ADD TO THE BOTTOM
Updated 03/25/2011
A God Thing So we see that they could not enter in because
of unbelief. 
"Vain Confidence," "One of the Wicked Ones" and "Giant Despair"
From
the Henry Altemus edition of John Bunyan's
Pilgrim's Progress
Return to the page
directory
The idea of a "God thing" has been around in Christian circles for some time. There are several books out with that title; the evangelist Louis Palau wrote one by that name in (2002). There are even "Christian" companies selling T-shirts with that as the slogan and, of course, websites. It’s also a phrase that shows up in Lobdell’s book Losing My Religion. He recounts how things started going his way; how his life had turned around after he became a "Christian." On one occasion he received an unexpected $45,000 from a previous employer just after praying for $50,000 (on advice of his pastor who advised him to be specific about what he prayed for). He writes, "Wanting to make sure the blessings continued to flow, I went to church each week with my wife and children." He attended a weekly Bible study, volunteered and read volumes of "Christian" books. Hum, can anyone think of any better reason for engaging in such religious practices?
Evidently, the "God things" weren’t enough. Although at one point he described himself as a "serious Christian," he lost his faith reporting on religion in America as the L. A. Times Religion Reporter. Now, what brought about this transmutation was a series of probes into various church activities including the clerical scandals of the Roman Catholic Church. He was given good advice on this matter, "Keep your eyes on the person nailed to the cross, not the priests behind the altar" but, nonetheless, he continued to falter. His investigation of the brutal clannish exclusiveness of the Mormons, the self-serving nature of the Trinity Broadcasting Company (e.g., eating $180-per-person meals; flying in a $21-million corporate jet; having access to 30 TBN-owned homes across the country, among them a pair of Newport Beach mansions and a ranch in Texas), Benny Hinn and others drove more nails in his coffin. He closed the lid with these profound words,
It’s amazing that such insight comes from one who could not benefit from his own words? He said proof is no substitute for faith then turns around and rejects Christianity for lack of proof. That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. In assessing Lobdell’s reasoning, one must ask if it is possible to forsake Christ once having found Him. Jesus said He would not lose one of those given to Him which sounds like losing one’s faith is impossible. Another quote from Lobdell settles the question, "But it seems to me that to indulge in Pascal’s Wager, you actually have to believe in Christ. The Lord would know if you were faking. I could no longer fake it."
At best, Lobdell is an excellent example of a "?-able Christian." His confession of having once been Christian is questionable because he claims to have "lost his religion" – if he ever had it in the first place. In his book he writes, "We lived a version of Christianity Lite, a feel-good brand of faith that didn’t extend much past Sunday morning." The motives for engaging in Christian activity was the basest possible – rewards. That’s essentially an attempt to bribe God. He’s not alone in any of this. How many of us claiming to be Christian have been caught up in the same delusions? Maybe the idea of marketing the church has been too successful because increasingly what we hear from the pulpit is "What Christ has done for us" and "remember the power we have available" or other similar phrases suggesting that Christianity is all about feeling good and living well. There is another, more ominous side, of the Lobdell story. It is a side that should give us all something to think about not only with regard to our personal lives but about the churches to which we belong. He writes:
I understood that I was witnessing the failure of humans, not God. But in a way, that was the point. I didn't see these institutions drenched in God's spirit. Shouldn't religious organizations, if they were God-inspired and -driven, reflect higher standards than government, corporations and other groups in society?
Certainly our personal lives should be reflective of a Christ-like life; that’s Scriptural (e.g., John 13:34-35, 15:12-13 and Matthew 5:16). After all, this is how others will be brought to Christ. The church is supposed to be Christians gathered together in worship and praise, a concentration of Christ’s love. Shouldn’t the church be a hub, a focal point of that brotherly love? If one of us is a light, shouldn’t the church be a lighthouse? We all know that the corruption in the church Lobdell found in his investigations is not at all unusual. But beyond that is the petty, un-Christ-like way in which we collectively behave; too much like the Pharisees. We find too much pleasure in the building, the prestige of the preacher and the size of the "congregation" not unlike the Jews in Jesus’ day idolizing Herod’s Temple. Have we really considered the way church misbehavior, misdirection, affects those around us? How do we answer Lobdell’s question? Maybe we owe him an apology.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; Revelation 2:5
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead,
if the dead rise not at all?
why are they then baptized for the dead?
1 Corinthians 15:29
Return to the page
directory
What is perplexing is why this is so perplexing other than the fact that Paul said it. Suppose, as some believe, that he was talking about people being baptized (by proxy) for those who died without being saved. Would this isolated act alone, however sincere, be sufficient to save them? Suppose a group was to somehow get a list of those who had died without being saved and the members of this group were baptized for them. What would that accomplish except making the group members a bit more clean? Isn’t the answer to that question nothing? Most "main-line" Protestant denominations agree that baptism by itself is public affirmation of having been saved. For them, the "public proclamation" opens the door to the fellowship of the church. In itself, it has no regenerative power. Among these groups, it is widely accepted that to be saved one must repent of their sins and accept Jesus the Christ as the Lord and Master of their lives. Baptism is a symbol, an outward manifestation of having accepted Jesus. If so, then baptizing the dead as well as anyone else who had not repented and "accepted Jesus into their lives" would be a waste of time and water.
But, in this regard, baptizing the "dead" is widespread and found in all denominations. Granted it has become more so in this "dispensation of
church marketing" and the "seeker church movement." In traditional Christianity, it was thought that the Holy Spirit drew people to Christ not the Starbucks being served at the Holy Café on campus or the non-threatening, sanitized milieu and "sermons." Without taking into consideration that the "church" was not intended to be an evangelical instrument, not only are "seekers" presented a cheap, pabulum, easy to swallow version of Christianity, but those who have accepted Christ are fed the same junk food preventing any real growth in their understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ.. As is pointed out in the article on the seeker church movement, "The products offered in these churches on Sunday are a cheap version of the true gospel." For example, recent sermons at the largest mega-church, Joel Osteen’s church, were on such topics as life, marriage, family relationships, finances, work and health (click to see Rick Warren’s topics). While relevant to today’s problem filled world, such topics as these are hardly pabulum let alone the meat of the Gospel. The question must be asked, if one is baptized without knowing the rudiments of the teaching of Jesus the Christ, are they saved or deluded?While Jesus may have been referring to those who preach false doctrines when he said,
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them, we might also question how much damage they have done to the souls of those who follow their false doctrines. In such starved people, can there be an indwelling, an anointing of the Holy Spirit? Ephesians 1:13 suggests we must first hear the Word; only then can we believe the Truth and receive the Holy Spirit. If we never hear the Word, we cannot come to believe. Therefore any subsequent baptism would be a "baptism for the dead." Furthermore, if our lives after baptism are indistinguishable from what we were before, might one wonder if we were, in fact, spiritually alive or dead? Paul tells us not to conform to this world but to be transformed. He says that we are new creatures and our old ways should pass away. Those who continue in their old ways are enemies of the cross; their bellies are their god and they mind earthly things. So there they sit in their accustomed pews relishing the pulpit’s pabulum that tickles their ears. In like respect, Peter writes, those who follow Christ no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God for we have escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. What can be said of those who cannot be distinguished from non-Christians other that their baptism was dead? Finally, James 2:26Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Romans 6:4
Abstract
Christianity
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations;
and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14
Return to the page
directory
Art aficionados tell us that "abstract art" exists independent of reality.
One art authority describes it this way, "Indeed, when you look at an abstract painting, you often have no idea what it is you are actually seeing." "Abstract Christianity" is a theology that exists independent of the Gospel and is only superficially related to it. They may quote passages from the Bible, even give lip service to doctrinal statements but any resemblance between the Abstract Christianity and the Gospel is purely contrived. It exists independent of Scriptural reality.Much like the transition from "representational" to "abstract expressionism" in art, "Abstract Christianity" has evolved out of what is frequently characterized as "Cafeteria Christianity," so named because of its adherents pension for picking and choosing what they like and dislike about the Gospel. Thus tithing is pulled out of the Old Testament laws and touted as absolute truth while New Testament edicts about
women being silent in church and teaching or having authority over men is ignored. The upshot of that is we have women pastors extolling tithing as a Scriptural virtue. In contrast, paraphrasing our art authority, in "Abstract Christianity" you have no idea what it is you are actually hearing or supposedly believing because it is in a state of flux – being redefined on the fly to suit the latest whim or convenience. One Abstract Christian leader puts it this way, "When we make it sound like we have all the bolts screwed down tight and all the nails hammered in, and everything's all boxed up and we've got it all figured out, at that moment, I think we have stopped being faithful." Some Abstract Christians find "any mention of truth, objective truth, angular or offensive. It might sound intolerant." Others argue that, the Bible "is not a ‘look-it-up encyclopedia of moral truths." That leaves everything up in the air as an inkblot waiting to be interpreted just like abstract art. This statement could have well been written by an advocate of Abstract Christianity, "Every painting is created within a particular environment, and if you do not understand that environment, you will never be able to appreciate what the artist has to offer you." All we’d have to do is substitute Christian belief for painting and preacher for artist.The question is whether such loosey goosey stuff is Christianity, abstract or otherwise. Are there prescribed guidelines for Christianity or not? Is Christianity "representational" in the sense that it is easily recognized or is it something that we have no idea what it is or what it stands for? Most fundamentally, does it stand for anything at all or is it simply the opinions of what a community of worshippers arrived at through consensus? Which is it? Is it a Gospel of substance or something that is developing through our tête-à-tête with one another? Does the Gospel stand for something or is it "smooth as a feather born on the breeze? The only trouble with regarding the Gospel as something for everyone, as some would believe, is that it becomes nothing. Is this what Jesus the Christ spent His time, His effort; His very life for – a legacy of nothing?
What about the Bible? Is it authentic, a source of Truth and a moral compass? Is it a "subversive text," a "scary book," as some would claim or maybe just a piece of literature? It once was considered the ultimate authority, the very foundation for Christianity – Sola Scriptura.
Paul wrote, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. He was speaking of both the Old and New Testaments (as we call them) since the greater part of the latter was then written – 2 Timothy from which the quote is taken is regarded by many as the last of his 27 epistles and letters. The idea that the Bible was profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction has been a foundational principle of Christianity for centuries. Without which Christianity is as a ship without a rudder – foundering. Welcome to Abstract Christianity that asserts, the important thing in reading the Bible is not the intentions of its authors, but the understanding of their readers. Abstract Christianity, isn’t concerned with Truth because they regard it as a relative term that can be defined only within the context of ones personal experience.These two realities of the Christian faith, the Truth of the Gospel and the infallibility of Scripture are under a withering attack today by an avant-garde intelligentsia pushing beyond the boundaries of what has been accepted as normative in Christianity for centuries in the name of open mindedness and missional reconciliation. By whatever name it is politely called, the harsh reality of this abstraction is that it is heresy, an aberration, dressed in contemporary clothes intentionally designed to attract naive adolescents regardless of their age. Such tantalizing words as "
mysticism," "narrative theology," "new monasticism" "authenticity," "conversation," "missional living," "communitarian," "egalitarianism," are bantered about to cloud its satanic purposes. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words,lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effec
t. 1 Corinthians 1:17
Lite Christianity
(You Need to be Saved, But We Don’t Want You to Bother too Much)
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:4
Return to the page
directory
The idea of a "light Christian" isn’t new but, it is descriptive of an increasing number of "marginal" Christians and the attitude of more and more churches toward requirement for baptism. Reminiscent of TV evangelists who would tell the folks at home, "just put your hands on the TV and repeat this prayer to be saved, more and more churches are following in the same footsteps. Some don’t even ask "Do you accept Jesus as your personal Savior," they just sign you up as a member and start sending donation requests. It’s as though
Pentecost never happened; as if Jesus never ascended. After you’ve responded to the preacher’s invitation to spontaneously "come on down and I’ll baptize you," your responsibilities for all intents and purposes are finished except for your "tithes and offerings." The professional "pastor and staff" will take over and run the show. Further participation, outside of some ‘volunteer’ opportunities of marginal importance (that’s why they are relegated to volunteers – they are too insignificant for the professionals to be troubled with) is to show up in "church as frequently as possible and sit respectfully and attentively as the programmed service unfolds. The claim is that the "everyday Christian" is too busy and too occupied with his work, home and family to assume the responsibility of running the church. That’s why they hire a professionally qualified staff. It works out for everyone. The "everyday Christian doesn’t have to be bothered with all that religion stuff and hired professionals have job security and they don’t have to worry about challenges to their authority and decisions. The only responsibility "devout Christians" have is faithfully attending church every Sunday.However, if we are familiar with the first two chapters of the Book of Acts, we must sense that something is amiss in the above scenario. In the first chapter,
Jesus ascends to Heaven something we hear little of in the churches of today and nothing about the significance for us. What we hear about is His death on the Cross as a mitigation of our sins and His resurrection as an assurance of the Truth of His Word. These are of monumental importance, the foundation, the beginning of the work of preparing for His triumphal return. But His ascension is just as important. Remember, in the Book of John Jesus said, It is expedient for you that I go away? Well, in Acts 2:4, it happened, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Why, as the added emphasis states, would this happen, why would "everyday Christians" with nothing else to do but write checks to underwrite church expenses, occupy their special pew for most Sunday’s of the year and volunteer for light duties carefully supervised by a professional staff member be given such a precious gift? What need have they of it? NONE if that’s all that they have to do in God’ Plan of Salvation! None, none at all. "Light Christians" don’t need the Holy Spirit. "Oh, but that was Peter and the other Apostles who received the Holy Spirit," you protest. John the Baptist didn’t think so. He said all those who were repentant and believing would be baptized with the Holy Spirit: See Mark 1:5,8 and Luke 3:16. And in John we find Jesus saying, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water - an unrestrained, extravagant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Gill comments, "Not only the twelve apostles, (were blessed with the Holy Spirit) but the seventy disciples; and it may be all the hundred and twenty, that were together, even women as well as men."Is the Bible a guide for our lives or only a record of what occurred some 2,000 years ago. Did it apply then but not now? The "specific vs. general principles" argument, heads us down a dangerous and slippery slope. If we’re not careful we’ll start regarding Scripture as untrustworthy and irrelevant for today. Accepting the Word as revealed Truth to be the guide for our lives then requires us to reexamine the lie perpetrated upon us that only a few are qualified to "preach the Word," administer the sacraments and shepherd the flock.
Imagine what would happen if suddenly the church started putting other than monetary demands upon us. We just might stop coming. If we became "
Spirit-filled" we would find the "church" of today boring. We might begin to challenge; even disagree, with what is being preached at us. Then again, and worst of all, we might discover that we really didn’t need our pricey preacher or his so-called professional staff. What is it they do that "Spirit filled," "Spirit-led" Christians can’t? Paul wrote, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. He also wrote, If God be for us, who can be against us? Isn’t that sufficient to run a church? Paul asked, Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? Do we? If we do, why don’t we act as if we were? If we don’t why is that we don’t know?And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.
Ephesians 5:18
The Gap: The Fractured World of the Church
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:42
Return to the page directory
The question that must be
addressed in this increasingly "politically correct" society in which we
live is how much should Christianity be modified in order to accommodate all
the various special interest groups? It isn’t just "multi-generational" but
"gender" issues, sexuality and numerous others. John Ortberg
recently wrote an article
with a similar title on the subject in which he stated, "In past centuries,
because culture changed more slowly, when people entered the church, they
entered church culture. …Today, church life has largely been contextualized
to reach people in popular culture." Addressing the matter of generational
differences, he wrote, "It's up to the older generation to figure out how to
hand the faith to the younger generation." Who would disagree with this or
that it’s up to contemporary Christians to figure out how to reach other
segments of our multi-faceted "popular culture?" There’s really nothing new
about this character of our society. We are, as we have been, a "melting
pot" full of racial, ethnic and religious differences. The 52 year-old
Ortberg thinks the technology gap between his "generation," or perhaps those
slightly older, and the so-called X-generation has produced a "canyon"
rather than a gap between generations. He needs to review some contemporary
history rather than drawing contrasts between Biblical times and now. The
pace of technological change is an ever increasing crescendo. What is
obviously different in our diverse culture is the new expectation that
traditional norms and values should be made to conform to the standards of
those minorities living among us.
There is no question that the church needs to change, not by morphing itself into something new to accommodate this or that interest group, but by returning to what it once was – a place where Christians gathered to study His Word, fellowship, worship, and pray together. That retrogression would take us back hundreds, thousands of years, to the beginning of the "church." The church before it "went to Greece and became a philosophy …to Rome where it became an institution," and to "America where it became an enterprise." It would be a "return to a former and less complex level of development or organization" as "retrogression" implies. Those who observed the funeral mass for Senator Kennedy got an excellent glimpse of the excessive of organizational structure the "church" has evolved into. Dr. John Mackay, an interesting character from the pages of Living Out the Book of Acts, former President of Princeton Seminary, reportedly said on every occasion in which he spoke, "let the church be the Church" meaning it can be like no other institution. The author, Bruce Larson, wrote, "The church must not be shaped by society or any other force, but by the Lord of the church Himself" (p. 49.) Amen. We challenge the "church" to come back to its roots," as Dr. Richard Halverson said, "… a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ (p. 50)." Amen and Amen. Bruce points out that "we have a Scriptural formula for what the church is meant to be" – Acts 2:42.
Most of all, church is a place where we put self aside and focus on Him, Jesus the Christ. It used to be called "sanctuary," a refuge from worldly cares, a safe haven from egotistical arrogance and pride. Instead of it being a place of refuge and protection from such miseries, those concerns have become its focus. As Larson indicated, in America it has become an enterprise where wealth and power speak and special interest groups vie for attention. Just because conceit, vanity and arrogance are the maxims for society is no reason for the church to reward such. To the contrary, it should be a bastion against such. Instead, as Ortberg points out, "the question of control is never more than about a micron below the surface…underneath the issues of food, or dress, or style, often lies the deeper issue of control." In plain English, what he is saying is these issues are simply power struggles. Or, in his words, it’s a question of, "Who gets to call the shots around here?"
Then there’s the issue of size. What is the advantage of a "church" with an audience numbering in the 1,000’s to 10s of thousands; in one particular case, 50,000? Answer – egotism plain and simple. Imagine standing before an audience of 30, 40 or 50 thousand with all eyes fixed on you – such a rush. Just imagine the thrill of being the focal point of your own television program – stardom! And to be called, Father or pastor by your very own "flock" – my, my, the thrill of it all! And people making donations for their ministry. You might be tempted to assign seating according to the level of one’s giving or provide reserved seating like the "big-hitters." Yes, the church need to change, drastically but not by catering to worldly values. It was ordained to serve as the leader in society and culture, the one to shape beliefs and values, not to be a follower led by the nose by immoral and godless ambitions. It needs to return to its calling as the bride of Christ not as a harlot.
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at
all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard
no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth;
for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Revelation 18:23
A Slippery
Slope
Surely thou didst set them in slippery places:
Psalm 73:18a
Return to the page
directory
A slippery slope is the fallacious belief that a relatively small first step in the direction of this or that will have no lingering or significant consequence. Instead, "small first steps" inevitably start a chain of events causing us to slide all the way to the bottom of a chasm hitting with substantial impact. "
The camel’s nose in the tent" (as this argument is sometimes called) begins with a seemingly innocuous or even palatable suggestion. So we start with the idea that we can attract those into our services who are unchurched. Some refer to this as "Promoting Traditional Religion in a Nontraditional Way." The logic is to "focus on customer-sensitivity and innovation in church programming rather than on specific denominational concerns of traditional Protestant churches." The first step is to not advocate a denominational orientation but rather provides a methodology, rooted in marketing, to attract seekers." A second step, is holding a one-hour professionally produced service for those persons, "seekers," who do not belong to the church and who do not even profess to be Christians. Entry into the church is made easy for seekers because they are allowed to attend in anonymity. Once we have them in church, we follow up by providing "a wide variety of activities intended to meet (their) diverse needs." And if success is measured by attendance figures, these tactics (polished music, multimedia, and sermons referencing popular culture) are at the top of the list.But, this is only the "thin edge of the wedge" and just the beginning. If we look more closely, we find the "wide variety of activities" includes the likes of "
baptism, counseling, free food, hockey, marriage, support, tithe, surfing, weight loss" that are also major topics for sermon series. Such as these barely qualify as "baby food for a grade-school Christian" What is missing from such "activities" and sermons alike is anything to do with the Cross, sin, Hell, surrender, repentance, servitude, sacrificial living, the Truth and the like. It appears that the Scriptures take a back seat to pleasing everyone and making them "comfortable Christians." The series of events have just begun, it going to get better. A classic illustration of the impact of "churches" being "seeker sensitive" is the decline in "speaking on tongues within the Assemblies of God. Noel Roberts, the pastor of Bethel Temple Assembly of God in Jacksonville Fl. said, "It's not being preached enough. People trying to reach the masses and not offend is probably the biggest reason. They're afraid of offending a new person." James K. A. Smith, professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and a credentialed member of the AG clearly states the decline is due to, "the evangelicalization of the Assemblies of God." Continuing, he said, "In seeker services, you're supposed to remove what's scandalous about Christian worship. The last thing you need is people doing crazy things like speaking in tongues."Most "seeker churches," like the AG still give lip service to their basic beliefs even if they don’t openly practice them. However, there are those just off-stage who do not have such inclinations. To the contrary, they see traditions as restraints to their evangelical/missional passions just as they see the idea of absolute Truth an abomination and as one proponent stated, "intolerance is perhaps the main 'defeater' of the gospel." The intolerance is our belief that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light. Furthermore, they no longer regard the Bible as the Word of God. It is personal experience that define and interprets what truth actually is rendering the saving faith in Jesus Christ meaningless. Instead we collectively "dialogue" to decide what we’re going to believe. That’s pretty far down the slope; the camel is half way in the tent. One among many of this so-called "emerging church movement,
Rob Bell, believes the Bible is a "human product … rather than the product of divine fiat." (Velvet Elvis) In one of his more memorable quips, Brian McLaren says the Bible is not "a look-it-up encyclopedia of moral truths." He also calls Hell and the Cross "False Advertising for God." At this point the "church" is rejecting it’s very reason to existFinally is that sudden and abrupt stop at the bottom of the slope, what
McLaren describes as "an attempt to remarry two things that never should have been divorced — truth and love, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, doctrine and ethics/mission" (orthopraxy in simple terms is "correct action") Expanding on the theme, Tim Keller describes 'missional' [as] adapting and reformulating absolutely everything it did in worship, discipleship, community, and service--so as to be engaged with the non-Christian society. Once we identify the major purpose of the "church" as "missional," the whole game is up for grabs. It isn’t for kindred fellowship anymore; it isn’t for worship and praise anymore; it isn’t for sanctification anymore, it’s a recruitment tool made up of a set of ethical activities, fashionable cultural creeds and social action in which anyone of any faith or orientation can comfortably participate. Bing, bang, boom, heresy is in, Christianity is out.
Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery ways in
the darkness:
they shall be driven on, and fall therein:
Jeremiah 23:12a
The Dysfunctional Family of God
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another
. John 13:34-35Church dysfunction is the result of conditions where relationships among church members are not conducive to one’s spiritual health. A dysfunctional church may be theoretically on the right course, but for the main part does not function the way it should. One of the major causes of dysfunction is conditional love as well as unscriptural or unbalanced preaching and teaching. In addition, the absence of spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:22-23) as well as the "We Care" Syndrome" while claiming to care, when given opportunity to assist dysfunctional church members, have other "priorities and needs" causing those needs to go unmet. Also into the mix of dysfunction is "power posturing leaders," "misplaced loyalty" to the church or its leaders, being secretive. (People don't hide what is proper; they hide what is improper.) abusive leaders who say one thing and do another. They strive to keep up appearances seeking honorific titles and special privileges that elevate them above the group, promoting a class system with themselves at the top, favoritism and "in-groups." Finally there is "information control" preventing members from making sound decisions affecting the entire church.
There is a Biblical model for a "functional church." In many ways the foundation for that model is the verse of Scripture quoted above from the Book of John – love one another. For all the 115 times the word "church" is used in the New Testament, there is no better meaning than this. It is best illustrated by Acts 2:44, And all that believed were together and had all things common. This passage is usually rejected because it seems to smack of communism (heaven forbid) which is reasonable considering our materialistic mind-set. But, the idea that they shared their material possessions needn’t be the only things they had in common. It can also be taken that these first century Christians believers were of one mind. They agreed on doctrine, the tenets of their faith; on such matters, they were of one heart and soul. They were such a close-knit family that they also shared their material possessions as well (
Acts 4:35-35). Notice what happens; And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (Acts 2:47) These Christians praising their God and their loving behavior toward one another, their fellowship, attracted non-believers into the church.That is what is meant when we say, "reaching out to non-believers is a by-product of the "church." It is not its principle function, praising the Lord is, nor is it the result of well intended missional programs. There is one way to do missions that is Scripturally sound – loving our brothers and sisters in Christ. Anything else is symptomatic of being dysfunctional. The acid test of a "functional church is"that "
the true work of grace is begun upon [our] hearts." At least, that’s what is said in 1 John 2:5 and 1 John 2:10. To emphasize the point, he also writes, whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother and If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. Jesus was/is giving His disciples (the first Christians) this commandment as a "badge of discipleship" on the eve of His departure.So when
Hirsch of the Emerging Church describes his "Incarnational Ecclesiology" as churches being missional by "adapting Christian doctrine (ecclesiology) to the customs (contextualizing) of unreached sub-cultures," he is on totally un-Biblical, dangerous, dysfunctional, grounds. Likewise, those who espouse "emerging missionology," using proximity spaces, "where Christians and not-yet-Christians can interact meaningfully with each other, such as, pubs [commonly known as "bars"] and cafes" are, on thin ice.In contrast "seeker churches" draw people into established churches by deception. Then, by catering to such interests as
Taco Tuesday, Baked Potato Wednesday, Fitness Well-Being, complete with a Refinery, (Why would they call it that?) they will become members. It’s a blatant use Fifth Avenue marketing to lure the unsuspecting into its clutches. Unfortunately, that results in watering down "sermons" to about the 1% milk level or, in many instance into what is called the "social gospel," the grand-daddy of which is Rick Warren’s P.E.A.C.E Plan 70% of which deals ameliorating poverty, disease and ignorance. Then, there is Joel Osteen Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Paula White, Kenneth Copeland and T.D. Jakes, taking church dysfunction to new level by making lust, power and greed their forte. They’ve done killed the horse and wrecked the cart.In all of this time, no church, none, at least in recent centuries, has tried the Biblical model of a community of caring, loving brothers and sisters in Christ. Instead, what we see in the church today is a dysfunctional family that increasingly no one wants to be a part of and no one admires. We can find multiplicities of dysfunctional churches ranging in size from the smallest to the largest of the mega-churches.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning
, John 8:44a
Don’t Throw the
Baby Out With the Bathwater
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
Hebrews 13:8
Few would disagree that as the "church" has evolved over these many centuries it has developed many, many, flaws both in doctrine and practice. Many contend that it is gravely blemished to the point that it is irrelevant. These people, the "Emergent’s" (sometimes called "post-evangelists" or "postmodern") point out that its influence on the lives of Christians and nations has diminished to the point of virtual insignificance because it is so seriously flawed. One such author observed that the church has become little more that a "provider of religious goods and services" rather than a "vibrant community of worshippers." Increasingly, size has taken on the aura of success. Speaking critically of today’s marketing mentality so prevalent among mega- and mini-churches alike;
one "Emergent" put it this way,"If we get our media right, our preaching right, our seating and our parking right… if we offer great children’s programs and a rocking worship band people will come. If things are excellent, and we offer something for every member of the family. If we do all this, and we market it right also, people will come and we will be successful."
He’s right that is the current "church" mentality. And, he’s right in saying, "We had made pastors into managers and programmers and party planners." See if
the following quote doesn’t sound familiar,"In the model of a provider of religious goods and services, people come each weekend to be "fed." The primary purpose of attendance is to receive. "Ministry" is driven by trained professionals who have the responsibility to create/develop excellent programs. Many people come because a particular program meets a need they have ("we love the youth programs!") and leave because they are no longer being satisfactorily serviced."
Interestingly two of his three "churches" meet in beer halls. Another "
Emergent" writes, "We are called to be communities that are cauldrons of theological imagination, not ‘authorized re-staters’ of past ideas." But this is getting us into the matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is the Bible such a "past idea?"Before we get there, let’s examine what positives the "historical church" has going for it. Sociologists tell us that Judaism survived after their nation was destroyed around 530 Ad and they were dispersed throughout the world because they were not readily assimilated into their host country’s culture – in short because of the ghettos. That’ not to overlook the role of the synagogue invented after the great dispersion and the destruction of the one true Temple at Jerusalem. In many institutions created Roman Catholicism performed the same duties for Christianity as did the synagogues. The changes produced by the Reformation were superficial, retaining much of what Roman Catholicism had fashioned. Notable among these are the canons of Scripture, the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy. We must also recognize the role a professionalized priesthood, accompanied by its certification requirements, served in preserving the essence of Christianity. Nor can the role of carefully crafted creeds and doctrines in preserving its integrity be overlooked.
Roman Catholicism also started what must be called "stylized/liturgical worship and instigated the very concept of "church" that soon became mausoleum-like cathedrals as a sanctuary structure separating what are called "services" from life, leaving our daily lives virtually unchanged by experience. Once out of "church" we shake the dust from our sandals and go on our way virtually unchanged. The Reformation has done nothing to change this. Yet, it is these things that are "double-edged sword" for Christianity, preserving it while stagnating and making it irrelevant on the other. What is needed is a compromise that preserves the essentials of the Christian faith while eliminating the current marketing mentality and the me-centered (I’ve got a deal for you) passivity of contemporary services.
This can be done. This must be done. This will be done. (1) When science and other forms of secularism conflict with Scripture, Christians have enough faith in an Almighty God to counter them. We must teach a faith sufficiently strong to embrace Biblical inerrancy – that it is the inexhaustible Truth. (2) When the purpose of our teaching and learning is to "grow disciples" capable of assuming teaching responsibilities and managing the "church" – to become
a royal priesthood. (3) When by our words and actions we show that we regard other Christians as truly brothers and sisters in the family of God. (4) When our gatherings are a time of praise and worship of Him as well as studying His Word. (5) When we understand that the focus of Christian living and prayers are "Him" centered rather than "I" or even "we" centered. (6)When we know that what we ask, we will receive because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing to him. (7) When we learn that true evangelism is through the examples we set by first loving our brothers and sisters in Christ – "they will know we are Christians by our love" for one another. Jesus said,By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another
John 13:35
The Act
of Christian Giving
Give, and it shall
be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and
running over,
Luke 6:38a
Much has been written and said about giving. No matter, the issue keeps cropping up where ever two or three are gathered in the name of Christianity. It has all the markings of an obsession. It is by far one of the most popular sermons with topics on giving range from tithing to stewardship and beyond. The themes revolve around our tithing duties and responsibilities, proper attitudes toward giving, giving as an investment, the unbounded generosity of God toward those who give, the forms of giving and last, but not least toward whom or what our giving should/must be directed. This article will just address the issue of tithing with more to come.
Because of the amount of "press" these topics receive, each must be given careful consideration to assess their Biblical veracity. Starting with tithing, the number one misused Biblical principle, there are numerous abuses and misrepresentations. First and foremost, it must be clear that tithing is not a New Testament concept. To substantiate that point, only once in 27 versions of the Bible, is there a references to "
tithe" or "tithing" other than as an allusion to O.T. practices and current abuses. The passage is worthy of being cited; it’s from Luke 18:12, I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess and that, like all most other N.T. references pertains to a Pharisee who is making the statement. The most common references found in the N.T. are the nearly identical verses of Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 that strongly suggest there are weightier matters, more important things, to contend with as Christians than tithing.The 10% rule in Christian circles has become the "gold standard" for giving to the "church." Exactly how, when or why is not clear since there is no Scriptural foundation for the practice. We must look into the Old Testament to understand why tithing is not a Law or Commandment affecting Christians living under the New Covenant. Of course, the first thing we learn, and never allowed to forget, is that tithing is the "
tenth part" of something whether it be of income, increase, total wealth or what. The first Biblical occurrence of someone giving a tenth to another is within the context of Abraham’s (Abram at the time) encounter with Melchizedek and the specific circumstances surrounding that most unusual meeting. It’s interesting to note that in the Hebrew Bible (TANAKH) it says "Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything" which, by the way, belonged to Lot and others rather than his personal property and possessions. Leviticus teaches that 10% of all we have belongs to the LORD. A bit skimpy but well enough, if we stopped there, unfortunately we don’t. According to Mosaic legislation (the Book of Numbers as well as in Nehemiah) we are told that the tithe must be paid to the Levites for their service to the tabernacle and the congregation. In Deuteronomy12: 7, 12 and 18, we are told the tithe should be used for a sacred meal. An issue that is never raised is why we are only obligated to obey the law(s) pertaining to tithing and not the other 613 commandments (mitzvot) comprising Jewish Law (Halakhah.) We are specifically told we don’t have to observe the law pertaining to circumcision and that’s all. Therefore, why don’t we observe Sabbat on Saturday as prescribed? Where is the Scriptural justification for changing the Sabbat from Saturday to Sunday? What about the 26 dietary laws? Mitzvah #69 sounds interesting, "there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without marriage." Why didn’t Christianity keep that one? It is understandable why #170 was rejected, "not to do wrong in buying or selling," or #181, "not to commit fraud in measuring," they would drive most Christians out of business.In addition to what has already been said, no Christian clergy can possibly be a
Levite. Thus, they are totally unqualified to receive the tithe. In Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 Jesus does say that the worker deserves his food/wages; even going so far in Luke to say, eating and drinking such things as they give. That’s a long way from a tithe. With respect to several other points frequently mentioned that tithing is a form of worship, it proves we love the Lord, it combats greed and materialism, and that God owns all, the first century saints put everything they owned at the Apostles feet consistent with what Jesus said in Luke 12:33 and Matthew 19:21. They then and shared everything equally; presumably clergy and laity alike. That’s a concept labeled "communistic" today and is sternly rejected by most Christians out of hand.In conclusion, when it comes to collecting money, we forget that since the Cross we are under a New Covenant; the Old has fulfilled its role. We must agree with
one writer who stated, "From God's point of view, just how "successful" is a church whose members, when they hear the word "church," immediately think of the word ‘tithe’ instead of Christ? What happens in the process to the Gospel of God's grace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ, the doctrine upon which the Church really stands or falls? What happens to the Gospel when offerings become a matter for a pocket calculator instead of a heart that is moved by the Gospel?"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity. 2 Corinthians 9:7
A "Missional Church" is a "Prostitutional
Church"
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:15
The above verse of Scripture is frequently cited as the Biblical raison d’être, the very foundation for evangelism. There are several things in this Command from Jesus that bears closer examination. The Greek for the word "go" in this instance is
Poreuomai which may be variously translated literally as "go" (used 117 times) or to depart (used 11 times) or walk (used 9 times) or "go one's way" (used 8 times). Clearly we are not to stay home but to go, depart, walk to the "ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God and, therefore, hostile to the cause of Christ." A little out of context, but a passage also used to justify "missional theology" is Acts 1:8 saying 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. Samaria may have been "next door," but it was a people despised by the Jews. Clearly, they were being commissioned to go to other countries and other peoples. Just how this was to be done was not fully disclosed. The Book of John has found increased favor among the new breed of missionologists. In the several passage frequently cited as support for the "missional church," (John 17:18 and 20:21) the words Apostello meaning send (110 times), send forth (15 times), send away (4 times), send out (2 times) and the word Pempo meaning send (77 times), thrust in (2 times), again send (2 times).are used leaving the idea of the nature of mission little changed. This consistency is only reinforced by the use of John 15:16 where Greek for the word "go" is hoop-ag'-o which means to" go away" and to depart. We are to "depart to other neighborhoods, cities and countries to spread the Word among strangers and foreigners. One so-called "Missional Community" describes "missional theology" this way,"We affirm that the ultimate purpose of human beings is to glorify God and worship Him forever. However, having a missional theology demands that we translate this into the way we carry out our day-to-day lives."
We agree that the ultimate purpose of humanity, especially Christians, is to glorify God and to worship Him as we agree that our conversion will result in our lives being transformed. That’s sanctification which will result in how "we carry out our day-to-day-lives." However, the injection of this philosophy into the "church" is neither called for in Scripture nor justified by our understanding of the 1st Century Church.
Perhaps we need to revisit the
very sense of "church" as found in the Bible. As we know, "church" is the
English translation of the Greek
Ekklesia which in the
Christian use of the word means:
(1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious
meeting, (2) a company of Christian, who, observe their own religious
rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs,
according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake. (3)
those who are united into one body. This, according to the KJV New Testament
Greek Lexicon. If we look into the
NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon,
we will find exactly the same translations. That’s what "community" is not
some
beer hall theological debating
society and that’s the sense of "church" found in such Scriptures as
Acts 2:44 All the believers were
together and had everything
in common,
and
2Corintians 6:14 Do not be yoked
together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have
in common?
Or what fellowship can light have with darkness (2Corintiains?
6:15) What harmony is there
between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have
in common with an
unbeliever? What in the world do people think these passages mean?
There is a time and a place for "missional" work; it is just not in "church." The "missional church" is a logical extension of the "seeker church." Both have their emphasis on the wrong syllable resulting doing theological flip-flops that are complete debasements of essential Christian beliefs in order to please non-believers, skeptics and the secular world in general. Such aberrations as stating, "we take the Bible seriously, just not literally" or "the Bible "is not a ‘look-it-up encyclopedia of moral truths," seeing "Truth" as relative; rejecting the Flood as a local historical event. Here’s a fascinating explanation of the rainbow after the Great Flood, "God sets a rainbow in the sky as a memo to Himself never to do that again." Try this, "Christianity as no different from any other religion," and this denying the validity of hell or this classic, "The goal of Jesus isn't to get into heaven. The goal is to get heaven here." Then we can cast doubt about the virgin Birth of Jesus. How about "Evolutionary Spirituality" that embraces the common creation story given to us by science?" All this thoroughly prostituted theology is designed to appeal to non-believers, tickle the ears of secularists, satiate scientific criticisms and elevate human intellect. Meanwhile, Christians are left with no gathering place where they can study the Word, worship and praise Him. To those with a "missional theology," bent, let them start with this Biblical reference, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
The Glory of God
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my
disciples
Today, Christians in particular and Christianity in general have lost sight of these simple facts. Therefore, there is much need for a new reformation that restores these Biblical tenets of the Faith; a re-emerging church that is true to its Scriptural foundations; a new theology that liberates us from the errors of "
Modernism," "Post-modernism" and beyond by whatever names heresies are known. We must move away from today’s self-indulgent Christianity testified to by the fact that 99.9% of our "prayer-life" is "gimme-gimme" with the expectation that the coffers of heaven will open up and shower us with opulence of material wealth, physical and emotional health. We need to rediscover discipleship defining it as an active and participating following of Jesus rather than a passive benchwarmer whose only claim to disciple is having gotten damp one brief moment sometime in the forgotten past and monthly checks to the "church." We need to see that missions, first and foremost, begin at home and radiates outward (in a "one-to-one-for-one" manner) from a God-centered home into the neighborhood, school and workplace thus making them "God-centered." In the most real sense, missions, like charity, begin at home rather than by the distribution of things. Charity (agape) means first and foremost "brotherly love, affection, good will." Like so much of our Christian heritage, we have forgotten that is "love." This is the case 86 of the 106 instances that "charity" is used in the Bible. Only in a tertiary sense does it have anything to do with the giving of money and material resources. It is important to note when verses speak of helping others with temporal things (as in Acts 11:29, Acts 24:17, Romans 15:27, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, 2 Corinthians 8:7, Galatians 2:10, James 2:15-16, 1 John 3:16-17,), frequently cited to justify "missionary" activities, that help is for poor Christians. Not to detract from the effort, but giving money to help our poor Christian brothers and sisters in Christ does not fit the standard "missionary" mold. It is one, however, we should embrace.Finally our "new reformation," perhaps more correctly called "restoration," must rethink the "church." Traditionally defined as "
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting," it has morphed into an all consuming monstrosity. To Paul, the "church" was people as opposed to a building or a place as testified to by his statement; greet the church that is in their house as well as in 1Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, and Philemon 1:2. Can we surmise that the "church" of which Paul speaks is somehow different than that about which Christ spoke saying, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church or in Matthew 18:17? A few verses later, Jesus says, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. There is the crux of the matter, the defining character of "church," gathered together in my name. The church is not as it has become: spires, stained-glass windows, naves, alters, pulpits and chancels – an "it." Nor is the church an entertainment center or a recruitment area or a stage upon which preachers can pontificate. No, the church was, and must be restored to, a gathering of brothers and sisters in Christ for the sole purpose of worshipping, praising and glorifying God in song, word and deed – a house of prayer rather than the den of thieves it has been made into. We were created for the purpose of glorifying Him; we should be about our Father’s business.
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my
glory,
I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
Isaiah 43:7
Everyone Is Welcome!
And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly
for the space of three months,
disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Recently, a member was asking how their church was doing. The response was, "Wonderful, we’re growing by leaps and bounds. We welcome everyone and that is working." Doesn’t that sound friendly; the ultimate in hospitality; the definitive open-door policy? There is no question, without a doubt, it is friendly, sociable and even gracious. We and others have already written on the fallacy of equating increasing church attendance with success. That, then, leaves the question of whether or not "welcoming everyone" should be the attitude, the policy practiced by Christian churches or does this defeat its purpose. Of course, before we can answer that question, we have to come to an understanding of what "church" is supposed to be all about.
The "church" really came into existence after the ascension of Jesus the Christ. From the outset, it was a brotherhood, a society of Christians united by common ties for fellowship and like-minded company cooperating for a common purpose and for the benefit of all. The unifying "bond of union," the common purpose, was and is the Gospel message. In the Apostolic period, so strong was this redemptive bond that it produced the conditions in Jerusalem in which the disciple had all things in common. This brotherhood of Christ was a society of believers in which its members were united by common beliefs and who have been baptized into the True faith. It was a people who share the fact that Jesus has chosen them out of the world. To preserve that unity of mind, body and soul,
Paul insisted that they Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Many today apply this admonition to marriage although there is no suggestion that would lead to such a reading. As John Gill concludes, "these words are a dissuasive in general, from having any fellowship with unbelievers in anything sinful and criminal, whether in worship or in conversation." Paul said it this way, Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another.The fact that today’s "church" is moving further and further away from this Biblical principle of fellowship is to its everlasting condemnation; and will lead to its ultimate dysfunctional collapse. To answer the erroneous claim that being "seeker-friendly" is the missional purpose of the "church," the quick answer is that such missionality is the wrong activity in the wrong place at the wrong time because it destroys our brotherhood. To illustrate, just suppose the church was in the habit of taking Holy Communion every Sunday (see
Acts 20:7) when it was smitten with the "seeker-friendly" bug. Rest assured, that practice will be severely restricted or done away with completely as the group becomes more of an audience and less of a congregation (from one body to many individuals) because it makes the "seekers" uncomfortable.No one less than Jesus tells us the importance of taking communion saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. When "properly" observed, communion is prima fascie evidence of our participation in the body of Christ and the family of God. That’s what Paul says in
1 Cor. 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Proper observance involves a single loaf of bread that is a symbol of there being only one body that is broken as He was. As one writer put it, "The name 'Communion' comes from it being something done with others. It's done with Christ. It's done with other believers. In sharing the meal, 'I' becomes 'us'". When properly done, we take time to examine ourselves before we take the communion elements. (1 Cor. 11:28) As already indicated (Acts 20:7), proper observation of communion is once a week. We cannot become one with a bunch of strangers with different beliefs and attitudes in our midst.After belittling communion, music will change, sermon will de-emphasize Christ’s sacrifice will follow. Discussions of hell and the idea that the only way to heaven is through the acceptance of Jesus as well as claims of the inerrancy of the Bible will no longer be made. Equalitarian conversations with everyone’s opinions of equal value will replace any pretense of teaching the Gospel. It will be replaced by social welfare agenda in the guise of a "missional church." All of this in order to entice people into some amorphous collection of people with no standards except mob rule. This isn’t idle speculation; it is taking place at the present time in "churches" throughout the land. We fail to see that the attraction is how we treat our fellow Christians.
And many shall follow their pernicious ways; a
by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through
covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose
judgment now of a long time lingereth not,
and their damnation slumbereth not.
When
is Being Ordained Not?
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over
the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church
of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Return to the page directory
From the earliest days, there were those within the congregations of Christian saints who were preaching and teaching false doctrines. Many times, these early Christians were warned to be wary of such deceivers. They are called "wolves," a "
metaph. of cruel, greedy, rapacious, destructive men." During His ministry, Jesus warned the saints then and now to, beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Early on, Paul warned of this, for I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Peter indicated that there always has been (and will continue to be) false teachers and false prophets. These warnings apply equally to prophets, teachers and to all who put themselves in positions of authority within the "church."This deceitfulness isn’t just an historical occurrence confined to the pages of Scripture. A lot of what is taking place in the contemporary "church" serves as a stark warning that there are many, if not a preponderance of, "wolves in sheep’s" clothing making their dens in the church of today. All we have to do is pay attention to what is being preached and written in the guise of being the Gospel to realize the stark truth that we, Christians, have been and are being lied to by our so-called teachers/pastors. Presuming, of course, we are sufficiently grounded in the Gospel to know what is not the Truth when we hear it. Those who are not, put their trust the "credentials" of those in authority over us to protect us from such charlatans, pretenders, who pursue their own agendas rather than the Word of God. We take as evidence of their believability the fact that they graduated from a seminary and/or that they were "ordained" by the denomination in which they "serve."
The problem with this approach is that it rapidly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; what is being "successfully" preached from the pulpit becomes what is taught in seminary. And what is deemed "successful" is what fills the pews because it tickles the ears of the "audience." Since people seldom have a stomach for sound Scriptural teachings, "successful" preaching becomes catering to the inane, or as
John Gill states, preaching "such as either indulge them in their sinful lusts and pleasures; or are agreeable to their private corrupt sentiments, in opposition to the generally received doctrine of faith." Earlier, Paul writes, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1. That time has come to fruition with seminaries.In many ways, a person’s "seminary credentials" or his denominational ordination is the least significant thing we should consider.
Of the several words for "ordain" found in the Gospels, other than being translated as "ordain," they are translated as: appoint, make, prepare, determine and choose. The most frequently used Greek word, Kathistemi, (used 21 times) is most often translated as "make" (eg. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.) That changes in the Pauline Epistles to "ordain" or "appoint" as found in Titus 1:5. Thus, Scripturally, to be ordained is to be made, or appointed as an elder, etc. As Paul established congregations, his concern was that reliable men who were qualified to teach the Gospel could be found. To alleviate those concerns, he "ordained" those he considered to be reliable and qualified. We are not made privy to the criteria he used. That, then, is the very crux of the problem,. Who is really qualified to teach/preach the Gospel and who makes that determination? Indeed when wrong reasons are used, ordination becomes the wool worn by ravenous wolves and the yarn they spin a web of deceitfully designed scholarly lies. What, then, do we have to help us distinguish the "ordained" wolves from those who are genuinely ordained?The answer is at the same time basic, wondrous and marvelous, the Holy Spirit. It is as
John Gill writes, "The answer is ready, God has made a revelation of them, not only in his word, which is common to men, nor only to his ministers, but to private Christians and believers." We are told, For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say and this, he shall teach you all things and he will guide you into all truth, and more: 1 Cor 2:10, Luke 4:18, John 15:26, John 14:16, Hebrews 10:15, 1 John 4:6. The Disciples were told to tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high (Luke 24:49), shouldn’t we? It is His Spirit that should be the herald of a Christian teacher/preacher, not a sense of being called or a seminary degree. It isn’t the wisdom and scholarship of men we are to rely upon, but the Holy Spirit with which each one of us is imbued. In addition, there is a one word check on claims made that this or that is the Truth. It is the Bible. As one renowned teacher was fond of saying, "Don’t take my word for it, go home and read [the Bible] and let the Holy Spirit teach you." So we should. Christianity is an active, not a passive process.Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth ?
Galatians 4:16
?