealings. His dealings fit what He says in His word, but there is no precedent for this. There is nothing else I can think of that comes close, to God playing a game of healing roulette.
It seems the best definition of the name is "House of grace / mercy" or even that it can be both grace and disgrace. The disgrace being the infirm and the grace being the healing. It is confusing but there seems to be something about washing the sheep here on the way to the temple!! Fancy having to go in after the sheep have just gone through!! That takes a lot of faith!
I have done some searching and can't find answers!!
Here we are told an angel cam down and stirred the waters and the first person in after that was healed!! Why? How did it get started? How was it announced?Why did God decide to do this? Had no leper been healed in the pool?
It also gives credence to things like the Roman Catholic ideas of healing pools.
Also, who was the angel? In the old testament, the term "The Angel of the Lord" can often be seen as pre-Jesus appearances of God the Son.
It can often be that theologians are quiet when it comes to some things like this. Here we have one mention of something that is authenticated by the writers of Scripture. We are not told they believed they would be healed, but that they were healed. Why only one pool? Why here? God isn't usually random in His dealings. His dealings fit what He says in His word, but there is no precedent for this. There is nothing else I can think of that comes close, to God playing a game of healing roulette.
It seems the best definition of the name is "House of grace / mercy" or even that it can be both grace and disgrace. The disgrace being the infirm and the grace being the healing. It is confusing but there seems to be something about washing the sheep here on the way to the temple!! Fancy having to go in after the sheep have just gone through!! That takes a lot of faith!
I have done some searching and can't find answers!!
Sunday, 11 May 2008
The Church. Pentecost!
Being as it's Pentecost and I've been thinking about the church, I thought I could tenuously link the two in this one.
I was sitting in a Baptist church and we were talking about Pentecost!! (Well, the guy waffling away at the front was anyway!) The other week he started a series of talks looking at Jesus' life through Easter, the great commission and onto today. I remember when he got to the great commission and the bit about going out and baptising people, he said, "That's what we are "Baptists!""
Well, today was Pentecost, it is such a shame he couldn't say, "We are also Pentecostals." Why not? Does Baptism belong only to one group and the Pentecost only belong to another? No.
This being a Sunday maybe it's fitting to have a three point sermon, my first point being we are all all of it!
My next, point slightly related is the issue of debate or division? Over the years groups of people who have the same belief have got together and formed something. In other areas of life people simply debate issues and then get along anyway. At a university they have debating groups. The same people who divide over, say the death penalty, won't necessarily divide over other issues. So, where as one minute you may be debating against someone the next you may be debating with them. In the church a divide happens. Say between Calvinists and Arinians. Then the Calvinists subdivide into hyper Calvinists and Calvinists. Those groups could sub divide and so on.
Jesus did warn us against this. He said the Kingdom of God is like a tree that grows from a tiny seed, and the birds of the air make their nests in it's branches. Is that a good thing? He also said that it was like flour into which a woman mixed some leaven and it rose through the whole dough. Again is that a good thing?
In the parable of the sower Jesus said that "birds of the air" were demons. Jesus was a teacher and we aren't told that the language has changed so let's assume they are the same. The church begins as a tiny seed and grows and divides and divides and divides. Demons come and make their homes in the branches of the church. Does that look like what has happened? Yes! Paul tells us that people will go after false teachers just because they like the entertainment, they like to hear what they are teaching. These are the teachings of demons that he talks about. Not teachings about demons, but teachings of demons, false teachings that lead the church astray and make them miss what God has for them.
In the other parable nearly every teacher on this I have heard says that yeast means sin and pride except here! But why, who says the meaning of the picture has changed, not Jesus or the writer! It is the same picture. These parables are addressing the disciples wanting to know whether Jesus would raise an army. What Jesus is saying is, "You think the kingdom is going to start now, faultless! But it is actually going to go into all kinds of error first!"
So, we can at least take comfort in that Jesus prophesied the church we have today. I am sure other's would argue, but that's the point, Paul points to debate rather than division. If we would keep the unity then we wouldn't let differences of opinion separate us. The only divisions would be geography and not theology. But that is probably unrealistic in a fallen world. Jesus knew it.
OK, now not so completely unrelated point 3!
In this mornings sermon, the Pastor mentioned the "God can do more than you can ask or imagine" verse in relation to Pentecost. He mentioned in passing the idea of films like "the never ending story" where the world relies on the imaginations of children. I have seen the same with Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, "Do you believe in fairies?" as Tinkerbell is fading. And all the kid's shout out, "Yes, we believe in fairies!!" and Tinkerbell comes back to life. The Pastor didn't do anything with his reference, but it gave me something to think about.
It is exactly the same with the Kingdom of God. God can do more than we can ask or imagine. But what happens if we stop asking of imagining? If you can't imagine God healing then you wont ask. If you don't ask, then God wont act. We are told by Jesus, "Ask and you shall receive." I think it was James who said, "You have not because you ask not!" Do we ask not in case God gives not? It certainly follows that if we stop imagining what God can do then for us the kingdom is dead! That is a very sad affair. This being Pentecost, it is the birth of the church. It is the day when even the deadest of us are reminded that God is embarrassingly intrusive in our planned and co-ordinated lives. This is the day when some try and fob it all of, while others are daring to claim all kinds of miracles.
Let's imagine, and ask and see if God can't do more than we can ask or imagine!
I was sitting in a Baptist church and we were talking about Pentecost!! (Well, the guy waffling away at the front was anyway!) The other week he started a series of talks looking at Jesus' life through Easter, the great commission and onto today. I remember when he got to the great commission and the bit about going out and baptising people, he said, "That's what we are "Baptists!""
Well, today was Pentecost, it is such a shame he couldn't say, "We are also Pentecostals." Why not? Does Baptism belong only to one group and the Pentecost only belong to another? No.
This being a Sunday maybe it's fitting to have a three point sermon, my first point being we are all all of it!
My next, point slightly related is the issue of debate or division? Over the years groups of people who have the same belief have got together and formed something. In other areas of life people simply debate issues and then get along anyway. At a university they have debating groups. The same people who divide over, say the death penalty, won't necessarily divide over other issues. So, where as one minute you may be debating against someone the next you may be debating with them. In the church a divide happens. Say between Calvinists and Arinians. Then the Calvinists subdivide into hyper Calvinists and Calvinists. Those groups could sub divide and so on.
Jesus did warn us against this. He said the Kingdom of God is like a tree that grows from a tiny seed, and the birds of the air make their nests in it's branches. Is that a good thing? He also said that it was like flour into which a woman mixed some leaven and it rose through the whole dough. Again is that a good thing?
In the parable of the sower Jesus said that "birds of the air" were demons. Jesus was a teacher and we aren't told that the language has changed so let's assume they are the same. The church begins as a tiny seed and grows and divides and divides and divides. Demons come and make their homes in the branches of the church. Does that look like what has happened? Yes! Paul tells us that people will go after false teachers just because they like the entertainment, they like to hear what they are teaching. These are the teachings of demons that he talks about. Not teachings about demons, but teachings of demons, false teachings that lead the church astray and make them miss what God has for them.
In the other parable nearly every teacher on this I have heard says that yeast means sin and pride except here! But why, who says the meaning of the picture has changed, not Jesus or the writer! It is the same picture. These parables are addressing the disciples wanting to know whether Jesus would raise an army. What Jesus is saying is, "You think the kingdom is going to start now, faultless! But it is actually going to go into all kinds of error first!"
So, we can at least take comfort in that Jesus prophesied the church we have today. I am sure other's would argue, but that's the point, Paul points to debate rather than division. If we would keep the unity then we wouldn't let differences of opinion separate us. The only divisions would be geography and not theology. But that is probably unrealistic in a fallen world. Jesus knew it.
OK, now not so completely unrelated point 3!
In this mornings sermon, the Pastor mentioned the "God can do more than you can ask or imagine" verse in relation to Pentecost. He mentioned in passing the idea of films like "the never ending story" where the world relies on the imaginations of children. I have seen the same with Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, "Do you believe in fairies?" as Tinkerbell is fading. And all the kid's shout out, "Yes, we believe in fairies!!" and Tinkerbell comes back to life. The Pastor didn't do anything with his reference, but it gave me something to think about.
It is exactly the same with the Kingdom of God. God can do more than we can ask or imagine. But what happens if we stop asking of imagining? If you can't imagine God healing then you wont ask. If you don't ask, then God wont act. We are told by Jesus, "Ask and you shall receive." I think it was James who said, "You have not because you ask not!" Do we ask not in case God gives not? It certainly follows that if we stop imagining what God can do then for us the kingdom is dead! That is a very sad affair. This being Pentecost, it is the birth of the church. It is the day when even the deadest of us are reminded that God is embarrassingly intrusive in our planned and co-ordinated lives. This is the day when some try and fob it all of, while others are daring to claim all kinds of miracles.
Let's imagine, and ask and see if God can't do more than we can ask or imagine!
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
The Church: Accountability
Over the years one of the greatest defences of "denominations" has been accountability. So we need to see what the bible says about "denominations" and then try and scratch our heads and see whether they are biblically good or not.
"11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:11-13
And again
"1And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?
5What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one." 1 Corinthians 3:1-5
In both of these passages we see that the people within the church were starting to organise themselves under different names. This is the root of denominations, "I am not of that name I am of this name." Now, you can put whatever name you like in there. If we are recognising ourselves by any name other than Christ then we are quarrelling and acting like mere men of the flesh, like spiritual babies. That is the clear message of these passages. It is wrong to label ourselves as evangelicals, charismatics, Calvinists, Arminianists, Lutherans, Baptists. You name it - it's wrong! Let others call us names, but let us call our selves "of Christ" and that is it.
So, we have hopefully seen that hierarchical structures of men were not given authority by God to rule over or govern the church. We have seen also that we should not be aligning ourselves to any particular sub-division of the Christian faith by name.
What then do we make of issues such as accountability. Let's have a look at the first accountability powerhouse that developed and from where all others get their origin. The Catholic church. In the Catholic Church the idea is that the people are not very worthy to know right from wrong spiritually, therefore they have priests over them to guide them, who they can go to for wisdom. Over the priests the next layer up have to be seen as less imperfect than those below, and the next layer less imperfect and so on until you reach the top where you have to say that you have reached "infallibility!" That is basically the root of a hierarchy, the top has to be infallible. If they are no less infallible than the rest of us then why do we need them?
OK, let's have a look at denominational accountability. Let's say there have been murmurings in the lower ranks and these have reached a point where a decision needs to be made. Let's say, for arguments sake we are talking about the ordination of women within the Anglican church, or more recently the ordination of practicing homosexual bishops! These decisions will be made in the very top layers of the organisation yet they affect every single church within the organisation. If and error is made at the top it effects every church within the structure. If women should be ordained, then why weren't they before? Because the Bishops decided that they shouldn't be! So, accountability within a denomination is actually not the safest option.
If you have independent churches, then if one church goes into error, then it only affects one church. The members of the churches near by would certainly try and warn them. Also, in bible times the apostles would travel from church to church, these guys would have the ministry of laying good biblical foundations, but at the end of it all everyone has the same bible in their hands and using that as final authority can judge for themselves what they believe to be right.
The system works in a way the each church is its own cell (not to be confused with cell church which has a hierarchy attached to it) that cell takes in its food and throws out its waste. In the same way that blood moves past each cell, so the apostles bring food as they pass. If there are things happening within the churches that shouldn't be and are not being addressed internally then visiting ministers should be able to pick it up. As well as this, as I have said, those who know the people from other churches will hear about what is happening and will want to warn them.
The idea here is that the church is not meant to be a great power structure that becomes immovable. It is supposed to remain family and friendly and approachable. Let's say you are an Anglican and they vote for something you don't agree with, what can you do about it? If you are part of a small group and they are discussing something you don't agree with then you at least have a voice. If they vote against it and you decide it is an issue which stops fellowship then in both cases you are free to leave. However, if they are functioning by consensus then you are able to vote for what you feel is right.
Many churches have gone into error, denominational hierarchy hasn't done anything to stop that happening, we only have to look at the Catholic Church to see that. To put our faith in a hierarchical structure is to put our faith in mere men. That is the crux of what Paul was saying. If we say we are of Paul, then isn't he a mere man, a mere messenger?
As a foot note, let's consider something like the Calvinist - Arminian debate. Are there quarrels between these two beliefs? Yes. Is it right? No. Both camps are aligning themselves to the teachings of two dead guys above what scripture teaches concerning all being of Christ. I have heard that within both side people have gone to lengths to prove that those in the other camp are not actually "of Christ!" It gets crazy. Instead of this approach we should simply know what we believe. It is not essential to make sure we are part of a team all singing the same song, obviously if anyone is totally out with scripture then sure, but if two people read the same bible and come to different conclusions we are told not to quarrel , not to divide but to maintain the unity that we do have, we both accept Christ. That is far too simplistic for some, I can hear them banging their gums, but I see it as too unscriptural to get involved in heated scriptural arguments!
"11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:11-13
And again
"1And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?
5What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one." 1 Corinthians 3:1-5
In both of these passages we see that the people within the church were starting to organise themselves under different names. This is the root of denominations, "I am not of that name I am of this name." Now, you can put whatever name you like in there. If we are recognising ourselves by any name other than Christ then we are quarrelling and acting like mere men of the flesh, like spiritual babies. That is the clear message of these passages. It is wrong to label ourselves as evangelicals, charismatics, Calvinists, Arminianists, Lutherans, Baptists. You name it - it's wrong! Let others call us names, but let us call our selves "of Christ" and that is it.
So, we have hopefully seen that hierarchical structures of men were not given authority by God to rule over or govern the church. We have seen also that we should not be aligning ourselves to any particular sub-division of the Christian faith by name.
What then do we make of issues such as accountability. Let's have a look at the first accountability powerhouse that developed and from where all others get their origin. The Catholic church. In the Catholic Church the idea is that the people are not very worthy to know right from wrong spiritually, therefore they have priests over them to guide them, who they can go to for wisdom. Over the priests the next layer up have to be seen as less imperfect than those below, and the next layer less imperfect and so on until you reach the top where you have to say that you have reached "infallibility!" That is basically the root of a hierarchy, the top has to be infallible. If they are no less infallible than the rest of us then why do we need them?
OK, let's have a look at denominational accountability. Let's say there have been murmurings in the lower ranks and these have reached a point where a decision needs to be made. Let's say, for arguments sake we are talking about the ordination of women within the Anglican church, or more recently the ordination of practicing homosexual bishops! These decisions will be made in the very top layers of the organisation yet they affect every single church within the organisation. If and error is made at the top it effects every church within the structure. If women should be ordained, then why weren't they before? Because the Bishops decided that they shouldn't be! So, accountability within a denomination is actually not the safest option.
If you have independent churches, then if one church goes into error, then it only affects one church. The members of the churches near by would certainly try and warn them. Also, in bible times the apostles would travel from church to church, these guys would have the ministry of laying good biblical foundations, but at the end of it all everyone has the same bible in their hands and using that as final authority can judge for themselves what they believe to be right.
The system works in a way the each church is its own cell (not to be confused with cell church which has a hierarchy attached to it) that cell takes in its food and throws out its waste. In the same way that blood moves past each cell, so the apostles bring food as they pass. If there are things happening within the churches that shouldn't be and are not being addressed internally then visiting ministers should be able to pick it up. As well as this, as I have said, those who know the people from other churches will hear about what is happening and will want to warn them.
The idea here is that the church is not meant to be a great power structure that becomes immovable. It is supposed to remain family and friendly and approachable. Let's say you are an Anglican and they vote for something you don't agree with, what can you do about it? If you are part of a small group and they are discussing something you don't agree with then you at least have a voice. If they vote against it and you decide it is an issue which stops fellowship then in both cases you are free to leave. However, if they are functioning by consensus then you are able to vote for what you feel is right.
Many churches have gone into error, denominational hierarchy hasn't done anything to stop that happening, we only have to look at the Catholic Church to see that. To put our faith in a hierarchical structure is to put our faith in mere men. That is the crux of what Paul was saying. If we say we are of Paul, then isn't he a mere man, a mere messenger?
As a foot note, let's consider something like the Calvinist - Arminian debate. Are there quarrels between these two beliefs? Yes. Is it right? No. Both camps are aligning themselves to the teachings of two dead guys above what scripture teaches concerning all being of Christ. I have heard that within both side people have gone to lengths to prove that those in the other camp are not actually "of Christ!" It gets crazy. Instead of this approach we should simply know what we believe. It is not essential to make sure we are part of a team all singing the same song, obviously if anyone is totally out with scripture then sure, but if two people read the same bible and come to different conclusions we are told not to quarrel , not to divide but to maintain the unity that we do have, we both accept Christ. That is far too simplistic for some, I can hear them banging their gums, but I see it as too unscriptural to get involved in heated scriptural arguments!
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
The Church: Pastors, elders and bishops.
Having seen that those recognised to be pastors are not there to exercise authority over the people, it seems odd that when we talk about bishops, pastors and elders that we are automatically talking about a hierarchy of authority! The reason we think in those terms is because that is what has been handed down to us. However, if we look at scripture we will see that it didn't start out like that.
"1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." 1 Peter 5:1-3
Notice that in the 1 Peter 5 passage that it is addressed to "the elders." Today it would be addressed to "the pastors." In that passage Peter tells the elders to be shepherds which is the same word as pastors and he tells them to be overseers which is the same word as bishops. There are only a few mentions of the word bishop in the New Testament and this is one of them. But each time these words are used they are used interchangeably.
The point here is not that these words are titles implying authority, they are descriptions of function. They tell us what elders are about. The term "elder" implies that the person has a maturity in the faith. The term pastor implies providing pasture, caring for and protecting the flock. The word "overseer" implies making sure that things are running as they should, no one being overlooked or mistreated; the freedoms that we have are for everyone.
Paul says the same thing in Acts 20,
"17From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church."
"28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,"
Here we see exactly the same pattern as with Peter, The Elders are to be pastors (shepherds) and bishops (overseers!)
People love position, title and authority so much that they will more freely accept what has been handed down. Often people see that there are two lists of qualities one for elders in Titus and one for bishops in 1 Timothy 3:1, but they are interchangeable terms. If we look at the list in Titus we see both terms used again in the same context:
"6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Titus 1:6-9
Something else that is worth noticing is that elders are always referred to as plural. Obviously when talking about someone wanting to be "an elder" it is singular, however, whenever it is talking about the elders of a particular church it is always plural.
The idea is that within a small church there should not be one strong personality dominating the group. Having more than one elder gives security and stops elders being overloaded and having to do everything. The idea of one pastor over a church of a few hundred is a million miles away from the biblical picture of more than one elder sitting among a living room full of believers.
The idea of "area bishops" came about after the time of the New Testament and the apostles in a the time of a group of people known as "The Church Fathers." These are revered in the high churches, but their teachings are very questionable. They were the first people to have the idea of an overseer's-overseer. They gave themselves great authority for certain things and this is lived out today in the institutional churches. It is usually the council of bishops who make the big decisions. However, as we have seen, church decisions should be made by the church.
There is a lot of pragmatism in people's thinking today. Jesus said we can only serve one master, if we say we accept scripture as our final authority against which we test everything then how can we be pragmatists? That would be making "what works" our authority. The idea is that because we are used to having governing bodies over churches that they cannot see how it would work without them. But that is a clear mistrust of scripture!!
"1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." 1 Peter 5:1-3
Notice that in the 1 Peter 5 passage that it is addressed to "the elders." Today it would be addressed to "the pastors." In that passage Peter tells the elders to be shepherds which is the same word as pastors and he tells them to be overseers which is the same word as bishops. There are only a few mentions of the word bishop in the New Testament and this is one of them. But each time these words are used they are used interchangeably.
The point here is not that these words are titles implying authority, they are descriptions of function. They tell us what elders are about. The term "elder" implies that the person has a maturity in the faith. The term pastor implies providing pasture, caring for and protecting the flock. The word "overseer" implies making sure that things are running as they should, no one being overlooked or mistreated; the freedoms that we have are for everyone.
Paul says the same thing in Acts 20,
"17From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church."
"28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,"
Here we see exactly the same pattern as with Peter, The Elders are to be pastors (shepherds) and bishops (overseers!)
People love position, title and authority so much that they will more freely accept what has been handed down. Often people see that there are two lists of qualities one for elders in Titus and one for bishops in 1 Timothy 3:1, but they are interchangeable terms. If we look at the list in Titus we see both terms used again in the same context:
"6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Titus 1:6-9
Something else that is worth noticing is that elders are always referred to as plural. Obviously when talking about someone wanting to be "an elder" it is singular, however, whenever it is talking about the elders of a particular church it is always plural.
The idea is that within a small church there should not be one strong personality dominating the group. Having more than one elder gives security and stops elders being overloaded and having to do everything. The idea of one pastor over a church of a few hundred is a million miles away from the biblical picture of more than one elder sitting among a living room full of believers.
The idea of "area bishops" came about after the time of the New Testament and the apostles in a the time of a group of people known as "The Church Fathers." These are revered in the high churches, but their teachings are very questionable. They were the first people to have the idea of an overseer's-overseer. They gave themselves great authority for certain things and this is lived out today in the institutional churches. It is usually the council of bishops who make the big decisions. However, as we have seen, church decisions should be made by the church.
There is a lot of pragmatism in people's thinking today. Jesus said we can only serve one master, if we say we accept scripture as our final authority against which we test everything then how can we be pragmatists? That would be making "what works" our authority. The idea is that because we are used to having governing bodies over churches that they cannot see how it would work without them. But that is a clear mistrust of scripture!!
Saturday, 3 May 2008
The Church, Decisions by consensus
I'll start with this one seeing as you asked!!
First of all Jesus told His disciples not to, "lord it over" the people:
"42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."" Mark 10:42-45
Notice that He didn't just use the expression "lord it over" He also clarifies with an example, "Their high officials exercise authority over them." So we would hope to see a difference in the role of a pastor and the role of someone in authority in the world.
In Luke 22:25 Jesus says, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors." There is a note of sarcasm here. Jesus is saying that a person who exercises authority sees himself as being generous to the people. He goes on to say in verse 26, "26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."
We often hear pastors refer to themselves as servant leaders. That is exactly how He describes the kings of the gentiles, benefactor authorities. Jesus is saying pastors are not about authority over people, they are about serving people.
Peter says:
"1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." 1 Peter 5:1-3
Peter is saying that being an elder is about serving and being an example. Again it isn't about authority and position. To talk in terms of serving in that time would not have given the impression of high status. A servant was someone who served his master, he wasn't the master. Likewise, in the church those who serve are not there to tell the people to come and go.
OK, that lays some ground work. I like to think of bible teaching in two ways. In order to establish a teaching from scripture we should see two witnesses, one may be instruction given as we have just had, then we need to see that matching up to some examples. Some of the narrative of what took place needs to match what was taught. That way we can be more sure that we have cracked it. If we draw on the teaching and ignore the example then we can imply what we want from the teaching. If we can find a good match then we are doing well. If we find two then all the better.
When the church was first getting going the apostles did everything. However, it came to a point where they were too busy to do everything, they prayed about it and told the people to choose some deacons. OK, that's how I was told it, by a would be elder!! Let's have a look at what really happened:
"1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them." Acts 6:1-6
What the apostles did was not tell the group but make a proposal. This is something akin to the committees in churches today, where the pastor has to make a proposal. But notice it pleased the whole group and not just a select few. And it is the whole group who decide.
There came a point in the early church when they realised gentiles were part of the deal (Acts 15). They held a meeting in Jerusalem to discuss what needs to happen. In that meeting because it was such an important meeting it was the key players who spoke, James the brother of Jesus and Paul, for example. Once the discussion had finished a vote needed to be taken, who voted?
"22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." Acts 15:22.
OK, that's general voting, what about church discipline? In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul is dealing with the issue of a man who was sleeping with his father's wife. Instead of telling him off the Corinthian church were boasting about how loving they were in keeping him even though the gentiles themselves were horrified by it! Paul tells them off and tells them what they should have done. Notice that he doesn't say that the pastor should have dealt with it:
"2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" 1 Corinthians 5:2
"13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."" 1 Corinthians 5:13
Paul doesn't do it himself says he says that they should do it. Today, an important matter would be dealt with by the important people! Those in denominational leadership would deal with these kinds of issues. They would take such a one apart and deal with it in a private office or by letter!!
So we can see that the early church made decisions by consensus. Pastors were not "in charge." Even in matters of discipline it is the church and not a hierarchy that is instructed to deal with it.
First of all Jesus told His disciples not to, "lord it over" the people:
"42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."" Mark 10:42-45
Notice that He didn't just use the expression "lord it over" He also clarifies with an example, "Their high officials exercise authority over them." So we would hope to see a difference in the role of a pastor and the role of someone in authority in the world.
In Luke 22:25 Jesus says, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors." There is a note of sarcasm here. Jesus is saying that a person who exercises authority sees himself as being generous to the people. He goes on to say in verse 26, "26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."
We often hear pastors refer to themselves as servant leaders. That is exactly how He describes the kings of the gentiles, benefactor authorities. Jesus is saying pastors are not about authority over people, they are about serving people.
Peter says:
"1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." 1 Peter 5:1-3
Peter is saying that being an elder is about serving and being an example. Again it isn't about authority and position. To talk in terms of serving in that time would not have given the impression of high status. A servant was someone who served his master, he wasn't the master. Likewise, in the church those who serve are not there to tell the people to come and go.
OK, that lays some ground work. I like to think of bible teaching in two ways. In order to establish a teaching from scripture we should see two witnesses, one may be instruction given as we have just had, then we need to see that matching up to some examples. Some of the narrative of what took place needs to match what was taught. That way we can be more sure that we have cracked it. If we draw on the teaching and ignore the example then we can imply what we want from the teaching. If we can find a good match then we are doing well. If we find two then all the better.
When the church was first getting going the apostles did everything. However, it came to a point where they were too busy to do everything, they prayed about it and told the people to choose some deacons. OK, that's how I was told it, by a would be elder!! Let's have a look at what really happened:
"1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them." Acts 6:1-6
What the apostles did was not tell the group but make a proposal. This is something akin to the committees in churches today, where the pastor has to make a proposal. But notice it pleased the whole group and not just a select few. And it is the whole group who decide.
There came a point in the early church when they realised gentiles were part of the deal (Acts 15). They held a meeting in Jerusalem to discuss what needs to happen. In that meeting because it was such an important meeting it was the key players who spoke, James the brother of Jesus and Paul, for example. Once the discussion had finished a vote needed to be taken, who voted?
"22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." Acts 15:22.
OK, that's general voting, what about church discipline? In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul is dealing with the issue of a man who was sleeping with his father's wife. Instead of telling him off the Corinthian church were boasting about how loving they were in keeping him even though the gentiles themselves were horrified by it! Paul tells them off and tells them what they should have done. Notice that he doesn't say that the pastor should have dealt with it:
"2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" 1 Corinthians 5:2
"13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."" 1 Corinthians 5:13
Paul doesn't do it himself says he says that they should do it. Today, an important matter would be dealt with by the important people! Those in denominational leadership would deal with these kinds of issues. They would take such a one apart and deal with it in a private office or by letter!!
So we can see that the early church made decisions by consensus. Pastors were not "in charge." Even in matters of discipline it is the church and not a hierarchy that is instructed to deal with it.
Friday, 2 May 2008
Church, a bit of an overview
Before I go to break down the different elements of early church practice, I'll give a bit more of a familial overview than just a technical list.
We arrive at Fred's house by 3 in the afternoon. We put the food we brought into the kitchen. It's good to see our friends; we hug and chat for a while before everyone has arrived. It feels like getting together for a family occasion a celebration. At 3pm ish!! We shut up, usually prompted by Gary who has been plucking away up the guitar, only now he has started playing in earnest! He gently warms up the music and we all play guess that tune, until he starts singing, then suddenly we know it and we are off! We sing so loud sometimes I wonder what the neighbours think, but then I hope it witnesses to them.
He plays a couple of songs that we all sing, then he puts the guitar down. John prays, he's good at prayer. He always remembers to pray for those who aren't there and for anyone he knows who's sick.
A few others pray and after a while Gary picks up the guitar again. As he does, someone says, "Gary, can we sing ......?"
"Of course we can!" Gary says with a big smile! And off he goes. There is a kind of layered prayer and worship sandwich for a while, then after a few rounds of that Andy opens his bible and tells us that this week while he was reading his bible something struck him. He reads the passage and explains how it impacted him. We all moo gently!
After Andy has shared, Belinda reads a passage. She is such a good reader, she doesn't explain anything, she just reads it, a psalm, so encouraging. Joel, pulls out a piece of paper and reads and gives us a mini bible study. This breaks out into discussion, people asking for clarification and others, giving examples relating what he has said to their own lives.
It is different each week, you never really know who's going to share, and what they will share. Of course, John always makes sure he has prayed for everyone!!
About 4pm we wind down and usually the host lets us know that there is coffee in the kitchen. we break into small groups and twos and catch up on what's been happening, and mingle round. While this is going on a few people are in the kitchen preparing the food. about 5.30 we are told the meal is ready. The host usually prays a prayer of grace. We then queue up for the food, the visitors and children go first. A few wait for the queue to die down before they get up.
In the kitchen the different foods are lined up on the side. We pick up a plate and buffet style take what we want. Of course we all take a piece of bread and a drink of wine (usually juice). If there are a lot of us we sit where we can and chat as we eat together. If there are only a few for some reason then we sit round the dinning table.
It really doesn't feel like "church." I was so used to sitting down and being done to. This really is like getting together for a family gathering. I have been so conditioned to be "anonymous" in the church crowd that at first I feel very self-conscious. Like I say, it doesn't feel like church, not what I have brought up to know as church anyway. But even though I have been conditioned to sit and be done to, it feels so free. I would ask whether God wants us to feel free, but freedom was what Jesus died for, not to be locked up into a religious system that is a copy of Old Testament temple worship. Why are we so drawn to religious systems and hierarchies?
We arrive at Fred's house by 3 in the afternoon. We put the food we brought into the kitchen. It's good to see our friends; we hug and chat for a while before everyone has arrived. It feels like getting together for a family occasion a celebration. At 3pm ish!! We shut up, usually prompted by Gary who has been plucking away up the guitar, only now he has started playing in earnest! He gently warms up the music and we all play guess that tune, until he starts singing, then suddenly we know it and we are off! We sing so loud sometimes I wonder what the neighbours think, but then I hope it witnesses to them.
He plays a couple of songs that we all sing, then he puts the guitar down. John prays, he's good at prayer. He always remembers to pray for those who aren't there and for anyone he knows who's sick.
A few others pray and after a while Gary picks up the guitar again. As he does, someone says, "Gary, can we sing ......?"
"Of course we can!" Gary says with a big smile! And off he goes. There is a kind of layered prayer and worship sandwich for a while, then after a few rounds of that Andy opens his bible and tells us that this week while he was reading his bible something struck him. He reads the passage and explains how it impacted him. We all moo gently!
After Andy has shared, Belinda reads a passage. She is such a good reader, she doesn't explain anything, she just reads it, a psalm, so encouraging. Joel, pulls out a piece of paper and reads and gives us a mini bible study. This breaks out into discussion, people asking for clarification and others, giving examples relating what he has said to their own lives.
It is different each week, you never really know who's going to share, and what they will share. Of course, John always makes sure he has prayed for everyone!!
About 4pm we wind down and usually the host lets us know that there is coffee in the kitchen. we break into small groups and twos and catch up on what's been happening, and mingle round. While this is going on a few people are in the kitchen preparing the food. about 5.30 we are told the meal is ready. The host usually prays a prayer of grace. We then queue up for the food, the visitors and children go first. A few wait for the queue to die down before they get up.
In the kitchen the different foods are lined up on the side. We pick up a plate and buffet style take what we want. Of course we all take a piece of bread and a drink of wine (usually juice). If there are a lot of us we sit where we can and chat as we eat together. If there are only a few for some reason then we sit round the dinning table.
It really doesn't feel like "church." I was so used to sitting down and being done to. This really is like getting together for a family gathering. I have been so conditioned to be "anonymous" in the church crowd that at first I feel very self-conscious. Like I say, it doesn't feel like church, not what I have brought up to know as church anyway. But even though I have been conditioned to sit and be done to, it feels so free. I would ask whether God wants us to feel free, but freedom was what Jesus died for, not to be locked up into a religious system that is a copy of Old Testament temple worship. Why are we so drawn to religious systems and hierarchies?
Thursday, 1 May 2008
The church, aaagggh this is big!!
Right, I kind of want to let the cat out of the bag, as it were, and give it all away now. It is like holding back a dam a the moment. There is so much stuff to get through. I remember once getting blocked, I wrote down a list of possible studies I was thinking of to see if I could get something going and I wrote a list of 17 studies that were all going on in my head at the same time. That was why I was blocked. Once I wrote them down I could easily go through the list one at a time. I'm not sure whether I have a concrete list in my head but it might be useful to write it down.
I think I will try and make it simple so I will just do a comparisons list of how the early church functioned compared to today!
Firstly, let me say something provocative, the church today has more in common with the Roman Catholic Church than it does with the early church!! Has that for provocative? It doesn't matter whether you are a falling over charismatic church with miracles, or a lectern thumping evangelic church, your roots are more in the Catholic church than the biblical church!
Tee Hee!!
Here goes,
The sacred meal in the early church was a full bring and share fellowship meal. The attitude of the meal was about fellowship. Today the sacred meal is a token of a meal eaten in silent introspection. The complete opposite in fact. The origins of the "Communion can be traced to the cult of Mythrus and was adopted by the Catholic Church.
The ministry worship and sharing time in the early church was from everyone, 1 Cor 14:26 says "When you come together everyone has!" There was no sermon or worship leader. Everyone took it in turns to contribute something to the meeting. Today the "services" are led. The only people that contribute are the preacher and the worship leader. Everyone gets to follow the songs and say "Amen" but the difference is like watching a sporting event and taking part. As a spectator you get to sing and shout responses. In fact as a sports spectator you are more free to start a song than if you are in a modern church! Which is of course the complete opposite of the early church. The practice of led services started with the Catholic Church.
The early church met in members houses. This wasn't because of persecution, as some suppose. The persecution was only at certain times. The Greeks, Romans, and Jews all had special worship buildings that they erected where ever they went. It was a very multi faith society and another faith would not have made much difference. There is no mention of special building.
"34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet." Acts 4:34-37
There is no mention of money going to buildings or ministers but to those who had need. There were no needy people, why, because everyone distributed what they had spare to help those who were in need. Today ministers plead for money for buildings and for ministers wages. This practice started with the Catholic church. It is the complete opposite.
Church government in the early church was by consensus. That is every person had a vote and things were only changed if there was a large majority vote. This is not a 51% vote, this is a 100% vote and only less if it is considered that someone is just being awkward! Now, decisions are made by the ministers, and possibly and elected committee. The government of the church was removed from the people by the Catholic Church! It is the complete opposite!
In the early church the "local church" was autonomous, that is to say that it was its own authority. Even though there were apostles, they didn't "lord it over" the congregations. Jesus even praised a church for judging those who called themselves apostles. Decisions over member discipline (1 Cor 5) were made by the church, not by "area experts." Today churches are part of denominational hierarchies, some churches have autonomy but very few exercise it. The Catholic church created a hierarchy through which Emperor Constantine could govern the whole empire. To say that authority is form outside the local church is the complete opposite of saying it is inside the local church.
Pastors in the early church were equally called bishops and elders. They were senior members of the church. They did not put on special clothes or stand in a special place. They were there to oversee the meeting and make sure that everyone was treated fairly. They also made sure that heresies were not being shared as part of the "everyone has." They also could be called upon when there was need. Today Pastors are seen as the managers and are expected to "take" the service. They are seen as a rank above the body and not mere members of the body. If you walked into an early church it is likely you wouldn't be able to tell who the elders were, today you can't help but know who the "pastor" is. The Catholic church authorised the rank of clergy as the ministers to the congregation and were actually civil officers. This is of course the complete opposite!!
In each case the teaching that Jesus had imparted to the Apostles concerning establishing the church was reversed by approximately 300 AD when Constantine declared that he would rule the empire through the church.
To me Jacob is a great picture of this. He though he was marrying Rachel but he actually ended up married to Leah. The only thing that is said about Leah is that she had weak eyes! Spiritulising that, she had weak vision. The church today has a very weak vision of what it should be about. It has taken what it has received and run with it and tried to make sense of it in relation to scripture. However, it is far removed from scripture. Over the centuries many people have brought about change trying to return the church to the biblical model, however, it has a long way to go.
The picture of the church in the bible is a local group of believers meeting together, each taking responsibility for ministry and sharing a meal together. It is a picture of a family gathering together to eat together and to catch up on what has been happening, to rejoice together and so on. Like a family, family decisions are made by the family. Today the church is an institution where the people are ministered to and a token of a meal is taken. Like an institution decisions are made by the institutional hierarchy.
I warned you! But as I say, even though this is far removed from the early picture, they are still God's people. I firmly believe that we should know that what we have is not God's best for us, and that like missionaries in a foreign land we should love God's people regardless of whether their customs are what we would like.
I think I will try and make it simple so I will just do a comparisons list of how the early church functioned compared to today!
Firstly, let me say something provocative, the church today has more in common with the Roman Catholic Church than it does with the early church!! Has that for provocative? It doesn't matter whether you are a falling over charismatic church with miracles, or a lectern thumping evangelic church, your roots are more in the Catholic church than the biblical church!
Tee Hee!!
Here goes,
The sacred meal in the early church was a full bring and share fellowship meal. The attitude of the meal was about fellowship. Today the sacred meal is a token of a meal eaten in silent introspection. The complete opposite in fact. The origins of the "Communion can be traced to the cult of Mythrus and was adopted by the Catholic Church.
The ministry worship and sharing time in the early church was from everyone, 1 Cor 14:26 says "When you come together everyone has!" There was no sermon or worship leader. Everyone took it in turns to contribute something to the meeting. Today the "services" are led. The only people that contribute are the preacher and the worship leader. Everyone gets to follow the songs and say "Amen" but the difference is like watching a sporting event and taking part. As a spectator you get to sing and shout responses. In fact as a sports spectator you are more free to start a song than if you are in a modern church! Which is of course the complete opposite of the early church. The practice of led services started with the Catholic Church.
The early church met in members houses. This wasn't because of persecution, as some suppose. The persecution was only at certain times. The Greeks, Romans, and Jews all had special worship buildings that they erected where ever they went. It was a very multi faith society and another faith would not have made much difference. There is no mention of special building.
"34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet." Acts 4:34-37
There is no mention of money going to buildings or ministers but to those who had need. There were no needy people, why, because everyone distributed what they had spare to help those who were in need. Today ministers plead for money for buildings and for ministers wages. This practice started with the Catholic church. It is the complete opposite.
Church government in the early church was by consensus. That is every person had a vote and things were only changed if there was a large majority vote. This is not a 51% vote, this is a 100% vote and only less if it is considered that someone is just being awkward! Now, decisions are made by the ministers, and possibly and elected committee. The government of the church was removed from the people by the Catholic Church! It is the complete opposite!
In the early church the "local church" was autonomous, that is to say that it was its own authority. Even though there were apostles, they didn't "lord it over" the congregations. Jesus even praised a church for judging those who called themselves apostles. Decisions over member discipline (1 Cor 5) were made by the church, not by "area experts." Today churches are part of denominational hierarchies, some churches have autonomy but very few exercise it. The Catholic church created a hierarchy through which Emperor Constantine could govern the whole empire. To say that authority is form outside the local church is the complete opposite of saying it is inside the local church.
Pastors in the early church were equally called bishops and elders. They were senior members of the church. They did not put on special clothes or stand in a special place. They were there to oversee the meeting and make sure that everyone was treated fairly. They also made sure that heresies were not being shared as part of the "everyone has." They also could be called upon when there was need. Today Pastors are seen as the managers and are expected to "take" the service. They are seen as a rank above the body and not mere members of the body. If you walked into an early church it is likely you wouldn't be able to tell who the elders were, today you can't help but know who the "pastor" is. The Catholic church authorised the rank of clergy as the ministers to the congregation and were actually civil officers. This is of course the complete opposite!!
In each case the teaching that Jesus had imparted to the Apostles concerning establishing the church was reversed by approximately 300 AD when Constantine declared that he would rule the empire through the church.
To me Jacob is a great picture of this. He though he was marrying Rachel but he actually ended up married to Leah. The only thing that is said about Leah is that she had weak eyes! Spiritulising that, she had weak vision. The church today has a very weak vision of what it should be about. It has taken what it has received and run with it and tried to make sense of it in relation to scripture. However, it is far removed from scripture. Over the centuries many people have brought about change trying to return the church to the biblical model, however, it has a long way to go.
The picture of the church in the bible is a local group of believers meeting together, each taking responsibility for ministry and sharing a meal together. It is a picture of a family gathering together to eat together and to catch up on what has been happening, to rejoice together and so on. Like a family, family decisions are made by the family. Today the church is an institution where the people are ministered to and a token of a meal is taken. Like an institution decisions are made by the institutional hierarchy.
I warned you! But as I say, even though this is far removed from the early picture, they are still God's people. I firmly believe that we should know that what we have is not God's best for us, and that like missionaries in a foreign land we should love God's people regardless of whether their customs are what we would like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
