A RICH MAN DIED TODAY; EVERYONE CRIED
(A poor man died today; no one noticed)

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted,
The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. Acts 4:36-37
Return to the Church Directory

Was the poor man any less revered by his friends? Will his family miss him any less? Unfortunately that just might be the case. Wealth is such an overwhelming element in our culture that a poor person might not have any friends and his family could possibly condemn him because of his poverty feeling he had failed them. One of the curses of great abundance is trying to figure out who your friends really are and who is attracted to you because you are rich. Another, and possibly the only other one, is trying to figure out how this or that person is related to you. Although those who have become suddenly very rich will agree these are the most troubling, they’ll also say the horde of vultures that descend upon them from all corners is overwhelming. Isn’t it interesting that we have agreed upon the meaning of "wealth" and "poverty" although in Christian circles, at least, there just might be room for other interpretations.

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon tells us that a "Levite is the descendants of Levi, the 3rd son of Jacob by Leah; one of the tribe descended from Levi specially set aside by God for His service." God instructed Moses not to number the Levites with the other tribes (Numbers 1:47-54). They were "assistants to the priests," priests being descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses. At the conquest the Levites received no tribal inheritance (Numbers 18:20) the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance (Joshua 18:7). "They had no territorial possessions" (see ref.). Instead, the tribe was given forty-eight cities with accompanying pastures (Joshua 21:1-42) so they might better serve in the capacity of priestly assistants. After the Dispersion, (see ref.) only 341 Levites returned to "Israel," the remaining chose to stay in the land of their exile. One can only speculate why.

Why this sudden interest in the Levites? Perhaps you hadn’t noticed before that the Levite, discussed in the Scripture verse, had land to sell. Where did he get it? Well, first of all, he evidently didn’t return from the island of Cyprus after the Dispersion. So it was probably he had acquired the property. In all likelihood, he was born of "Jewish" parents who belonged to the priestly race" and that was about as close to being a Levite he could get. Maybe wealth kept Barnabas and his family with their strong tribal tradition of service to the Lord from returning to their homeland. They had been corrupted by the Apolloanian Greek influence of their adopted land. Might one justly question the title of "Levite?"

Perhaps Barnabas’ past left something to be desired from a Levite, but his conversion and his service to his newfound religion was exemplary. He was a companion of Paul's among the Gentiles and had helped to preach the Word to them though, finally, his "Jewish roots" were his downfall (Galatians 2:13). However, when we meet him here, he certainly is on the right track. John Gill's Exposition of the Bible notes that Barnabas, "might be the first person that did so (give money to the Apostles), and set an example which was universally followed;" it continues, "he is particularly mentioned, being a man of note among the apostles."

There are two things that need further discussion: First, according to Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, Barnabas, "disentangled himself from the affairs of this life. When such dispositions prevail, and are exercised according to the circumstances of the times, the testimony will have very great power upon others." To which we can only add an amen! Then there is this troubling note from Gills Exposition suggesting Barnabas was a "man of note among the apostles." Why might that be – his spiritual maturity, possibly his wealth or something else? Actually the question isn’t "why" at all; rather it is should he have been a "man of note" for any reason. Some commentators refer to him as the "celebrated companion of Paul's missionary labors" (see ref.). "Celebrated?" Barnabas may have "disentangled himself from the affairs of this life," perhaps some of the disciples/apostles were not as spiritually mature.

Should the "passing" of one member of a congregation produce any more a sense of loss than that of another? Is one person of more "value" in God’s family? The Bible teaches self-denial; Christ set the example, Paul wrote often of its need especially for "ministers" (see ref.). Wouldn’t such deference be contrary to these teachings? Communion, our highest sacrament is also a description of the fellowship we are to have with one another. Respecter of persons is not. The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. John 13:16

Return to the Church Directory

OWNERSHIP
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6
Return to the Church Directory

Recently a church in a Western city dismissed its Executive Pastor. Sadly, in these days of churches being torn apart by scandal, such a dismissal is not at all unusual. It isn’t the unusualness that makes this action stand out any more than the publicly expressed reason given. In Sunday services the Senior Pastor explained to the congregation that the position of Executive Pastor could no longer be afforded. Budgetary constraints were to blame. What makes this so extraordinary is the congregation’s response. After the dismissed pastor and his family (wife and three small children) who had stood in front of them to receive token gifts of appreciation took their seats, the Senior Pastor called for all those desiring prayer to come forward. One lonely person came forward – the ex-Executive Pastor. There he knelt all alone at the front of the church until, from all the way across the sanctuary, came a severely crippled parishioner, unable to navigate by himself, to kneel with this man who had just lost his job. The rest simply sat in their pews.

Not being privy to the inner workings of this particular church, it is impossible to know if the stated reasons were actually the basis for his dismissal. Hopefully, that is the case because dupery on this level, within this context, under these circumstances would be reprehensible. Therefore, we must consider the enormity of this event for the Christian community within the financial context in which it was presented. Should this pastor earn $70,000 a year (including fringe benefits), an increase of $3.65 in the weekly giving of the 400 most active members of the congregation would have covered the expense. No such appeal was made. No such suggestion was forthcoming from the members. From the style-of-life of the neighborhood in which the church is located and from which it draws its constituents an additional four or five dollars a week (as fundraisers would be wont to point out, a mere $0.52 cents a day) would not appear, on the surface, to represent a serious financial drain. A view reinforced by the automobiles in the church parking lot.

None of this is really germane to the real issue at hand. Who made the decision to dismiss the Executive Pastor and for what reason(s) is not as critical as the blasé reaction of the congregation to the devastation this family was facing – a family who had been in their midst for over four years presumably serving their needs. Not far down the road on that very day, the sermon topic was on "self-control," one of the "Fruit of the Spirit" topics of a four Sunday exposition of "God’s Extreme Makeover." During and after the series, the "freeway mentality" of getting in and out of parking facilities did not subside; being greeted only by those officially designated to do so had not changed; the stampede out of church was no less life threatening than before the series began. Not far up the road from these two churches is a third with a collection of exquisite statuary and magnificent architectural masterpieces that draws 600-700,000 tourist a year. This aging and dwindling congregation seems mollified with a message little more than a religious equivalent of Horatio Alger’s "Rags to Riches" theme. (Interestingly, this "Calvinist" pastor is a member of the Horatio Alger Association and Horatio Alger grew up in an affluent Calvinist home.)

What each of these somewhat disparate congregations have in common is not their style, not their message or even their denominational affiliation. Instead, it is the apparent lack of involvement on the part of their members in what is going on. Members of the first church seemed wholly untouched by the family they were turning out. Those of the second seemed completely unmoved by the supremely well-delivered series on the "Fruit of the Spirit." As for the third, there is an element of awe of surroundings and no small degree of hero worship - little more. How is it possible that, after twenty minutes to over an hour of well planned, well presented sermonizing on topics as Scriptural as the Book of James, chapter 5 in Galatians or the errors of living in an "instamatic society," the respective congregations seem unmoved, unchanged? Is it even remotely possible that these representative congregations have no sense of ownership? They don’t own their church, the pastor does, the professional staff does and the denomination does. Everyone else does, but they don’t. Consequently, they don’t own the message, it is divorced from them just like the church and as irrelevant to their lives as the inner-workings of the inner circles of the management of the church. Is it even remotely possible? And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Hebrews 10:24

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; Acts 2:44
Return to the Church Directory

What Happened?
In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these litle ones should be lost. Matthew 18:14
Return to the Church Directory

Although theologians may differ on the questions of election and predestination and they may argue the meaning of the 144 thousand spoken of in the book of Revelation. They agree that the church should be concerned with the immortal souls of everyone. They agree that we, the church do not have the authority, the knowledge or the wisdom to discern who among us is saved and who is damned – a matter best left to God by all accounts. If that’s the case, then it appears we are to do our very best, not to save since that is the office of the Holy Spirit, but to present the Good News to everyone in every generation. Who will receive and who will reject is not among our concerns.

By most calculations, the church has been in existence for nearly 20 centuries. In that time, missionary efforts extended out from Palestine into the entire world. With modern means of transportation and the electronic wonders of the mass media, that effort has brought the message into the most remote corners of the world. Yet, by most accounts, Christians are in the minority among the world’s religions. There are towns, cities, countries where one would be hard pressed to find a person professing to be Christian. What is our response? Are we to resign ourselves that these millions are to be forever condemned? Are they numbered among the lost?

Consider a hypothetical small American town. One Christian church exists alongside the thriving temples mosques, synagogues, shrines and pagodas of many of the world’s largest religions. Sunday attendance has hovered around the 350 mark for the last ten or fifteen years. Senior pastor, the Rev. Dr. Swanson presides over the service on Sunday. He has two associates, Rev. Guadalupe who conducts a Sunday afternoon service for the growing Hispanic population in the area and Rev. Hu Nan who is in charge of the Asian services conducted on Friday evening. Each of these congregations is steady but less than 100. Yet, while these other religions, are thriving, Dr. Swanson’s is not. Since it is the only Christian church in this community, should we ask what is wrong with this picture?

It’s a "let’s pretend" scenario, but the scope of which is reasonably representative of a pattern we find in towns and cities all around the country. As with other churches, this one has an evangelical outreach program, classes and seminars on evangelism are held on a regular basis, but in spite of its best efforts the church is not growing. In this imaginary story, is it too difficult to picture our heavenly Father one day asking of this church, "What happened? You know my feelings about those who are lost, What happened?" He will point out the overwhelming response to the Left Behind series, the Prayer of Jabez, and most recently The Passion of Jesus the Christ. Don’t these amply demonstrate a craving for spiritual meaningfulness among tens of millions of people? Why are they just sitting in church pews all over the world while so many will be left behind? He will ask why the church is unable to tap into that thirsting.

Perhaps the answer lies in what the Barna Research found, "only half of the country’s Protestant pastors have a Biblical world view." The research finds that only 45% of seminary graduates and just 15% of female pastors had such a view. Isn’t it striking that Barna’s found only 9% of "born again" Christians and only 7% of Protestants in general profess a "Biblical Worldview?" What’s a "Biblical Worldview? (1) the accuracy of biblical teaching, (2) the sinless nature of Jesus, (3) the literal existence of Satan, (4) the omnipotence and omniscience of God, (5) salvation by grace alone, (6) the personal responsibility to evangelize. What if he had thrown in John 14:6? As Barna notes, "you can’t give people what you don’t have." Maybe in light of all this, God will ask us why in all these centuries we didn’t try something else. Why did we stick with the "church" model instead of His way outlined in the Bible? Thousands of years of "evangelical crusades," mission fields and most of the world still does not recognize Him or His Sacrificial Son. Jesus’ major commission may have been for our redemption, but He was also a model, a living example for us to follow. At times He read in synagogues, but most of His "teaching" was mentoring his disciples rather than giving didactic lectures from a pulpit. Aren’t Christians "both the spiritual temple and the priests of the temple?^fn" He and His Father will have a lot of questions. Who will willingly step up to the microphone and answer them?

Return to the Church Directory

Return to the Church Directory

For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches,
nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Acts 19:37

What a strange story this little passage tells. The words spoken in Acts 19:37 were those of Alexander a Jewish coppersmith (2 Timothy 2:14) pressed into service to defend two "men of Macedonia" seized by a crowd aroused by a silversmith named Demetrius. The "craftsmen" around the temples of the goddess Diana made a good living fashioning shrines, trinkets and what-not of precious metals to honor and worship her as well as souvenirs not unlike what we would find in a church gift shop or bookstore today. Converting the locals to Christianity was cutting into their business and, on this occasion, they rioted. But the story has another layer. The temple of Diana had a rather large treasury, undoubtedly stuffed with such offerings, that was occasionally robbed a dastardly thing to do. And on a third layer, the Greek word that is translated into "robbers", hierosulos, really means a "temple despoiler" or sacrilege.

Although Paul, Gaius and Aristarchus ("men of Macedonia), or any other disciples for that matter, did not rob Diana’s house of its treasury, they were robbing her of a more precious fortune. They were drawing people away from worshiping her. Demetrius, Paul’s chief accuser, shows us the real theft wasn’t of the treasury. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands (Acts 19:26). The truly dangerous "church robbers" aren’t in the church vault but in its sanctuary - the sanctum sanctorum. The equivalent today would be lavishing security in the business office or the church bookstore to prevent robbery while heresy is being preached from the pulpit. Jesus warned of such robbers, For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect (Mark 13:22) as did Peter (2 Peter 2:1) and John (1 John 4:1). They will "show signs and wonders," "damnable heresies, even denying the Lord" wearing "sheep’s clothing." In John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, there is this insightful quote, ``There are some men, (says one of their writers,) who appear to be humble, and fear God in a deceitful and hypocritical way, but inwardly lay wait: this humility our wise men call (tybaz hwne), ‘wolfish humility’.''

What a descriptive phrase, "wolfish humility." Jesus used strikingly similar phraseology to warn us of "robbers of churches," Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15). And later He warns, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, (Mark 12:38). According to The King James New Testament Greek Lexicon the "long clothing" the scribes so loved was actually a "stolay - a loose outer garment for men extending to the feet, worn by kings, priests, and persons of rank." There is no doubt that "sheep’s clothing" and "long clothing" refer to the same thing (see ref.). Is this a "time sensitive" warning applying only to the scribes of Jesus day or has it application for us as well? Isn’t the Bible for all ages? It is, the warning also applies to us, and all the "wolves" need not be wearing long robes any more than displaying "wolfish humility." How may we tell these ravening wolves, robbers of churches? By their message as much as their carriage. The message that we are in the presence of wolves is that they are besprinkled to preach the word and we, in contrast are not. By the distraction a magical slight of hand; by some theological hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo our ministry has been purloined, our sacred duties have been stolen from us. Save the sermon on some of being called for this or that "office" in the church or possessing this or that gift. It is obvious that many in such "offices" are incapable of communicating and what they manage to get across is as false as the those Jesus warned about. Who is it that will preach materialism and worldly pursuits (Luke 8:14) including sexual immorality and perversion (Jude 7) from the pulpit as virtuous other than a "wolf?" The Word has been stolen from us – hierosulos! Just as surely our church has been stolen from us. The very existence of "holy of holies" rituals acted out in grand halls in the post crucifixion churches is prima fascie evidence the church has been violated. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent (Matthew 27:51). In that grand, sacrificial act, the temple and its attending priesthood was rendered obsolete. The church is not an edifice or an organization. It is His body of believers, brothers and sisters in Christ who may assemble (the church gathered), but first and foremost it is those blessed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17). To believe, preach or practice otherwise is hierosulos!

For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches,
nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Acts 19:37

Return to the Church Directory

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: John 20:22

Return to the Church Directory

Commercials and cartoons make fun of the fact that we often put on a front when we are expecting guests. In the hill country, we used to describe such pretending as "putting on airs." We all do it – at least most of us. And, we’ve all been in situations when we know our hosts have gone out of the way to appear different from what they are when we aren’t around. Sometimes, the pretense was so obvious that everyone felt uncomfortable, uneasy, in the situation. It just wasn’t natural. Invariably, there are chinks in the armor, little slips that reveal the truth under the façade.

Rarely are the intentions other than to be presentable to one’s guests. Actually, we are probably motivated by the desire to make them feel at home. Rather than making them feel uncomfortable which our little charade usually accomplishes, we want them to believe that they and we are "kindred spirits" sharing so very much in common so much so that our friendship should be more extensive and deeper. But it is a "front," and any such relationship would be founded on a lie. Much of dating in this Country is of the same order. On the first date, we are on our best behavior trying so hard to please our companion. Unfortunately, we sometimes never get beyond the let's pretend and share our legitimate thoughts, desires, goals and wishes. Maybe that’s why more than half the marriages wind up in divorce court.

So into our home comes a stranger. And he is taken in by the show. He likes what he sees. When do we tell him the truth? When do we let him see what we are really like? Imagine a person who is not particularly attractive but, with the aid of a considerable variety of cosmetics, is able to overcome those natural deficiencies sufficiently to attract that "certain person." Like our fancied up house, that person is attracted to made-up appearances rather than a real person. When will we take the make-up off and start being what we really are? Isn’t the answer rarely, if ever? Aren’t we afraid if we let him see what we are really like, "let our hair down," we will be rejected? So into our church comes a stranger.

Will the guest in our church home like what he sees and hears or will he leave never to return – turned off by the Gospel message? Isn’t that the question haunting so many congregations? Isn’t that why so many focus their attention on making these newcomers in our midst welcome – so that they will come back? If the answer of the church to the challenge of evangelism is to put up a palatable and friendly front isn’t it going to confront the same problems as a gussied up date? When does the "make-up" come off – or does it? Will the church be inclined to continue the ruse and never get to the Truth of the Gospel? If the lie attracted the convert, will the truth repel? At a hearing to determine his release from a mental hospital, a patient was asked if he had been telling the truth. Reluctantly he finally said, "No, but if I told the truth I’d never get out of this place." Isn’t that why we all lie be cause we are afraid of the truth? If the church has to put on a show to please and entertain its guests is afraid of the Truth?

Much of the literature in the contemporary Christian community has to do with how to prevent the curious visitor from being turned away by the message he hears preached from the pulpit. There are almost as many sources and suggestions as there are advice columns for the love-lorn. And, it seems to be working. As one might expect, those churches that are thriving/growing are geared to attracting the unchurched while those who simply preach the word are dying on the vine. According to Rick Warren’s widely read book The Purpose Driven Church, there are five New Testament purposes for the church: worship, evangelism, fellowship, discipleship, and ministry. Even if we accept the idea that the "church" of the First Century as it is today, there is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest those congregations "held back" or modified the Message in order not to frighten or offend unbelievers in their midst. Second, the church wasn’t the same as today. The Apostles were charging all Christians then, as we should today, with the task evangelism on a "24/7" basis. That is possible only if the "flock" has been fed a substantial Gospel meal to equip them for service. Finally, we rarely hear in these new, ultra-modern paradigms for attracting the unbeliever much said about the role of the Holy Spirit in the conversion process. Yet, in the Bible, it is He who convicts, it is He who converts, not the preacher, the music, the mortar and stone or the stained-glass windows. Shouldn’t the Welcome Mat at the church door read, "They’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love?"

Return to the Church Directory

Return to the Church Directory

If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water John 7:37-38

It doesn’t take too much examination of the Scriptures to discover that Paul wrote more about the "church" than anyone else. He gave the church most of its form its "officers" and most of its duties. "Church" is mentioned twice in the Gospels, Luke uses it 24 times in Acts, it is use twice in Hebrews, once in James, three times in 3 John and 19 times in Revelation leaving Paul to discuss the church the remaining 64 times out of a total of the 115 total – 56%. Scholars suggest that it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Jesus only spoke of the "church" once to Peter (Matthew 16:18) and regarding discipline (Matthew 18:17) since His ministry was not finished, the, the Holy Spirit, would not be present in fullness until after Pentecost. Maybe, but His model of ministry was discipleship. Regardless we are in the "age of the church" so best adjust.

Return to the Church Directory
 

He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him Feed my sheep.
Passages form John 21:15-17
Return to the Church Directory

Most of us are familiar with the story behind these passages from the Book of John. It was Jesus quizzing Peter on his love for Him. We may empathize with Peter. How often do we in word and deed deny Him? Three times he had publicly denied he even knew Jesus. Three times Jesus told Simon Jonas (notice, not Peter) to feed the "flock." In Matthew 16:18, it was Peter upon whom the church would be built. Now he is referred to by his given name. Was Jesus giving him necessary final instructions on what he was to do - what it meant to "build His church?" The first (v. 15) and third (v. 17) time "feed" (bosko) is used it means "the duty of a Christian teacher to promote in every way the spiritual welfare of the members of the church." (see ref.) The second "feed" (v. 16)is "poimaina" which means to "govern to nourish to cherish one's body, to serve the body to supply the requisites for the soul's need." (see ref.) The "lambs" and the "sheep" Christ is commissioning Simon Jonas to care for are Christians.

Jesus also instructed the disciples to evangelize the world (Mark 16:15) – not just the Jews. At first, this must seem infeasible. Not only to travel all over the world with the message of the Christ, but also to minister to those already converted. If only Peter and the other ten Disciples/Apostles were so commissioned, it would be impossible. Matthew Henry’s Commentary says, "These eleven men could not preach it to all the world, much less to every creature in it." And who would be left behind to tend the flock?

Today, things are even more complicated. We have isolated being Christianity from life and regulated it to a limited time and place. This segregation has left us without the ordinary contacts with non-Christians. In our modern culture, there is such a stark and rigid demarcation between the sacred and secular that we are not only reluctant to be Christian outside of "church," it frequently is illegal and, beyond that, we have been taught that evangelism is not our job. Thus, by default, the "church" has becomes the major agency for evangelism causing us to lose about the only opportunity for Christian fellowship?

If we must act with caution not to offend the possibility that there might be an unbeliever in our midst, when/where do we worship Him, when and where is all of this feeding to take place? When do we "prostrate ourselves before our Master. Worship implies veneration, holding in awe and reverence? Paul writes, For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3). If we talk with caution not to offend, when may we speak freely about our concerns as Christians as well as our joy? If we sing with caution not to offend, when do we lift our hearts and souls to the Lord in joyful praise? Make a joyful noise unto god, all ye lands: Sing forth the honour of his name: make is praise glorious (Psalm 66: 1-2). If we preach with caution not to offend, how and when are we going to be able to study and learn? When do we get to the meat of the Gospel. For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe (Hebrews 5:13). For the same reasons, are we going to pray with caution? Shall we not mention God or ask in the name of Jesus lest we are discourteous to our guests?

In this assembly sanitized for the possible unbeliever amongst us, when do we worship? When/where may we confess Him as our Lord as we are commanded in Matthew 10:32 – on the street corner? When can we unite in the brotherhood of communion and conversation? How likely are we to do so in other circumstances of life and before other people we know full well are not Christian? Isn’t "church" the strangest of places to conduct evangelism? How did it ever get the name of "sanctuary?

Where are the pastures for His sheep? "The church of God in the world" states Matthew Henry’s Commentary "is a sheepfold, into which the children of God that were scattered abroad are gathered together." Wesley writes that those who enter the church other than by accepting Jesus are thieves. Maybe a bit strong, but it serves to strengthen the point that church is for Christians, not unbelievers.

Where is the "shepherd" supposed to be looking after His flock? We might paraphrase a song from the early 60’s to say, "Where have all the pastors gone long time passing? Where have all the pastors gone, gone to missions every one." If the shepherd is looking out for those not of his flock who is looking after their interests. The parable in Luke 15:4 is about lost sheep from the flock not purchasing new ones. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. Matthew 18:14

Return to the Church Directory
 

But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you:
for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. 1 Thessalonians 4:9
That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without,
and that ye may have lack of nothing. 1 Thessalonians 4:12

Return to the Church Directory

Over the centuries, so many schemes on how to evangelize have been tried that one might think Scriptures mute on the subject. As one church proclaimed, "the great commission should be of paramount importance in all of our lives." As it should, but we seem clueless as to how to carry it out. Today, the catch phrases for evangelism are "church growth," "reaching seekers," "Seeker-Targeted Ministries" and "church planting." There is even a "Flock-Finder" web site "designed specifically to be a search engine for church seekers. With over 15 categories to choose from, a person can search by what's important to him/her." Right now, technology certainly is the vehicle; church growth is the target. Few seem to concern themselves that only a small and affluent segment of the world’s population has access to the principle vehicles of televangelism, television and the Internet. Even fewer question the goals. Is multiplying local churches God’s plan for evangelism? Is it the church’s duty to evangelize unbelievers? Is "reformatting church services to make them seeker sensitive" so as not to frighten or offend the ‘unchurched’ Scripturally based? Is a halfway house for recovering non-religious people instead of a gathering of saints, the local assembly of the elect a proper function for the "Body of Christ?"

Then, according to Scripture, how are we to proselytize, persuade, convert, entice non-Christians? The answer is right there in front of us, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matthew 5:16). That’s Jesus talking. Isn’t the "light" our love for one another? Isn’t that the Second Great Commandment He gave to us? What else is "righteousness?" Although we may think of it in other ways, didn’t He say that loving God and one another was the fulfillment of the Law? Again, Jesus tells us, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 13:35 also see ref). Bible based evangelism is founded on our loving and caring for our brothers and sisters in Christ. "Loving" and "caring for" is not saying the same thing twice. Loving is an agape emotional experience. That and $3.05 will get you a good cup of coffee these days. As important as that is, the expression of the emotional experience in looking after the spiritual, mental and physical welfare lends credence to our protestations of love.

Yes, we are to love everyone; and, we are to love God. Furthermore, the very foundation of all this filial love is ourselves. We might suggest loving God starts with self-love, then our fellow Christians, then the world. That’s what the Bible says, Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40). He asks how we can love Him if we don’t love our neighbor. And isn’t it axiomatic that the kind of love we show our neighbors is the same as we have for our selves – clearly self-hatred, self-deprecation or self-denial would not be good things. They may not live next door, but if we don’t love our fellow Christians, how can we claim to love the non-Christian who does live next to us?

Are we are so busy making our assemblies "seeker-friendly," that we are unaware they are watching how we treat one another? We trample one another getting out of church and curse one another in the parking lot? We spend millions on missions to everywhere and ignore the hurting people among us. We literally go to the ends of the earth to care for people who are hurting and homeless without addressing the needs of our own congregations. What kind of example have we set? How much of our focus – time, energy, resources - is on buildings and grounds rather than people? Where does the church spend the "tithe" they contend we are obligated to render them, on widows, orphans and foreigners as Scripturally required - on care of the saints or the "sanctuary?" So they join us and become part of the estranged herd.

Fundamentally, it seems churches have failed to make the Biblical distinction between the insiders (Christians) and those who are not (outsiders). Insiders are being fed pabulum; outsiders don’t see examples of caring Christian living. Consequently we neither feed His sheep nor reap the harvest. I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. John 4:35

Return to the Church Directory
 

FALSE PREACHERS AND TEACHERS
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1
Return to the Church Directory

Who wrote these words and when they were written is subject to some question. It is "understood" that the author is John the apostle and that it was written some time between 67 and 90 AD. Nonetheless, it is Scripture intended for our education. The lesson in this passage is as important as it is dire. We need to be more aware of the fact that everything uttered from pulpit and podium is not from God. In 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Paul gives the admonition to Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. But how, how are we to separate truth from lies? Discernment we are told, but who is that still small voice (1 Kings 19:12) whispering in our ear? Are we certain it is who we think it is? How do we "prove" who it is? John suggested such were those who deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22)

It may not be as difficult for us to distinguish who is a false preacher/teacher because we possess the New Testament; presumably we also read it. Those in the days of Paul and the Apostles did not have our Scriptural cannons. However, we are mindful of all the multitudes of interpretations that have been made of the meaning of Biblical passages. The Bible says that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1Corinthians 2:14 - Show Context.) That means Scripture is, in itself, not enough. Good, sincere men and women have interpreted it dramatically differently. That means we need an interpreter, a translator – the Holy Spirit. But, is it He speaking whispering in our ear or another?" God isn’t the only one who can whisper or, for that matter, quote Scripture. The Truth will set us free, but how are we to know if what we are being taught is Truth? Those who deny Jesus are liars but among the rest there are "wolves." Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15)

On the other hand, a if we took closer look into what it means to deny Jesus (1 John 2:22), we might have a good starting point. Jesus tells us we cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Therefore, those who preach and teach "worldliness " (ref.) are liars. For example saying, "You have every right to live wealthy and possess material riches-clothes, jewelry, houses, cars and money-in abundance." (see)is a half truth, thus a lie. Jesus said, Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: (Matthew 6:28). Is it possible such thoughts are distractions diverting us from doing His work? Is it possible that such thoughts show a basic and fundamental lack of faith? If His word is understood and if some of the reasoning is that "carnality" is a distraction, then preaching that, "There must always be a balance in the area of material things" (see) would be a rather insidious half truth. He said, But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Matthew 6:33 - Show Context. How practical and frugal does it appear to preach "financial planning?" What could be more righteous than to include the "ministry" in one’s estate plans?

The Greek word, doxavzw, translated as "glorify," is found 54 times in the New Testament. Only once, Romans 11:13, is it used other than in the context of glorifying God and once Matthew 6:2 as a condemnation of those who make a grand display of their own righteousness. The remaining usage tell us to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate "to honor, to make glorious, clothe with splendor to impart glory to something, render it excellent, to make renowned, render illustrious, to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged." Perhaps the most well know of "glorify" is found in Matthew 5:16. The Christ commands us to Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. That is what we are commanded to do; that is what we should be taught to do. The point of our "good works" isn’t "brownie points," it is for His glory. Is it remotely possible that our salvation is a means to an end rather than the end-all we so often hear preached from the pulpit? We frequently hear that He will grant our hearts desires; seldom do we hear the qualifying first part, If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, John 15:7. Blessings are based upon our obedience. Those who preach or teach differently are liars.

The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power,
signs, and lying wonders, 2 Thessalonians 2:9

Return to the Church Directory

POIMHVN

(Pastor or Shepherd?)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastor s and teachers;
Ephesians 4:11
Return to the Church Directory

Did you know that the word "pastor" (Poimhvn in the original Greek) appears only this one time (Ephesians 4:11) in the entire New Testament? Every one of the other sixteen times "poimhvn" appears it is translated as "shepherd." That makes this passage from Paul rather central. Why do translators single it out for such special treatment? The misunderstanding or, if we may be so bold, the mistranslation of this one word might be responsible for one of the most serious problems confronting the church today. Most commentaries suggest that "pastors" look after the practical matters of governing the "church," perhaps like a chief operation officer – maybe on the order of a "super deacon or a one man circus.

Most often the scriptures in which "poimhvn" is translated as "shepherd," the meaning is of one who cares for his flock on a much more human, emotional empathetic level than that suggested by "pastor." Jesus portrays Himself as the Good Shepherd – one who cares for His flock. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep (John 10:11). I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. (John 10:14) When He saw a large crowd, He was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd (Mark 6:34.) Jesus is depicted as the "Great Shepherd:" Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant (Hebrews 13:20) and as the "Chief Shepherd," And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Peter 5:4)

Unlike Jesus, Peter and the author of Hebrews Paul, are made to seem as though they are speaking about an office, not a Christ-like shepherd. Why the translators of Paul’s letters chose to translate "poimhvn" to emphasize the supervisor executive, manager, administrator role of is something of a mystery. On the other hand, maybe it is no more a mystery than it is accidental. Roman Catholicism is nearly completely based on this and related passages. They consider the "priesthood of believers a fond fancy." "But Scripture" the Roman church contends, "speaks of bishops, priests, deacons as invested with spiritual powers not possessed by the community at large, and transmitted by an external sign, the imposition of hands, thus creating a separate order, a hierarchy." It does speak of bishops, priests and deacons. But, it is Peter, of all people who speaks of believers as priesthood. John says Jesus, has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. (Revelation 1:6) We believe we are to go directly to the Word for our instruction, and to the throne of grace in our devotions. They believe the "decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. They are to obey the teaching of the church, and pray through the Virgin Mary and the saints (see ref). Based on John 6:53-54 and other Scriptures, Roman Catholics believe the Eucharist is the actual blood and flesh of Jesus. In spite of the warning found in Revelation, we (Protestants) removed the Apocryphal books (ref) found in the Roman Catholic Bible. Why do Protestants choose to believe as Catholics do in some instances and not in all? Isn’t that what we frequently hear called "cafeteria Christianity?"

The consequences of this particular menu selection of "pastor" for Protestants and Christianity in general are no mystery at all. We have chosen to make such an insignificant word as "pastor" the capstone of our Christian experience. We have indelibly render the united Body of Christ asunder in spite of Paul writing, That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another 1Corinthians 12:25. Following the lead of Roman Catholicism, Protestant denominations have created a priesthood, "invested with spiritual powers not possessed by the community at large, and transmitted by an external sign, the imposition of hands, thus creating a separate order…"(ref.) The King James Version uses the word "Mathetes," meaning disciple, 224 times; "Apostolos," meaning apostle 9 times and "poimhvn" meaning pastor not at all. Interestingly, "Hierosune," translated "priesthood is used 4 time – all in the Book of Hebrews; "Hierateia," meaning the priesthood or the office of priest twice – once in Luke and once in Hebrews. More fundamentally, aren’t we apprised in Scripture that we have but one Teacher, one Lord and one High Priest? Then why should we seek others?

But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. John 10:12
Return to the Church Directory

Return to the Church Directory

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Matthew 24:11-13

These days, it seems like the slogan for Christianity in America should be "The Jesus Market." So many books and speakers are addressing "issues" facing the "church." None attracts larger audiences or sells more books that the subject of "reaching a constituency with ‘The Message.’ Even with a scorecard it’s hard to decide whose advice to take. One avante-garde example is found in a recent book with the impressive title of, Cracking Your Congregation's Code: Mapping Your Spiritual DNA to Create Your Future by Robert Norton, Richard Southern. (You might want to read a positive review by the RCA) It proposes to help us, "Discover your unique strengths and values -- and what God wishes for the future of your church." What could be more contemporary? God should have thought of it. The so- called "granddaddy" of all the marketing Strategies was the 1988 book Marketing the Church and The Second Coming of the Church and many, many other titles by George Barna – of the frequently quoted Barna Research Group. In addition, there are hundreds and hundreds of web sites on "church planting" – 112,000 to be exact. Nor should one overlook The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church that sold millions of copies.

There are literally dozens and dozens more authors and speakers offering ways to increase church size. So what? Isn’t big good – "the bigger the better?" "What’s so big about big?" Who wants to grow in size? Are there real advantages to a mega-church? Evidently a lot of people think so. Fred Price’s Crenshaw Christian Center claims 16,000 in weekend attendance. Joel Osteen at Lakewood 25,000; Creflo Dollar’s World Changers boasts over 23,000 on a weekend; Bishop Blake’s West Angeles Church of God in Christ 13,000; Bill Hybel’s Willow Creek Community Church 17,500; The non-denominational Dream Center (Los Angeles International Church) claims 35,000 in weekly attendance. And there are many more. You may follow this link to a huge file if you would like a list (ref.) – remember the file is huge. ABC’s June 13 article "Bigger is better in America — apparently even when it comes to God" might just say it all.

But, isn’t this the essence of God’s plan for salvation? Isn’t it proof of that the plan bearing fruit in these latter days? When He said, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), wasn’t he commissioning the church? That’s what virtually every one of these mega-churches claims to be doing. Bill Hybels writes, "I've come to believe more deeply than ever that the local church is the hope of the world." Once church planting service states, "The multiplying local church is God's primary instrument for evangelism, discipleship and the fulfillment of The Great Commission. In this commission given by Jesus just before his ascension to heaven he commands his disciples." Now if our confidence could be bolstered with some Scriptural support for such assertions.

Make no mistake, the "church" Rick, Bill, and these others are thinking about is a series of structures and the associated organization. When someone talks/writes about "growing a church" or "planting a church," they literally mean going out and constructing a church building or purchasing one already in existence. Might we ask, "What cost is there associated with being big? We begin to get a clue from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. Speaking of megachurches they write, "The median seating capacity in the surveyed sanctuaries is 1700 persons. The senior minister often has an authoritative style of preaching and administration and is nearly always the singular dominant leader of the church. Supporting these senior pastors are teams of 5 to 25 associate ministers, and often hundreds of full-time staff. The average total annual income of the megachurches in the study for 1999 was 4.8 million dollars. The average expenditures in 1999 for these same churches totaled 4.4 million dollars." Obviously these are averages; Lakewood’s annual television budget is over 12 million. Finally, "data seem to indicate that a majority of megachurch members arrive by switching from other churches or denominations, rather than having been converted from noninvolvement." (Op. Cit.)

If that is the case, then the outlay of billions annually by these giants must be an expensive and cruel deception rather than fulfillment of God’s plan. Further evidence of this is that only 33% of the World’s population is Christian - including Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of that, the largest "denomination" is Roman Catholic. In 1996, 84% of Americans reported they were Christian. In 2002, that number had dropped to 82%. 22% of Americans are Muslim and, on a sobering note, in 1991, 88.20% of East Germans reported they were atheists as did 14% of Britains. According to the Barna Research Group the number of Americans "who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million – a 92% increase."

Return to the Church Directory

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:15
Return to the Church Directory

What’s vogue in the Christian church is as changeable as the fads in the fashion industry. As a matter of fact, the History of Christianity is a history of what’s acceptable or popular at any given time. No, nothing of the sort characterizes Christianity? In many ways, the "isms" are wonderful examples: Calvinism, Arminianism, Apocalypticism, Dispensationalism, Amillennialism, Reconstructionism, Asceticism or monasticism, Fundamentalism and Denominationalism just to name a few. Each in its own time and place. On a more mundane level the question of music and worship - if music is permitted in the sanctuary, what instruments are appropriate in praising the Lord? The place of women in the "church." All these and ten thousand times more can only be described as fads because they represent human interpretations of Scripture rather than Scripture itself. Humanity is imposing itself upon the Divine Will.

Today, some contend we are in the "Dispensation of the Church." Dispensationalism "sees God working with man in different ways." According to this view, since Jesus Resurrection, or perhaps more correctly His Ascension, God is working with us through the "church." How very Catholic. But with the European bastions of Christianity crumbling and only about 21% of all Europeans claiming church membership, to say nothing about those attending church, some are seeing a new age coming (pun unintended.) Although, on closer examination, it might not be as much new as it is repackaging. Several years ago, George Barna noted the decline and proposed a number of innovations not the least of which were User Friendly Churches, and Marketing the Church. However, the hottest item today, once we get beyond the passe matters of "seeker churches" and "church plantings" seems to be that, according to Brett Eastman, "God is up to big things through small groups." Of course He is; He always has been. However, if Eastman, who comes with excellent credentials having worked with both Bill Hybel’s and Rick Warren is correct, this is, "The Movement to Change Society." Indeed, Brett may be on to something old, one thousand nine hundred sixty-seven years old – the church.

No, no, not as spawned by the early papacy and left untouched by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and others but as proclaimed in Holy Writ. Acts 5:4, And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house. Not much "writ" perhaps, but where is there Scriptural evidence of any sort to any degree of that ubiquitous structure on the corner in modern society increasingly standing empty and subject to urban renewal? Then, would the Apostles have commandeered synagogues, themselves without Scriptural foundation, or the temples of Greek and Roman Gods? On occasion they did; but rarely. After all, proclaiming the divinity of Jesus the Christ had been know to get a fellow executed. It was not exactly a well-received message among the powers that be.

"This," this revolution claims Brett Eastman "is nothing less than a return to the priesthood of all believers" to which we must add our Amen and Amen! He is right. We find in 1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood and in 1 Peter 2:9 this description of Jesus’ followers, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation. This element, "the priesthood of all believers," is what has been missing from the "church" for over 1,900 years. This is why we have yet to evangelize the world. As Bret Eastman correctly observes, "The last fifty years of the church in North America was built largely on the teaching gift—the preacher." If we examine church history, we will find the time period is much greater than he states as well as the geographical limitations proposes. It has existed from the earliest expressions of Catholicism and has persisted throughout history. No concerted attempt has ever been made to train, inspire, educate the "body politic" of the church. Our point of concern has been on salvation, its durability and the false dichotomy of grace vs. works – matters of individual concern. Virtually no attention has been paid to the simple matter of service and being equipped for service other than about the venerable matter of "stewardship" which has become the cap-stone of "Christian service" – its Alpha and Omega. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. John 16:2

Return to the Church Directory
 

The Cornerstone of the Church Isn’t Stone
Nor Is It Hollow

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders,
which is become the head of the corner. Acts 4:11
Return to the Church Directory

We frequently use analogies as Peter does in this passage from his first public address. To emphasize the fundamental position of Jesus the Christ in what would be called Christianity, Paul uses a concept his listeners would be most familiar with. The cornerstone is the basic element of a building’s foundation. Traditionally, it was the first stone set in a foundation that then became the reference point for the rest stones to be laid. It determined the shape of the entire building. Calling something or someone a "cornerstone" implied that it/they was an important quality or feature on which everything else depended. The point being made in Scripture for those familiar with the traditional cornerstone is that Jesus the Christ whom God has elevated to His supreme position and "on which all else depends."

Although cornerstones are still used today, they have been pretty much reduced to a ceremonious role. They are more for show being laid at a dedication ceremonial for a new building. As a matter of fact, cornerstones today are often put into place after the building is pretty well finished. What was once absolutely essential for the building has become a symbol. Even more telling, increasingly cornerstones aren’t even solid or stones any more. Instead they are either artificial stones or ones made of concrete with hollowed out spaces for "time capsules" and other such memorabilia. What was once, as in the time of Jesus, the basic element for laying out the foundation of a building has pretty much become an ornament. Now buildings are set and located using professional surveyors using scientific surveying tools. Cornerstones have lost their original meaning.

There are almost 1,500,000 churches with the name "cornerstone" in their name. The name, "Christ’s Church" is first in popularity and "Community Church" runs a close third to "Cornerstone" as the name of a church. Those with the name "cornerstone" are found in every state and around the world – some large, some small. They are almost all Protestant, Roman Catholicism prefers naming their edifices from their short list of "Saints." Some are "mainstream" Protestant, others would hardly be recognized as such. The chances are overwhelming that the vast majority of these and churches with other names will have laid cornerstones at some point in the building process declaring their obeisance to Jesus the Christ. They were set, in all probability, during a very reverent ceremony full of the icons of Protestant Christianity. Unfortunately, there the simile ends. The cornerstone the church, it’s capstone, or its foundation isn’t of stone, brick or mortar. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Actually, the substitution of anything other than Jesus the Christ as our foundation is heretical. If our focus is on the church building, its staff, the grounds or any other aspect of the place in which we meet to praise and worship God and our Lord and Savior and to be taught by the Holy Spirit then the former is being substituted for the latter. We are constantly prodded to give our "tithes" by the ministerial staff. Toward what end will they be used? The chances are overwhelming they will be used to maintain the "church" (i.e., building, grounds and staff). There is no Scriptural basis for such use. Tithes were used to support the Levites. Other than supporting the Levitical Priesthood, tithes of the OT were to feed widows, orphans and "strangers." Since no Christian clergy is Levitical and tithes are not used to feed the destitute, their collection represents such an illegitimate focus – not withstanding some attempts to make Hebrews 7:5 say differently.

Even more deceitful is a growing trend to minimize the role of Jesus the Christ. Such churches will not display the cross, do not speak of our inherently sinful nature or of His redemptive role on that Cross. They even suggest that we should make sacrificial offerings. Some either ignore or deny God’s creative role in the "universe" substituting human theories and replace the role of the Holy Spirit in our sanctification with human theology, rituals and dogmas.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Galatians 1:6-7
Return to the Church Directory
 

The Sacraments
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 1 Corinthians 11:26

Return to the Church Directory

Although sacraments play a central role in the life of the church, it is interesting that there is no record of such until some 300 years after Jesus’ earthly ministry. There is no such word in the entirety of the Bible. That goes for most Bible dictionaries and concordances – no entry for the word "sacrament." It is reasonably clear how, when and why they originated. The Church quotes St. Thomas as saying, "Since the sanctification of man is in the power of God who sanctifies it is not in the competency of man to choose the things by which he is to be sanctified, but this must be determined by Divine institution." Even so, it is obvious they evolved out of the thinking of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, they can quote no Scripture in defense of that implementation. Their insertion into Christianity may have been the result of the rapid assimilation of the "mystery-practices" of the Greco-Roman world into Roman Catholicism. Its of no little consequence that the word "sacrament" comes from the Latin "sacramentum" that was the oath of allegiance taken by the military to Cesar that could be terminated only by death. Clearly applying the term to religious rituals intended to convey the same allegiance to the church. Traditionally the "Sacraments" were known as "Mysteries" in the Greek Orthodox Church. "This description," we are told, "emphasizes that in these special events of the Church, God discloses Himself through the prayers and actions of His people." It wasn’t until the Council of Trent (1545) that the number of seven was set by Roman Catholicism. Protestant denominations are divided on the number. Lutheran Churches today accept three sacraments: Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist. Reformed Churches accept two sacraments: Baptism and Eucharist.

As one theologian has put it, the "voluminousness of the controversies" over the sacraments would disappear if we would remember to make the distinction between "divine teachings and human theories." (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia) He is amazed at how long such doctrines have existed "without the shadow of scriptural authority." Yet, persist they do and one must surely wonder why. What value have they added to our justification, sanctification, or anything else by them being officially designated as "sacraments," "mysteries" or anything else? That is to say, what difference does it make whether or not taking "communion" is a sacrament, an ordinance or a mystery and the same for baptism? It is the person’s recognition of his need to be obedient to God and a channel through which His grace is imparted to us rather than some outward religious action. They are the Holy Spirit’s means of helping and strengthening our faith. As such they are symbols of the blessings of the covenant each of us has with our Lord and Master.

Now, to the question of how and by whom, however many sacraments, are to be administered. The Roman Catholic Church makes this observation about the administration of the sacraments, "It was altogether fitting that the ministration of the sacraments be given, not to the angels, but to men. The efficacy of the sacraments comes from the Passion of Christ, hence from Christ as a man; men, not angels, are like unto Christ in His human nature. Miraculously God might send a good angel to administer a sacrament." Immediately thereupon, they launch into a lengthy discourse into the, "Ordination Requirements for the Ministers of Particular Sacraments." Since sacraments aren’t even mentioned in Scripture, it is evident that any such rules they or others come up with are simply the product of human invention. One thing Catholics and Protestants of all persuasions agree upon is that an ordained person is required for their administration. Why according to the Church, "Only bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer Baptism" or why, "For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained" is as much a mystery as the existence of the priesthood itself. Now, the word "ordain" is Scriptural. There are 7 Greek words for the English "ordain" ranging in meaning from appointed to addicted. "Ordained" shows up about 20 times with a variety of meanings. Jesus "ordained" the twelve, the disciples ordained elders, Paul claimed to be ordained as apostle and a preacher and he ordained Timothy as the first bishop although this claim is disputed.

Nowhere is found a suggestion that these ordinations permitted the office holders’ exclusive rights or privileges that other believers did not have. Remember, nothing is said about sacraments in the Bible. Why can’t a believer baptize someone or share communion without a priest/minister being around? Since there is no such Biblical restrictions, it must be concluded they are human inventions.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Acts 2:17

Minister of Word and Sacrament

Protestantism draws for the model of its priesthood from our Roman Catholic legacy although this very Church rejects its legitimacy. Of course, the Church claims the authority for its priesthood comes from an unbroken chain dating back to the Apostle Peter presumably the first of the "popes." Catholicism believes "the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people." In opposition to this view, we have this Scripture, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. As a mediator, Protestants believe there is but one who is Jesus the Christ. That is clearly stated in 1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Contrary to the position of the Church, it is He, and only He who may forgive sins.

Surely the passage from 1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ reinforces the significance of the renting of the veil at Christ’s crucifixion. None of us is a priest: all of are priests. None of us is a priest , who offers sacrifices, because THE sacrifice has already been made – forever. There is no need for more. At the same time, all of us are priests as witnesses of that once-and-forever sacrifice. We are empowered by the Holy Spirit, it is He who instructs us not a priesthood: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Clearly we, all of us who count ourselves Christian are that holy priesthood. We are that royal priesthood, an holy nation of whom Peter writes. Not withstanding the existence of bishops, elders, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors, none constitute a "hierarchical priesthood" any more than the transubstantiation of the "Eucharistic Mystery" as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. Truly, each of us is to put into practice what we are taught, from what we learn from studying the Word and most definitely what the Holy Spirit urges us to do. Totally apart from any consideration of earning our salvation or extra merit badges to be redeemed in heaven, Christianity is a "to-do" faith. Jesus the Christ makes that point repeatedly. At least half a dozen times in the Gospels alone Jesus tells us to keep His commandments. None more succinctly than John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. John reiterated this message, 1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. In one of the commandments Jesus gave to us He tells us, A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

The reason we don’t try to keep His commandments is because doing so would produce major changes in our lives. We don’t want to get involved, we don’t want to do His will, because we would have make significant changes in how we act and in what we say; in how we treat others. Instead, we hire proxies, what we might call mercenaries do our religion for us. We hire "professionals" to take care of those "spiritual things" we are too busy to be bothered with so we can go about our daily lives unimpeded. As an illustration, most churches have "Pastoral Care" departments that are charged with visiting the sick and "Missions" departments to feed the homeless on Thanksgiving and Christmas; perhaps provide a modicum of food and clothing on other occasions. We certainly will have a department charged with evangelism and the "pastor" who will spend his time studying for us – supposedly. We are happy to have these tasks done for us because they produce little interruption in our personal schedules and the "mercenary priesthood" is securely and gainfully employed – maybe what we could call a "win-win" situation.

"Those who believe they can decline involvement and remain as spectators are deceived. Those who pretend to any priestly office superior to other Christians, in fact or in name, are deceived and deceivers. "The only sense in which the term can now be used in the Christian church is in which it is applicable to all Christians alike-that they "offer the sacrifice of prayer and praise." (Barnes' Notes, Copyright 1997) 

The World and its Problems

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Matthew 6:33
Return to the Church Directory

If some well meaning social scientist identified the world’s biggest problems as corrupt leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy the Christian community would renounce his ideas as nothing more than misguided liberal socialism. The proposal that the solution to these problems involved equal participation by government, business and religion would be rejected out of hand. They certainly wouldn’t agree that these "problem areas," although important, represent "God’s purposes for human life on Earth."

Yet when proposed by one of their own, the almost cultish response has been overwhelming. Around 30,000 Christian congregations have taken part in the "40 Days of Purpose" outlined in Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life in which he lists these 5 areas as the problems and the "three-legged stool" as the answer. The book has sold somewhere over 30,000,000 copies and has topped the New York Times Best Seller list for over 200 weeks. It has also been on the best seller list of The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Publishers Weekly. Most fascinating is that the Christian research group, The Barna Group, found Protestant pastors identified The Purpose Driven Life as the most influential on their lives and ministries and Rick Warren as the most influential author. Prayerfully the Bible was not on the list to be chosen from.

One possible explanation this secularization of Christian purposes is the fact that those born between 1984 and 2002 are the least likely to indicate "faith is a very important part of their life." This same research group found that, "Half of young churchgoers say they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality." Barna concludes, "The dominant spiritual change that we have seen – Americans becoming less engaged in matters of faith - helps to explain the surging secularization of our culture." The relationship (if not the cause and effect) between what must be called "Social Work Christianity" and the secularization of our culture, is sufficiently obvious. Actually, one is in response to the other. What is fueling both is an upcoming generation that does not feel bound by traditional Christian beliefs.

Responding to this milieu, churches are forgoing these principles in order to remain relevant. One of the basic beliefs falling by the wayside is assembling with other Christians to worship God – to experience His presence and praise Him. Today what we are noticing is an increasing numbers of congregants seeing worship as an opportunity for their personal growth; their personal benefit instead of spiritual growth. Hence the emphasis on socio-personal issues such as "reconciliation with family members, friends and co-workers," "letting go of hurt," "growing through goal setting," "lend a hand and express your heart," "what mom's need and how you can help," "when your fear of risk is a roadblock" and the like. All such are extremely valuable and can be fortified with Scriptural references if one is flexible with the version(s) of the Bible one uses. All are, at the same time, extremely self-centered instead of God centered. Does God through the Scriptures have answers for these personal afflictions? Certainly, that’s not the question. The question is, do such concerns have a place in church at all or are they more correctly dealt with on the therapist’s couch and within the halls of government? Even secular dictionaries are closer to the true meaning of worship "reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also: an act of expressing such reverence."

At least one "seeker church" appears to be recognizing that their idea of using the church primarily for evangelism leaves a great deal to be desired. Tacitly, they seem to grasp the idea that a constant diet of solutions to personal and social problems emanating from the pulpit doesn’t provide the direction, incentive or the facts to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is loss of self made possible by the utmost confidence and fulfillment in worshiping our Lord and Savior that produces such growth rather than focusing upon our personal frailties that is the utmost goal of worship. Even more correctly, it is a growing awareness of the price paid on the Cross for our sins – individually and collectively. As this awareness dawns in our souls, our gratitude deepens and, as that intensifies, so does our desire to cling to His commands to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Is there any better solution to personal, social or world problems? Is there any greater form of worship? Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Matthew 6:25
 

Return to the Church Directory