Many like to say that we are a "Christian Nation," and when actions and events take place contrary to those Christian values, voices (some angry) are raised in opposition to them. This belief that we are a "Christian Nation is borne out by the facts. According to the Pew Foundation’s U.S. Religious Foundation Survey, 78.4% of Americans affiliate themselves with Christianity, which is an overwhelming majority. While only a little over 51% are Protestant, which is still a simple majority. On the basis of these findings, one must conclude that whatever characterizes American business, government, entertainment and the society in general reflect the beliefs and values of more than 78% of the population proclaiming to be Christian. It would be a stretch to argue that the religious preferences of the Congress of the United States, for example, are different than the general population. As a matter of fact, the 111^th Congress is different than the general population of America. As reported by the Pew Foundation, only five members (1%) "did not specify a religious affiliation." Also to be noted, this 2008 study found that 54.7% of them are affiliated with Protestantism with 30% professing to be Roman Catholics. That’s more professing Christianity (84.7% vs. 78.4%) than in the general population. About 12% of those affiliated with Christianity are Baptists; slightly less than in the general population which is 17.2% Baptist. Therefore, nothing happens in the Congress of the United States without the consent of this Christian majority, just as in the society at large. There is no reason to believe conditions are any different in other levels of government whose members are elected from the general population.

So, what are we complaining about when we see laws enacted by the Congress, state legislatures, county and local government right down to local school boards? The probability is overwhelming that on each and every level they are composed of at least 78% Christians. That percentage also holds up for the entire court system as well. The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court was, guess what, 78% Christian with just two (22%) of the Justices affiliated with Judaism. If it’s true in the government and the courts, it is just as true for Wall Street tycoons, corporate executives, automobile dealerships, business owners, right down to the neighborhood grocery store. (if there are any left) Who is lining the pockets of "Sin City casinos and houses of prostitution? Guess; 78% of those enriching that worldliness are Christians! Who makes pornography profitable? Well, you know. Who sets fashion trends; what we see in movie theaters and what we watch on our television screens? These things are not the result subversive "Gentile" (non-Christian) hoards bent on corrupting American moral standards, but that 78%+ "Christian" majority, that’s who. Little wonder the 2.4% who are agnostic and the 1.6% who are atheist consider us hypocrites. The approximate 4-5% of the population will never, on its own pass "gay rights" legislation such as "gay marriage" and the right of "gay couples" to adopt children. Those corrupting the morals of our children are the overwhelming majority of Christian parents permitting if not exemplifying such behavior. Who made the ruling that the 43-foot cross on Mount Soledad in San Diego was unconstitutional other than those professing to be Christian. As a matter of fact, the 0.6% of the Muslims in this country find our ethical and moral standards reprehensible. And, what an example we set.

We have been admonished over and over again not to covet the things of this world. Yet, clearly, we continue to do so. Paul tells us not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed. (Rom. 12:2) To the Galatians he wrote, If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (1:10) To the congregation at Colossus, he wrote Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. (Col 3:2) To Timothy he wrote that we are to flee material things and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. (1 Tim. 6:10-11) Of course, most Christians can cite from memory Matthew 6:24; No man 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. His brother wrote, Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. (James 4:4) Yet we continue to do so.

What are the consequences of such disobedience? If we take a chapter, the last chapter, from the ancient Nation of Israel, we’ll have our answer. We often say that America is a land filled with milk and honey. We Christians (the 78% majority of Americans) proclaim we are His chosen people, the people of the New Covenant. Israel was finally totally annihilated in AD 70. What makes us think we can escape the same end? When will it be too late for us?

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

Return to the page directory

More often than not, we tend to misunderstand the role of the prophet. Found first in the Book of Genesis and made use of extensively (288 times) in the OT, our understanding of his role has been marred by modern interpretations of the word. Today, almost to the exclusion of everything else, we look at prophets as "fortune tellers" with the models for that view being scam artist who make their living selling "End Times" predictions to the more gullible among us. The more astute, especially Christians, think of John and the Book of Revelation. Another popular, and equally erroneous view, is that the prophet’s role "add to the Bible;" provide more scripture to what most theologians consider to be sacrosanct: perfection beyond all additions or even the slightest modifications. None of these views of the prophet’s role is correct.

In the OT, predicting future events played a minor role in prophesying. However, these were minor functions of the OT prophets, if they existed at all. Their nearly singular, major role was to point out and prayerfully correct illegal beliefs and practices contrary to The Book. According to one Biblical scholar, "the prophets were raised up by God to summon people back to obedience to that covenant." The further removed from the Covenant the Israelites strayed, the more the prophets spoke. The role of the OT prophets was to defend the Torah and remind the Israelites when they went astray, as well as when they were committing heresies. God spoke through them to remind them of both the blessing for following the Torah and the curses that would follow when they did not. OT prophets were defenders, not detractors, nor revisionists of the Torah.

The OT prophets considered themselves to be "Divinely appointed," meaning that were His servants through whom He spoke; not by their own choice, but through His calling. As such, they spoke the word of God, not their own opinions. It is as if they were the dummies and He is the ventriloquist. (Although these "dummies" were human beings with thoughts, desires and wishes God worked through in order to get His messages out. If there was a "red-letter version of the OT, as there is for the NT (signifying the words Jesus spoke) most of the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 20 - Dt. 33) and the Prophetic Books would be in red. (You want to quibble with that; erroneously thinking Jesus did not appear nor did He speak during OT times? Think again.)

As the middle part of the 8^th century was characterized by what Stuart labels "paganized Yahwism," (Hos. 2:4-13; 3:1; 5:4-7) the 21^st century is a world of social, moral decay and greed. "Paganized, Christianity" abounds. It no more adheres to the Word than those of ancient Israel. Because the need is so great, this age should be called, The Age of Bible and Prophets" if we had any prophets. (OT 05030; NT 4396) Their function would be to speak out and warn us when we stray from the provisions of the New Covenant and the consequences of such misdirection as well as help return us to the correct path; just like their brothers in the OT.

Today, part of the misdirection is the belief that, the "Canonization of the Bible," (essentially the works of the Catholic Church, not divine direction) has done away with the need for prophets because; "all Truth has been revealed". Even if we accept the reasoning that all Truth was revealed to the Apostles, there is nothing to assure that their teachings and writings have been correctly transmitted and understood by succeeding generations. Then again, how many Christians are fluent in Biblical Greek? Canonization clearly does not obviate the function of a God ordained, God director navigator to keep us away from the rocks of heresy and to warn us of following such an erroneous course any more than in OT times. All we need to do to see the need for our navigating Holy Spirit (see John 16:13) today just as much as in apostolic times, is to look at the condition the church is in today. (There isn’t even agreement on what should be the composition of the so-called "Canon of Scripture) A second misdirection is that we have placed all our trust in graduates from schools of theology (This despite the warning found in 1Cor. 23/23). These, "pastors," to become "ordained," must learn to parrot the "party line" of their particular denomination/sect perpetuating errors and misconceptions are passed on through the generations.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. Hebrews 5:12

Return to the page directory

Peter makes essentially the same statement as Paul does in the above passage from his first letter to his friend Timothy in 1Peter 3:3 saying, Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. Clearly in today’s "permissive society" (to say the least) such instruction is not well received. Consequently, they are either excused as being "culture bound," (a frequent "explanation" for picking and choosing) implying that it applies to Biblical times when dress codes were much more strict and the place of women in society was greatly limited, or they are simply ignored all together. Obviously, for whatever "reason" (rationalization) these directives are not complied with either by the wives of Christians (actually, if we would notice, women’s apparel in most churches are more in tune with "Desperate Housewives" than these directives from the Apostles Paul and Peter) or by the female population in general. Either or both of these are seldom, if ever, the subject of sermons in "Seeker Friendly" churches for fear that such admonitions will scare away or seriously offend most of the female population. If the matter is brought up at all, it is to lampoon and out-of-hand reject the directives rather than to teach modesty to their female constituents – who would simply get up and leave never to return.

Beyond simply ignoring the subject, another frequently used tactic is to discredit these admonitions from the Apostles Paul and Peter by making them appear ridiculous. By going so far from contemporary American and Western European women’s apparel, they appear to be absurd to virtually everyone. (reductio ad absurdum) In this instance, burkas are used as the extreme to completely discredit their positions by seeming to ask "Is this what you are suggesting?" What ignoring or making fun of the Apostles directives does is to overshadow what is being said. The Greek word translated in Timothy as shamefacedness is Aidos which may also be translated as reverence. We find Aidos used in this way in the book of Hebrews saying, Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. (Heb. 12:28) What a splendidly beautiful passage! We should be serving God in an acceptable manner with reverence.

If Paul was writing in Greek, we don’t know what he meant by Aidos. He could have meant shamefacedness or reference. It is just as likely in 1Timothy 2:9 he said, "that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with reverence and self-control," since the Greek which is translated as "sobriety" in Paul’s letter may also mean soundness of mind and self-control as well as sobriety. That certainly puts a different slant (pun intended) on his admonishment. If this is the case, shouldn’t males as well as females exhibit such reverence and self-control? With which we heartily concur. Men have other "vices.’ These passages (1Tim. 2:9 and 1Pet.3:3) deal expressly with attire as way of gaining recognition.

As a matter of fact, most commentaries treat these verses as if there is something inbred in the biology of the female population (of all ages) naturally inclining them toward outlandish and immodest dress and behavior. Since such behavior is not characteristic of the female population over time or across cultures, this explanation simply fails. The next attempt at a explanation for this gender specific display is to lay the blame at the feet of social and cultural expectations and what females are exposed (pun not intended) to in the mass media and in the market-place. With some qualifications, this comes closer to the facts. For centuries, women have been greatly restricted in what and how they may find social approval. While men have had such avenues of acceptance through their work, "manly sports" (hunting, football, auto-racing, etc.) women have been restricted to their physical attributes; prohibited from "gainful employment" and other means of gaining stature in the male-centered cultures of so much of the world.

Still, we must not overlook the simple fact that we Christians, men and women, are called apart; not to be dependent on things, beliefs and practices of this world. We are free to act differently precisely because we are not to be under the influence of worldly wiles. That’s what Paul means when he wrote to Titus about those he, Titus, selected to be the leaders in the churches he was to establish on the island of Crete. He said these leaders were to be a peculiar people; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Titus 2:14) That’s also what Peter meant when he wrote we are a "chosen generation," a "royal priesthood, a "holy nation" (1Pet. 2:9) Women who use their bodies to gain recognition are saying they are not yet free from the things of this world. Her esteem is not yet from Him.

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. John 15:19

Return to the page directory

For years, centuries, there has been much buzz about the vision of a temple exhaustively described by the prophet Ezekiel. It is variously described as the 3^rd Temple, The Millennial Temple or simply "Ezekiel’s Temple. Furthermore, its place in history is likewise described a number of ways. One source sees it this way "The people must know what God has in store for them. Surely, God wouldn’t give so much information on a subject to a prophet if He did not mean business. This Temple would be built as surely as the sun rises in the morning. He had God’s word on that." (emphasis added) As with so many essayists on the subject, the 3^rd temple is seen: (1) as something in the, perhaps, distant future and (2) as an inevitable occurrence. This same source cites Ezekiel 43:7 which says in part, "Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever" to bolster these views. Of course, from the Jewish point of view the person saying "I will live among the Israelites forever" is none other than the Jewish Messiah. (as opposed to the Christian Messiah.) Others see the fulfillment of this prophecy as occurring in the Millennialism. Still others see it as symbolic; we should understand that this temple is where God dwells in the midst of His people forever. Where is the place of His throne? In our hearts. Except for the excruciatingly detailed plan the Angel dictated to Ezekiel, this suggestion might have some merit. Finally there are those who believe, Ezekiel Temple [the] unfulfillable prophecy with the argument,

There are others, but these examples of the diversity of opinion concerning the Temple are sufficient for now.  However, there is another group of "Ezekiel Templeites" worthy of some consideration, whom we might call the "Constructionists" because of their belief that the Temple will be built at some future date; perhaps even in our lifetime. One such "constructionist" is a Dr. Gavin Finley, a Christian pre-millennialist by his own declaration. On his website, titled End Time Pilgrim, he presents a somewhat somber view that, "At the present time the construction of the Third Temple is quite impossible from a political perspective. The Temple Mount area is under rather strict Islamic control." Nonetheless, as is characteristic of this group of "Templeites," he hastens to add, "But the prophetic scriptures indicate that the temple will indeed be rebuilt." (Note he says, "rebuilt," like so many confusing Herod’s upgrade of the second Temple destroyed in AD 70 as Ezekiel’s Temple.) A much more optimistic group is the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement. According to their website,

Finally, there is a group calling itself The Lamb & Lion Ministries. It declares, "The Bible clearly teaches that a new temple — which will be called The Third Temple — will be built in the future."

Among other things, what should be distressing for Christians in projecting the construction of the 3^rd Temple into the future is: (1) the reinstitution of the sacrificial system, (Ez. 43:18-27) (2) the reinstitution of circumcision (Ez. 44:9) and (3) the Levitical Priesthood. (Ez.44:15-31) All that pre-existed the coming of Jesus the Christ is to be re-established? Essentially, Israel is to be restored to its position of preeminence. In 1 Peter 1:19 we are told He is our "sacrificial lamb" who has paid for all of our sins as do the following passages: (John 1:29; Acts 13:38-39; 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Tim. 4:10, Heb. 2:9-10, 9:26-28, 10:4-10; 1 John 1:7, 4:14; Rev. 7:10 ) The following passages from the Book of Hebrews speak of Jesus as our "High Priest:" (Heb. 3:1, 4:14, 5:10, 8:1, 9:11, 10:21) these passages speak to the ineffectiveness of circumcision: (Rom. 3:1; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Phil. 3:3; Col. 3:11). What do we make of these passages if Ezekiel’s Temple is yet to be restored? Must we concede that the Bible does contradict itself? In Hebrews we read, But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say , not of this building. (Heb.9:11; emphasis added) Doesn’t this (as Heb. 8:2) contradict the idea of another Temple being constructed someday or the reestablishment of the Levitical Priesthood?

Just two seemingly innocuous, frequently ignored, verses from the Book of Ezekiel will provide the answers to this seeming conundrum. Verse 43:9 reads, Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever. That’s an "if-then" statement. Verse 43:11 reads, in part, And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, also a conditional statement. The Israelites did neither, were neither. Therefore, failing the conditions, the 3^rd Temple was not and never will be built as witnessed by John’s visions.

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. Revelation 21:22

Return to the page directory

In addition to the most fundamental questions a "Christian" should have an answer for ("Is there a God? What is His nature? The "milk" Sort of thing) we must surely add, "What is my relationship with Him?" The answer to that is linked to another of the "milk" questions, "Why did He, God, create us?" On that subject, creation and its "isms," we hear endless litanies’ but rarely the "why" question. Yet, if we’d bother to notice, Scripture is full of answers to that last why.

For example, from Isaiah 12:4, And in that day shall ye say, Praise the LORD, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted. The word "praise" as used in this passage appears 111 times in the OT It means, "to give thanks,, laud, praise, to confess, confess (the name of God), to confess (sin). In addition, there are 53 other Hebrew words for our English "praise." The particular word used here is "yadah." In the NT, there are 46 Greek words for "praise." They did a lot of praising back then.

From Isaiah 12 at verse 5 there is this, Sing unto the LORD; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth. As you may have guessed, things aren’t as simple as they first appear. "Sing," as used here, can mean to sing our praises. But it can also mean to "make music" as "to play a musical instrument." Just for the record, it is found 41 times in the OT. As you probably have concluded, there is more than one Hebrew word for our English "sing" as well as a lot of Greek words. Yup, they did a lot of singing too. Further on, the passage says, "he has (hath) done excellent things." On top of creating the universe, another excellent thing He has done is to fashion a salvation for us, which is complete and everlasting – that is excellent! Now, that is something to sing about. How oft we forget. Wonder why we don’t do more of that? And, this was Old Testament times. Think how much more He has done for us. He sent us His Son as a living, perfect sacrifice for our sins. We really have a lot to sing about. Come to think of it, what more could God do for us than to redeem us by the blood of His only begotten Son? Let’s look at it this way, suppose our neighbor, whom we have been ignoring every since we moved into the neighborhood, saw we were about to be shot and shoved his son in the path of the bullet intended for us, would we turn around and ask that neighbor to cut the grass and sweep the house?

Third, Isaiah 12:6 reads, Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee. "Shout" can also mean, "to give a ringing cry (in joy, exaltation, praise, distress). Indeed, the Message reads the passage this way, "Raise the roof, Sing your hearts out" and the Bible in Basic English this way, "Let your voice be sounding in a cry of joy!" The New Living Translation has the verse this way, "Let all the people of Jerusalem shout his praise with joy! For great is the Holy One of Israel who lives among you." What theologians presume this verse means is, to sing out loud, with high praises of God. Matthew Henry reads it this way, "Those that have received distinguishing favours from God ought to be most forward and zealous in praising him."

So many Christians "sing out loud this way; "God, this is what I need from you today. Tomorrow, I’ll have another list." and "God, here’s the list I’ve compiled of things I most want from you; it will be updated periodically as the need arises." Is that really what our relationship with Him is all about? Well most of our prayer life seems to strongly suggest we think that is the nature of the relationship. This is not to say we should not ask of Him. In fact, Hebrews 4:16 tells us to, come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. But, a constant litany of give me, help me, save me from my troubles (that I have gotten myself into) has got to get a little monotonous. A counterpoint to the passage from Hebrews is this from Psalm 50:15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. Jesus tells us to, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 5:16) And, in John it is recorded that He said, Herein is my Father glorified , that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. (John 15:8)

Why did God create man? The Bible never comes right out and says why. There are, however, some pretty strong hints. In 1 Peter 2:12 we read, Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. In 1 Cor. 15:28, Paul writes, And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. In Rev. 4:11, we read, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Isaiah 43:7 tells us 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. Additional verses include:62:3-5, 1 Cor. 10:31, Ps. 115:1, Rev 5:12-13. It seems clear He didn’t create us so He could mow our grass or sweep our houses (by way of saying to keep Himself busy granting our wishes).

for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. Revelation 15:4

Return to the page directory

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us:
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16

Return to the page directory

If books were to be written on the "attributes of God" which, by the way has been attempted, the resulting library would stretch into eternity and beyond. A dictionary of all the words it would take to even attempt to describe Him would fill an ever expanding universe and beyond. Actually, if He could be described, He wouldn’t be God. Thus to describe Him as Holy, Eternal, Immutable, Impartial, Incomprehensible, Infinite, Jealous, Just, Longsuffering, Loving, Merciful, Perfect, Creator and Ruler of the universe, Glorious, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Righteous, Self-existent, Self-sufficient, Sovereign, Transcendent, Truth, Wise, Faithful is only the beginning, these hardly even scratches the surface. Christians and Jews alike agree He is inscrutable, beyond our comprehension

Let’s just look at three of these characteristics; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. To ascribe such attributes, and more, to Him is unquestionably correct. He is, omniscient. Nothing, absolutely nothing, escapes His attention; not even the slightest detail however mundane. He knows everything that is going on in the entire eternal universe including everything we do or think. Luke wasn’t exercising poetic license when he wrote that He has the hairs on our heads numbered (not too much a feat for some) and the death of a single sparrow. (Luke 12:7) He knows about those who commit immoral acts that seemingly go unpunished. He knows about those who commit heinous crimes and who not only go unpunished, but who prosper. He knows about the little boy who has been in a wheelchair since birth. Rightly we say He is omnipotent. He has the power to do anything, everything, He so desires. After all, He spoke the universe, including ourselves, into existence from absolutely nothing. (Genesis 1:1-26) He has the power to stop anything and everything He pleases including such as thunder. (Exodus 9:29) did He not erase the memory of nation of Israel from the minds of men? (Ex.26:32) On command, He dries up oceans and rivers? ( Nah 1:4; Isa 50:2) Clearly, He has the power to punish wrong and correct that which is not right. Is the little boy in the wheelchair being punished? If not isn’t it natural for he and his family to wonder why this agonizing torment persists in the face of continuous prayer?

Omnipresent means God is everywhere all the time. He is the first and only one to travel through time and space without the need of a time capsule or a space suit. He knows everything; every one’s sin, pain and suffering all the time; everywhere. Then, isn’t it fair to ask why He put that tree in the Garden know full well that Adam and Eve would eat its fruit? He knew about the Holocaust; He knew about that and everything else before time began. Are we to argue that 6 million plus died because they were being punished for the sins of ancient Israel? What about the Four Christian missionaries handing out Bibles who were killed by Somalia pirates; or the busload of Christian children on their way to a prayer retreat that wrecked? If God is everywhere, all powerful and all knowing isn’t it fair to hold Him ultimately responsible for each and every one of these incidents? Isn’t it fair to ask why He allows bad things to happen to good people?

How does the devil fit in? Is he responsible for evil? He is the doer of evil as we are. However, God created Satan (see Job 12:10; Eph. 3:9; Rev. 4:11) with a free-will, as were all created beings, knowing what he would become. Satan was created. God by giving him a free will, He allowed Satan to sin. With that free will, he did everything but kill Job, (Job 1-2) but it was Satan’s desire to do so. Like all who do wrong, he will be punished. Nonetheless, as Satan’s creator, God is ultimately responsible for what Satan does. If He does not cause them, He does not prevent them. Consider these passages: It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes. (Psalm 119:71) Paul writes But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Cor. 11:32) The author of Hebrews writes, For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure, but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. (Heb. 12:10) Not to do so is not only illogically, inconsistent and hypocritical it misses the full majesty of God. Throughout the OT writers spoke of the Fear the Lord. Did we leave that behind there in the OT? Certainly not. Along with all the "fear not" passages are these from the NT Luke 1:50, 7:16, 12:5; Acts 9:31, 19:17; 2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:12; Heb 11:7, 12:28; 1 Pet. 2:17; Rev. 14:7, 15:4.

The grammar may not be the best, but the way we can answer this question posed by the title really needs to be our very best. It’s a matter of whether we Christians are individuals or part of a community. Do we see ourselves primarily responsible and responsive to ourselves or to a community? Today, we have the phenomenon of the "mega-church" where tens of thousands collect in one place presumably for "Sunday services." Is such a thing even remotely possible in Biblical Christianity? There is another phenomenon equally disturbing, the so-called "TV ministries;" those that refer to themselves as "television churches." Once again, can there be such a thing as a Christian sitting at home on Sunday and "taking part" in televised services?

"Church" (Strong’s # 1577) is mentioned 115 times in the KJ New Testament; with the greatest number being in the book of Acts followed by 1 Corinthians. (24 and 21 times respectively) So what is Luke saying about the "church?" Is he discussing 15, 20, 30 thousand gathered in an arena like the Roman Coliseum or the stateliness of the Greek Parthenon? Does Jesus say, "Where one person is gathered in His name, Jesus is with him?" Jesus never said such a thing. As witnessed in Matt.20, it takes a minimum of two before He is present. About this passage John Gill writes this is, "in opposition to a Jewish notion, that a number less than ten, is not a congregation." He lists several OT references in support of his observation. (Psalms 82:1; Amos 9:6) In Malachi 3:16, that number gets down to two, (Exodus 20:24 and Lamentations 3:28) but it is never to just one. In like respect it seems very improbable that there is such a thing as an "individual Christian." This should mean "good-bye" to Harry and Harriett sitting alone at home staring at a TV "pastor;" Good-bye to so-called "TV ministries because something essential, vital is missing – interaction.

"Church" is supposed to be a "we" instead of "me." The question is how many does it take before "we" gets lost in the crowd and becomes a mob? Is there a Biblical answer for this? Indirectly, there is. Simply because virtually every mention of Christians congregating seems to have been believer’s homes Today we, call them "church homes." Many like to use Acts 5:42 referring to meeting daily in the temple as justification for the mega-church phenomenon. However, if we put this passage in context, we find that only the apostles were so engaged; a rather small group of 12 with Mathias replacing Judas Iscariot. (Acts 5:42 also offers an interesting aside in that it mentions both teaching and preaching in one breath.) Continuing with the matter at hand, others point to the baptism of the three thousand at the end of Peter’s preaching on the Day of Pentecost. However, there is nothing even remotely suggesting all of them continued meeting together in the Temple. To the contrary the second part of verse 46 tells us they, broke bread from house to house with no one house sufficiently large enough to hold that number. Gill suggests their "daily" temple visits were limited to times of prayer, and other services associated with Judaism. (2 Tim 3:1-5)

There are other more compelling arguments against the mega-church that arises from the nature of Christian relationships. They are found in two frequently used words in the NT; "brother" and "family." "Brother" (Strong's # 80) is used in the KJV a total of 346 times. It may be translated as: biologically related siblings, having the same national ancestry, a fellow believer, brethren in Christ, Christians who are exalted to the same heavenly place. "Family" specifically as found in Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 2:19 and 1 Timothy 5:8. (Also Strong’s #3613, 4924, 2730, 3832, 3609) Finally, these particular verses make it abundantly clear that Christians are a family, brothers and sisters in Christ. (Romans 12:5, Gal. 6:10, Eph. 3:15, Hebrews 2:10-11, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:20, 1 John 3:14) We are to love (Agape, Philadelphia) and care for one another as we would members of our own "natural family." It is questionable how such regard for other worshippers can be found in a mega-church.

It isn’t just in mega-churches that focus upon the "we" rather than the "me." It is found in "churches" of all sizes. Over the centuries we have forgotten that communion, "the breaking of bread together" (Strong’s #2806) also means sharing, fellowship, (Strong’s # 3352) companionship, (Strong’s # 3657) fellow-citizens in Christ, (Strong’s # 4847) to be in partnership with others, (Strong’s # 2841) and to share one’s possessions. (Strong’s # 2843) Churches fervently resist the last. The family bond is rarely found because it infrequently discussed if at all. We Christians have become the "me centered generation" of the 60’s and 70’s in America. We seldom know of the needs and concerns of those around us in church except if and when special requests are made. We likely don’t even know their names and we don’t try to find out. We are strangers with little or nothing in common who have little if any contact outside of "church" and know virtually nothing about one another’s personal lives. Instead of "parallel play," (children playing in the same sandbox, but ignoring one another) "church" has become "parallel worship."

So we , being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Romans 12:5

Return to the page directory

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not:
for it was founded upon a rock. Matthew 7:25

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Ephesians 4:12