ADD TO THE BOTTOM

01/04/2012

The Gospel of Matthew, on first appearance, seems to make it perfectly clear that a church is to be built and that Peter is to be its authoritative foundation.

Matthew 16:17-18 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (NKJ)

But, now, what was the "rock" Jesus referred to, Peter or his confession of faith? The answer dramatically affects what meaning and understanding we derive from these verses of Matthew. We can conclude that Peter had the authority to organize a church. Thus, as its father, we would need to look for the lineage of authority for the church today. Where is that lineage? A thousand years previously, Moses provided us the genealogies of Adam, Noah and Abram. The practice was known and established. The first chapter of Matthew lists the genealogy of our Savior. Where is the genealogy of Peter's authority? Surely, if God had desired, it would have been indisputably preserved

It probably comes as no surprise that Jesus was not speaking English to Peter or anyone else at the time. He could have, but no one would have understood Him. He may have said, "Kagoo de soi legoo hoti su ei Petros Kai epi tautee tee petra oikodomeesoo mou teen ekkleesian kai putai Hadou ou katischusousin autees." Of course, we all understand the meaning of this perfectly well. Just in case, however, there is one word, "ekkleesian," we might want to look at a little closer. It is a derived from the word "ekklesia which suggests a religious congregation an assembly, a calling out, or a church. As a matter of fact, the word, oikodomeo," is, indeed, to build or erect a house. However, it can also mean to grow in wisdom and piety - to edify or embolden. "Petra," rock, can be translated as a large stone, or as connoting strength of character. Now, just what was Jesus saying about and to Peter? Could He have been saying, "Peter, because of your strength of character, your growth in wisdom and piety, I will call you apart?"

Was Peter "called apart?" Did his answer to Jesus' question suggest he had grown in wisdom? Did he display strength of character? He, you may recall, stepped out of a boat to approach Jesus when the others thought He was a ghost. He was a witness of Christ's transfiguration. He drew his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. Yes, he denied he knew Christ, but he ventured into the empty tomb. After His restoration, Paul reports that Jesus appeared first to Peter. He witnessed to Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles. Remember the story of Cornelius the centurion?

Acts 10:30-35 So Cornelius said, "Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, "and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God. 'Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. When he comes, he will speak to you.' "So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God." Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. (NKJ)

Maybe this is the church that Peter was commissioned to build - works of righteousness - not for salvation, but for the glorification of God, . As for Peter and his behavior, he chose to involve himself in worshiping God through witnessing. There is no record of his ordination.

†

  Return to the Church Directory

There are several common uses of the word "church." First, in its most genuine sense, church is the body of all Christians drawn together by belief in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Second, it is where we go on Sunday to worship. This includes the hierarchy of ordained pastors, priests or ministers. It is the buildings, grounds, and programs, staff and organization we are encouraged to support with our "tithes" and offerings. Finally, the church is a denomination distinctive from all others by its particular set of creeds, catechisms and orders. The last two are the "institutional church"

How we derived such structure and complexity from the simplicity of Jesus' teachings is difficult to say. Its development has spanned the nearly two thousand years since His ascension. Frequently, that history has been clouded with much that is disgraceful.

The "priestly/laity" distinctions developed early. Some writers claim the institutional church began with the blessing of the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. However, it seems more likely it began with the actions of the Apostles as recorded in the Book of Acts. The selection of seven "deacons" is an early, first century, example. Here, and earlier, the Apostles appear to have become separated from the ordinary worshipers into a "leadership role." They prayed over the seven "deacons" and laid their hands upon them. Earlier, Barnabas sold all his possessions and laid the proceeds at the Apostles feet indicating they were in charge of the disbursements. Barnabas took the converted Saul to the Apostles who, after many others were still afraid of him, took Paul into the fold.

"Places of worship" appeared early as well. The Apostles were fond of the synagogues - something that frequently caused them trouble. From the beginning of the Apostolic days, they assembled in the Jewish temples and synagogues. Peter and John met the lame man at the doors to the temple. When they were rescued from prison, an angel of the Lord told the Apostles to "Go, stand and speak in the Temple." After Jesus' ascension, Acts records that the Apostles returned to Jerusalem and spent much time worshipping in the temple. Paul preached in synagogues on many occasions. None of this is too unusual. After all, the synagogues and temple were the physical manifestation of the Jewish faith as churches are for Christianity today.

In what ever way it began, the institutional church exists as a central and essential feature of Christian worship. We are encouraged to come together. One of the more poignant promises Jesus made to his disciples was that He was wherever they gathered in His name. We claim that promise as ours today. Jesus is in our midst. What better reason could there be?

Additionally, Matthew Henry's Commentary outlines other purposes for coming together: (1) for discipline, (2) for religious worship, (3) Christian communion, (4) for Holy purposes. The right of and need for the institutional church to discipline is questionable. Although it has a long and brutal history, including the Spanish Inquisition, It is certainly difficult to justify. On the other hand, worship, communion and "Holy purposes" are absolutely essential. They are vital in the lives of every one of us and for the whole of the Christian community. Nevertheless, they are only means to an end -- The glorification of God. None of these, nor anything else we might do, is meaningful unless our purposes are Holy. Each of us has the presence of Christ within us. That presence is the Holy Spirit. The communion of saints magnifies His presence into a tremendous force to charge our spiritual batteries.

A Christian church on the corner, or wherever it may be, is a witness to the world. No one understands the truth of this statement more than Dr. Robert H. Schuller. The church grounds are a tapestry of stone and steel, sparkling glass and flowing water, carved statues and the simplicity of trees and flowers woven together honor the beauty and harmony of all God's creation. The Crystal Cathedral brings people from every race, nation, religion and political persuasion into his services. Many come as tourists to see the magnificence of the buildings and grounds; they leave forever changed. Some are saved. What is the worth of a human soul?

If the divisive nature of denominationalism could be moderated, the institutional church could become an unmatched center for religious education. The years scholarship and study of seminary graduates could be phenomenal resources for Christian education. The collective years of study and preparation professional clergy have accumulated through the centuries, the libraries of theological treatise are invaluable. So are the untold lifetimes of experience in pastoral counseling and presenting the Word.

The most fundamentally important mission of the institutional church is to instruct us about the workings of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Instruct us about His indwelling within the hearts and souls of all those who call Jesus Lord and Savior. Teach us that He is with us always. It must train us in His ways. Show us the importance of the veil being rent at Christ's crucifixion. It must teach us that the veil between God and man no longer exists, sacrifices are no longer required. We may approach the throne of God with confidence.

Overall, the institutional church is a source of comfort and strength for us in preparation for our daily ministry. In its proper perspective, it is a storehouse of Sacred truth and wisdom. That perspective is to lay the groundwork for the ministerial work we do every hour of every day of our lives. It is a training camp for service. It is a retreat for those wounded in mission.

†

Return to the Church Directory

That is how Greg Ogden, in The New Reformation, describes what is happening in the "church" today. It is undergoing a reformation, a transformation.

Reformation is frequently thought to suggest something new, improved, progressive or even growth. However, reform can also imply restoration. That is exactly what is taking place. The church of the Bible, of Jesus Christ, is being restored.

Somewhere between Pentecost and today. the "church" separated itself from the "People of the Way." Separated itself from the body of Christ. Separated itself from life. It lost the Breath of Life. More and more, over the centuries, it became a mockery of God's intent. Increasingly, it imitated the deterioration of Judaism into its obsessive legalisms and ritualistic observances without any meaning; without any heart. Luther saw it. Calvin saw it. The Wesley's saw it.

The restoration is a fresh wind blowing in a stagnated institutionalized church. His church is being resuscitated by the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is a Sacred wind blowing. Recall that Luke described the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as "a sound like the blowing of a violent wind" from heaven. (Acts 2:2) It blew into the hearts and souls of all of the believers who were assembled.

Today, it is blowing into the church of the new reformation. It really is not the church of today, or of tomorrow, it is a return to the church as it was in the beginning and is becoming again. In this one respect, Dr. Ogden's title for his book is, somewhat, in error. The Restoration might be a more appropriate title. The church is not being reformed, it is being restored.

Those hearing the call for a renewal of the church, the body of Christ, are not radicals with innovative ideas. To the contrary, they are conservatives, reactionaries, leading us back to what was; nearly two thousand years ago. They are calling for the church to return to its Biblical roots.

Returning to those roots, Ogden writes, requires that the church become a ministry of one people - the people of God. It requires an abandonment of the trappings of institutionalism that has crept into our religious life. In his words, we must define ourselves "from the bottom up as the whole people of God."

Institutionalization lends itself to specialization and a division of labor. On the one hand there are the professionals in spiritual concerns and, on the other, the passive recipients of their pastoral care. In contrast, the church of Christ is one people, with many gifts, working together toward the glorification of God.

All too frequently, the institutionalized church relies upon the knowledge and scholarship of men. Along with other vestiges of bureaucracy, has been the implementation of a professional clergy based upon seminary schooling and ordination by a particular denomination.

On the surface, this might appear to be an acceptable formula - until it usurps the counsel of the Holy Spirit. Ogden suggests that there must be a reexamination of the role of the ordained ministry. It must, "find its place within the people of God." (p.70) "The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers," he contends, "obliterates the caste distinction between clergy and laity."(p.71)

For this to happen, there must be absolute faith and trust in the Spirit of God to lead, guide and direct us. Not just among the clerics of the institutionalized church, but among all of us.

The ecclesiastics readily admit the positively central role the Holy Spirit must play in the lives of the body of Christ. Unfortunately, this vital, essential ingredient of Christian life is rarely preached from the pulpit. Those who do, are frequently accused of being "evangelical" or "fundamentalist." Words intended to be slurs upon the theology if not the preparation for the "ministry" of such "preachers."

Unfortunately, these "preachers" are nearly indistinguishable from their "colleagues" in the "established" churches with the exception of "speaking in tongues" and other such anomalistic activities. The clergy/laity distinction exists there as much as in the "mainline" churches. So does the quality of institutionalization. Even the Society of Friends (Quakers), who reject formal sacraments, creeds and priesthood, institutionalized their illumination of the "Inner Light" - the Holy Spirit. The Synod of Dort, in 1619, "rejected and very positively condemned" such teaching anyway.

The double - triple - whammy of neglect and contempt from the bully pulpit along with the "tent revival" reputation of "Holy Rollers," has estranged today's Christians from the very substance of their spiritual life.

Contemporary Christians aren't encouraged to follow the persuasions of the "still small voice" within their hearts. That would be too close to the Arminianism (Quakers) rejected by the "greatest synod of Reformed churches ever held," the Synod of Dort. Heavens, "modern Christians" aren't even encouraged to make prayer and Bible study part of their routine of life. Such behavior is not putting religion in its proper perspective. In modern and sophisticated circles, it simply is not proper for just any ordinary Christian to study the Word and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What would people think if we started having visions, hearing God speak to us; prophesy?

But a fresh wind is blowing and, with tongues of fire filling the whole house, His Holy Spirit is irresistibly moving into the lives of the church.. We are a new reformation with that Spirit resting upon each of us. We are a priesthood of all believers. His spirit is pouring out upon all people; sons and daughters, men and women, young and old. (Acts 2:17) We will abandon the schism between the church and our daily lives. We will see every day as the time for worship and everywhere as the place for missionary work. The Holy Spirit is our best friend and closest confidant. God did not change, we did. It is time to come home. The division of the church is at an end. Divisive denominational distinction as with clerical/laity distinctions are finished. Through the direction of the Holy Spirit, we will trade our bondage for liberty. He directed His people during the Apostolic age, He does so today. †

Return to the Church Directory

Just to be sure we are all on the same page, the practice of granting indulgences was widespread in medaieval Europe. It was this practice of the church that prompted Luther's 95 theses.

Indulgences were the payment for the "remission of temporal punishment still due for a sin that has been sacramentally absolved." Part of that punishment was suffering in Purgatory. One could pay for the remission of this suffering. In short, one could buy his way out of Purgatory and into Heaven. The great theologians St. Bonaventura and St. Aquinas supported the practice. The Council of Trent endorsed it as well.

Well, why not indulge the idea of indulgences? Isn't it true that Scripture has to be understood within the tradition of the church? Perhaps it should be considered a "sacrament." Never mind that the word "sacrament" appears no where in the Bible, the practice of payment for indulgences seem to fit right in. It is part of the "traditions of the Church," is it not?

Sacraments are what St. Augustine defined as "the visible form of an invisible grace." The Revell Bible Dictionary explains that sacraments among Protestants operate as witnesses to Christ's promise of forgiveness of sins or as a means through which God's grace is given. (p.881) At one point, the Church identified seven sacraments including penance. Indulgences might just fit in.

Much like Circumcision, the celebration of Passover and the practice of making sacrificial offerings under the Old Covenant, the payment of indulgences under the New Covenant seems entirely appropriate to the church of today for several reasons.

First, the practice clearly has monetary value. Not only could it be used to build churches and cathedrals, it could be used to balance budgets and fund programs. Perhaps, we have been too hasty to set some of these ancient practices aside.

Secondly, indulgences would , as in days of yore, provide a wonderful opportunity for ministry. The church, with great solemnity, could righteously preside over the assessment of such "sin fines" and, we hasten to add, in their collection.

Not to be lost in the power of the first two reasons is a third most powerful. It gives the penitent something to do. In a simple, uncomplicated, encapsulated act of financial contrition, our immortal souls could be assured instant transmutation to the heavenly realm. Once the ink was dry on the check, we could be on our way.

Think of it, "no sweat, no strain." And, why not? We've reduced our Christian service to church on Sunday; our indebtedness to God to 10%; our pastoral responsibilities to the church staff; our ministerial duties to the ordained clergy; evangelism to missionaries and our theology to what God can do for us.

Consider the slogan, "You can't outspend God." If such an absurdity as conning God can be taken as serious theology, what's wrong with a little bribery? If the first isn't obviated by its feebleness, why would the second be less ethical? Surely if we can buy heavenly assurances of financial success for as little as ten cents on the dollar, what's wrong with a few bucks to pass Purgatory and go directly to Saint Pete?

If the "church" is the building on the corner or a bureaucratic organization, why shouldn't we be able to buy our way into Heaven? Is one really any more ridiculous than the other?

If we can reduce those referred to as a "royal priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:9 to second-class "pew-warmers" known as the "laity," we have already indulged ourselves.

Before we scorn the idea indulgences, perhaps we should more closely examine our own heresies.

†

 Jesus commanded His Apostles to "go and make disciples of all nations." That simply has not been done. Even during the Reformation when entire nations became "Christian" when their monarch was "converted," most of the nations of the world never heard of Christ. Since there aren't very many Christians willing to admit we have failed, how are we to finish the job?

The church that Peter built had a number of ministerial offices. At the top were apostles. The Apostles were taught by Jesus until His ascension and then by the Holy Spirit. Early in the history of the "church" seven men "were selected so these Apostles wouldn't "have to waste their time waiting upon tables." At least one of these men, Stephen, became an evangelist. It is also recorded that there were prophets, teachers. bishops and deacons. All of these offices were, according to some, created to enable the church to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ into all the world.

But, how many apostles, bishops, evangelists and whatever, can there be? The original apostles are, most likely, dead by now. Unless there have been some newly appointed, they are out of the picture. That leaves evangelists, prophets, teachers, bishops and deacons to finish the work He assigned us. How many are there? How many need there be?

Regardless of the numbers, throwing the burdens of ministration and evangelization on the shoulders of a few is unreasonable and impracticable. If you don't think so, ask you pastor.

Today, hundreds of millions have not even heard the Word in spite of the "mass media" and all the powerful writers and television ministers. We, in this prosperous country, fail to realize that most people can't read let alone have access to books. What we forget is that eighty percent of the world's population does not have television. How are they ever to be reached?

How many Billy Grahams, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copelands and Benny Hins are there? If the infamous "Rev." Moon could claim ten million followers, it would be a drop in the bucket. There are six billion people living on the planet today with that number increasing exponentially.

That part of the world we consider to be "civilized and Christian (primarily Western Europe, the United States and Canada) is Christian in name only. And, Christianity in these countries is losing ground to secularism and non-Christian religions. These are the people who have access to churches, books and television. What is the outlook for evangelizing the rest of the world if we can't even save those in our own country?

If Robert Schuller reached two million NEW viewers to his Hour of Power every week, each of whom became converted, it would take fifty-eight thousand years to convert every person on the earth. We have to hurry, because the number of living people increases ninety to one hundred million a year. Most of that increase is in areas of the world where there is no television and there are no printing presses and very few churches.

Unless we consider the task accomplished, or that it failed because all of the Apostles died without finishing it, this is our commission.

Somewhere, somehow, the dam has to be broken, the gates have to be thrown open. The very idea that such an awesome task was ever to be confined to the "church" must be reexamined.

Most of the peoples of the world may not have access to mass media. Those who do, may not find the religious broadcasts in the midst of the filth on the air or the religious books amongst the trash on the shelves. However, one hundred percent have neighbors, friends, colleagues and loved ones. Are you a neighbor, friend, colleague or loved one? Are you a Christian? The job is yours.

One-two-one-four-one (12141) is part of the address for the Crystal Cathedral; and much more. Read it again, but this time, read it as one to one for one. That is the challenge facing Christianity. Instead of relying on the church on the corner and the pastor in the pulpit, it is time to get personal -- one on one for Jesus Christ.

The church on the corner may not exist. There may not even be a corner. However, everyone has friends and neighbors and loved ones who have not heard the Word. Share it.

Jesus taught us the simplest possible way to share the Good News. He told us we were "the light of the world." Because we are filled with His loving joy, we have the confidence and self assurance to treat others with grace and dignity. We are promised, as we model Him, others will come to glorify our Father.

" while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men," 2 Cor 9:13 (NKJ)

Caiaphas was the high priest of Israel appointed by Valerius Gratus, Roman procurator around A.D. 18 at the beginning of our Lord’s public service. He presided over the council of th Sanhedrin. That group was composed of chief priests (Sadducees) and Pharisees. He was a member of the Sadducees. They came from the leading families of the nation -- priests, merchants, and aristocrats. The high priests and the most powerful members of the priesthood were mainly Sadducees (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

This high priest, Caiaphas, a Sanhedrin Sadducee, this most powerful member of the priesthood and of one of the leading families of the nation, saw to the execution of Jesus. He was also involved in the persecution of Peter and John. This high priest. Notice that. But also notice the near total depravity of the nation. The Jewish people did not select Caiaphas, nor did the priesthood. The Romans appointed him to be the leader of the Jewish faith. They picked this man as high priest for the Jewish people. Astonishing. There is even the suggestion of possible graft involved in the appointment. Astonishing that the works of men had totally supplanted the will of God in the church of the Chosen People.

Christ entered into a scene of total corruption. His sheep were being led astray by liars in sacred cloth. By the time He came to walk among us, the “Church” had become thoroughly corrupted and was now serving another master. In Ephesians 6:12, Paul warns about such an eventuality. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Is it possible he saw the faith he had once defended was now totally depraved? In verse 11, he advises that we put on the whole armor of God to withstand the onslaught of evil. Caiaphas was evil. Particularly evil because he represented the organized religiosity of the Jewish people yet, he served the master of darkness. He comes across the centuries as a warning to us to be wary of those wear their office with too much distinction, pride and confidence. In his office of chief priest, he placated the crowds with the illusion of worship while requiring nothing of them. Fausset's Bible Dictionary suggests that, “Unscrupulous vigor, combined with political. shrewdness, characterizes him in the New Testament, as it also kept him in office longer than any of his predecessors.”

Caiaphas was a single person in history, an event in the struggle between the powers of light and darkness. Yet, he is a prototype, a model, a paradigm of those pretending to the throne of righteousness with hearts full of deceit, malevolence and greed. Caiaphas broke the divine Law he was sworn to uphold in order to achieve his own purposes. He was part of the corruption of the priesthood and degradation of the Jewish Nation. The Law and the Prophets were manipulated into his service rather than he into theirs. Of him the Revell Bible Dictionary states, “The gospels portray Caiaphas as a manipulative, dishonest man who was willing to break the divine Law he was sworn as high priest to uphold, in order to achieve his own goals.”(p184) His story should not be dismissed into history nor relegated to irrelevance because of the faith the man professed.

Caiaphas is real, he is alive and well, among us today. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly John 10:8-10

And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. Luke 9:33

The ninth chapter of the Book of Luke is an astounding collection of phenomenal events in Christ's ministry. In just one chapter, He gives his disciples the power and authority (Luke 9:1) to drive out demons and to heal. Then, He sends them out to preach. Peter confesses Jesus is the Christ. He feeds the five thousand. He is transfigured and He heals a boy with an evil spirit. What "power and authority?" Transfigured?

Some Biblical scholars consider Jesus' transfiguration the halfway point in His ministry. It took place while Peter, James and John caught up on some much-needed sleep and Jesus prayed. As He prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. (Luke 9:29) Accounts of this event are also found in Matthew 17:2 and Mark 9:3.

During the transformation, Moses and Elijah appeared in "glorious splendor" and started talking with Jesus concerning the fulfillment of His earthly ministry. Their presence was profoundly important. Interestingly, Joshua completed Moses work and Elisha completed Elijah's work. Elisha is another name for Joshua. Joshua means "deliverance" or "salvation." The three "deliverers of Israel" had a meeting.

Meanwhile, the boys were waking from their nap, But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. Luke 9:32 They nearly missed the party because Moses and Elijah started to leave as the disciples were rousing themselves. It was at this point, perhaps not still fully awake that Peter thought it would be a great idea to build three churches in honor of the event. There is a phrase ending the 33rd verse that practically every Bible translation treats as parenthetical. The NIV most graphically presents the case, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." (He did not know what he was saying.) His intentions were the best he just probably had some cobwebs in his head left over from his snooze. The commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown is most severe on Peter's suggestion, "The poor man's words in such circumstances must not be scrutinized too closely. The next step put an end to the hallucination. The cloud and the voice effectually silenced him." Matthew Henry's Commentary gives more of an explanation of the inappropriateness of the suggestion, "Those know not what they say that talk of making tabernacles on earth for glorified saints in heaven, who have better mansions in the temple there, and long to return to them."

There will be another time when, with Jesus praying, the boys will nod off. This time, no one will consider building a church. The theme may not be universal among the disciples, how often is it among us? How often, when we should be praying or, if you will, how often should we be about our father's business when we are not?

Now, notice they could not stay awake. Perhaps because they were up late the night before or were tired from their labors of the day. Regardless, of the cause of their slothfulness, at least Peter recovered sufficiently to suggest putting up some tents to honor Jesus and His royal visitors, and staying there for a while. The opportunity for active participation in a vital spiritual experience was being replaced by the suggestion of constructing a church. Peter was just ahead of his time, the feat of building a church in the garden was accomplished some time between 333 and 390.

The building frenzy has gone on unabated for nearly 2,000 years. While the very presence of God in the form of a cloud stopped Peter, James and John from erecting the three tabernacles, nothing has stopped the proliferation of churches since. Into these buildings, Christianity can be conveniently shelved away from the bustle of real life. Away from any outside chance we might be inconvenienced by any thought of Christian ethics. To paraphrase criticism Protestant reformers leveled at the Roman Catholic Church, today we can say that the church has become a house around an altar on which we place our part-time religious commitments with just as much significance as Peter's suggestion.

†

Return to the Church Directory
 

A

A High View of the Church

 Return to the Church Directory

A recent church publication states, "…the Reformers never abandon a high view of the church." What they never abandoned, is the institutionalism found in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches. The "high view" of the church is one that is formally organized, bureaucratic, with a distinctive priesthood, liturgy and its own theology. In this view, faith is the result of the church's preaching and confirmed by its sacraments and disciplines administered by the priesthood. People are saved, in the high view of the church, only as members of such a body, never individually. Christ is a "personal savior" only in the sense that He saves individuals, but they are saved only as members of a church. It is through the Eucharist that the Passover of Christ, his redeeming work, is made available to us. They consider what Christ did visibly has been taken over by the sacraments of the church.

And, by subscribing to the rules of the "High Church," these Protestant reformers virtually laid to rest any real change in the direction of Christianity in modern history. Unfortunately these great reformers failed to see the problem was "The Church." While they saw their sacred call to get away from the "Rules of the Romish Church" which were considered unscriptural, they did not see the depth of deception human organization affords. They didn't see that church organization and ritual had supplanted the Body of Believers, the Body of Christ. They didn't see that the church had deprived their congregations of the presence and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The Church is the body of the faithful of which Jesus Christ is the head - the bride waiting upon the Groom. It is "the whole number of regenerated persons specifically from Pentecost to the first resurrection (1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:13-17) united organically to one another and to Christ by the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit." (From The New Unger's Bible Dictionary.) The great accomplishments of the Reformation, wresting the Holy Word from the secretive grasp of the Roman Church and breaking the dubious authority of the Pope over all things Christian, must be weighted and balanced against these grave shortcomings.

The negative effects of imitating the "Romish" church has been the striking absence of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ. If, in searching the creeds, cannons and confessions of Protestantism, you have wondered about a near absence of His Spirit, wonder no more. It is not your oversight. If you have noticed an absence of lessons about the Holy Spirit in teaching and preaching and you were stumped by such a glaring omission concern yourself no more. It is not your lack of understanding or comprehension, it is an intentional slight to His existence. The "creedal church" has supplanted Him. We now rely upon human institutions and human wisdom. Do you really think that Jesus Christ was born, was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to authorize human intellect to preside over His church?

There are fairly simple and understandable reasons for this subrogation of organization for the Holy Spirit. Even the Apostles, on occasion, were limited in their new beliefs by the pervasive influence of old ways on them. They had grown up with the organization of the Synagogue and the Temple with their priests and elaborate sacrificial rituals. The religious traditions of these early Christians created more than one conflict for those who insisted Jewish traditions pertaining to diet and circumcision being preserved. In many respects, the organization of the Synagogue served a model for worship in the First Century Church.

Little wonder that, after Christ's ascension, His followers had occasional lapses in which they heeded their own counsel instead of the urgings of the Holy Spirit. For example, the appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was by lottery. Acts 6:5 records that the first deacons were appointed so the Apostles would not have to wait upon tables. It took the stoning of Stephen to drive most of the followers of Jesus out of Jerusalem. Even then, the Apostles, under some agreement for their safety, remained in the city. Acts 1:4 records they were told to remain in the city only until they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. The "day of Pentecost" is recorded in Acts 2:1 - they received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 7:58, they were still in Jerusalem for there Stephen was stoned.

The authors of the Reformation were limited by the traditions of the "High View of the Church" with which they were more than a little familiar. Martin Luther wasn't just some kid down the street with a pain in his bowels claiming to be inspired. He was an ordained and educated member of the Roman Catholic priesthood. John Calvin, raised a Roman Catholic and remained one until he was 24. He lived to be 55. Both were interested in reforming the Church, not in restoring it to its Biblical foundations.

Apostles, reformers, you, me, we all have choices. Our Spiritual lives can be directed by human reason and authority or by the Holy Spirit. Which view of the church is found in the Word, that created and ruled by men or by Jesus Christ? A high view of His Kingdom or of the church?

 †

Return to the Church Directory
 

Return to the Church Directory

What in the world does that mean? Have we forgotten the Reformation started by Martin Luther broke its bonds with the Catholic Church? Linguists tell us that words are "value-laden." They have an emotional content of both feelings and perceptions. We don't just have definitions, we have preconceptions about how we are going to react.. In Protestant Christianity, few words arouse stronger emotions than "Catholic." Among Catholics, we find virtually the same reaction to Martin Luther and the very idea of a "reformation."

The title for this article was taken from Article 27 of the Belgic Confession, question 54 of "Lord's Day 21 in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Apostles' Creed. The Nicene Creed speaks of "one holy catholic and apostolic church," and the Athanasian Creed talks about "catholic faith" and "catholic religion." So now, did the authors of these creeds and catechisms of the Reformed churches, use the word "catholic" for its emotional content? "Church" comes from the Greek "ekklesia" that can mean something as general as "a calling out" or, as it came to be used among early Christians, a popular meeting place or a religious congregation. It was also used to refer to a Jewish synagogue or a Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both. It is found in the Bible, "catholic" is not. Its Biblical foundation can't be the reason the "creedal" writers used it in their documents. What then?

Perhaps, we are actually saying the same thing twice. One meaning attached to "church" (ekklesia) is a total community of Christian believers. Dictionaries define "catholic" as something that is wide-ranging, universal in extent, all encompassing. That would be the entire body of Christians. It does seem church = catholic implying a totality of believers. Actually, the Belgic Confession states, "We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church…" That's why the words "catholic" and "church" are used. We will hold them to those beliefs and confessions. By the way, is that what most are thinking of when we say something or other about the "church?" Chances are nine times out of ten that it is not.

This brings us back to an earlier question, "have we forgotten the reformation?" We have. The way we think, act, and feel about the "church" is clear and compelling evidence that we have forgotten - if we ever knew about it. The cantor of these creeds, confessions and catechisms must stop right in the middle of his verse to explain we are not referring to the Roman Catholic church lest someone get the "wrong" idea. The notion of universalism being associated with catholic is an alien concept. Let's see, first, we don't ordinarily think of the church as the Body of Christ. Second we do not consider the all-encompassing quality of the church. Yet, it is literally every Christian everywhere, forever. . On these two counts, therefore we have evidence of a forgotten reformation.

The reformation in question, however, is not the reformation associated with such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. Actually had Christians, through the centuries, retained the idea of a holy catholic church, (Fascinating that my word processor insists Catholic Church be capitalized.) there would have been no need for the reformations of Luther and Calvin. The reformation we are talking about is the one instigated by Jesus Christ.

There are passages in the Gospels suggesting Jesus had quite different ideas about the church and its mission than what has been practiced for many centuries before His earthly ministry. It would be radically unconventional, and the church officials knew it. Remember that the "church" in His day was the synagogue, and the priesthood of the synagogue had already taken their stand that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. John 9:22 He challenged their authority, As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. John 9:5 Regardless of the day, including the Sabbath, Jesus said, I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. John 9:4

It would be very difficult to translate what Jesus did and said as anything other than a new order for the church. Here are some verses reflecting that new order. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Matthew 28:19 He wasn't speaking to the "church," He was addressing the Body of Believers. There is more, As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. John 17:18 And more, Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. John 20:21 How can these verses be translated as business as usual in the synagogue? Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 It would also be hard to understand the following passage as a reinstatement of the old order of synagogue and Temple. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth Acts 1:8

At His crucifixion, it is recorded in the book of Matthew (27:51), And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; Were His comments only meant for the disciples? Nope. Goodbye synagogue and all the trappings that went with it. Hello universal catholic church. Peter seemed to have the idea when he said, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Acts 2:17 That is the universal church. Now, somewhere, somehow, we missed the reformation that moved us from a select few to all believers. The very next verse states, And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Acts 2:18 Honestly, does that sound like business as usual? "My servants" and "My handmaidens" does not sound like a Sabbath celebration at the local synagogue. Women prophesying? You have got to be kidding!

This was THE reformation. Jesus was ending the centuries of abuse and corruption that had befallen the church and the people of Israel. The nature of this new church? Using the vocabulary of today, the reformed church of Jesus Christ was no church at all. Clearly, He dispensed with the hereditary priesthood by selecting disciples none of whom could lay claim to the priesthood. Just as certainly, he dispensed with the functions of the Temple. The synagogue that was so prominent in Jesus' day had no Biblical foundation and likely did not come into existence until the time of the Babylonian exile. Notwithstanding the fact that he taught in the synagogues, nowhere in the Scriptures, is it recorded that He created, restored or reformed anything like these two institutions. To the contrary, the absolute sacerdotalism of both churches was rent asunder at His crucifixion.

The Holy Catholic Church He restored is headed by our Lord and Savior. It is all Christians guided and directed by the Holy Spirit as spoken of in John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Matthew Henry's Commentary makes this observation about the Church of Jesus Christ, "The spiritual worship he prescribed overthrew their formalities; nor did any thing more effectually destroy their singularity and narrow-spiritedness than that universal charity which he taught; humility and mortification, repentance and self-denial, were lessons new to them, and sounded harsh and strange in their ears." Sound familiar?

†

Return to the Church Directory
 

The divisions within Christianity are legion. By most accounts, there are around 365 separate, distinct, clearly recognizable "denominations" within the United States alone. That is probably a conservative estimate. The divisiveness started early and has plagued us throughout history.

Charles Van Engen (Professor at Fuller Theological Seminary) examined our differences and came up with distinctions between "Humanistic Christians" whose theology asserts that society makes humans evil rather than original sin. "Spiritual Warfare Christians" see humanity choosing between the forces of evil or good. Human choice, our free agency is the key concept. And then there are the "Reformed Christians" believing all humans are sinful and deserve death. We are incapable of deciding on good over evil. Only God, through His sole and sovereign grace, saves us from sin, protects us from evil and elects to save some of us to spend eternity with Him in heaven.

Patrick Morley, author of The Man in the Mirror, proposes two dimensions of Christian differences. First, he suggests that Christian beliefs align themselves along a scale ranging from "Poverty Theology" through "Stewardship Theology" to "Prosperity Theology." His second system presents the difference between "Biblical Christians" and "Cultural Christians." "Biblical Christians don't live by their own ideas, but by penetrating, understanding, and applying the Word of God. By the Spirit, they experience the success and peace to which we each aspire."(p.57) One cannot tell the difference between "Cultural Christians" and the secular society at large. (p.56) Cultural Christians take their moral cues from what is popular and in vogue. They have a defeated and a counterfeit faith.

Van Engen and Morely show similarities in the vast diversity of Christianity. Van Engen's "Humanistic Christians" and Morely's "Cultural Christians" describe many of today's congregations. Cultural Christianity is appealing without disrupting anyone's lifestyle and as plentiful as it is without Scriptural foundations. Good sop for a Sunday sermon. Yet, something is missing in both systems. One wonders why God gave us the capacity to think, reason and choose if we are the automatons Van Engen's "Reformed Theology" appears to make us. Morley's "Biblical Christian," on the other hand may be more fictional than something attainable. The Word of God is not that easily understood and applied. If it were, Christianity would speak with a single voice. Part of the reason is that the differences between the Old and New Testaments are overwhelming. Even the disciples had a most difficult time reconciling those differences. Then, just ever so slightly, there is a chasm of difference between the Pauline view of Christianity and that found in the Gospels. But, we need to remember we aren't "Biblians," we are Christians. Jesus gave us a New Covenant replacing the Old. Circumcision, food taboos, offerings and sacrifices are not really part of our Christian heritage. Here are some of the prescribed sacrifice/offerings as Biblians we would need know about: burnt offering, sin offering, guilt, trespass offering, peace offerings present, sacrifice of peace offerings, thank offerings, free-will offerings (That's still a popular one.) votive offerings, wave offering, heave offering, oblation, gift, fire offering, drink offering, whole burnt offering, feast, frankincense, odor, incense, salt, oil, cereal offering and meal offering. Some of the animals of choice we as "Biblians" would need to know when to offer for sacrifice, were young bulls, male goats, female goats, ewes of a year old, turtledoves or young pigeons and -- lambs.

Van Engen's "Humanistic Christians" and Morley's "Cultural Christians" might be adequate for telling us what we aren't. However, their suggestions about what we should be miss the mark. The ideas of "Reformed Christians" or "Biblical Christians" are, in some way, askew. Surely God wants more than robotic, "Master-computer" simulated responses from us. And the term "Biblical Christian" is too inclusive. We are not under the laws of the Old Testament. We are not, we do not have to be and we do not want to be under the food taboos of the cloven-footed/cud-chewing or scales and fins, clean birds and foul. Although Old and New work together, we shouldn't forget we are under the New Covenant. It is superior to the Old. Through the New the Old is completed and fulfilled. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:33

Maybe we children of the New Covenant need a new paradigm. It might clarify things if we spoke of Theological and Applied Christianity. Theological Christianity would encompass the entire Bible - all 66 books - in exquisite detail, exhaustively, minutely. In contrast, Applied Christianity would focus on just one concept, sanctification, and the two commandments found in Matthew 22:37-39 as the standards for sanctification. After all, Jesus Christ did say, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (v.40) Thus, the Old and the New are finally brought together.

Justification would need to be treated as part of Theological Christianity. Otherwise, we use the few precious moments spent in church evangelizing the choir. Rightly, it concerns the salvation of non-Christians. That is evangelism, and how we explain heaven and other such matters to non-believers. To continually preach reassurances of salvation to those presumably saved is a sure sign the message isn't getting through. Divine grace, election, predestination, forms of baptism the number and quality of the sacraments and other such legitimate questions are the concern of Theological Christianity. If Christians have to keep wondering about the nature of their salvation, its permanency, their place in heaven and how they get there, perhaps they aren't.

Sanctification has everything to do with the way Christians live. Thus our "good works" are the subject of "Applied Christianity." The Bible tells us, Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. John 15:8 And, what we do in our daily lives comes from a deep and abiding sense of gratitude for what He is and what He has done. Hebrews 2:6 echoing Psalm 8:4 makes the point so vividly. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? When we know the answers to those questions, gratitude is our motivation, not need, not bribery. Because we love the Lord our God we want to do His will. That will says, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. (v. 37-38) It says as well, And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (v. 39) Because He loves us, unconditionally, we are secure enough to return that love and share it with others. Others people are regarded for what they are rather than what they can do for us.

The concept of Applied Christianity moves us away from the hypocrisy of what Morley calls the Cultural Christian. No one, Christian or not, can truly love the LORD without being transfigured by the revelation. It is impossible. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17 No one, more than Paul, knew the totality of the metamorphosis. No one can possibly serve two masters with even an inkling of God's majesty. To serve two masters is to deny one. No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:13

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. Galatians 5:22-6:1

†

Return to the Church Directory
 

And I Saw No Temple Therein
Return to the Church Directory

Amen! What more could one possibly say to such an awe-inspiring proclamation? He was with Adam and Eve in the Garden; "He walked with them and He talked with them" – in Person. As a pillar of fire and a cloud of smoke He was with the Jews in their journey to the Promised Land. He was incarnate and walked among us in the Person of His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ. And, praise God, he will return to be in our midst once more and forever. Amen.

Such powerful visual imagery, Behold, the tabernacle of God! Remember the Tabernacle? It was a tent, the tent, the House of God during the Exodus. God dwelt there on the mercy seat between the two cherubim. He said, There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel Exodus 25:22. He will again. We will be there. Where, in a tent, on a mercy seat, in the Holy of Holies? Not at all, He will dwell among us, no longer separate from us. He will dwell among us, not in the form of a servant but as our reigning King. He "tabernacled" with us in His humiliation; he will then tabernacle with us as our triumphant Monarch.

There is an equally awesome visual image later in this same part of John’s vision. The two prior verses in Chapter 21 present us this feast, And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband (vs. 1-2). Please notice, the New Jerusalem descends out of Heaven. As the final expression of God’s total grace, He restores Jerusalem - down from God! No human hands, no human effort, nothing any one did will bring it to pass, He will bring it into existence – maybe lest any man should boast? What does this say for Zionism?

And, in this chapter, there is a third unforgettable impression to contemplate. It is that passage from which the title is derived, And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of i.( Revelation 21:22). Isn’t that superbly glorious? At the cross as Jesus died, the veil of Herod’s separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple was ripped apart signifying the end of the separation of man from God; ending the need for priestly intercession. Some scholars say the event took place at the time of the evening sacrifice showing the incomplete nature of these sacrifices and the imperfection of the priestly class. Now the Temple, the house of the Ark is eliminated from the equation. Actually That Holy of Holies intended to house the "seat of mercy" stood empty. The Ark and the tablets of the Commandments had also been lost centuries before(My, how careless.) That’s OK, The True Priest will not need to reside in any Holy of Holies." He will dwell among us and in us. He ended the need for sacrifice. His sacrifice ended our inability to directly petition God. He ended the need for intercession. He ended the separation between God and ourselves. We may now come boldly unto the throne of grace, (4:16) and so we may and will. Our Lord, a Priest forever, replaces the imperfect Levitical priesthood. The Temple building, its courts and grounds are no longer to be found – replaced by the Lord God Himself. The Hand of God restores Jerusalem. What a future lies in store for us.

No temple; no priests; no sacrifices; no mortal intercessor. Yet, in modern Christendom, we find all four. Why? Only some Christian groups refer to their structures as "temples," most call them "churches." We may call them "pastors" and "ministers" instead of priests, notwithstanding, they declare themselves intercessors – some even answer to "Father." Not blood sacrifices, prayerfully, but we are called to make "sacrifices" nonetheless. "To give sacrificially," states an article "one must give out of need, not out of abundance." Stewardship is often portrayed as a sacrifice of our will and asks what we can do "to be a person who sacrifices so it pleases God?" Shakespeare quipped, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."...Indeed, what’s the difference? A moot question? Perhaps. However, it seems increasingly difficult to maintain the idea of a Temple/church that doesn’t ignore His constant presence in our lives; a priesthood without neglecting His Royal priesthood; sacrifice without diminishing His complete sacrifice.

Return to the Church Directory

Signs of a “Successful Church”
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Return to the Church Directory

We hear a lot about “successful churches” and almost as much about what makes them so. Mega churches seem to want to equate audience size with success. Others look to the size and number, even the architectural style of the building(s) or the number of acres composing the campus. Some look at the number of baptisms performed, the size of the staff and even the amount of money collected with success. Each of these might be part of a “success mosaic,” but not of themselves. On occasion Christ may have spoken to thousands, but most of His ministry seemed to have been to dozens rather than thousands.

“Church” is not a building or a campus nor is it an organization. These things might be a part of what “church” is, but they are not defining characteristics. Size and buildings do not define success. 45,000 people meeting once a week in a football stadium does not make a church. Church is people, not things – a “we,” not an “it.” “Success” therefore, has to do with the congregation. Thus, there is one indisputable measure of a successful congregation. It should be the purpose that drives our individual and our collective lives – everything we do is to bring glory to God. Who would/could possibly disagree? No one that’s who. Which leaves us with the task of separating the deluded from those who actually do bring glory to our God.

We also need to remember that what is translated as “church” in the Bible is really the Greek word ekklesia meaning “a fellowship of Christians.”. In the broadest sense, it is “those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body – the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth.” In short, here is the definition of a successful church, As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Hear this passage from the Living Bible, God has given each of you some special abilities; be sure to use them to help each other, passing on to others God’s many kinds of blessings. It is fellowship. A successful church has everything to do with interpersonal relationships – how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, it is that we see one another as brothers and sisters – in the family of God. This simple message is repeated over and over again. Large or small, grand or plain, the church is people.

In a successful church, people feel safe. This is an indispensable element of a successful church. Some have picked up on this quality but they only see it as necessary for seekers who may be in their midst overlooking the simple necessity of safety for the saints as well. They are valued for the unique, indispensable gift(s) of themselves they bring into the gathering. It is axiomatic that the very foundation of a congregation is that we feel secure in the love we have for one another. In fact He told the women at the tomb to, Go and tell my brethern that they are to go into Galilee. That’s the elementary, fundamental way in which we minister to same one to another.

If, only if we feel safe then we feel secure to become more personally involved with others. The twelve were disciples, students, but they were brothers and friends? Through good times and bad they stuck together. Yes, there was one rotten apple, but he didn’t spoil the peck. After His resurrection, didn’t He find them together lamenting His “passing, maybe talking about what they were to do?” In spite of that little tiff over the son’s of Zebedee, they looked after one another because they knew one another. In a successful church, we at least recognize one another, even better, we know each other’s names. We know one others desires, hopes and despair – our dreams and our heartaches. Only in this way can we minister to one another’s needs. That’s being good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

Finally the third point so frequently overlooked – growing toward spiritual maturity. We are His disciples. He is our teacher. As disciples we ought to hunger to know more of Him and His wondrous ways: to better recognize the Truth and to better explain the Word to others. It is a never-ending, never-ceasing quest for comprehending His perfection. In a successful church we have both the opportunity to learn and, most importantly, to practice the knowledge and skills leading us to perfection – a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.  In a successful church we aren’t just passive recipients, we are active participants. Above all, a successful congregation brings glory to God. And Jesus prayer, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
 

And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly;
Return to the Church Directory
 

ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: Revelation 3:15

Return to the Church Directory

Government tries to be all things to all people, especially in an election year. Behind this fiction is the principle goal of most politicians to get re-elected. Many if not most, office-holders seem to operate on the premise that satisfying one’s constituency is the shortest route to that goal. Together, this little scenario produces what has become known as “pork-barrel politics,” a National disgrace. The legitimate work of government may get done but at an extraordinary expense. It is as though government has been taken captive by what are known as special interests and lobbyists – sold to the highest bidder. Around the Nation’s Capitol and across the country, we are told, “That’s the price of doing business with government, it’s the way things get done.” While our form of government may be the best system in the world, we generally recognize this weakness in our institutions of government brought about by the advent of “career politicians” and simple greed. Something our founding fathers never anticipated.

Generally, while we recognize these flaws in our government, we appear to be much less aware of virtually the same flaws in our institutions of worship. Yet, if we would stop to examine those institutions, we would find the same corrupting forces at work there as well – professionals bent on staying in “office.” Only in this case, they are preachers and ministers instead of politicians. Just like government, our Founding Father never anticipated this. A brief perusal of the Greek, in which the New Testament is written, will show that nowhere in the Gospels is the word “preacher” or “minister” used to connote someone who is a paid “officer” in an organization. The word “pastor” is found, but it is always translated as “shepherd” in the KJV but there is no inkling of it being a paid position any more that there is for “preachers” and “ministers.”

In the Gospels, even the word “office,” so closely associated with today’s governmental and other bureaucratic organizations, is only used to refer to practices found in Judaism. There are two such references both referring to the once in a lifetime effort of Zacharias in his capacity as a “part-time priest” in the Temple. There are also two instances where one rendition of “office” in the Greek (Huperetes) is used to refer to ministering – that’s it. We think of the office of preacher, minister or pastor in the same way we think of an officer in a corporation. That interpretation is simply not to be found. For that matter “church,” as we think of it isn’t found either.

Scripturally, preaching, ministering and pastoring, those things we lump together, are treated separately as gifts (see Ephesians 4:7-12, 1 Corinthians 12:4-30, Romans 12:6-8) not as duties of an office holder in an organization and clearly not something for which one was financially compensated. When they become such then the temptation to cater to the tastes and ambitions of the congregation (at least its powerful, influential members) is overwhelming. Looking at reappointment, they become unwilling to “bite the hand that feeds them and color their “sermons” accordingly. Certainly the “pastor” who does not tailor his “sermons” to the tastes (the “milieu”) of his audience runs a real risk of not being renewed. Some pastors think that being effective requires them to take into consideration the society and culture around them. They think they have to make their sermons pertinent and entertaining and it must also be helpful to the members in their daily lives.

It is so widespread today that one might be inclined to believe that “relevant flattery” is essential. “What good is a sermon that is not understood or that is not related to our lives or that puts us to sleep? If we believe that, haven’t we just called the Bible incomprehensible, irrelevant and boring? Is it possible to see Jesus tailoring His words to suit His audience? Not once did He survey His listeners to assess what they wanted to hear. Other than being fed and housed on occasion, there is no evidence that He was compensated for His ministerial efforts or, for that matter, standing for election before the “board of disciples.” They didn’t pick Him, He picked them. There wasn’t a distinction between deacons and elders. Nor did casting lots pick His followers. He called every one of them personally. He taught every one of them the Truth. In His church, it is the same today. It is the Holy Spirit who appoints some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers and for the purposes of, perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
There is only one who is all things to all people at all times. It’s not a politician or a preacher. They call His name Emmanuel.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I will spue thee out of my mouth. Revelation 316

Return to the Church Directory