Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved and His Farm.
My Well-beloved has a farm on rich and fertile land;
He plowed deep and cleared the stones
And planted the best seed.
He built a silo in its midst,
and raised a great barn,
and He expected a great harvest.
But He got weeds.
Vote now, people of America;
decide between Me and My Farm.
What more could have been done for My Farm
That I did not do?
Why then when I expected a great harvest
Did I only get weeds?
Now let Me tell you what I will do about My Farm:
I will tear out all the fences and
it shall be burned.
I will remove all its defenses, and
it will be trampled down.
I will lay it waste.
It shall not be plowed or fertilized,
but will become grown over with thorns and briers.
And I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it.
For this Farm of the LORD of hosts is the United States of America,
and we Americans are His choice seed.
He looked for justice,
but behold; oppression.
And for righteousness, but behold,
Cries for help.
Woe to those who join house to house and field to field,
till there is no place left where they may dwell alone in the land!
In my hearing the LORD of hosts has said,
"Truly, many houses shall be desolate,
Great and beautiful homes without inhabitant.
For ten acres of farmland shall produce only a half-bushel,
and ten bushels of seed will only yield one bushel.
Woe to those who rise early in the morning
With drinking on their mind,
And follow through until night when they get drunk!
Music and drinking and entertainment is what they feast on,
but they do not regard the work of the LORD,
Or consider the operation of His hands.
The nation is utterly captivated,
because they have no real knowledge.
Though they are overfed, the leaders are frail and weak from starvation,
and the people are shriveled up from thirst.
Therefore destruction has opened its mouth,
And is gaping wide, and
Their glory, and multitudes, and power,
and everyone who thinks it's time to celebrate,
shall be swallowed alive.
The nation shall be brought down;
the regular people shall be humbled,
and the rich and famous and powerful shall be humbled,
But the LORD of hosts shall be exalted in judgment,
and God, who is holy, shall be hallowed in righteousness.
Then the lambs shall feed in their pasture,
And the homeless will eat in the vacant homes
of those who used to be rich.
Woe to those who draw up iniquity
with ropes of vanity,
and pull sin like a tractor pull;
That say, "Let God make speed and hasten His work,
That we may see it; Let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel
draw near and come that we may know it."
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil;
who put darkness for light and light for darkness;
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and prudent in their own sight!
Woe to those mighty at drinking,
and those accomplished at mixing drinks,
and those who justify the wicked for a bribe;
taking away justice from the righteous!
Therefore like trash in the incinerator,
their root will be rotted away,
and their flower will dry up and crumble,
because they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts,
and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
For this reason, the LORD is angry with our nation,
and He has stretched out his hand against us,
and struck us,
and the nations trembled to see it.
Our bodies were scattered like trash in the streets.
But for all this His anger is not turned away,
but His hand is stretched out still.
So He will lift up a sign to the nations from afar,
And will whistle them up from the other side of the earth;
Surely they will come with speed, swiftly.
No one will be weary or stumble among them,
No one will slumber or sleep
Nor will the belt on their loins be loosed,
Nor the strap of their sandals be broken.
Whose arrows are sharp,
And all their bows are bent;
Their horses hooves will seem like flint,
And their wheels like a whirlwind.
Their roaring will be like a lion,
They will roar like young lions,
Yes, they will roar and lay hold of the prey;
They will carry it away safely,
And no one will deliver.
In that day they will roar against them
Like the roaring of the sea,
And if one looks to the land,
Behold, darkness and distress,
And the light is darkened by the clouds.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Priorities
A few months after we started walking seriously with God we saw a tape of Pastor David Yonghi Cho from South Korea. This man spoke of how he started walking with God as a young man in a nation so poor that people literally laughed at him for thinking that he could even get a bicycle, and now he pastors one of the largest 'churches' in the world; 1/2 million people or some such. But he also spoke openly about how his own children had suffered because he was so busy 'doing the will of God' that he had no time for them at all, and how they suffered now as adults from the neglect in their childhood due to his calling from God.
To be honest, this man spoke of a Christian experience that I had never even imagined at that time... everything was so new to me, and I felt in no position to make a judgment about that – and probably wasn't. But now that some time has passed, and I have considered it careful and well, I have to posit that this great pastor completely missed his primary calling in life – to parent his own children – and so compromised his qualification to even serve as an elder in the first place.
This a grave warning to me, and a warning to us all.
All this was brought to my mind as our family was watching a DVD of Chip Ingram teaching about 'Your Calling'. I have a lot of regard for Chip, but in his teaching about your calling in life it was very striking to us how 'job' oriented his whole teaching was, and basically no time was devoted to the family.
Folks, our priorities before God fall into four categories.
1st Priority: God
2nd Priority: Spouse
3rd Priority: Children
4th Priority: Everything Else
By this I mean your immediate, personal relationship with God, Spouse, and Children. Going to 'church' is Priority Four, not Priority One. Going to 'work' is Priority Four, not Two or Three. We easily convince ourselves otherwise. The natural flow of life in this world presses us in the opposite direction. It presses us to devote ourselves to our 'job' first, to the kids second, to our spouses third, and then, if there is anything left over, to God. This alone goes a long way to explaining the high divorce rate in our culture. Often the kid's time is actually dedicated to sports, cheerleading (of all things!), Youth Group activities, etc. Because the Western 'church' has accepted this pattern our results vary little from those of the secular society.
Looking at this ordinary Christian view of life, it seems that the accepted norm for the Western 'church' is not the Biblical depiction so much as some sort of Hollywoodish, Make-Room-For-Daddy, Father-Knows-Best view of a time somewhere in the earlier 20th century, where Father leaves the home each morning in the Family's one car, the children go off to school for the day, and the wife stays at home to 'keep' the empty house (presumably from being completely empty), and society's worst troubles are kids running in the school-halls and chewing gum in class.
All this is, of course, merely a 'pleasant fiction', but it does seem to be the frame of reference through which the 'church' views all the scriptures on the family. But it doesn't really fit the Biblical picture at all.
To begin with, the woman was given to the man to be, "a helper comparable to him." Today, the woman is most often the helper of another man, as an employee outside the home. If the man has a 'helper' it is likely another woman hired to do the job for pay; and at any rate the man and usually the woman are performing their work day in and day out with other members of the opposing sex instead of their own spouse.
Then, the man and his helper are supposed to be engaged in the training and rearing of 'Godly seed' (Malachi) who are taught the commandments of God day in and day out by their own father and mother. Instead they are sent out of the home to be taught a God-less 'education' by the schools (public, private, or religious); raised primarily by their child-peers, secondarily by the hireling-teachers that are vastly overwhelmed by the number of students.
The man is supposed to be engaged in some productive/constructive enterprise, his wife should be his helper, their children should be cared for by the man and his wife who are raising them first in godliness, and second in the craft or trade or industry or agriculture that the parents are engaged in: both to help the family, to raise Godly seed, and to teach the children a living and the value of work. Education is included in the process, but education is a means to an end, not the end. There is no point in education for its own sake apart from producing the Godly result.
Instead, the man and his wife go to a job and invest most of their emotional ties on a daily basis in the people of the 'workplace'. The children are raised by strangers and hirelings in an impersonal institutional system, with no real work engaged in, and lots of so-called 'education' for its own sake, but no learning of any real trade or craft, to the end of producing employee-minded young adults who also will go out and get 'jobs'. To make up for missed child-rearing, the man and his wife spend their remaining time and marriage shuttling the kids to various busy-ness activities and catering to them by sending them to spend time in the homes of children that they spend all day with anyway. All of this is designed by the god of this world to ensure that Godly seed are not raised, and that children are maximally influenced by society, secular music, TV, movies, worldly thinking, and unbiblical belief.
This mindset has so infiltrated the churches that it is almost impossible to tell the difference between Christian and non-Christian life. Having accepted the busy-ness approach, a 'spiritual' family will keep itself busy shuttling the children to 'spiritual' busy-ness like Awanas or Youth Group Activities which give the impression of contributing to Godly childrearing, but actually accomplish very little if any such thing – and scrutiny of 'church'-kids bears that assertion out. Barna finds that 2/3 of Youth Group kids leave the Way, and other surveys place that figure from 2/3 to 80%! Our own observation of the personal lives of 'Youth Group Kids' indicate that God is definitely on the back burner if on the burner at all, as their behavior, music, TV choices, movie choices, clothing, dating, and many other things clearly demonstrate. I would posit that the high figures of young people leaving the Way is that they aren't in the Way to begin with, but rather that the dissipation of their lives is contained in churchy drinking glasses that give a thin, transparent veneer of godliness during the Youth Group years; when the glass is tipped their lives spill all over the table because there was nothing else holding things together.
To be honest, this man spoke of a Christian experience that I had never even imagined at that time... everything was so new to me, and I felt in no position to make a judgment about that – and probably wasn't. But now that some time has passed, and I have considered it careful and well, I have to posit that this great pastor completely missed his primary calling in life – to parent his own children – and so compromised his qualification to even serve as an elder in the first place.
This a grave warning to me, and a warning to us all.
All this was brought to my mind as our family was watching a DVD of Chip Ingram teaching about 'Your Calling'. I have a lot of regard for Chip, but in his teaching about your calling in life it was very striking to us how 'job' oriented his whole teaching was, and basically no time was devoted to the family.
Folks, our priorities before God fall into four categories.
1st Priority: God
2nd Priority: Spouse
3rd Priority: Children
4th Priority: Everything Else
By this I mean your immediate, personal relationship with God, Spouse, and Children. Going to 'church' is Priority Four, not Priority One. Going to 'work' is Priority Four, not Two or Three. We easily convince ourselves otherwise. The natural flow of life in this world presses us in the opposite direction. It presses us to devote ourselves to our 'job' first, to the kids second, to our spouses third, and then, if there is anything left over, to God. This alone goes a long way to explaining the high divorce rate in our culture. Often the kid's time is actually dedicated to sports, cheerleading (of all things!), Youth Group activities, etc. Because the Western 'church' has accepted this pattern our results vary little from those of the secular society.
Looking at this ordinary Christian view of life, it seems that the accepted norm for the Western 'church' is not the Biblical depiction so much as some sort of Hollywoodish, Make-Room-For-Daddy, Father-Knows-Best view of a time somewhere in the earlier 20th century, where Father leaves the home each morning in the Family's one car, the children go off to school for the day, and the wife stays at home to 'keep' the empty house (presumably from being completely empty), and society's worst troubles are kids running in the school-halls and chewing gum in class.
All this is, of course, merely a 'pleasant fiction', but it does seem to be the frame of reference through which the 'church' views all the scriptures on the family. But it doesn't really fit the Biblical picture at all.
To begin with, the woman was given to the man to be, "a helper comparable to him." Today, the woman is most often the helper of another man, as an employee outside the home. If the man has a 'helper' it is likely another woman hired to do the job for pay; and at any rate the man and usually the woman are performing their work day in and day out with other members of the opposing sex instead of their own spouse.
Then, the man and his helper are supposed to be engaged in the training and rearing of 'Godly seed' (Malachi) who are taught the commandments of God day in and day out by their own father and mother. Instead they are sent out of the home to be taught a God-less 'education' by the schools (public, private, or religious); raised primarily by their child-peers, secondarily by the hireling-teachers that are vastly overwhelmed by the number of students.
The man is supposed to be engaged in some productive/constructive enterprise, his wife should be his helper, their children should be cared for by the man and his wife who are raising them first in godliness, and second in the craft or trade or industry or agriculture that the parents are engaged in: both to help the family, to raise Godly seed, and to teach the children a living and the value of work. Education is included in the process, but education is a means to an end, not the end. There is no point in education for its own sake apart from producing the Godly result.
Instead, the man and his wife go to a job and invest most of their emotional ties on a daily basis in the people of the 'workplace'. The children are raised by strangers and hirelings in an impersonal institutional system, with no real work engaged in, and lots of so-called 'education' for its own sake, but no learning of any real trade or craft, to the end of producing employee-minded young adults who also will go out and get 'jobs'. To make up for missed child-rearing, the man and his wife spend their remaining time and marriage shuttling the kids to various busy-ness activities and catering to them by sending them to spend time in the homes of children that they spend all day with anyway. All of this is designed by the god of this world to ensure that Godly seed are not raised, and that children are maximally influenced by society, secular music, TV, movies, worldly thinking, and unbiblical belief.
This mindset has so infiltrated the churches that it is almost impossible to tell the difference between Christian and non-Christian life. Having accepted the busy-ness approach, a 'spiritual' family will keep itself busy shuttling the children to 'spiritual' busy-ness like Awanas or Youth Group Activities which give the impression of contributing to Godly childrearing, but actually accomplish very little if any such thing – and scrutiny of 'church'-kids bears that assertion out. Barna finds that 2/3 of Youth Group kids leave the Way, and other surveys place that figure from 2/3 to 80%! Our own observation of the personal lives of 'Youth Group Kids' indicate that God is definitely on the back burner if on the burner at all, as their behavior, music, TV choices, movie choices, clothing, dating, and many other things clearly demonstrate. I would posit that the high figures of young people leaving the Way is that they aren't in the Way to begin with, but rather that the dissipation of their lives is contained in churchy drinking glasses that give a thin, transparent veneer of godliness during the Youth Group years; when the glass is tipped their lives spill all over the table because there was nothing else holding things together.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Ekklesia of God: Not a Tool for Outreach
Seven-hundred years ago, all of Europe was held in spiritual captivity by Catholicism. Millions of people lived and died in spiritual darkness while the Papal Empire purposefully kept the truth of God from them. They made idols of dead saints and bowed down to worship them. It was a great sin, but the vast majority of people did it in ignorance while popes, bishops, and priests hid the scriptures from them. I hate to think how many Popes, Bishops, Priests, and Peasants went to their grave eternally separated from God in these truly dark ages.
Eventually, God began to raise up men like Wycliff, Tyndale, and Luther who put it all on the line to bring the truth of the Bible to the people.
Now, when people worship Mary and the Saints it is no longer a sin done in ignorance.
For a long time now we Christians have all, in our ignorance, committed the sin of thinking and speaking and turning the Ekklesia of God into the 'church'. He knows that we did it in ignorance, but it is time to come out of our ignorance and stop clinging to the darkness. His Body is not the 'church', it is the Ekklesia of Jesus Christ. And no, this is not a mere translational preference like whether you say 'Christ' or 'Messiah' (I use both). An ekklesia is what we are supposed to be. A 'church' is what we are not supposed to be.
What follows I write at the risk of hurting or alienating certain brothers and sisters whom I do not wish to hurt; but if I do not take that risk I will stand guilty before my Lord on the Day, and I have enough of that to sort through already. But I want all who read this to know that I do not mean it to be hurtful or personal, and that the purpose of writing this is not because of one small gathering of Christians, but because it is a very common and unbiblical view of the Body of Christ, and becoming more common as time goes by. I also wish to apologize in advance if I have somehow misunderstood the quote following, but even if I have there are vast sections of the Body today that need to hear these things.
Recently we found the following in a post about a small house gathering of believers, "Don't be alone; we want to love on you, hug you, feed you, encourage you, laugh and cry with you. This is our heart. Momma will give you hugs and rub on your back and call you "sweety" and dad will pray with you and make you laugh! It's our heart to see you full of warmth and love. No condemnation from us for your life or lifestyle. We are not hear to cram religion down your throat - we just want to love you on you and feed you :-) The Lord has placed on our hearts to simply be an encouragement to the masses, and to love on them. We do not get into doctrinal debate...or try to "push" 'anyone into believing every detail we do. We believe in Jesus and Him crucified and He is the only way to the Father - in everything else we have liberty."
Wow.
Q: Do we, as Christians, "have liberty" to devise our own forms and philosophies of 'church'? Seemingly, an increasing number of Christians today think so.
A: Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 1Cor 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the ekklesias. 1Cor 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the ekklesias of God. 1Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the ekklesias of the saints. 1Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the ekklesias of Galatia, so you must do also: 1Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 1Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the ekklesias of the saints. 1Cor 14:36,37 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 2Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2Thess 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 2Thess 3:14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.
And this list is probably not exhaustive.
The Ekklesia of God is NOT an outreach tool. It is NOT a place for sinners to come and hang out and "be accepted". And – surprisingly for many – it is ESPECIALLY NOT a place for believers to hang out and "be accepted". That does not mean that the unconverted who are genuinely interested should not be allowed in, but if they are allowed to stay unconverted in your midst something is wrong. Encouragement is indeed a vital part of body experience, but NOT EVER the encouragement of sinners in their unconverted state, and NOT the encouragement of believers in sin or doctrinal error. Encouragement, like a handgun, has no virtue or vice of itself: it depends completely on how you use it. With either one, pointing it at a home intruder and pointing it at your wife are two completely different things.
The Bible is so very very clear that we are to exhort AND to rebuke AND to contend earnestly! These things are part and parcel of what the ekklesia of God is. If you have an ekklesia that does not "get into doctrinal debate" and teaches that, "...we have liberty" in everything besides "Jesus and Him crucified and He is the only way to the Father", then you have an ekklesia that is not an ekklesia at all, just some believers hanging around; and we as believers do not have leave to just hang around. The Ekklesia of God is not some kind of party, not even a "Holy Ghost Party"; even the worldly ekklesia was more than that. The worldy ekklesia was all about deliberating and judging earthly matters, but The Ekklesia of God is a shining, gleaming, thundering, Judgment Machine! The Ekklesia of God judges earthly matters as a mere practice run for the day in which we shall judge angels!
The Ekklesia of God does indeed have liberty and great authority, but not concerning matters that are already settled in scripture. Likewise, the Congress of the United States has great liberty and authority, but not concerning matters that are already settled in the Constitution. The Bible is our Constitution and it delegates for us what our freedoms, authority, and responsibilities are. There are legitimate issues of freedom, which Paul described as "doubtful things," but the doubtful things are the things about which we do not have biblical instruction. There are biblical minimum standards of both doctrine AND behavior that a genuine ekklesia must adhere to or face judgment, and these go far beyond what is expressed in the statement above.
Just one (really needed) example is sexual immorality, or 'fornication'. When considering whether the Gentile Christians are bound by the Law of Moses, the entire Jerusalem ekklesia came together to weigh this matter and render judgment. The binding decision given by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and Elders for all ekklesias for all time is that the Gentile Christians do not have to keep the Law, but they do have to keep themselves free from, "...these necessary things", one of which was sexual immorality. Note that it is not an issue of freedom for any Christian, or any ekklesia. It is a "necessary" thing. Necessary. Necessary. In other words, any Christian in unrepentant sexual immorality is not a Christian! The bare minimum understanding of this decision (which was repeated three times in the Acts) is that any believer who is in unrepentant immorality is to be removed from the ekklesia (Matt 18, 1Cor 5) and not associated with by other believers.
Yes, I know; that too hard, it's too mean, it's too religious, it's too hypocritical. The question is, who are you going to believe? Your own reasoning? An 'accepting' pastor? Some famous Christian book? Or Jesus?
Why do you think He said that whoever does not hate even his own life cannot follow Me...?
Eventually, God began to raise up men like Wycliff, Tyndale, and Luther who put it all on the line to bring the truth of the Bible to the people.
Now, when people worship Mary and the Saints it is no longer a sin done in ignorance.
For a long time now we Christians have all, in our ignorance, committed the sin of thinking and speaking and turning the Ekklesia of God into the 'church'. He knows that we did it in ignorance, but it is time to come out of our ignorance and stop clinging to the darkness. His Body is not the 'church', it is the Ekklesia of Jesus Christ. And no, this is not a mere translational preference like whether you say 'Christ' or 'Messiah' (I use both). An ekklesia is what we are supposed to be. A 'church' is what we are not supposed to be.
What follows I write at the risk of hurting or alienating certain brothers and sisters whom I do not wish to hurt; but if I do not take that risk I will stand guilty before my Lord on the Day, and I have enough of that to sort through already. But I want all who read this to know that I do not mean it to be hurtful or personal, and that the purpose of writing this is not because of one small gathering of Christians, but because it is a very common and unbiblical view of the Body of Christ, and becoming more common as time goes by. I also wish to apologize in advance if I have somehow misunderstood the quote following, but even if I have there are vast sections of the Body today that need to hear these things.
Recently we found the following in a post about a small house gathering of believers, "Don't be alone; we want to love on you, hug you, feed you, encourage you, laugh and cry with you. This is our heart. Momma will give you hugs and rub on your back and call you "sweety" and dad will pray with you and make you laugh! It's our heart to see you full of warmth and love. No condemnation from us for your life or lifestyle. We are not hear to cram religion down your throat - we just want to love you on you and feed you :-) The Lord has placed on our hearts to simply be an encouragement to the masses, and to love on them. We do not get into doctrinal debate...or try to "push" 'anyone into believing every detail we do. We believe in Jesus and Him crucified and He is the only way to the Father - in everything else we have liberty."
Wow.
Q: Do we, as Christians, "have liberty" to devise our own forms and philosophies of 'church'? Seemingly, an increasing number of Christians today think so.
A: Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 1Cor 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the ekklesias. 1Cor 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the ekklesias of God. 1Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the ekklesias of the saints. 1Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the ekklesias of Galatia, so you must do also: 1Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 1Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the ekklesias of the saints. 1Cor 14:36,37 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 2Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2Thess 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 2Thess 3:14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.
And this list is probably not exhaustive.
The Ekklesia of God is NOT an outreach tool. It is NOT a place for sinners to come and hang out and "be accepted". And – surprisingly for many – it is ESPECIALLY NOT a place for believers to hang out and "be accepted". That does not mean that the unconverted who are genuinely interested should not be allowed in, but if they are allowed to stay unconverted in your midst something is wrong. Encouragement is indeed a vital part of body experience, but NOT EVER the encouragement of sinners in their unconverted state, and NOT the encouragement of believers in sin or doctrinal error. Encouragement, like a handgun, has no virtue or vice of itself: it depends completely on how you use it. With either one, pointing it at a home intruder and pointing it at your wife are two completely different things.
The Bible is so very very clear that we are to exhort AND to rebuke AND to contend earnestly! These things are part and parcel of what the ekklesia of God is. If you have an ekklesia that does not "get into doctrinal debate" and teaches that, "...we have liberty" in everything besides "Jesus and Him crucified and He is the only way to the Father", then you have an ekklesia that is not an ekklesia at all, just some believers hanging around; and we as believers do not have leave to just hang around. The Ekklesia of God is not some kind of party, not even a "Holy Ghost Party"; even the worldly ekklesia was more than that. The worldy ekklesia was all about deliberating and judging earthly matters, but The Ekklesia of God is a shining, gleaming, thundering, Judgment Machine! The Ekklesia of God judges earthly matters as a mere practice run for the day in which we shall judge angels!
The Ekklesia of God does indeed have liberty and great authority, but not concerning matters that are already settled in scripture. Likewise, the Congress of the United States has great liberty and authority, but not concerning matters that are already settled in the Constitution. The Bible is our Constitution and it delegates for us what our freedoms, authority, and responsibilities are. There are legitimate issues of freedom, which Paul described as "doubtful things," but the doubtful things are the things about which we do not have biblical instruction. There are biblical minimum standards of both doctrine AND behavior that a genuine ekklesia must adhere to or face judgment, and these go far beyond what is expressed in the statement above.
Just one (really needed) example is sexual immorality, or 'fornication'. When considering whether the Gentile Christians are bound by the Law of Moses, the entire Jerusalem ekklesia came together to weigh this matter and render judgment. The binding decision given by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and Elders for all ekklesias for all time is that the Gentile Christians do not have to keep the Law, but they do have to keep themselves free from, "...these necessary things", one of which was sexual immorality. Note that it is not an issue of freedom for any Christian, or any ekklesia. It is a "necessary" thing. Necessary. Necessary. In other words, any Christian in unrepentant sexual immorality is not a Christian! The bare minimum understanding of this decision (which was repeated three times in the Acts) is that any believer who is in unrepentant immorality is to be removed from the ekklesia (Matt 18, 1Cor 5) and not associated with by other believers.
Yes, I know; that too hard, it's too mean, it's too religious, it's too hypocritical. The question is, who are you going to believe? Your own reasoning? An 'accepting' pastor? Some famous Christian book? Or Jesus?
Why do you think He said that whoever does not hate even his own life cannot follow Me...?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Darwinism II
(The preface to this is in the previous entry, Darwinism I)
As I was out in the woods the other day sitting with our three-year-old on the Sitting Rock (which is, to my knowledge, of no relation to The Village's Resting Rock), and looking at all the Spring-ing nature around us, with the two-year old bringing me caterpillars, inchworms, beetles, and other members of the smaller majority, right before the black racer (Coluber constricter) came down the draw and interrupted me, I was thinking about the concept of a Darwinian origin of life through blind, undirected, unintelligent natural processes. Although darwinists have concocted different scenarios to explain how exactly life purposelessly began with no direction or guidance, the standard most 'scientifically' accepted hypothesis goes about like this: Billions of years ago as lifeless earth churned geologically, somewhere in the oceans or in some bywater or at least some slippery sludgy wet place, natural processes somehow began to develop Complex Protein-Chain Pre-life. These were not living things, but had most of the physical requirements for life bound up in them. Then 'somehow' in some sort of electrical storm or cataclysmic meteor strike, 'something' happened that 'changed' these pre-living protein chains to the most elementary of single cell living organisms, and life was born; changing over billions of years to eventually produce all the various creatures that we all see and hear and learn about today.
Now scientists have tried and failed to accomplish anything remotely like this, and you can see after a little consideration just how preposterously unlikely such an event would be to have even the remotest, remotest chances of happening. Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box wrote that Darwin's original concept was at least partly explicable since the best they could do then was to view down to the level of a single cell which for all intents seemed just a nothingful little blob, but that we today can see deep into a cell and know that a cell is actually an incredibly, incredibly complex thing with a mind boggling array of chemical and mechanical activity going on. Behe's contention is that life at the simplest levels is far too complex to credibly consider just 'happening' as there are so many things that have to be in place right from the start for there to be anything at all.
I can't possibly condense into this space any reasonable facsimile of the complexity that Behe wrote a whole book to convey, but suffice it to say that just the description of one biological function can be dizzyingly complex.
And as I was there contemplating the difficulty of such an event ever coming to place apart from an intelligent designer, I had a realization that really struck me.
Assuming that you grant to them the incredible infeasible reality of the simplest, simplest form of life suddenly springing into being in any fashion; just say you don't argue the point at all and you grant that at some point, blindly, meaninglessly, suddenly, a tiny microscopic wad of proteinish goo just 'became' the first living creature – oops, I guess you can't say creature can you? – became the first living thing, the very first actually alive barely functional but functional enough to actually call it a living thing, completely alone in all the world in all the oceans, wiggling or wriggling, or drifting or whatever it did to 'live'... ...the 'however-it-happened-whatever-it-was' would have had to have sprang to life with full reproductive capacity already completely present and functional and ready to go! ...or the little guy would have died in a few hours and that would have been the end of that for another billion, billion years until the goo got lined up properly to give it another run...
Hmm. I dunno... Maybe it just took a few billion billion tries, each separated by a few billion billion years...how many billions would that get us up to..?
...seems a good bit easier to me to believe that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of Messiah written in the Law and the Psalms and the Prophets (Luke 24:44)...
As I was out in the woods the other day sitting with our three-year-old on the Sitting Rock (which is, to my knowledge, of no relation to The Village's Resting Rock), and looking at all the Spring-ing nature around us, with the two-year old bringing me caterpillars, inchworms, beetles, and other members of the smaller majority, right before the black racer (Coluber constricter) came down the draw and interrupted me, I was thinking about the concept of a Darwinian origin of life through blind, undirected, unintelligent natural processes. Although darwinists have concocted different scenarios to explain how exactly life purposelessly began with no direction or guidance, the standard most 'scientifically' accepted hypothesis goes about like this: Billions of years ago as lifeless earth churned geologically, somewhere in the oceans or in some bywater or at least some slippery sludgy wet place, natural processes somehow began to develop Complex Protein-Chain Pre-life. These were not living things, but had most of the physical requirements for life bound up in them. Then 'somehow' in some sort of electrical storm or cataclysmic meteor strike, 'something' happened that 'changed' these pre-living protein chains to the most elementary of single cell living organisms, and life was born; changing over billions of years to eventually produce all the various creatures that we all see and hear and learn about today.
Now scientists have tried and failed to accomplish anything remotely like this, and you can see after a little consideration just how preposterously unlikely such an event would be to have even the remotest, remotest chances of happening. Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box wrote that Darwin's original concept was at least partly explicable since the best they could do then was to view down to the level of a single cell which for all intents seemed just a nothingful little blob, but that we today can see deep into a cell and know that a cell is actually an incredibly, incredibly complex thing with a mind boggling array of chemical and mechanical activity going on. Behe's contention is that life at the simplest levels is far too complex to credibly consider just 'happening' as there are so many things that have to be in place right from the start for there to be anything at all.
I can't possibly condense into this space any reasonable facsimile of the complexity that Behe wrote a whole book to convey, but suffice it to say that just the description of one biological function can be dizzyingly complex.
And as I was there contemplating the difficulty of such an event ever coming to place apart from an intelligent designer, I had a realization that really struck me.
Assuming that you grant to them the incredible infeasible reality of the simplest, simplest form of life suddenly springing into being in any fashion; just say you don't argue the point at all and you grant that at some point, blindly, meaninglessly, suddenly, a tiny microscopic wad of proteinish goo just 'became' the first living creature – oops, I guess you can't say creature can you? – became the first living thing, the very first actually alive barely functional but functional enough to actually call it a living thing, completely alone in all the world in all the oceans, wiggling or wriggling, or drifting or whatever it did to 'live'... ...the 'however-it-happened-whatever-it-was' would have had to have sprang to life with full reproductive capacity already completely present and functional and ready to go! ...or the little guy would have died in a few hours and that would have been the end of that for another billion, billion years until the goo got lined up properly to give it another run...
Hmm. I dunno... Maybe it just took a few billion billion tries, each separated by a few billion billion years...how many billions would that get us up to..?
...seems a good bit easier to me to believe that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of Messiah written in the Law and the Psalms and the Prophets (Luke 24:44)...
Monday, April 26, 2010
Darwinism I
Preface
I grew up in a small Southern Baptist Church, the son of the Head Deacon and Choir Leader. We were at 'church' every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, minimum. Sunday school, children's church, youth group, read the Bible, etc., etc., etc.
I also grew up a committed evolutionist. No kidding.
For many years I saw no contradiction in those things at all. I was into dinosaurs since third grade (not unusual today, but a notable peculiarity in 1974) and my grandmother was interested in archeology and anthropology (she and I went to see Richard E. Leakey, son of noted anthropologist Louis Leakey, speak at the Cobb County Civic Center when I was about 13 – it was Louis Leakey who sent Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall, and Birute Galdikas out into the wilds to study Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangutans, respectively, for the very Darwinian purpose of learning what these primates could teach us about our own evolutionary origins) so as you might imagine evolution was the default world view around our houses. My father – the Head Deacon – explained the Genesis creation account to me as equivalent to African savages who were doing their best to describe the explosion of an atom bomb, but were simply far too ignorant and illiterate for the task. No kidding.
And I am afraid to say that the Pastor of the 'church' wasn't any better. He saw no reason that evolution and creation couldn't all just get along, or, for that matter, why you couldn't disbelieve the virgin birth and be a Christian too. Nor could he see why those pesky and mean-spirited 'fundamentalists' kept trying to take over the Southern Baptist Convention. No kidding.
So after God came, when I was thirty years of age, I still at first believed what I had walked in for all my thirty years. Fortunately for me, one of the three immediate things that God told me to do was to open the Bible and read it from the beginning to the end. So I did. And an amazing thing happened: I saw for the first time in my life that the Bible – a collection of 66 different books written by somewhere around 40 authors over a period of roughly 1600 years – was actually one great continuous story of unfolding revelation from In the Beginning to the end of the Revelation. That is an amazing thing, and one which could never happen from merely human means. Though I had learned the Bible and read much of it from a young age, my understanding of it was very poor and the impression I had was that of a collection of disjointed "Bible Stories" like David and Goliath or Jesus Feeds the Four Thousand. That is how Biblically ignorant I was despite my 'strong' 'church' upbringing. No kidding.
But as I obeyed God and my understanding of His Word was transformed, although at first still a dedicated evolutionist, in time I began to see that there were problems with that position if one was a true Bible believer. The more I read and learned and understood the Bible, the more difficulty I had fitting evolution in. About this time I discovered a book at a yard sale called Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Philip Johnson. Long story short, God had laid the groundwork, and when I put the book down I was solidly on the other side: an Anti-darwinism Creationist. No Kidding.
Bob Chastain, if you're reading this, yes, you told me so :-)
Later I read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and that really helped to cement my thinking.
And if you haven't seen it, you really ought to see Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Now, I cannot explain to you all the discrepancies these two religious views (yes, Darwinism amounts to a religious view) and how to answer all the claims of Darwinism, but I can tell you this for sure: Evolution never showed up in power, uninvited, in somebody's office late at night, made the world spin in silence while it laid out their whole life in a moment of time and offered a helping hand, and touched them down to the very core of their being; never saved a shipwrecked marriage; never defeated anyone's sin and cleansed their heart; and never healed the lungs of their severely asthmatic wife who was drowning in the useless best that medical science can offer. And if it should somehow turn out in the end that Scientific Naturalism is right and the Bible is wrong, nobody is going to stand before Charles Darwin and have to give an account of why they didn't believe that the earth was billions of years old. In fact, no one will even 'know' because we'll all just be mouldering in the dust anyway and it won't matter a lick what you believed in your brief, futile, pointless, vain years before the candle flickers out and you disappear forever, because there won't be anyone or anything for it to matter to.
How's that for Bible Believing?
Anyway this is just the preface to my actual point in the next entry.
I grew up in a small Southern Baptist Church, the son of the Head Deacon and Choir Leader. We were at 'church' every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, minimum. Sunday school, children's church, youth group, read the Bible, etc., etc., etc.
I also grew up a committed evolutionist. No kidding.
For many years I saw no contradiction in those things at all. I was into dinosaurs since third grade (not unusual today, but a notable peculiarity in 1974) and my grandmother was interested in archeology and anthropology (she and I went to see Richard E. Leakey, son of noted anthropologist Louis Leakey, speak at the Cobb County Civic Center when I was about 13 – it was Louis Leakey who sent Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall, and Birute Galdikas out into the wilds to study Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangutans, respectively, for the very Darwinian purpose of learning what these primates could teach us about our own evolutionary origins) so as you might imagine evolution was the default world view around our houses. My father – the Head Deacon – explained the Genesis creation account to me as equivalent to African savages who were doing their best to describe the explosion of an atom bomb, but were simply far too ignorant and illiterate for the task. No kidding.
And I am afraid to say that the Pastor of the 'church' wasn't any better. He saw no reason that evolution and creation couldn't all just get along, or, for that matter, why you couldn't disbelieve the virgin birth and be a Christian too. Nor could he see why those pesky and mean-spirited 'fundamentalists' kept trying to take over the Southern Baptist Convention. No kidding.
So after God came, when I was thirty years of age, I still at first believed what I had walked in for all my thirty years. Fortunately for me, one of the three immediate things that God told me to do was to open the Bible and read it from the beginning to the end. So I did. And an amazing thing happened: I saw for the first time in my life that the Bible – a collection of 66 different books written by somewhere around 40 authors over a period of roughly 1600 years – was actually one great continuous story of unfolding revelation from In the Beginning to the end of the Revelation. That is an amazing thing, and one which could never happen from merely human means. Though I had learned the Bible and read much of it from a young age, my understanding of it was very poor and the impression I had was that of a collection of disjointed "Bible Stories" like David and Goliath or Jesus Feeds the Four Thousand. That is how Biblically ignorant I was despite my 'strong' 'church' upbringing. No kidding.
But as I obeyed God and my understanding of His Word was transformed, although at first still a dedicated evolutionist, in time I began to see that there were problems with that position if one was a true Bible believer. The more I read and learned and understood the Bible, the more difficulty I had fitting evolution in. About this time I discovered a book at a yard sale called Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Philip Johnson. Long story short, God had laid the groundwork, and when I put the book down I was solidly on the other side: an Anti-darwinism Creationist. No Kidding.
Bob Chastain, if you're reading this, yes, you told me so :-)
Later I read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and that really helped to cement my thinking.
And if you haven't seen it, you really ought to see Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Now, I cannot explain to you all the discrepancies these two religious views (yes, Darwinism amounts to a religious view) and how to answer all the claims of Darwinism, but I can tell you this for sure: Evolution never showed up in power, uninvited, in somebody's office late at night, made the world spin in silence while it laid out their whole life in a moment of time and offered a helping hand, and touched them down to the very core of their being; never saved a shipwrecked marriage; never defeated anyone's sin and cleansed their heart; and never healed the lungs of their severely asthmatic wife who was drowning in the useless best that medical science can offer. And if it should somehow turn out in the end that Scientific Naturalism is right and the Bible is wrong, nobody is going to stand before Charles Darwin and have to give an account of why they didn't believe that the earth was billions of years old. In fact, no one will even 'know' because we'll all just be mouldering in the dust anyway and it won't matter a lick what you believed in your brief, futile, pointless, vain years before the candle flickers out and you disappear forever, because there won't be anyone or anything for it to matter to.
How's that for Bible Believing?
Anyway this is just the preface to my actual point in the next entry.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Right Mind
We just went to see Oceans, the Disney film released for Earth Day in the form of a wildlife documentary. Like March of the Penguins, Oceans is actually a French Film – I assume just picked up by Disney for promotion. And, like March of the Penguins, Oceans really doesn't have the image quality you need or expect for a large screen showing. It might look fine on a TV set, but I spent the whole time squinting and shifting my head trying to see if I could bring it into focus. I dunno.. maybe nobody has told the French yet about motion picture cameras or something? Unlike March of the Penguins, Oceans really isn't very informative at all, and actually is just an unmitigated eco-leftist propaganda piece in which We, The Other Animals, are out of control on the planet – though fortunately rather laid back about it. But If there are any animals featured in the movie that you don't already know about going into it, well you probably aren't going to learn much about it from Oceans. And, frankly, it's just too long; they don't have a motion picture worth of point to it. Long before the movie was over everyone except the three-year-old was antsy and ready to go. The narration by Pierce Brosnan is OK, but many sections sounded to me like Brosnan was falling asleep as he was narrating, and with scant information that makes the whole thing rather dull.
As usual, Disney has rather low standards in film making and has fulfilled them in Oceans, although I will admit that it does show a great diversity of marine animals.
I'd rent the BBCs Blue Planet series instead. Without a doubt it has its own share of eco-leftist and darwinistic propaganda as well, but Blue Planet is actually informative, and interesting, with great footage, and is well narrated by David Attenborough.
Also, you can hit pause whenever you've a mind to.
****************
The highlight of this excursion for me, however, actually took place in the hall outside as I waited with the children for all the unforgivably trashy theatre advertisements and previews to finish. Just down the hall another screen was showing Diary of a Wimpy Kid. After watching a few parents lead their children down the hall and into that door, our twelve year old daughter turned to me and said, "I don't see how anyone in their right mind could take their kids to see that." Quite right.
"They're not in their right mind," I replied to her, "as people generally aren't, including us." She looked at me a bit puzzled. "That's why the scriptures say you need to have your mind renewed by the washing of the water of the Word. Our minds have been defiled by the things in the world."
It was just sheer instant revelation out of the Word in that moment, and as we stood there waiting I looked deeper and deeper into it. Our minds have been defiled by the things of the world, and the scriptures even say so in a certain place where it says their minds and conscience are defiled, and so we all are until we come to Christ. But coming to Christ doesn't immediately rid us of the defilement; it is an ongoing process which is why there is washing. As I stood there in the vacant, surreally lit hallway with our children, peering into the things of the spirit, I could almost see a human brain stained with black grime, and deep in the recesses of the cranial folds dark stains that were extremely difficult to reach: but of course it is the mind that is defiled, not the brain. Scripture talks about us having the mind of Christ, and I have even heard this taught as referring to the intellectual capacity of Jesus' brain; but the Scriptures aren't talking about the Brain of Christ or His Intelligence, as though Jesus were some brainiac superhero. It's talking about the Mind of Christ. And I now saw so clearly that the wonderful thing about the mind of Christ is that His mind was not defiled like ours all are. Unlike our minds which have been defiled from early childhood, He, being God in nature, the Prince of Life, was not defiled in His mind though raised up from infancy in this world of death and decay. Now that is a mind-blowing miracle all by itself. But having freed us at the cross, He made a way for we of defiled minds to have His mind, undefiled; partly from the work of the Spirit, and partly from the continual washing of our minds in the Word – if we let Him keep washing!
As children of sin, raised in a sin-sick world, from an early age our minds are defiled by those around us, even our own parents, who defile our minds with unrighteous anger, ungodly ideas and various forms of abuse. Unclean spirits defile our minds with unclean thoughts and suggestions, and we defile our own minds by sins that we commit and ungodly choices that we make. Our minds are defiled from infancy. Our minds are defiled by some vile and grotesque saying overheard from strangers, or from our own loving grandparents. Our minds are defiled by the things we hear and see on radio, music, TV, movies, magazines, and books. When we talk about our children seeing so many thousands of murders on the TV by such-and-so an age, we are talking about their minds being defiled. When children are playing video games with violent or sensual content, while the parents assert that their child "knows the difference between reality and make-believe" their minds are being defiled. Daily in the retail stores our ears are filled with songs that are looked at as 'oldies', and therefore socially acceptable, but rife with all kinds of suggestive and carnal lyrics. The constantly-on television is like an open sewer pipe pouring filth into the living room, defiling the minds of parents and children.
Magazines lie in wait for us at the Walmart checkout lines to defile our minds, because the defiled minds who make them know that they can get your money from you if they can defile your mind with their wares. Women of defiled minds walk through the stores like predators seeking to defile the minds of men and boys with their cleavage and sensual clothes – including a great many 'Christian' women aren't even afraid to walk into 'church' that way because the defiled 'churches' won't do anything to stop them. Men, women, teens and children, and even Youth Pastors, their minds defiled, walk through the stores with t-shirts full of imagery of death and skulls and Harley-Davidson girls and insane clowns to defile your mind.
Children defile each other calling out names, and insults, and sing-songs.
A Christian woman defiles a whole classroom, fulfilling the new curricula involving cucumbers and prophylactics rather than risk her cherished job as a teacher.
A young man, careless of his committed wife and needy children, walks into a nude entertainment club, and walks out as traumatized by what he has seen as if he'd witnessed a murder, as if he'd committed a crime with his own hands; hands and knees shaking; his mind defiled.
"Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts."
****************
Titus 1:15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.
Psalm 19: 8b,9a The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.
Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable, and perfect will of God.
Ephesians 5:26,27 ...that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing-of-water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious ekklesia, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
As usual, Disney has rather low standards in film making and has fulfilled them in Oceans, although I will admit that it does show a great diversity of marine animals.
I'd rent the BBCs Blue Planet series instead. Without a doubt it has its own share of eco-leftist and darwinistic propaganda as well, but Blue Planet is actually informative, and interesting, with great footage, and is well narrated by David Attenborough.
Also, you can hit pause whenever you've a mind to.
****************
The highlight of this excursion for me, however, actually took place in the hall outside as I waited with the children for all the unforgivably trashy theatre advertisements and previews to finish. Just down the hall another screen was showing Diary of a Wimpy Kid. After watching a few parents lead their children down the hall and into that door, our twelve year old daughter turned to me and said, "I don't see how anyone in their right mind could take their kids to see that." Quite right.
"They're not in their right mind," I replied to her, "as people generally aren't, including us." She looked at me a bit puzzled. "That's why the scriptures say you need to have your mind renewed by the washing of the water of the Word. Our minds have been defiled by the things in the world."
It was just sheer instant revelation out of the Word in that moment, and as we stood there waiting I looked deeper and deeper into it. Our minds have been defiled by the things of the world, and the scriptures even say so in a certain place where it says their minds and conscience are defiled, and so we all are until we come to Christ. But coming to Christ doesn't immediately rid us of the defilement; it is an ongoing process which is why there is washing. As I stood there in the vacant, surreally lit hallway with our children, peering into the things of the spirit, I could almost see a human brain stained with black grime, and deep in the recesses of the cranial folds dark stains that were extremely difficult to reach: but of course it is the mind that is defiled, not the brain. Scripture talks about us having the mind of Christ, and I have even heard this taught as referring to the intellectual capacity of Jesus' brain; but the Scriptures aren't talking about the Brain of Christ or His Intelligence, as though Jesus were some brainiac superhero. It's talking about the Mind of Christ. And I now saw so clearly that the wonderful thing about the mind of Christ is that His mind was not defiled like ours all are. Unlike our minds which have been defiled from early childhood, He, being God in nature, the Prince of Life, was not defiled in His mind though raised up from infancy in this world of death and decay. Now that is a mind-blowing miracle all by itself. But having freed us at the cross, He made a way for we of defiled minds to have His mind, undefiled; partly from the work of the Spirit, and partly from the continual washing of our minds in the Word – if we let Him keep washing!
As children of sin, raised in a sin-sick world, from an early age our minds are defiled by those around us, even our own parents, who defile our minds with unrighteous anger, ungodly ideas and various forms of abuse. Unclean spirits defile our minds with unclean thoughts and suggestions, and we defile our own minds by sins that we commit and ungodly choices that we make. Our minds are defiled from infancy. Our minds are defiled by some vile and grotesque saying overheard from strangers, or from our own loving grandparents. Our minds are defiled by the things we hear and see on radio, music, TV, movies, magazines, and books. When we talk about our children seeing so many thousands of murders on the TV by such-and-so an age, we are talking about their minds being defiled. When children are playing video games with violent or sensual content, while the parents assert that their child "knows the difference between reality and make-believe" their minds are being defiled. Daily in the retail stores our ears are filled with songs that are looked at as 'oldies', and therefore socially acceptable, but rife with all kinds of suggestive and carnal lyrics. The constantly-on television is like an open sewer pipe pouring filth into the living room, defiling the minds of parents and children.
Magazines lie in wait for us at the Walmart checkout lines to defile our minds, because the defiled minds who make them know that they can get your money from you if they can defile your mind with their wares. Women of defiled minds walk through the stores like predators seeking to defile the minds of men and boys with their cleavage and sensual clothes – including a great many 'Christian' women aren't even afraid to walk into 'church' that way because the defiled 'churches' won't do anything to stop them. Men, women, teens and children, and even Youth Pastors, their minds defiled, walk through the stores with t-shirts full of imagery of death and skulls and Harley-Davidson girls and insane clowns to defile your mind.
Children defile each other calling out names, and insults, and sing-songs.
A Christian woman defiles a whole classroom, fulfilling the new curricula involving cucumbers and prophylactics rather than risk her cherished job as a teacher.
A young man, careless of his committed wife and needy children, walks into a nude entertainment club, and walks out as traumatized by what he has seen as if he'd witnessed a murder, as if he'd committed a crime with his own hands; hands and knees shaking; his mind defiled.
"Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts."
****************
Titus 1:15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.
Psalm 19: 8b,9a The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.
Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable, and perfect will of God.
Ephesians 5:26,27 ...that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing-of-water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious ekklesia, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Catholic Scandal...?
Once again there is a notable Catholic scandal in the news concerning pedophilia among the priests and systemic cover-up in the institutional structure. I'm not going to get on a big anti-Catholicism harangue because that's just not what I am called to, but I have something to say about this:
It all comes of failing to follow the scriptures.
For well over a thousand years the 'church' in Rome has trampled on the New Testament scriptures that were given to us by the Holy Spirit to guide us. The differences between Catholic practice and the NT example are much too numerous to consider here, but regarding this particular case:
If you create an unbiblical priestly office, assign to these 'priests' unbiblical titles of reverence ('Father'), and require of them an unbiblical vow of celibacy, then you are gonna get what you got here. Read your Bible people! And keep your children away from such nonsense. This isn't just a little aberration from recent years or the industrial age or something like that: it has been there like this all along. In fact, the impetus that first set Martin Luther on a collision course with the Vatican and history was his visit to Rome where he saw first-hand the open debauchery among the 'priests'.
It all comes of failing to follow the scriptures.
Evangelicals, read this part very carefully:
Jesus set up His ekklesia in a particular way for particular reasons and we have one hell of a nerve to think it is acceptable to rearrange that! The scriptures make it very clear what the ekklesia is supposed to be! Paul made it very clear that no ekklesia is free to depart from this pattern!
When you do, people get hurt!
Real people.
Real hurt.
Well, duh!
Yet we evangelicals have just as many unscriptural 'church' traditions as the Catholics, but we think somehow that since we aren't selling indulgences to the highest bidder that it is OK for us to do so.
Read your Bible people!
Then again, come to think of it, the last time I saw Rod Parsley, right before I unplugged the doctor's office television, he wasn't very far at all from the selling of indulgences.
No, not far at all...
It all comes of failing to follow the scriptures.
For well over a thousand years the 'church' in Rome has trampled on the New Testament scriptures that were given to us by the Holy Spirit to guide us. The differences between Catholic practice and the NT example are much too numerous to consider here, but regarding this particular case:
If you create an unbiblical priestly office, assign to these 'priests' unbiblical titles of reverence ('Father'), and require of them an unbiblical vow of celibacy, then you are gonna get what you got here. Read your Bible people! And keep your children away from such nonsense. This isn't just a little aberration from recent years or the industrial age or something like that: it has been there like this all along. In fact, the impetus that first set Martin Luther on a collision course with the Vatican and history was his visit to Rome where he saw first-hand the open debauchery among the 'priests'.
It all comes of failing to follow the scriptures.
Evangelicals, read this part very carefully:
Jesus set up His ekklesia in a particular way for particular reasons and we have one hell of a nerve to think it is acceptable to rearrange that! The scriptures make it very clear what the ekklesia is supposed to be! Paul made it very clear that no ekklesia is free to depart from this pattern!
When you do, people get hurt!
Real people.
Real hurt.
Well, duh!
Yet we evangelicals have just as many unscriptural 'church' traditions as the Catholics, but we think somehow that since we aren't selling indulgences to the highest bidder that it is OK for us to do so.
Read your Bible people!
Then again, come to think of it, the last time I saw Rod Parsley, right before I unplugged the doctor's office television, he wasn't very far at all from the selling of indulgences.
No, not far at all...
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Youth Groups are Not of God.
Taking a long, very hard look at the 'church', in all the time we have been in 'churches' (including the 'churches' we grew up in), comparing scripture to the things that we have seen, we have come to understand some things very definitely. These things are not mere intellectual niceties, or finer points of argument about theology. Ideas have consequences – very real consequences – in people's lives, and the departure of the Body of Christ from a biblical outlook and operation has consequences for the lives of believers, unbelievers, 'church' bodies, and the culture at large.
When a person has a cancer in their body, it is death living in them. The more death lives in their body, the more life dies, and living becomes harder and harder. Eventually, it becomes harder to live than to die, and death reigns in that person dragging them down to the grave. Departure from biblical patterns is a cancer in the western 'church', and it produces death in our 'bodies'. And that death lives in the lives of believers, and in the corporate lives of our 'churches', robbing them of a proper life in Christ. Our culture, looking at the cancer wracked Body of Christ, increasingly decides that there is nothing there of real value, nothing that is really germaine to their lives, and increasingly dismisses us as irrelevant.
So, what are these things I am talking about?
For starters, Youth Groups are Not of God.
I know that is an extreme statement; after all, 'churches' put a lot of time, energy, prayer, thought, and finances into the 'Youth Program', and a lot of folks believe that they are called to be 'Youth Ministers', but what could it possibly mean that a seemingly indispensable part of contemporary 'church' life is completely absent from the NT experience? At one time we also believed quite sincerely that we were called to be Youth Ministers (and so we are, and so is every parent, but not in a Youth Group). I'd like to say I am exaggerating on this point, but I'm really not. The truth is that Youth Groups are "a plant that My Father hasn't planted" and the fruit really shows. Sometimes they are led by sincere but misguided genuine Christians (we've seen some of those) and sometimes they are led by charlatans (we've seen that too); but they are always, always, always a non-biblical extra-'church' organization cobbled together by people (as opposed to created by God), based on worldly forms and ideas (in this case from the world's schooling system). Because Youth Groups are unbiblical at their very foundation, they actually act to demonstrate, by example, from the outset, to the youth they are supposed to be discipling, that scripture is negotiable; and no amount of religious double-talk will equip those poor children to be able to parse that one out.
How then do I explain that God does work through Youth Groups?
A: God is not constrained to work only in ideal circumstances. God worked through Abraham to bring both the Scriptures and Messiah to the world, even though Abraham had some rather notable failures. God worked through Jacob to establish the promises given to Abraham even though Jacob was a deceiving schemer. God worked through the murderous intentions of Joseph's brothers, as Joseph said, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." God worked through the false prophet and sorceror Balaam to pronounce great blessings upon Israel and deliver a poignant and beautiful prophecy of Messiah. If God was able to accomplish His will in and through all these situations, then He is certainly able to work in the midst of a Youth Group that is lifting up the name of Jesus. But that doesn't mean that right was done, and the bad fruit that is borne in all these situations (Abraham, Jacob, Joseph's brothers, Balaam, and Youth Groups) makes that clear.
B: Mostly, He doesn't.
You may be jumping up and down at this point, especially as most 'churches' are unfortunately accustomed to having regular and painfully uncritical cheerleading sessions to hype the docile congregation up about "all the exciting things that Jesus is doing in our Youth Ministry," but the fact is that various studies by Barna and others have found the failure rate of church youth groups is somewhere between 75 to 85 percent. Personally, I think that's being rather generous! So yes, some young people may be sincerely touched by God through their participation in a Youth Group, but what about all the tomfoolery that takes place in the meantime? All the sin and sensuality? The opportunities for the flesh that are opened up in so many ways? What is mostly accomplished is that both to the few who do come to a sincere faith, and to the rest who do not, the scriptures are shown to be an irrelevant (or at least very pliable) thing that we do not really have to take all that seriously.
And that is a pernicious evil that permeates all the 'church'.
When a person has a cancer in their body, it is death living in them. The more death lives in their body, the more life dies, and living becomes harder and harder. Eventually, it becomes harder to live than to die, and death reigns in that person dragging them down to the grave. Departure from biblical patterns is a cancer in the western 'church', and it produces death in our 'bodies'. And that death lives in the lives of believers, and in the corporate lives of our 'churches', robbing them of a proper life in Christ. Our culture, looking at the cancer wracked Body of Christ, increasingly decides that there is nothing there of real value, nothing that is really germaine to their lives, and increasingly dismisses us as irrelevant.
So, what are these things I am talking about?
For starters, Youth Groups are Not of God.
I know that is an extreme statement; after all, 'churches' put a lot of time, energy, prayer, thought, and finances into the 'Youth Program', and a lot of folks believe that they are called to be 'Youth Ministers', but what could it possibly mean that a seemingly indispensable part of contemporary 'church' life is completely absent from the NT experience? At one time we also believed quite sincerely that we were called to be Youth Ministers (and so we are, and so is every parent, but not in a Youth Group). I'd like to say I am exaggerating on this point, but I'm really not. The truth is that Youth Groups are "a plant that My Father hasn't planted" and the fruit really shows. Sometimes they are led by sincere but misguided genuine Christians (we've seen some of those) and sometimes they are led by charlatans (we've seen that too); but they are always, always, always a non-biblical extra-'church' organization cobbled together by people (as opposed to created by God), based on worldly forms and ideas (in this case from the world's schooling system). Because Youth Groups are unbiblical at their very foundation, they actually act to demonstrate, by example, from the outset, to the youth they are supposed to be discipling, that scripture is negotiable; and no amount of religious double-talk will equip those poor children to be able to parse that one out.
How then do I explain that God does work through Youth Groups?
A: God is not constrained to work only in ideal circumstances. God worked through Abraham to bring both the Scriptures and Messiah to the world, even though Abraham had some rather notable failures. God worked through Jacob to establish the promises given to Abraham even though Jacob was a deceiving schemer. God worked through the murderous intentions of Joseph's brothers, as Joseph said, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." God worked through the false prophet and sorceror Balaam to pronounce great blessings upon Israel and deliver a poignant and beautiful prophecy of Messiah. If God was able to accomplish His will in and through all these situations, then He is certainly able to work in the midst of a Youth Group that is lifting up the name of Jesus. But that doesn't mean that right was done, and the bad fruit that is borne in all these situations (Abraham, Jacob, Joseph's brothers, Balaam, and Youth Groups) makes that clear.
B: Mostly, He doesn't.
You may be jumping up and down at this point, especially as most 'churches' are unfortunately accustomed to having regular and painfully uncritical cheerleading sessions to hype the docile congregation up about "all the exciting things that Jesus is doing in our Youth Ministry," but the fact is that various studies by Barna and others have found the failure rate of church youth groups is somewhere between 75 to 85 percent. Personally, I think that's being rather generous! So yes, some young people may be sincerely touched by God through their participation in a Youth Group, but what about all the tomfoolery that takes place in the meantime? All the sin and sensuality? The opportunities for the flesh that are opened up in so many ways? What is mostly accomplished is that both to the few who do come to a sincere faith, and to the rest who do not, the scriptures are shown to be an irrelevant (or at least very pliable) thing that we do not really have to take all that seriously.
And that is a pernicious evil that permeates all the 'church'.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Church II
Having made these basic and – we think – rather "progressive" alterations, we have anticipated a few wrinkles and have some good suggestions on how to iron them out.
For one thing, not all elders are particularly talented musically. (You people know who you are!) So it may cause undue discomfort to the Primary Elder (not to mention the "congregation") for the Primary Elder to be saddled with sole responsibility for songs sung in the "church". Our suggestion for this is the creation of an all new office, the "Worship Leader." Hopefully possessing of musical talent, the Worship Leader can accomplish musically in the "church" what the old ekklesia simply couldn't when it was open for general participation from just any-old-body. We would expect that a few hold-outs will miss the old style free participation; these people should probably be gathered up by the new Worship Leader into a sort of "choir" of specialized singers for the "church" – assuming of course that they can meet the Worship Leader's expectations.
Another concern is that the members of the "church" may begin to atrophy spiritually now that they are expected to no longer contribute to the meetings. This could probably best be counteracted by forming some specialized "study groups" of some kind. If pre-determined study materials were written out and distributed in advance the members could have a sort of "class" which would allow for a minimal amount of discussion (which should seem a bit like the old ekklesia days) without too much worry of departing from the scheduled itinerary. It should be easy to keep people fairly busy and feeling "churchy" by adding these kinds of things.
This may not quite suffice for some people who are attached to the old ways of real interaction in the ekklesia. For these people it might be best if some "churches" tolerate or even encourage the use of minor verbal interjections in the course of the Primary Elder's preaching or teaching. For example, upon hearing a point of agreement in the "message", they might exclaim such things as "amen," "hallelujah," "preach it brother," or other such similar interjections designed to sound pious and feel interactive–especially if uttered with gusto – yet not having any real substance of any sort which might distract the "assembly", not to mention the Primary Elder, from the "message". Even seemingly boisterous outbursts like waving of hands or shouting "woo-hoo" might be agreeable in some "churches", just as long as no one in the congregation is actually saying or asking anything of any real substance.
Shouting of "woo-hoos" notwithstanding, the new "church" will surely prove to be much more passive and quiet than the old ekklesia, and thus it might take less disturbance to make a distraction in the congregation. With this in mind, it might be best for most "churches" to begin a habit of removing babies and children from the assembly. This would require that some number of persons be drawn off from the main "service", but without the old ekklesia paradigm that should be of no real significance: they won't actually be doing much in there anyway. Besides, there probably will be those persons whose desire for true interaction and fellowship in the Lord is such that it won't be satisfied by "whoo-hoos" or handwaving, and these make prime candidates for the nursery and "children's church" programs. Surely they would then feel that they are doing something more concrete, and in time such people might even be made to feel that they are "called" to do such things, quite as though there were some sort of a gifting or calling of God in that way.
Many people will find after this much exertion that they feel "led" back to the more passive position of sitting in the congregation to hear the "message" (with the favorable side-effect of reducing the number and enthusiasm of "amen's"), but probably a very few will be insufficiently challenged even by the nursery or "children's church" "ministry." For these people there will likely be only one real recourse: involvement in a "Youth Program." It is highly unlikely they will have any desire for interaction left after that! Yes, that should take the fight out of most "church" members, but a very few even of these will find an agreeable challenge in this labor. That sort of thing should be encouraged and lauded for just these very reasons, and persons should be actively sought who "feel" themselves "called to the Youth." (As a side benefit, the position of "Youth Pastor" can be used as a sort of apprentice position for men who desire to become Primary Elders themselves. Such practice will probably be needed now as the lack of interaction, exercising of judgment, general edification and exhortation that used to take place in the ekklesias will likely mean that Primary Elders must now receive their teaching in an academic fashion from some sort of special school for Primary Elders.)
One down-side has been suggested about the removal of the young from the main congregation: the erosion of families in the "church". If this proves to be the case the Primary Elder should spend more time proclaiming the value of the family to our "churches" and our nations, and organize school prayer meetings among "The Youth" so that they might be 'salt and light' in our schools.
Now, concerning "doubtful things" (Rom 14:1): It is highly doubtful that the sisters in Christ want to be reminded about how they ought to dress, and just as doubtful that "The Pastor" would want to remind them! It is also doubtful that parents would appreciate anyone expecting good behavior from their children. And also doubtful that the "Pastor" would want to know that any of the points in the "message" are clearly contradicted by the Bible. So it would really be best from now on if everyone just keeps quiet on all of these things.
All in all we're pretty excited about our "church" remodel: once you get in and take a look you'll hardly even recognize it! And we're sure that everyone will get accustomed to the new changes and won't even think about the way things were originally set up.
For one thing, not all elders are particularly talented musically. (You people know who you are!) So it may cause undue discomfort to the Primary Elder (not to mention the "congregation") for the Primary Elder to be saddled with sole responsibility for songs sung in the "church". Our suggestion for this is the creation of an all new office, the "Worship Leader." Hopefully possessing of musical talent, the Worship Leader can accomplish musically in the "church" what the old ekklesia simply couldn't when it was open for general participation from just any-old-body. We would expect that a few hold-outs will miss the old style free participation; these people should probably be gathered up by the new Worship Leader into a sort of "choir" of specialized singers for the "church" – assuming of course that they can meet the Worship Leader's expectations.
Another concern is that the members of the "church" may begin to atrophy spiritually now that they are expected to no longer contribute to the meetings. This could probably best be counteracted by forming some specialized "study groups" of some kind. If pre-determined study materials were written out and distributed in advance the members could have a sort of "class" which would allow for a minimal amount of discussion (which should seem a bit like the old ekklesia days) without too much worry of departing from the scheduled itinerary. It should be easy to keep people fairly busy and feeling "churchy" by adding these kinds of things.
This may not quite suffice for some people who are attached to the old ways of real interaction in the ekklesia. For these people it might be best if some "churches" tolerate or even encourage the use of minor verbal interjections in the course of the Primary Elder's preaching or teaching. For example, upon hearing a point of agreement in the "message", they might exclaim such things as "amen," "hallelujah," "preach it brother," or other such similar interjections designed to sound pious and feel interactive–especially if uttered with gusto – yet not having any real substance of any sort which might distract the "assembly", not to mention the Primary Elder, from the "message". Even seemingly boisterous outbursts like waving of hands or shouting "woo-hoo" might be agreeable in some "churches", just as long as no one in the congregation is actually saying or asking anything of any real substance.
Shouting of "woo-hoos" notwithstanding, the new "church" will surely prove to be much more passive and quiet than the old ekklesia, and thus it might take less disturbance to make a distraction in the congregation. With this in mind, it might be best for most "churches" to begin a habit of removing babies and children from the assembly. This would require that some number of persons be drawn off from the main "service", but without the old ekklesia paradigm that should be of no real significance: they won't actually be doing much in there anyway. Besides, there probably will be those persons whose desire for true interaction and fellowship in the Lord is such that it won't be satisfied by "whoo-hoos" or handwaving, and these make prime candidates for the nursery and "children's church" programs. Surely they would then feel that they are doing something more concrete, and in time such people might even be made to feel that they are "called" to do such things, quite as though there were some sort of a gifting or calling of God in that way.
Many people will find after this much exertion that they feel "led" back to the more passive position of sitting in the congregation to hear the "message" (with the favorable side-effect of reducing the number and enthusiasm of "amen's"), but probably a very few will be insufficiently challenged even by the nursery or "children's church" "ministry." For these people there will likely be only one real recourse: involvement in a "Youth Program." It is highly unlikely they will have any desire for interaction left after that! Yes, that should take the fight out of most "church" members, but a very few even of these will find an agreeable challenge in this labor. That sort of thing should be encouraged and lauded for just these very reasons, and persons should be actively sought who "feel" themselves "called to the Youth." (As a side benefit, the position of "Youth Pastor" can be used as a sort of apprentice position for men who desire to become Primary Elders themselves. Such practice will probably be needed now as the lack of interaction, exercising of judgment, general edification and exhortation that used to take place in the ekklesias will likely mean that Primary Elders must now receive their teaching in an academic fashion from some sort of special school for Primary Elders.)
One down-side has been suggested about the removal of the young from the main congregation: the erosion of families in the "church". If this proves to be the case the Primary Elder should spend more time proclaiming the value of the family to our "churches" and our nations, and organize school prayer meetings among "The Youth" so that they might be 'salt and light' in our schools.
Now, concerning "doubtful things" (Rom 14:1): It is highly doubtful that the sisters in Christ want to be reminded about how they ought to dress, and just as doubtful that "The Pastor" would want to remind them! It is also doubtful that parents would appreciate anyone expecting good behavior from their children. And also doubtful that the "Pastor" would want to know that any of the points in the "message" are clearly contradicted by the Bible. So it would really be best from now on if everyone just keeps quiet on all of these things.
All in all we're pretty excited about our "church" remodel: once you get in and take a look you'll hardly even recognize it! And we're sure that everyone will get accustomed to the new changes and won't even think about the way things were originally set up.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Church I
A funny thing happened on the way to church.
We have removed the burden of leadership from most of the elders by turning them into a sort of "board of directors" that will mostly just make administrative decisions and such. We did leave one elder in place to handle the traditional duties of the elders, and – considering that he alone will now be handling the responsibilities of a whole elder team – decided to compensate him for his extra effort by now offering a small but regular salary, and giving him a special title that the "board" elders don't get to use, like "Pastor" – since he will be the only real pastor now – or "Reverend", or "Preacher" or whatever he happens to fancy: "Apostle", "Bishop", "Father", or just whatever he finds laying around unused. It won't really mean much, and it may appear to some to conflict with the Lord's teaching, but it's a different age now and it should make the "Primary Elder" feel better for all his extra effort.
Speaking of effort, particularly all the effort involved in preparing dishes to bring to the Lord's Supper, we decided to drop the supper part and just have a kind of quick sort of snack. If we strip it down to just the loaf and the cup themselves, and just have a sort of a little cracker thing for the loaf and a very small kind of shot glass for the cup, that will really cut down on the work everybody's been putting into it. We don't want to make it too trite though, so, we thought we might start having a solemn moment of introspection that will slow things up a bit and make it feel more serious. (After all, Paul did write some fairly serious sounding things about it.) Anyway, the important thing is that we all partake of the "one loaf..and one cup"...although...well honestly...no one will actually be partaking of one loaf and one cup anymore since it will all be divided into hundreds of individual crackers and shots, but we can still talk like we are and think of it as though we are: It's the thought that counts!
Also, instead of doing it every Lord's Day as usual we'll now only have it every three months or so. That should really cut down on everybody's effort in the Lord's Supper and keep it from getting too ordinary as well.
Encouraged by the efficiency of our changes to the Lord's Supper, we also took a fresh look at Baptism. Of course we're all delighted when someone believes in the Lord and turns their life over to Him, but honestly it really is an inconvenience to drop everything and go wading around in rivers and lakes (especially since you never know what time of day or night these people are finally going to make up their mind). So we made two changes that really should go without too much explanation: from now on baptisms will be postponed until a convenient date in the future where we can do several at once, and considering that it's only a symbol anyway we'll dispense with the rivers and lakes and just sprinkle a little water over the new Christian's head. This will make much less clean-up for them, and will also be a more eco-friendly way to do it. (We are considering whether it would be more practical to "pre-baptize" people into the "church" right after birth.) We did decide though that we could bolster the new position of the Primary Elder by having him perform all baptisms now, so you needn't bother trying this one yourself any more.
One issue that has been hanging around unresolved since the apostolic age is that of meeting places. As you know, the Apostles of the Lord never did bother to lay out any real plans and just settled for meeting in peoples homes. Why ever in the world they left it in such a state no one really knows, but it's been a while since then, and it seems to us that we really should not have to just "settle" anymore. So we really expect people to curtail all this "house to house" meeting and build some nice buildings to meet in. We do realize this will reduce the intimate fellowship we have experienced in the past, but do we really want people to think that the best Jesus can do is meeting in people's homes? It's time we started building some Houses for God.
With all this economizing and sort of "spring cleaning," we also made a few changes to the ekklesia itself. For instance, although it has always been customary to have general participation in the ekklesia, where any brother can always bring any issue, teaching, prophecy, song, tongue, or what-have-you before the whole and present it for judgment, we really think this is a rather dated way to go about things, and we'd all be better off to simplify the entire process. After consideration, it occurred that the most efficient way to go about this would be to invest these things in the Primary Elder. Since he's already being paid to handle the duties of the elders and guard the flock against wrong teaching and such, he can just handle all these things at once by doing it all himself. For this reason it would be best from now on if all remained more or less silent in the ekklesia.
That being the case it seemed fitting to introduce a new name that better reflects the nature of our association. You're all aware that the name the Lord chose has very distinct connotations concerning decisions, authority, interaction, dialog, reasoning, and judgment, but now that the Primary Elder is actually handling all of these things the old name is really outdated. And lets face it, "ekklesia" is a kind of funny sounding word anyway. We thought about various words as a replacement – especially some of the other greek words the Lord might have originally used, but none of these seemed to quite fit. We strongly considered the passive and accepting sounding, "congregation," but in the end decided to modify an unrelated greek word (kuriakos, "the Lord's") to just make up our own new word: "church". It's origin is sufficiently religious sounding as to be inspirational, yet sufficiently vague so as not to carry any harsh or judgmental connotations, and anglicizing it to "church" sort of softened the term further. We do recommend the terms "congregation" and "assembly" for secondary usage, as these words also carry no real sense of the authority originally invested in the ekklesia concept. We feel confident that people will grow used to the new terms in time. Who knows? Maybe they will so completely replace "ekklesia" that Christians will forget their even was such a word.
We have removed the burden of leadership from most of the elders by turning them into a sort of "board of directors" that will mostly just make administrative decisions and such. We did leave one elder in place to handle the traditional duties of the elders, and – considering that he alone will now be handling the responsibilities of a whole elder team – decided to compensate him for his extra effort by now offering a small but regular salary, and giving him a special title that the "board" elders don't get to use, like "Pastor" – since he will be the only real pastor now – or "Reverend", or "Preacher" or whatever he happens to fancy: "Apostle", "Bishop", "Father", or just whatever he finds laying around unused. It won't really mean much, and it may appear to some to conflict with the Lord's teaching, but it's a different age now and it should make the "Primary Elder" feel better for all his extra effort.
Speaking of effort, particularly all the effort involved in preparing dishes to bring to the Lord's Supper, we decided to drop the supper part and just have a kind of quick sort of snack. If we strip it down to just the loaf and the cup themselves, and just have a sort of a little cracker thing for the loaf and a very small kind of shot glass for the cup, that will really cut down on the work everybody's been putting into it. We don't want to make it too trite though, so, we thought we might start having a solemn moment of introspection that will slow things up a bit and make it feel more serious. (After all, Paul did write some fairly serious sounding things about it.) Anyway, the important thing is that we all partake of the "one loaf..and one cup"...although...well honestly...no one will actually be partaking of one loaf and one cup anymore since it will all be divided into hundreds of individual crackers and shots, but we can still talk like we are and think of it as though we are: It's the thought that counts!
Also, instead of doing it every Lord's Day as usual we'll now only have it every three months or so. That should really cut down on everybody's effort in the Lord's Supper and keep it from getting too ordinary as well.
Encouraged by the efficiency of our changes to the Lord's Supper, we also took a fresh look at Baptism. Of course we're all delighted when someone believes in the Lord and turns their life over to Him, but honestly it really is an inconvenience to drop everything and go wading around in rivers and lakes (especially since you never know what time of day or night these people are finally going to make up their mind). So we made two changes that really should go without too much explanation: from now on baptisms will be postponed until a convenient date in the future where we can do several at once, and considering that it's only a symbol anyway we'll dispense with the rivers and lakes and just sprinkle a little water over the new Christian's head. This will make much less clean-up for them, and will also be a more eco-friendly way to do it. (We are considering whether it would be more practical to "pre-baptize" people into the "church" right after birth.) We did decide though that we could bolster the new position of the Primary Elder by having him perform all baptisms now, so you needn't bother trying this one yourself any more.
One issue that has been hanging around unresolved since the apostolic age is that of meeting places. As you know, the Apostles of the Lord never did bother to lay out any real plans and just settled for meeting in peoples homes. Why ever in the world they left it in such a state no one really knows, but it's been a while since then, and it seems to us that we really should not have to just "settle" anymore. So we really expect people to curtail all this "house to house" meeting and build some nice buildings to meet in. We do realize this will reduce the intimate fellowship we have experienced in the past, but do we really want people to think that the best Jesus can do is meeting in people's homes? It's time we started building some Houses for God.
With all this economizing and sort of "spring cleaning," we also made a few changes to the ekklesia itself. For instance, although it has always been customary to have general participation in the ekklesia, where any brother can always bring any issue, teaching, prophecy, song, tongue, or what-have-you before the whole and present it for judgment, we really think this is a rather dated way to go about things, and we'd all be better off to simplify the entire process. After consideration, it occurred that the most efficient way to go about this would be to invest these things in the Primary Elder. Since he's already being paid to handle the duties of the elders and guard the flock against wrong teaching and such, he can just handle all these things at once by doing it all himself. For this reason it would be best from now on if all remained more or less silent in the ekklesia.
That being the case it seemed fitting to introduce a new name that better reflects the nature of our association. You're all aware that the name the Lord chose has very distinct connotations concerning decisions, authority, interaction, dialog, reasoning, and judgment, but now that the Primary Elder is actually handling all of these things the old name is really outdated. And lets face it, "ekklesia" is a kind of funny sounding word anyway. We thought about various words as a replacement – especially some of the other greek words the Lord might have originally used, but none of these seemed to quite fit. We strongly considered the passive and accepting sounding, "congregation," but in the end decided to modify an unrelated greek word (kuriakos, "the Lord's") to just make up our own new word: "church". It's origin is sufficiently religious sounding as to be inspirational, yet sufficiently vague so as not to carry any harsh or judgmental connotations, and anglicizing it to "church" sort of softened the term further. We do recommend the terms "congregation" and "assembly" for secondary usage, as these words also carry no real sense of the authority originally invested in the ekklesia concept. We feel confident that people will grow used to the new terms in time. Who knows? Maybe they will so completely replace "ekklesia" that Christians will forget their even was such a word.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Ekklesiatime VII: Congregationalism and Consensus
Consensus
Last, but maybe most important of all, we need to have a word about consensus vs majority rule. This is especially important because it actually is a major stumbling block for Christians trying to conceive of the NT truth of interactive congregational decision making. Most of us have heard of the proverbial church that splits over the carpet color (although few of us have considered seriously the idea that such splits have their genesis in the fact that churches are not supposed to be in the business of choosing or purchasing carpet). Many of us have lived through bitter fighting and wrangling in such a process, or have been hurt by a decision that did not go our way.
In our culture, majority rule is so much the accepted norm that few question its propriety under any circumstances. Many people even think that the majority opinion is synonymous with right, as though right itself is determined by popular vote. Or perhaps that if the majority of people think something is right or true that indicates with certainty that it is in fact right or true; i.e., "How can the majority be wrong?" But, the majority can be wrong. The testimony of scripture is clear that popular opinion is no reliable guide to right and wrong, whether in a moral sense or a wisdom sense. The people voted Jesus 'Most Likely to be Messiah' one day, and a few days later cried for His execution.
In a previous post I wrote about my Southern Baptist roots, and how we voted on everything down to the last penny. The fact that I had a vote mattered to be and gave me a vested interest in the 'church' that made me feel a real part, even though the vast, vast majority of votes were over very mundane issues and had no dissenting parties. But I especially remember one vote when the church was to decide on whether to make the interim pastor the permanent pastor. I was rather young at the time (somewhere in middle school), and have no recollection of what the percentages were on the vote, but what I do remember is this: many of the regular attending members were in favor of appointing the interim pastor as our permanent pastor, but on the night of the vote a considerable number of people that didn't normally attend the church at all but were on the rolls as registered members showed up, and the interim pastor was voted down.
Now obviously, that is not the way that the Body of Christ should do things.
If votes are taken in an ekklesia setting, and the majority rules, that means that as much as 49% of the congregation is not in agreement. That is not the Biblical pattern. Even supposing that the majority is as much as 80 or 90 percent, that still leaves 10 or 20 percent out in the cold. I can't find that in the NT either.
Henry Blackaby
Regardless of those things it never occurred to me that decisions could be any other way until we heard Henry Blackaby in the Experiencing God study. The first church we got back into in the late nineties was a Baptist church, and Experiencing God was a big thing at that time in Baptist circles. I had (and have) a major prejudice against prepared, pre-packaged church teaching of all flavors, but we decided to go through the course at the church. Now, you know people are weird, and in those day after Experiencing God came out and it was really 'big' they came out with Experiencing God the Bible case, Experiencing God the Calendar, Experiencing God the Notepad, and even (no kidding) Experiencing God the Musical. It was just crazy. And disgusting. But if you have never been through the Experiencing God study do yourself a favor and pencil that in on your calendar.
The heart of EG was the teaching and experience of Henry Blackaby, an unassuming pastor that started out in a tiny Southern Baptist church in Canada, so poor that they literally paid him with potatoes at the beginning. But Blackaby believed that God wanted him to be there. Much of the EG study I no longer remember after over a decade, but Blackaby's discussion on the importance of unity in church decision-making completely changed the way I looked at the church. He spoke in great humility about his conviction that if the Bible clearly stated that the ekklesias are to be in unity, then a mere majority-rule vote was not sufficient in the House of God. He spoke of how church votes worked against unity to divide congregations and cause church splits. He spoke of how he himself in his congregation patiently waited for Jesus to bring them all into one accord on any issue before they moved forward with it. He talked of his conviction that if Jesus is the head of the Church, and we are all members of His Body, then he could trust Jesus to bring His own members to agreement on any issue if it is really what Jesus Himself wants; and that if there isn't unity on a particular decision, and they don't come to unity, that could actually be a real indicator that it just isn't the will of God even if the majority think it is. Or perhaps that it is the will of God but it isn't the right time. But whatever the reason he always trusted the Biblical pattern, and the headship of Jesus.
Just imagine for one moment what a change would take place in our nation if every single 'church' were to make just that one change in their operation.
Well, it is true as Abeelen said, you won't find any votes in the New Testament. Nor will you find decisions made behind closed doors with all the body of the disciples closed out to be informed later-if-at-all. You find a consistent pattern, encouragement, and even commandment to meet corporately, discuss and debate openly, and come to unity in our decisions in all humility, depending on Jesus to get it right.
Now that's some seriously scary commitment to God.
You might also like to read more in this NTRF article "Elder Led Congregational Consensus."
Last, but maybe most important of all, we need to have a word about consensus vs majority rule. This is especially important because it actually is a major stumbling block for Christians trying to conceive of the NT truth of interactive congregational decision making. Most of us have heard of the proverbial church that splits over the carpet color (although few of us have considered seriously the idea that such splits have their genesis in the fact that churches are not supposed to be in the business of choosing or purchasing carpet). Many of us have lived through bitter fighting and wrangling in such a process, or have been hurt by a decision that did not go our way.
In our culture, majority rule is so much the accepted norm that few question its propriety under any circumstances. Many people even think that the majority opinion is synonymous with right, as though right itself is determined by popular vote. Or perhaps that if the majority of people think something is right or true that indicates with certainty that it is in fact right or true; i.e., "How can the majority be wrong?" But, the majority can be wrong. The testimony of scripture is clear that popular opinion is no reliable guide to right and wrong, whether in a moral sense or a wisdom sense. The people voted Jesus 'Most Likely to be Messiah' one day, and a few days later cried for His execution.
In a previous post I wrote about my Southern Baptist roots, and how we voted on everything down to the last penny. The fact that I had a vote mattered to be and gave me a vested interest in the 'church' that made me feel a real part, even though the vast, vast majority of votes were over very mundane issues and had no dissenting parties. But I especially remember one vote when the church was to decide on whether to make the interim pastor the permanent pastor. I was rather young at the time (somewhere in middle school), and have no recollection of what the percentages were on the vote, but what I do remember is this: many of the regular attending members were in favor of appointing the interim pastor as our permanent pastor, but on the night of the vote a considerable number of people that didn't normally attend the church at all but were on the rolls as registered members showed up, and the interim pastor was voted down.
Now obviously, that is not the way that the Body of Christ should do things.
If votes are taken in an ekklesia setting, and the majority rules, that means that as much as 49% of the congregation is not in agreement. That is not the Biblical pattern. Even supposing that the majority is as much as 80 or 90 percent, that still leaves 10 or 20 percent out in the cold. I can't find that in the NT either.
Henry Blackaby
Regardless of those things it never occurred to me that decisions could be any other way until we heard Henry Blackaby in the Experiencing God study. The first church we got back into in the late nineties was a Baptist church, and Experiencing God was a big thing at that time in Baptist circles. I had (and have) a major prejudice against prepared, pre-packaged church teaching of all flavors, but we decided to go through the course at the church. Now, you know people are weird, and in those day after Experiencing God came out and it was really 'big' they came out with Experiencing God the Bible case, Experiencing God the Calendar, Experiencing God the Notepad, and even (no kidding) Experiencing God the Musical. It was just crazy. And disgusting. But if you have never been through the Experiencing God study do yourself a favor and pencil that in on your calendar.
The heart of EG was the teaching and experience of Henry Blackaby, an unassuming pastor that started out in a tiny Southern Baptist church in Canada, so poor that they literally paid him with potatoes at the beginning. But Blackaby believed that God wanted him to be there. Much of the EG study I no longer remember after over a decade, but Blackaby's discussion on the importance of unity in church decision-making completely changed the way I looked at the church. He spoke in great humility about his conviction that if the Bible clearly stated that the ekklesias are to be in unity, then a mere majority-rule vote was not sufficient in the House of God. He spoke of how church votes worked against unity to divide congregations and cause church splits. He spoke of how he himself in his congregation patiently waited for Jesus to bring them all into one accord on any issue before they moved forward with it. He talked of his conviction that if Jesus is the head of the Church, and we are all members of His Body, then he could trust Jesus to bring His own members to agreement on any issue if it is really what Jesus Himself wants; and that if there isn't unity on a particular decision, and they don't come to unity, that could actually be a real indicator that it just isn't the will of God even if the majority think it is. Or perhaps that it is the will of God but it isn't the right time. But whatever the reason he always trusted the Biblical pattern, and the headship of Jesus.
Just imagine for one moment what a change would take place in our nation if every single 'church' were to make just that one change in their operation.
Well, it is true as Abeelen said, you won't find any votes in the New Testament. Nor will you find decisions made behind closed doors with all the body of the disciples closed out to be informed later-if-at-all. You find a consistent pattern, encouragement, and even commandment to meet corporately, discuss and debate openly, and come to unity in our decisions in all humility, depending on Jesus to get it right.
Now that's some seriously scary commitment to God.
You might also like to read more in this NTRF article "Elder Led Congregational Consensus."
Monday, April 12, 2010
Salt and Light?
How many Christians know that they could keep their children at home and choose to leave them in the clutches of the schools under the premise that "our children are being 'salt and light' to the schools"? Deep down they know that they should keep their children at home.
Didn't Jesus say that we're to be "salt and light"? What will happen to the schools if we Christians pull our children out?
What will happen to our children if we don't?
Well it's been happening for a good century or so now and the results are all around us everyday. Some Christians think we started to slide as a society when we took God out of the schools, but I have news for you; God was never in the schools! No never. Yet I have even heard from the pulpit that home schooling is a form of (ungodly) rebellion! Such Biblical ignorance...
Are you guilty of using this foolish phrase, "salt and light"? Have you fallen for this reasoning? Have you helped deceive others with it? Have you helped to nourish and pet and sustain it instead of stabbing it in the throat with a long steely knife like you should?
Our children are NOT being "salt and light" when we send them to the schools, they are being "thrown out by men and trampled underfoot," yet every generation is being sacrificed on the altar of this half-baked, half-Bible, tom-fool idea! If someone suggested that Christians should hang around in bars, so that the bars in America will not be bereft of "salt and light", you should quickly realize that "salt and light" does not hang around in bars no matter how much they need it in there! That is simply not the way the Kingdom works. We are the Salt of the World and Light of the World WHEN WE ARE DOING THE WILL OF GOD, not when we are WORKING AGAINST the will of God.
How could it be otherwise?
This "salt and light" thinking is no more Biblical than satan's attempts to trick Jesus with half Bible truths. Fortunately for us, Jesus didn't fall for it. Unfortunately for our children, we did.
Sending children to school is NOT THE WILL OF GOD. That will be hard for some people to swallow, but it is the Truth.
If you want to know if you should 'home school', look around your house; if you have children, it is 100% the will of God that you should keep them at home and teach them yourself! You don't have to inquire of God! If you have access to a Bible, it is 100% the will of God that you read it. You don't have to inquire of God! If you are a sinner it is 100% the will of God that you be saved. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have a wife it is 100% the will of God that you be faithful to her. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have a husband it is 100% the will of God that you be faithful to Him. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have food it is 100% the will of God that you eat it. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have children it is 100% the will of God that you should feed, clothe, and teach them! You don't have to inquire of God!
If you have children it is 100% the will of God for your life and the lives of your children that you keep them at home, raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord! You don't have to inquire of God! It is absolutely certain. The consequences to the schools are NONE OF OUR CONCERN, but we are to follow Him. The Bible is quite clear that we are to aspire to lead quiet, orderly lives, raising our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If the schools are raising your children, you are failing to fulfill this command; and if the schools HAVE your children, they are RAISING them.
They only send them home to eat and get some sleep.
It is never the will of God that any people, much less His People, should ever hand over the children that they have been blessed and ENTRUSTED with to an impersonal institution of any kind; government, private, or "Christian". They are not being "salt and light" in there, they are being chewed up and spat out with all the rest of society as every generation gets progressively weirder and farther from God.
The truth of God's desire for our children to be raised by their parents is right there in the Bible from Genesis all the way to the Revelation, but We His People have been DECEIVED by SATAN, we have been LIED TO by the WORLD"S SYSTEM, and we have been BULLIED by threat of GOVERNMENTAL PUNISHMENT.
All the while we had the dusty truth right there on the coffee table.
Didn't Jesus say that we're to be "salt and light"? What will happen to the schools if we Christians pull our children out?
What will happen to our children if we don't?
Well it's been happening for a good century or so now and the results are all around us everyday. Some Christians think we started to slide as a society when we took God out of the schools, but I have news for you; God was never in the schools! No never. Yet I have even heard from the pulpit that home schooling is a form of (ungodly) rebellion! Such Biblical ignorance...
Are you guilty of using this foolish phrase, "salt and light"? Have you fallen for this reasoning? Have you helped deceive others with it? Have you helped to nourish and pet and sustain it instead of stabbing it in the throat with a long steely knife like you should?
Our children are NOT being "salt and light" when we send them to the schools, they are being "thrown out by men and trampled underfoot," yet every generation is being sacrificed on the altar of this half-baked, half-Bible, tom-fool idea! If someone suggested that Christians should hang around in bars, so that the bars in America will not be bereft of "salt and light", you should quickly realize that "salt and light" does not hang around in bars no matter how much they need it in there! That is simply not the way the Kingdom works. We are the Salt of the World and Light of the World WHEN WE ARE DOING THE WILL OF GOD, not when we are WORKING AGAINST the will of God.
How could it be otherwise?
This "salt and light" thinking is no more Biblical than satan's attempts to trick Jesus with half Bible truths. Fortunately for us, Jesus didn't fall for it. Unfortunately for our children, we did.
Sending children to school is NOT THE WILL OF GOD. That will be hard for some people to swallow, but it is the Truth.
If you want to know if you should 'home school', look around your house; if you have children, it is 100% the will of God that you should keep them at home and teach them yourself! You don't have to inquire of God! If you have access to a Bible, it is 100% the will of God that you read it. You don't have to inquire of God! If you are a sinner it is 100% the will of God that you be saved. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have a wife it is 100% the will of God that you be faithful to her. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have a husband it is 100% the will of God that you be faithful to Him. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have food it is 100% the will of God that you eat it. You don't have to inquire of God! If you have children it is 100% the will of God that you should feed, clothe, and teach them! You don't have to inquire of God!
If you have children it is 100% the will of God for your life and the lives of your children that you keep them at home, raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord! You don't have to inquire of God! It is absolutely certain. The consequences to the schools are NONE OF OUR CONCERN, but we are to follow Him. The Bible is quite clear that we are to aspire to lead quiet, orderly lives, raising our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If the schools are raising your children, you are failing to fulfill this command; and if the schools HAVE your children, they are RAISING them.
They only send them home to eat and get some sleep.
It is never the will of God that any people, much less His People, should ever hand over the children that they have been blessed and ENTRUSTED with to an impersonal institution of any kind; government, private, or "Christian". They are not being "salt and light" in there, they are being chewed up and spat out with all the rest of society as every generation gets progressively weirder and farther from God.
The truth of God's desire for our children to be raised by their parents is right there in the Bible from Genesis all the way to the Revelation, but We His People have been DECEIVED by SATAN, we have been LIED TO by the WORLD"S SYSTEM, and we have been BULLIED by threat of GOVERNMENTAL PUNISHMENT.
All the while we had the dusty truth right there on the coffee table.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Ekklesiatime VI: Congregationalism
This post was supposed to be the last in this series on Congregationalism in the Ekklesia: Consensus in the Ekklesia. In the mean time though I thought about one more little knot that needs tying off in looking at the experience of Congregationalism in the New Testament.
Again, I reiterate; the truth of Congregationalism in the NT isn't an option that you might be able to see in the NT scriptures if you agree with me: it is written all through the NT for all to see, and its reality is as sure as the truth of the Trinity in the NT. That may be a bit of a problem for some of you – especially 'church' leaders – from certain backgrounds like pentecostal/charismatic, but you have the truth right here and you won't get out of it by pretending it isn't true.
That point I refer to is examining to whom the NT letters are actually addressed. In other words, we have a great body of writing and revelation in the NT: to whom is it actually entrusted? Who are the New Testament letters to?
Matthew: none
Mark: none
Luke: Theophilus
John: none
Acts: Theophilus
Romans: To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints:
1Cor: To the ekklesia of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all those who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
2Cor: To the ekklesia of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:
Galatians: To the ekklesias of Galatia:
Ephesians: To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus
Philippians: To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the elders and deacons:
Colossians: To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ in Colosse:
1Thess: To the ekklesia of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2Thess: To the ekklesia of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
1Timothy: To Timothy, a true son in the faith:
2Timothy: To Timothy, a beloved son:
Titus: To Titus, a true son in our common faith:
Philemon: To Philemon our beloved and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the ekklesia in your house:
Hebrews: holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling... (Heb 3:1)
James: To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:
1Peter: To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2Peter: To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
1John: My little children
2John: To the elect lady and her children
3John: To the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth:
Jude: To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father,
and preserved in Jesus Christ:
Rev: to the seven ekklesias which are in Asia:
Clearly, the majority of NT scripture is addressed specifically to the ekklesias or the saints generally: 16 out of the 27 books. Of the remainder, three are addressed to no one, and seven are addressed to a particular person. None are addressed to the elders of any ekklesia (the elders are mentioned secondarily in Philippians). None are clearly addressed to a particular elder (Timothy and Titus were members of Paul's apostolic team, and probably qualify as 'apostles' thereby. I have heard them referred to as 'Apostolic Delegates', but either way they were a part of Paul's apostolic team – along with Sosthenes, Silvanus, and others – sent by him wherever he had need, and recalled by him to be sent somewhere else. This pattern is clear over the Pauline letters.)
This is not at all to disparage the role of the elders in the ekklesia – they are clearly a vital part. But they are not the only part, and they do not rule the ekklesia. Vast portions of the body have labored under an imbalanced view of it, and we need to restore that Biblical balance.
It was good for Paul and Titus!
Again, I reiterate; the truth of Congregationalism in the NT isn't an option that you might be able to see in the NT scriptures if you agree with me: it is written all through the NT for all to see, and its reality is as sure as the truth of the Trinity in the NT. That may be a bit of a problem for some of you – especially 'church' leaders – from certain backgrounds like pentecostal/charismatic, but you have the truth right here and you won't get out of it by pretending it isn't true.
That point I refer to is examining to whom the NT letters are actually addressed. In other words, we have a great body of writing and revelation in the NT: to whom is it actually entrusted? Who are the New Testament letters to?
Matthew: none
Mark: none
Luke: Theophilus
John: none
Acts: Theophilus
Romans: To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints:
1Cor: To the ekklesia of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all those who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
2Cor: To the ekklesia of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:
Galatians: To the ekklesias of Galatia:
Ephesians: To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus
Philippians: To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the elders and deacons:
Colossians: To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ in Colosse:
1Thess: To the ekklesia of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2Thess: To the ekklesia of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
1Timothy: To Timothy, a true son in the faith:
2Timothy: To Timothy, a beloved son:
Titus: To Titus, a true son in our common faith:
Philemon: To Philemon our beloved and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the ekklesia in your house:
Hebrews: holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling... (Heb 3:1)
James: To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:
1Peter: To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2Peter: To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
1John: My little children
2John: To the elect lady and her children
3John: To the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth:
Jude: To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father,
and preserved in Jesus Christ:
Rev: to the seven ekklesias which are in Asia:
Clearly, the majority of NT scripture is addressed specifically to the ekklesias or the saints generally: 16 out of the 27 books. Of the remainder, three are addressed to no one, and seven are addressed to a particular person. None are addressed to the elders of any ekklesia (the elders are mentioned secondarily in Philippians). None are clearly addressed to a particular elder (Timothy and Titus were members of Paul's apostolic team, and probably qualify as 'apostles' thereby. I have heard them referred to as 'Apostolic Delegates', but either way they were a part of Paul's apostolic team – along with Sosthenes, Silvanus, and others – sent by him wherever he had need, and recalled by him to be sent somewhere else. This pattern is clear over the Pauline letters.)
This is not at all to disparage the role of the elders in the ekklesia – they are clearly a vital part. But they are not the only part, and they do not rule the ekklesia. Vast portions of the body have labored under an imbalanced view of it, and we need to restore that Biblical balance.
It was good for Paul and Titus!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Ekklesiatime V: Congregationalism
Last post we looked at the inextricable reality of Congregationalism in the NT ekklesia, and covered what Jesus Himself had to say. Coming from the Master, if that was all we had to look at it should be sufficient! Fortunately, God knows our frame, that we are but dust, and He knows that when we have spent a couple of thousand years in the wrong direction He will need to repeat himself a few times. So we will pick up in the book of the Acts and see what congregationalism in the NT ekklesia actually looked like.
I had intended only one more posting on this topic, but necessity of length would seem to dictate the propriety of leaving the last section, Consensus, to a sixth post. The subject of the ekklesia is no minor subject!
To begin with we ought to examine the secular ekklesia in the NT. There isn't a lot of that since the NT is obviously about the Ekklesia of Christ, but there is a very instructive section in Acts 19: 23-41, where Demetrius the silversmith summons an ekklesia of tradesmen together to do something about Paul.
And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no small profit to the craftsmen. He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship.”
Now when they heard this, they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul’s travel companions. And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theater. Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the ekklesia was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together. And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander motioned with his hand, and wanted to make his defense to the people. But when they found out that he was a Jew, all with one voice cried out for about two hours, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”
And when the city clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: “Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus? Therefore, since these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rashly. For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. Therefore, if Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a case against anyone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful ekklesia. For we are in danger of being called in question for today’s uproar, there being no reason which we may give to account for this disorderly gathering.” And when he had said these things, he dismissed the ekklesia.
Note: Demetrius 'calls' an ekklesia ("He called them together...") of craftsmen into the city theater. He presents a charge before them for consideration and judgment, which then touches off a city-wide uproar. The ekklesia is confused, not understanding why it was 'called out' to begin with. The city clerk indicates that proper inquiries are to be made in the 'lawful ekklesia' which currently is not at all what is happening, and dismisses the ekklesia before they get in real trouble with the Roman government. All the primary elements of the ekklesia concept are here in this passage (except that they aren't executed properly, in an orderly way). This is the exact form of assembly that Jesus Himself chose for us to be.
Now for the Ekklesias of Christ in God.
The disciples replace Judas Acts 1:15-26 (condensed here)
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas...Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection...”
...And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
There are at least two notable points here.
• Noting that the "number of names was about 120" (which likely could mean 120 men, besides women or children), if you will carefully read back through the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper you now will see why they needed 'a large upper room'.
• The whole number was involved in replacing Judas. I have heard people argue that this pre-Pentecost action was outside the will of God – which I think to be on shaky ground since the scripture doesn't say that. (In fact, considering Matt 16:19 and Matt 18:18-20 I think it quite probable that the courts in heaven considered this decision binding.) Regardless, it remains clear that Peter did not address the other apostles only, but the whole ekklesia, and nothing in the text indicates that the apostles did the choosing, but rather the entire 120. They considered the matter openly, agreed, and acted together.
Creating the Deacons Acts 6:1-7
Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.
Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
• (The "twelve" summoned the multitude, which would include Matthias.)
• Though the they knew what they would do, the twelve left the selection to the ekklesia, "...brethren, seek out from among you..."
• "And the saying pleased the whole multitude." This clearly indicates that it could have displeased the multitude or there might have been division. The agreement of the whole multitude is an important point to the writer. Not only was this decision not made behind closed doors, but the agreement of the ekklesia is important.
•"And they chose...whom they set before the apostles..." The multitude chose, the multitude set.
Must the Gentiles Keep the Law? Acts 15 (just verses 4-30 here)
And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the ekklesia and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’
“Known to God from eternity are all His works. Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole ekklesia, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
They wrote this, letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”— to whom we gave no such commandment— it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
• They were received by the ekklesia and the apostles and the elders. And the ekklesia is listed first.
• The Apostles and the Elders came together to consider the matter...but with all the multitude.
• The decision to accept and publish James' counsel '...pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole ekklesia..." Obviously, if it pleased the whole ekklesia, it could also have displeased the ekklesia, or their could have been disagreement. Clearly the apostles and elders led, but just as clearly the ekklesia participated in and mattered to the progress.
• They did not deliver the letter until the multitude was gathered.
The Ekklesia in Corinth Falls Down on the Job I 1Cor 5:1-13
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
• The ekklesia has a responsibility to remove unrepentant Christians from its midst. Here they have a member in open immorality and have done nothing at all. Not only have they disobeyed Christ in tolerating this fornication, but they reveled in their toleration as though that were a good thing (sound like any 'churches' you know?). Paul is clear that they should already have judged this man; in their failure he (being an apostle) issues judgment against the man as though Paul were gathered with them – in the ekklesia – ready for judgment. He commands them, when they are gathered together – as the ekklesia– to agree with him and render the judgment in unity against this man.
• Paul explains the reason why they must render judgment, and why it is an important ordinary function of the ekklesia, "...a little leaven leavens the whole lump." If sin is tolerated it will spread into the whole ekklesia.
• Paul reiterates the necessity of judgment in the ekklesia: "I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person."
The Ekklesia in Corinth Falls Down on the Job II 1Cor 6:1-11
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the ekklesia to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
• Judgment isn't restricted to immorality or gross sin, but any issues between believers are to be brought before the ekklesia if they cannot be settled otherwise, which is the absolute, final recourse for all believers. The Ekklesia at Corinth was also failing on this point.
• Paul affirms that a, if not the, primary defining ministry of the Ekklesias of Christ is judgment. The saints will judge the world, angels, and the smallest matters. Get with it saints! That silly "you catch 'em and God cleans 'em" routine is not of God. Judges are what we are; judgment is what we do! Look at the emphasis Paul places in this section!
• Paul chastises them because they should all be capable of and rendering judgment and can't they find even one?
The Ekklesia in Corinth Does its Job...and It Works! 2Cor 2: 5-11
But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ, lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.
• Th ekklesia was obedient to Paul, fulfilled its purpose in Christ, and the sinning brother is brought to repentance! Huzzah! It won't always work out this way, but when we don't obey Jesus on this point (which is pretty much all the time in all 'churches' in America) we short circuit God's process. There is a dead monkey on the line, and we are that monkey! Time to stop monkeyin' around and act like men.
When the Ekklesia looks like an Ekklesia 1Cor 14: 26-40
How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the ekklesia, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the ekklesias of the saints.
Let your women keep silent in the ekklesias, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in the ekklesia.
Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.
• Where's the worship leader? Where's the order of service? Where's the 'preacher'? When do we 'have worship'? Who in the world is in charge here? Jesus. And apparently He trusts His Ekklesia to handle it among themselves in a genuinely interactive assembly without any polished professionals. Wow.
• And there's that judgment issue again: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge." Who is judging prophecy? The ekklesia!
• These are the commandments of the Lord, for all ekklesias in all places. This means yours too.
Various 1Thess 5: 14-21
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.
Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good.
• Who is warning the unruly? Not the elders, but the brethren. Who sees to it that no one renders evil for evil? Not the elders, but the brethren. Who is testing all things? Not the elders, but the brethren.
More Judgment 2Thess 3: 6-15
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
• Again, not the elders, but the brethren are to...withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly...And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him...admonish him...
I had intended only one more posting on this topic, but necessity of length would seem to dictate the propriety of leaving the last section, Consensus, to a sixth post. The subject of the ekklesia is no minor subject!
To begin with we ought to examine the secular ekklesia in the NT. There isn't a lot of that since the NT is obviously about the Ekklesia of Christ, but there is a very instructive section in Acts 19: 23-41, where Demetrius the silversmith summons an ekklesia of tradesmen together to do something about Paul.
And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no small profit to the craftsmen. He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship.”
Now when they heard this, they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul’s travel companions. And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theater. Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the ekklesia was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together. And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander motioned with his hand, and wanted to make his defense to the people. But when they found out that he was a Jew, all with one voice cried out for about two hours, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”
And when the city clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: “Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus? Therefore, since these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rashly. For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. Therefore, if Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a case against anyone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful ekklesia. For we are in danger of being called in question for today’s uproar, there being no reason which we may give to account for this disorderly gathering.” And when he had said these things, he dismissed the ekklesia.
Note: Demetrius 'calls' an ekklesia ("He called them together...") of craftsmen into the city theater. He presents a charge before them for consideration and judgment, which then touches off a city-wide uproar. The ekklesia is confused, not understanding why it was 'called out' to begin with. The city clerk indicates that proper inquiries are to be made in the 'lawful ekklesia' which currently is not at all what is happening, and dismisses the ekklesia before they get in real trouble with the Roman government. All the primary elements of the ekklesia concept are here in this passage (except that they aren't executed properly, in an orderly way). This is the exact form of assembly that Jesus Himself chose for us to be.
Now for the Ekklesias of Christ in God.
The disciples replace Judas Acts 1:15-26 (condensed here)
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas...Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection...”
...And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
There are at least two notable points here.
• Noting that the "number of names was about 120" (which likely could mean 120 men, besides women or children), if you will carefully read back through the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper you now will see why they needed 'a large upper room'.
• The whole number was involved in replacing Judas. I have heard people argue that this pre-Pentecost action was outside the will of God – which I think to be on shaky ground since the scripture doesn't say that. (In fact, considering Matt 16:19 and Matt 18:18-20 I think it quite probable that the courts in heaven considered this decision binding.) Regardless, it remains clear that Peter did not address the other apostles only, but the whole ekklesia, and nothing in the text indicates that the apostles did the choosing, but rather the entire 120. They considered the matter openly, agreed, and acted together.
Creating the Deacons Acts 6:1-7
Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.
Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
• (The "twelve" summoned the multitude, which would include Matthias.)
• Though the they knew what they would do, the twelve left the selection to the ekklesia, "...brethren, seek out from among you..."
• "And the saying pleased the whole multitude." This clearly indicates that it could have displeased the multitude or there might have been division. The agreement of the whole multitude is an important point to the writer. Not only was this decision not made behind closed doors, but the agreement of the ekklesia is important.
•"And they chose...whom they set before the apostles..." The multitude chose, the multitude set.
Must the Gentiles Keep the Law? Acts 15 (just verses 4-30 here)
And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the ekklesia and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’
“Known to God from eternity are all His works. Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole ekklesia, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
They wrote this, letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”— to whom we gave no such commandment— it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
• They were received by the ekklesia and the apostles and the elders. And the ekklesia is listed first.
• The Apostles and the Elders came together to consider the matter...but with all the multitude.
• The decision to accept and publish James' counsel '...pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole ekklesia..." Obviously, if it pleased the whole ekklesia, it could also have displeased the ekklesia, or their could have been disagreement. Clearly the apostles and elders led, but just as clearly the ekklesia participated in and mattered to the progress.
• They did not deliver the letter until the multitude was gathered.
The Ekklesia in Corinth Falls Down on the Job I 1Cor 5:1-13
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
• The ekklesia has a responsibility to remove unrepentant Christians from its midst. Here they have a member in open immorality and have done nothing at all. Not only have they disobeyed Christ in tolerating this fornication, but they reveled in their toleration as though that were a good thing (sound like any 'churches' you know?). Paul is clear that they should already have judged this man; in their failure he (being an apostle) issues judgment against the man as though Paul were gathered with them – in the ekklesia – ready for judgment. He commands them, when they are gathered together – as the ekklesia– to agree with him and render the judgment in unity against this man.
• Paul explains the reason why they must render judgment, and why it is an important ordinary function of the ekklesia, "...a little leaven leavens the whole lump." If sin is tolerated it will spread into the whole ekklesia.
• Paul reiterates the necessity of judgment in the ekklesia: "I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person."
The Ekklesia in Corinth Falls Down on the Job II 1Cor 6:1-11
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the ekklesia to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
• Judgment isn't restricted to immorality or gross sin, but any issues between believers are to be brought before the ekklesia if they cannot be settled otherwise, which is the absolute, final recourse for all believers. The Ekklesia at Corinth was also failing on this point.
• Paul affirms that a, if not the, primary defining ministry of the Ekklesias of Christ is judgment. The saints will judge the world, angels, and the smallest matters. Get with it saints! That silly "you catch 'em and God cleans 'em" routine is not of God. Judges are what we are; judgment is what we do! Look at the emphasis Paul places in this section!
• Paul chastises them because they should all be capable of and rendering judgment and can't they find even one?
The Ekklesia in Corinth Does its Job...and It Works! 2Cor 2: 5-11
But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ, lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.
• Th ekklesia was obedient to Paul, fulfilled its purpose in Christ, and the sinning brother is brought to repentance! Huzzah! It won't always work out this way, but when we don't obey Jesus on this point (which is pretty much all the time in all 'churches' in America) we short circuit God's process. There is a dead monkey on the line, and we are that monkey! Time to stop monkeyin' around and act like men.
When the Ekklesia looks like an Ekklesia 1Cor 14: 26-40
How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the ekklesia, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the ekklesias of the saints.
Let your women keep silent in the ekklesias, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in the ekklesia.
Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.
• Where's the worship leader? Where's the order of service? Where's the 'preacher'? When do we 'have worship'? Who in the world is in charge here? Jesus. And apparently He trusts His Ekklesia to handle it among themselves in a genuinely interactive assembly without any polished professionals. Wow.
• And there's that judgment issue again: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge." Who is judging prophecy? The ekklesia!
• These are the commandments of the Lord, for all ekklesias in all places. This means yours too.
Various 1Thess 5: 14-21
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.
Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good.
• Who is warning the unruly? Not the elders, but the brethren. Who sees to it that no one renders evil for evil? Not the elders, but the brethren. Who is testing all things? Not the elders, but the brethren.
More Judgment 2Thess 3: 6-15
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
• Again, not the elders, but the brethren are to...withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly...And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him...admonish him...
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Ekklesiatime IV: Congregationalism
I didn't want to go beyond a fourth entry on the topic of the ekklesia, but there is no reasonable way to cover the biblical ekklesia without a solid discourse on the topic of Congregationalism. So this will be the fourth, and the fifth entry should be the last.
Simply put, Congregationalism is part and parcel of the ekklesia concept; if you don't have a congregational ekklesia, you don't have a biblical ekklesia. Strictly speaking you don't really have an 'ekklesia' at all. Of course you still do have a form of 'body' fellowship without Congregationalism, but like it or not that is a very handicapped form: like having a physical body with a severely damaged spinal cord.
I know that many of you reading this will reject the very idea that Congregationalism should have any part at all in the Body of Christ, much less a vital part. Congregationalism isn't fashionable in many 'church' structures – particularly as I have noted in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles where there seems to me to be a real distaste for it. In late 2009 I heard Jack Abeelen of Morningstar Christian Chapel speaking on the radio against Congregationalism, saying, "...I'm sorry, but that's just not in the Bible."
Now I have a fair regard for Jack Abeelen, and not that many notable disagreements, but if you can find the Trinity in the New Testament scriptures, you ought to be able to find Congregationalism (if you can't find the Trinity you need to get on that unless you're truly just a newborn Christian). Just like the Doctrine of the Trinity, you won't find the word 'Congregationalism' in the Bible; but what you will find, if you look honestly, is that the function of the Body of Christ as we see in the scriptures includes what would be called Congregationalism. If you can't see Congregationalism in the Bible that is biblical ignorance; and if your 'church' isn't operating in congregationalism it is operating in ignorance.
So let's take a look at the reality of Congregationalism in the New Testament.
The best place to begin is in Matt 16:17-19, with Jesus Himself, noting again that He Himself specifically chose the word 'ekklesia' to describe His Body, from among other words that He might have chosen that would not have had such specific political meaning. Looking at the word 'ekklesia', the inherent defining characteristic of the ekklesia is that it is essentially democratic in nature. This might not seem of immediate note to those of us from among the English speaking peoples, as we are accustomed to think of ourselves as democratic, and we refer to ourselves as 'democracies'. We refer to our enemies as 'the enemies of democracy'. And we do operate according to democratic principles; but in point of fact we are republics. The difference is simply this: in a republic a few act on behalf of the whole (although the few are democratically elected in our nations), whereas in a democracy every eligible citizen has a say. Imagine for instance if each one of us in the U.S. had a direct opportunity to argue and to vote on the current Health Care bill instead of hoping that the Congress will do what we want! That is the difference, and that is what the ekklesia is all about. It is true democracy in action – which is a lot easier to ignore when you go around calling the Ekklesia of God a 'church'.
Now that you know that, you should be able to see that the word 'ekklesia' fits with "whatever you bind..and whatever you loose" like a hand fits in a glove.
Then in Matt 18:15-20 He speaks about the ekklesia this way:
"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the ekklesia. But if he refuses even to hear the ekklesia, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
Here He is talking specifically about decision-making, authority, and judgment, and He instructs this matter to be taken not to the elders or apostles, but to the ekklesia. Again He speaks of binding and loosing, and clearly indicates that what He has in mind is the authority of the ekklesia to render judgments, and even specifies how many it takes to constitute an authoritative ekklesia (two or three).
But especially note the preceding verses leading up to this (Matt 18:12-14)
"What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."
Jesus here specifically associates the desire of the Father not to lose even one sheep with His clear instructions to render judgment on the straying and unrepentant brother. In other words, the ekklesia is empowered by Jesus with authority to render judgment (even harsh judgment) specifically to prevent if at all possible the loss of a believer! Vast, vast sections of the 'church' today wouldn't even dream of such a thing. It would be too mean-spirited, too unloving, too hypocritical, too religious, too legalistic, too self-righteous! It wouldn't be very church-like at all! ..no not at all I am afraid; but it would be very ekklesia-like. (...he who loves Me will keep My commands...)
In the next entry we will look further at the reality of congregationalism in the NT, and also consider consensus in the ekklesia, versus majority rule.
Simply put, Congregationalism is part and parcel of the ekklesia concept; if you don't have a congregational ekklesia, you don't have a biblical ekklesia. Strictly speaking you don't really have an 'ekklesia' at all. Of course you still do have a form of 'body' fellowship without Congregationalism, but like it or not that is a very handicapped form: like having a physical body with a severely damaged spinal cord.
I know that many of you reading this will reject the very idea that Congregationalism should have any part at all in the Body of Christ, much less a vital part. Congregationalism isn't fashionable in many 'church' structures – particularly as I have noted in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles where there seems to me to be a real distaste for it. In late 2009 I heard Jack Abeelen of Morningstar Christian Chapel speaking on the radio against Congregationalism, saying, "...I'm sorry, but that's just not in the Bible."
Now I have a fair regard for Jack Abeelen, and not that many notable disagreements, but if you can find the Trinity in the New Testament scriptures, you ought to be able to find Congregationalism (if you can't find the Trinity you need to get on that unless you're truly just a newborn Christian). Just like the Doctrine of the Trinity, you won't find the word 'Congregationalism' in the Bible; but what you will find, if you look honestly, is that the function of the Body of Christ as we see in the scriptures includes what would be called Congregationalism. If you can't see Congregationalism in the Bible that is biblical ignorance; and if your 'church' isn't operating in congregationalism it is operating in ignorance.
So let's take a look at the reality of Congregationalism in the New Testament.
The best place to begin is in Matt 16:17-19, with Jesus Himself, noting again that He Himself specifically chose the word 'ekklesia' to describe His Body, from among other words that He might have chosen that would not have had such specific political meaning. Looking at the word 'ekklesia', the inherent defining characteristic of the ekklesia is that it is essentially democratic in nature. This might not seem of immediate note to those of us from among the English speaking peoples, as we are accustomed to think of ourselves as democratic, and we refer to ourselves as 'democracies'. We refer to our enemies as 'the enemies of democracy'. And we do operate according to democratic principles; but in point of fact we are republics. The difference is simply this: in a republic a few act on behalf of the whole (although the few are democratically elected in our nations), whereas in a democracy every eligible citizen has a say. Imagine for instance if each one of us in the U.S. had a direct opportunity to argue and to vote on the current Health Care bill instead of hoping that the Congress will do what we want! That is the difference, and that is what the ekklesia is all about. It is true democracy in action – which is a lot easier to ignore when you go around calling the Ekklesia of God a 'church'.
Now that you know that, you should be able to see that the word 'ekklesia' fits with "whatever you bind..and whatever you loose" like a hand fits in a glove.
Then in Matt 18:15-20 He speaks about the ekklesia this way:
"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the ekklesia. But if he refuses even to hear the ekklesia, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
Here He is talking specifically about decision-making, authority, and judgment, and He instructs this matter to be taken not to the elders or apostles, but to the ekklesia. Again He speaks of binding and loosing, and clearly indicates that what He has in mind is the authority of the ekklesia to render judgments, and even specifies how many it takes to constitute an authoritative ekklesia (two or three).
But especially note the preceding verses leading up to this (Matt 18:12-14)
"What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."
Jesus here specifically associates the desire of the Father not to lose even one sheep with His clear instructions to render judgment on the straying and unrepentant brother. In other words, the ekklesia is empowered by Jesus with authority to render judgment (even harsh judgment) specifically to prevent if at all possible the loss of a believer! Vast, vast sections of the 'church' today wouldn't even dream of such a thing. It would be too mean-spirited, too unloving, too hypocritical, too religious, too legalistic, too self-righteous! It wouldn't be very church-like at all! ..no not at all I am afraid; but it would be very ekklesia-like. (...he who loves Me will keep My commands...)
In the next entry we will look further at the reality of congregationalism in the NT, and also consider consensus in the ekklesia, versus majority rule.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)