If you haven't read the previous posts on the ekklesia concept, now is the time. If you have, you may be wondering what is the big deal; how much difference can trading in 'church' for 'ekklesia' really make? Aren't we just talking about an issue of semantics?
Well there's still a lot to say on this subject, and hard to understand, since we have become dull of hearing.
I was first introduced to the ekklesia concept by the New Testament Restoration Foundation (NTRF), through their self published book Ekklesia (now unfortunately and ironically re-titled "House Church" but still available on their site). As a rule I do not read many Christian books (some years ago I walked into a Christian bookstore, and was immediately and profoundly struck by the Holy Spirit that we have bookstores full of books and books and all kinds of things that people have written, while we, His people, give very little attention to what He wrote). Ekklesia is one of few exceptions to that rule. When I saw the significance of what they were saying about the ekklesia, I realized that this was a large part of what we had been searching for in trying to understand the nature of the church, and why it isn't like it should be.
The basic points to understand are these:
• The word 'church' occurs nowhere in the scriptures.
• Everywhere the word 'church' is used in your English translation the actual word is always 'ekklesia' (look it up in a concordance).
• This isn't a mere translational issue of bringing words out of Greek into English
• The word 'ekklesia' is immediately germaine to what the Body actually is.
'Church' itself is actually a a transliteration of a later Greek term, so it isn't as though the Greek was translated into an equivalent English word. 'Church' comes from the Greek 'kuriakos' which means simply "the lord's." It isn't even clear what it is that is "the lord's". It could refer to "the Lord's People" or "The Lord's House" or even something else entirely. And even if we did know what it was that is "the Lord's," it is still a vague term with no immediate specified application. In other words, yes we are The Lord's People, but then what? What about it? What does that precisely mean? It could mean anything – and in point of fact it is therefore used to mean almost anything.
'Ekklesia' is very specific. The ekklesia was a political body, made up of the local citizens, who were 'called out' to hear a matter, discuss it, have input on it, and render a decision or judgment about it. That is the word that Jesus chose to describe the gatherings of His disciples.
Seriously, get a good ballpoint pen, go through your Bible, and strike through every single usage of the word 'church' or 'churches', and replace it with 'ekklesia' or 'ekklesias'. As you go through and read the scriptures from now on, remembering what an ekklesia is, you will see the scriptures and the 'churches' in a new light.
I am not saying that the early translators or someone before that developed a purposeful conspiracy to pull the wool over our eyes – although, considering Catholicism's history, I'm not saying they didn't either. What I am saying is that we were done a genuine disservice on this point somewhere in the distant past and that this disservice certainly has worked and is working in satan's favor, not ours. The usage of the word 'church' is like a fog that settled upon the house of God. As long as we are shrouded in the mists all kinds of foggy thinking and practices can and do appear acceptable because you can't see well enough to tell the difference. If you throw out the 'church' mindset, and replace it with an 'ekklesia' mindset, the fog burns away and you can see clearly. All sorts of 'church' practices stand out like a sore thumb because you can now plainly see that they do not conform to what Jesus had in mind.
It's kind of like strapping a jet engine on an elephant's back. As long as you can't really tell what's going on it might seem ok, but when you can see clearly you realize that this isn't going to turn out very well; you're not going to make a super-fast elephant, and somebody is going to get hurt.
Consider all the places in the New Testament where it says, "the Churches of Christ", "the Church of God" or something like that. Have you ever wondered, "Well what other church would it be? I mean what other church is there?" Maybe you haven't, but I have. Now that you've thought about it, this phrase makes more sense when you replace 'church' with 'ekklesia'. Now, it's "Paul, to not just the regular, local, decision-making, judgment-rendering, everybody-gets-a-voice worldly Greek ekklesia, but to the ekklesia that is all that and so much more, the Ekklesia of Ekklesias, the 'Ekklesia of God' at Corinth..."
Friday, March 26, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Healthcare Reform at Last: Pass the Kool-Aid!
Well seemingly it's here at last. They've been threatening it for decades now, while we've hit the snooze bar and rolled back over.
It's the beginning of the end for the United States of America. When the people came to Samuel and demanded a king, Samuel rebuked them. But God said, "It isn't you they've rejected Samuel, it's Me. Give them what they want." And there we go. Once upon a time He gave us Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Adamses, and hundreds of other men of less fame but as great or greater stature. Now he has given us Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Barney Frank because we have rejected Him.
How long will the end take? That's hard to say. It came literally overnight for Babylon; Rome took a good long time to spin down. Just our beginning was around 400 years, so...we must repent and pray God if perhaps He will grant us an extension of our prosperity.
Meanwhile, they finally did it like they said they would: the Kool-Aid is mixed and they're getting ready to pour it up for the goons to come around and hand out. Are we all going to just wait around and drink it?
It's the beginning of the end for the United States of America. When the people came to Samuel and demanded a king, Samuel rebuked them. But God said, "It isn't you they've rejected Samuel, it's Me. Give them what they want." And there we go. Once upon a time He gave us Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Adamses, and hundreds of other men of less fame but as great or greater stature. Now he has given us Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Barney Frank because we have rejected Him.
How long will the end take? That's hard to say. It came literally overnight for Babylon; Rome took a good long time to spin down. Just our beginning was around 400 years, so...we must repent and pray God if perhaps He will grant us an extension of our prosperity.
Meanwhile, they finally did it like they said they would: the Kool-Aid is mixed and they're getting ready to pour it up for the goons to come around and hand out. Are we all going to just wait around and drink it?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Ekklesiatime II
Our church experience is divided into two parts: Part One is the churches we (individually) grew up in, and Part Two is the churches in which we sojourned as adults when we were much more serious about Christ. In between was about a decade in which I drifted from God to the point of seriously questioning whether there was any such a thing as a god at all.
That all changed for me when the Holy Spirit sneaked up on me one night. Then came the time of sojourning.
In one of the churches in which we sojourned, I had a realization in prayer about the fact that we never really felt a part of those churches, although we were really quite serious about our attendance and involvement in them. It seems that there are certain species of butterfly (or moth?) which specialize in pawning their progeny off on ant colonies. Normally, anything that tries to enter an ant colony will immediately be detected an attacked. Any invader not capable of defeating the colony will be killed. These butterflies however appear chemically identical to the ants of the colony, and so are not bothered as they walk right in. (How many millions of years of dead butterflies do you think it took before one finally evolved enough to make it in alive?) The caterpillars of these butterflies are tolerated inside the colony unmolested as they eat the ants' food and grow. I realized that we were like caterpillars in an ant colony. We weren't really a part of the colony, but we were just accepted in and permitted about freely.
When I shared this with one of the church leaders it was met with an expression mixed of surprise and concern. "I don't know why you would say that you don't belong here..." he said. I didn't know what to answer him then – for one thing it seemed so painfully obvious to us – but I do know a good part of it now.
I grew up in a small Southern Baptist church. SBC churches typically operated in a congregational way. Every fourth Sunday night we had the monthly business meeting, and all church business was discussed and voted on, down to the last penny – literally. If you were saved, you had a vote, even if you were just a child. So I grew up reading the treasurer's report and voting on every single issue discussed. I paid attention to it all because my vote mattered. I felt a part of the church, and I was part.
The churches in which we sojourned after God came were mostly formed of and by Baptists who had been touched by charismatic pentecostalism. From the pentecostals they had experienced the Spirit in a way that simply was not available in a Baptist church. There's a real vibrance there that you simply can't get in a Baptist church (I'm afraid to say some Baptists like it that way). Having seen their share of misguided congregationalism (i.e., 'church splits over carpet color'), and been through the bitter fighting in the Baptist churches and in the Southern Baptist Convention in the eighties, they also easily – even gratefully – capitulated the congregational way and adopted the dictatorial form of the pentecostals. In these churches, the pastor just does whatever he decides, and no one can say, "What are you doing?" Decisions were made behind closed doors, and the "congregation" seldom knew that there was even going to be a meeting. Often there wasn't even a meeting. Supposedly, the pastor was following the leading of the Spirit, right? And the leading of the Holy Spirit isn't up for public vote. (If you want to see a radically different expression of the worth of the members of the Body of Christ, check out Henry Blackaby's study Experiencing God. Or The Bible.) So the pastor would just show up on a Sunday and announce this was this, or that is the new way, or we will do this over here.
We seldom saw it to appear in a heavy-handed or mean spirited way, but it was the prevailing atmosphere of all church business: your opinion was neither needed nor wanted.
In these churches were also many members that were straight out of pentecostal or charismatic churches. Interestingly, it never seemed to really occur to these people that it could be any other way. They had little or no interest in church business or decisions, and typically trusted that whatever the pastor did was indeed the leading of the Spirit. But in time we noticed an interesting thing; many of these people floated about from church to church with no long term anchor anywhere. Like us, they did not feel a part of these churches, and when they were exposed to a new one that so-and-so was going to they would float away again.
Because they had no say or opportunity to invest themselves in a given church, they had no real part. And no pastor's personality seemed sufficient to keep them anchored in one place for very long. These brothers and sisters were denied the opportunity to be a real part of the churches (despite the strangely continual admonishments to make yourself feel a part of the church by the cleaning of toilets).
That is the difference between a church and an ekklesia.
That all changed for me when the Holy Spirit sneaked up on me one night. Then came the time of sojourning.
In one of the churches in which we sojourned, I had a realization in prayer about the fact that we never really felt a part of those churches, although we were really quite serious about our attendance and involvement in them. It seems that there are certain species of butterfly (or moth?) which specialize in pawning their progeny off on ant colonies. Normally, anything that tries to enter an ant colony will immediately be detected an attacked. Any invader not capable of defeating the colony will be killed. These butterflies however appear chemically identical to the ants of the colony, and so are not bothered as they walk right in. (How many millions of years of dead butterflies do you think it took before one finally evolved enough to make it in alive?) The caterpillars of these butterflies are tolerated inside the colony unmolested as they eat the ants' food and grow. I realized that we were like caterpillars in an ant colony. We weren't really a part of the colony, but we were just accepted in and permitted about freely.
When I shared this with one of the church leaders it was met with an expression mixed of surprise and concern. "I don't know why you would say that you don't belong here..." he said. I didn't know what to answer him then – for one thing it seemed so painfully obvious to us – but I do know a good part of it now.
I grew up in a small Southern Baptist church. SBC churches typically operated in a congregational way. Every fourth Sunday night we had the monthly business meeting, and all church business was discussed and voted on, down to the last penny – literally. If you were saved, you had a vote, even if you were just a child. So I grew up reading the treasurer's report and voting on every single issue discussed. I paid attention to it all because my vote mattered. I felt a part of the church, and I was part.
The churches in which we sojourned after God came were mostly formed of and by Baptists who had been touched by charismatic pentecostalism. From the pentecostals they had experienced the Spirit in a way that simply was not available in a Baptist church. There's a real vibrance there that you simply can't get in a Baptist church (I'm afraid to say some Baptists like it that way). Having seen their share of misguided congregationalism (i.e., 'church splits over carpet color'), and been through the bitter fighting in the Baptist churches and in the Southern Baptist Convention in the eighties, they also easily – even gratefully – capitulated the congregational way and adopted the dictatorial form of the pentecostals. In these churches, the pastor just does whatever he decides, and no one can say, "What are you doing?" Decisions were made behind closed doors, and the "congregation" seldom knew that there was even going to be a meeting. Often there wasn't even a meeting. Supposedly, the pastor was following the leading of the Spirit, right? And the leading of the Holy Spirit isn't up for public vote. (If you want to see a radically different expression of the worth of the members of the Body of Christ, check out Henry Blackaby's study Experiencing God. Or The Bible.) So the pastor would just show up on a Sunday and announce this was this, or that is the new way, or we will do this over here.
We seldom saw it to appear in a heavy-handed or mean spirited way, but it was the prevailing atmosphere of all church business: your opinion was neither needed nor wanted.
In these churches were also many members that were straight out of pentecostal or charismatic churches. Interestingly, it never seemed to really occur to these people that it could be any other way. They had little or no interest in church business or decisions, and typically trusted that whatever the pastor did was indeed the leading of the Spirit. But in time we noticed an interesting thing; many of these people floated about from church to church with no long term anchor anywhere. Like us, they did not feel a part of these churches, and when they were exposed to a new one that so-and-so was going to they would float away again.
Because they had no say or opportunity to invest themselves in a given church, they had no real part. And no pastor's personality seemed sufficient to keep them anchored in one place for very long. These brothers and sisters were denied the opportunity to be a real part of the churches (despite the strangely continual admonishments to make yourself feel a part of the church by the cleaning of toilets).
That is the difference between a church and an ekklesia.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Ekklesiatime I
Our first entry opened up the broad theme for this blog; now we'd better get into some of the nitty gritty. Where better to start than at the start?
In Matthew chapter 16, Jesus said, "But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My [INSERT PHONOGRAPH NEEDLE SCRATCHING ACROSS VINYL RECORD HERE]...
"...I will build my ______?" Think you know the answer? Of course you do. Well... let's take a look at that for a moment.
Suppose that you were a first century Christian. Maybe even a very early believer before they began to be called "Christians" at Antioch. Or maybe you believed on one of Paul's missionary journeys, or through Apollos or Cephas. You saw the written letters of the apostles with your own eyes – even if you couldn't read it for yourself. You know first-hand the challenges and the imperfections faced by the Body of Christ in that ancient, pagan environment of almost unbridled idolatry and sin. But you saw the Bride in her glory, turning the world upside down despite brutal persecution; healing the sick, raising the dead, judging itself in righteousness and acting in one accord to establish for the ages the great truths and forms of the Body of Christ. You saw the Spirit working miracles, speaking through prophets, and edifying the believers and the body through tongues and interpretations. You knew people who were eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ and the righteous ones who walked out of their graves in Jerusalem. You suffered for His name, and refused to take the easy path. You asked no quarter from your persecutors, and gave no quarter to the demonic enemies that oppressed your neighbors and family members. You were there, and saw it with your own eyes...
Now imagine that you were caught up by the Spirit – like Philip – and placed back on the earth some 2000 years later in Great Britain or maybe in America. Scrolls that once were so expensive they were closely guarded and rarely owned are now collected together in one simple book that you can read in English and can buy for a dollar. Opening the book you find Matthew's record of the Good News. Now there are handy chapter and verse markers to help you find your way quickly. You flip open to 'Chapter 16' when the Christ still walked the earth, and there you read the beginning of it all in 'Verse 17', "...you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My gleebok..."
My what?
Have you ever wondered in reading, "on this rock I will build My church" just exactly why He used the word 'church'? Or better yet, what was a 'church'? We have a tendency to think that since 'the church' had never existed prior to the 'church age' that perhaps Jesus just coined an all new word in preparation for that event. In point of fact, He did no such thing, and He used no such word. There was no word 'church' in existence at that time, or for centuries afterward, and Jesus chose from among several potential Greek words (including 'synagogue' – a rather obvious choice – and the Greek word for a generic 'assembly'), but instead He chose a very specific word with a very specific meaning: ekklesia. By way of contrast, 'church' is a very non-specific word with a very uncertain meaning.
Many of you are no doubt already aware that the Greek behind the word "church" is ekklesia (ek•kle•SEE•uh). More of you probably know that the literal meaning of the word 'ekklesia' is "The Called Out", or "Called Out Ones", which, of course, His people are: we are "called out" from the world. And most Christians stop right there: We're called the "Called Out Ones" because we're 'called out' of the world to a life in Christ, right? Great! When is the Worship Service?
I have no doubt that Jesus was fully aware of the root meaning of 'ekklesia'; it would likely have been as obvious in that day as the roots of 'outdoors', 'hardware', or 'billboard' are to us. However, this word was in existence well before Jesus walked the earth. The ekklesia was actually a Greek political body, similar to the 'town meeting'. In fact, it was called 'ekklesia' because the members were "called out" specifically to make decisions and render judgments. An 'assembly' is simply any gathering of people who have come together for any old non-specific purpose, and that is often a good example of church gatherings today! But not an ekklesia; an ekklesia was a specific gathering for a specific purpose: to discuss issues, and make binding judgments about them. That was the format that Jesus chose to be His body on the earth!
In fact, that is why in the Bible you have ekklesias (Acts 19:32, 39, and 41) and you also have The Ekklesia of God, or The Ekklesias of Christ.
If you will plug this little fact in and go re-read your entire New Testament, you will get a very different and much clearer picture of what was going on; like throwing out your old half-dead 60's TV that you've been watching worn out home-recorded VHS tapes on, and getting a new blue-ray disc player and HDTV. Or maybe going to the IMAX theater. After I learned the truth of this little bait-and-switch that we've been handed, I literally marked through every single usage of the words 'church' or 'churches' in my Bible and wrote in 'ekklesia' or ekklesias' instead, because there is a world of difference between the unbiblical, linguistically unjustifiable, non-specific, blob-like word 'church', and the very specific, very powerful, and meaningful word 'ekklesia'.
Try this on to see the difference:
"But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My un-specified gathering of people who have come together for no clear or particular purpose, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
vs.
"But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My authorized, legal assembly of those who are 'called out' to weigh important matters and render binding, meaningful decisions, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
It's all the difference between 'here' and 'there'.
In Matthew chapter 16, Jesus said, "But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My [INSERT PHONOGRAPH NEEDLE SCRATCHING ACROSS VINYL RECORD HERE]...
"...I will build my ______?" Think you know the answer? Of course you do. Well... let's take a look at that for a moment.
Suppose that you were a first century Christian. Maybe even a very early believer before they began to be called "Christians" at Antioch. Or maybe you believed on one of Paul's missionary journeys, or through Apollos or Cephas. You saw the written letters of the apostles with your own eyes – even if you couldn't read it for yourself. You know first-hand the challenges and the imperfections faced by the Body of Christ in that ancient, pagan environment of almost unbridled idolatry and sin. But you saw the Bride in her glory, turning the world upside down despite brutal persecution; healing the sick, raising the dead, judging itself in righteousness and acting in one accord to establish for the ages the great truths and forms of the Body of Christ. You saw the Spirit working miracles, speaking through prophets, and edifying the believers and the body through tongues and interpretations. You knew people who were eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ and the righteous ones who walked out of their graves in Jerusalem. You suffered for His name, and refused to take the easy path. You asked no quarter from your persecutors, and gave no quarter to the demonic enemies that oppressed your neighbors and family members. You were there, and saw it with your own eyes...
Now imagine that you were caught up by the Spirit – like Philip – and placed back on the earth some 2000 years later in Great Britain or maybe in America. Scrolls that once were so expensive they were closely guarded and rarely owned are now collected together in one simple book that you can read in English and can buy for a dollar. Opening the book you find Matthew's record of the Good News. Now there are handy chapter and verse markers to help you find your way quickly. You flip open to 'Chapter 16' when the Christ still walked the earth, and there you read the beginning of it all in 'Verse 17', "...you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My gleebok..."
My what?
Have you ever wondered in reading, "on this rock I will build My church" just exactly why He used the word 'church'? Or better yet, what was a 'church'? We have a tendency to think that since 'the church' had never existed prior to the 'church age' that perhaps Jesus just coined an all new word in preparation for that event. In point of fact, He did no such thing, and He used no such word. There was no word 'church' in existence at that time, or for centuries afterward, and Jesus chose from among several potential Greek words (including 'synagogue' – a rather obvious choice – and the Greek word for a generic 'assembly'), but instead He chose a very specific word with a very specific meaning: ekklesia. By way of contrast, 'church' is a very non-specific word with a very uncertain meaning.
Many of you are no doubt already aware that the Greek behind the word "church" is ekklesia (ek•kle•SEE•uh). More of you probably know that the literal meaning of the word 'ekklesia' is "The Called Out", or "Called Out Ones", which, of course, His people are: we are "called out" from the world. And most Christians stop right there: We're called the "Called Out Ones" because we're 'called out' of the world to a life in Christ, right? Great! When is the Worship Service?
I have no doubt that Jesus was fully aware of the root meaning of 'ekklesia'; it would likely have been as obvious in that day as the roots of 'outdoors', 'hardware', or 'billboard' are to us. However, this word was in existence well before Jesus walked the earth. The ekklesia was actually a Greek political body, similar to the 'town meeting'. In fact, it was called 'ekklesia' because the members were "called out" specifically to make decisions and render judgments. An 'assembly' is simply any gathering of people who have come together for any old non-specific purpose, and that is often a good example of church gatherings today! But not an ekklesia; an ekklesia was a specific gathering for a specific purpose: to discuss issues, and make binding judgments about them. That was the format that Jesus chose to be His body on the earth!
In fact, that is why in the Bible you have ekklesias (Acts 19:32, 39, and 41) and you also have The Ekklesia of God, or The Ekklesias of Christ.
If you will plug this little fact in and go re-read your entire New Testament, you will get a very different and much clearer picture of what was going on; like throwing out your old half-dead 60's TV that you've been watching worn out home-recorded VHS tapes on, and getting a new blue-ray disc player and HDTV. Or maybe going to the IMAX theater. After I learned the truth of this little bait-and-switch that we've been handed, I literally marked through every single usage of the words 'church' or 'churches' in my Bible and wrote in 'ekklesia' or ekklesias' instead, because there is a world of difference between the unbiblical, linguistically unjustifiable, non-specific, blob-like word 'church', and the very specific, very powerful, and meaningful word 'ekklesia'.
Try this on to see the difference:
"But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My un-specified gathering of people who have come together for no clear or particular purpose, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
vs.
"But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My authorized, legal assembly of those who are 'called out' to weigh important matters and render binding, meaningful decisions, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
It's all the difference between 'here' and 'there'.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Beginnings..
If any of you have looked around while motoring about on the internet, at any time since approximately, say, May 19 of 2004, you will have noticed that the ol' Information Superhighway is veritably littered with the wrecks and rusted out hulks of blogs that were begun with good intentions, but failed to interest their authors once the nouveau had worn off. In fact, with apologies to all concerned, I myself have just such a blog stuck in the emergency lane somewhere between the North Carolina state line and Norfolk, VA. It's only just run out of gas, and the hazard lights, I believe, are still blinking, but there it is frozen in time taking up electrons that somebody might have made good use of. Then again, those electrons might have been put to use by someone who still claims that it was inevitable that the U.S. lost in Vietnam; or in yet another of those facile lists of 'Favorite Movies' or 'Who I'm Listening To Right Now'; or worse yet to power Jan Crouch's hairdryer. So in that light I might be doing everyone a notable service.
Nevertheless, with all these concerns in mind we do not enter into this blog lightly, but with sober consideration and a sense of duty – duty, I say, toward our fellow man, of course; but especially toward our Brothers and Sisters in Christ (oftentimes known as "the church"); but particularly toward our God, first and foremost above all. The only issue yet to be seen is the Cause is that Impels us to this Separation – to borrow from Jefferson. Well, in point of fact this Separation is a wound already a few years scarred over by now. And though, in truth, mankind are more disposed to pack things away in boxes under the bed and try to ignore them while ignorance is possible, this is simply not the sort of thing that stays put in a box under the bed very well. In fact, it's much more like our two-year-old who is very prone to letting himself out of his bed and waiting quietly but insistently beside our bed with his blank-blank at inconvenient times like 1:00, 2:34, and 4:43 in the morning. Or sometimes waiting not-so-quietly. But either way you have to deal with him somehow. So I guess we're just tired of continually trying to keep this thing quiet enough for us to get back to sleep.
I do want to be very clear up front that we your humble servants certainly do not claim to have all the answers – or even all the questions – regarding this unquiet issue, but what we do claim to have is an important point of information that, like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, should be obvious to all, only somehow it just does not seem to be. And if you bring it up it isn't generally very well received – as though perhaps we are somehow at fault; or as if there is some particular virtue in pretending that it isn't true – a virtue which I am afraid seems not to be in our possession – and some particular vice for so lacking in social graciousness as to discuss it out loud where people might hear you. Certainly some well meaning brothers and sisters in Christ have indicated that we simply ought not see such things – if we really love Jesus that is. And I am afraid to say that at times we may have tried to take this advice. Certainly we have wondered at times if there isn't actually something wrong with us, as everyone else seems to be getting along just fine, but we suspect that perhaps everyone isn't really getting along as fine as they might seem, and from time to time we learn things that indicate that things are not all that fine at all.
The observant reader will undoubtedly have noticed that while I have been prevaricating about the bush I still have not quite got round to actually stating our point in all this; and so, I suppose, I had better come to the particulars in mind. But how best to begin to describe it? Have you ever noticed that the United States is certainly blessed with churches, that there is quite literally almost a church on every corner, and yet somehow, America keeps slipping downward in almost every sociologically measurable way and many ways not measured? Indeed, Western Civilization is clearly slipping, although I myself can't claim to know whether there is a church on every corner throughout the West.
It is our contention that there is a definite reason for this decline, and the definite reason is the declined condition of the so-called Church, and that at least a very large portion of the reason for the decline of the so-called Church is that it simply does not take the Bible very seriously as our guide to life and church practice, although it thinks, on the whole, that it takes the Bible very seriously. Put another way; Walk into any church, ask how many believe the Bible is our inerrant guide, and almost all hands will go up. Yet, show them a clear contradiction between church practice and the Bible, and you are now being legalistic. We believe that every church is called to follow clear New Testament teaching and example, yet we know of no church that gives that serious consideration. And in the no-mans-land between the two, real people are getting hurt.
Now what do we mean that God's people do not take the Bible very seriously while they think they take it very seriously? Depending upon exactly which church you walk into, you will see a church functioning according to traditions that are normally anywhere from 400 to 10 years old, but maybe as new as the latest book from Rick Warren (or whomever). These traditions may be brand new or only a decade old, and they may be spread all over the rainbow from one another, but churches by and large do not give a fig about how it was done in the New Testament if that clashes with the established tradition. And regarding exactly this sort of thing, in Jeremiah 2:13 God says, "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns—broken cisterns that can hold no water." (NKJV)
In our case, we have forsaken the traditions of Jesus and the Apostles – traditions from God if the NT is to be believed – and made for ourselves newer, shinier, man-made traditions. Now folks, granted we can't be absolutely certain about some of the fine details of New Testament church life, but by and large the New Testament scriptures paint a pretty good picture of the shape and form of the early church, and it looks quite a bit different from the post-NT church of any era.
Nevertheless, with all these concerns in mind we do not enter into this blog lightly, but with sober consideration and a sense of duty – duty, I say, toward our fellow man, of course; but especially toward our Brothers and Sisters in Christ (oftentimes known as "the church"); but particularly toward our God, first and foremost above all. The only issue yet to be seen is the Cause is that Impels us to this Separation – to borrow from Jefferson. Well, in point of fact this Separation is a wound already a few years scarred over by now. And though, in truth, mankind are more disposed to pack things away in boxes under the bed and try to ignore them while ignorance is possible, this is simply not the sort of thing that stays put in a box under the bed very well. In fact, it's much more like our two-year-old who is very prone to letting himself out of his bed and waiting quietly but insistently beside our bed with his blank-blank at inconvenient times like 1:00, 2:34, and 4:43 in the morning. Or sometimes waiting not-so-quietly. But either way you have to deal with him somehow. So I guess we're just tired of continually trying to keep this thing quiet enough for us to get back to sleep.
I do want to be very clear up front that we your humble servants certainly do not claim to have all the answers – or even all the questions – regarding this unquiet issue, but what we do claim to have is an important point of information that, like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, should be obvious to all, only somehow it just does not seem to be. And if you bring it up it isn't generally very well received – as though perhaps we are somehow at fault; or as if there is some particular virtue in pretending that it isn't true – a virtue which I am afraid seems not to be in our possession – and some particular vice for so lacking in social graciousness as to discuss it out loud where people might hear you. Certainly some well meaning brothers and sisters in Christ have indicated that we simply ought not see such things – if we really love Jesus that is. And I am afraid to say that at times we may have tried to take this advice. Certainly we have wondered at times if there isn't actually something wrong with us, as everyone else seems to be getting along just fine, but we suspect that perhaps everyone isn't really getting along as fine as they might seem, and from time to time we learn things that indicate that things are not all that fine at all.
The observant reader will undoubtedly have noticed that while I have been prevaricating about the bush I still have not quite got round to actually stating our point in all this; and so, I suppose, I had better come to the particulars in mind. But how best to begin to describe it? Have you ever noticed that the United States is certainly blessed with churches, that there is quite literally almost a church on every corner, and yet somehow, America keeps slipping downward in almost every sociologically measurable way and many ways not measured? Indeed, Western Civilization is clearly slipping, although I myself can't claim to know whether there is a church on every corner throughout the West.
It is our contention that there is a definite reason for this decline, and the definite reason is the declined condition of the so-called Church, and that at least a very large portion of the reason for the decline of the so-called Church is that it simply does not take the Bible very seriously as our guide to life and church practice, although it thinks, on the whole, that it takes the Bible very seriously. Put another way; Walk into any church, ask how many believe the Bible is our inerrant guide, and almost all hands will go up. Yet, show them a clear contradiction between church practice and the Bible, and you are now being legalistic. We believe that every church is called to follow clear New Testament teaching and example, yet we know of no church that gives that serious consideration. And in the no-mans-land between the two, real people are getting hurt.
Now what do we mean that God's people do not take the Bible very seriously while they think they take it very seriously? Depending upon exactly which church you walk into, you will see a church functioning according to traditions that are normally anywhere from 400 to 10 years old, but maybe as new as the latest book from Rick Warren (or whomever). These traditions may be brand new or only a decade old, and they may be spread all over the rainbow from one another, but churches by and large do not give a fig about how it was done in the New Testament if that clashes with the established tradition. And regarding exactly this sort of thing, in Jeremiah 2:13 God says, "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns—broken cisterns that can hold no water." (NKJV)
In our case, we have forsaken the traditions of Jesus and the Apostles – traditions from God if the NT is to be believed – and made for ourselves newer, shinier, man-made traditions. Now folks, granted we can't be absolutely certain about some of the fine details of New Testament church life, but by and large the New Testament scriptures paint a pretty good picture of the shape and form of the early church, and it looks quite a bit different from the post-NT church of any era.
It is our simple contention that if we Christians love God and believe that the Bible is His word, it shouldn't look that different, and, more importantly, it doesn't have to.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)