THE BROKEN CHAIN OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top
to the bottom. Mark 15:38
Return to the Church Directory
Only the Roman Catholic Church can claim an unbroken chain of "Apostolic Authority." The passage of years, generations, makes it impossible for the priesthood of any other Christian organization than. Their claim is that Jesus the Christ "ordained" Peter and the other Apostles. Accordingly, their mission was "to publish to the world all revealed truth until the end of time." The statement continues, "Their mission was not exclusively personal; it was to extend to their successors." In short the Roman Church believes that the "Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter," ordained St. Linus as the first Vicar of Christ and he his successor up to the present day. There was a Pope, St. Linus, who reigned some time between 64 or 67 A.D to 76 or 79 A.D. The Scriptural foundation for their claim on continuity is 2 Timothy 4:21.
John Wycliffe, the "Morning star of the Reformation," lived centuries after Peter died and 200 years before the Reformation. Martin Luther was born in 1483. Calvin in 1509; John Wesley in 1703. None of the Reformation leaders can lay claim to the ordaining hand of Peter. As an aside, John Smyth, founder of the Baptist denomination, "baptized himself into his denomination. Surprisingly, his baptism, was by sprinkling. (ref .,ref.) When the Roman Church refused a divorce degree King Henry the VIII "proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England" (ref.) and promptly divorced Queen Catherine of Aragon. Little wonder the Roman Church asks, "From whence, then, does their priestly authority derive?" and considers Protestants, "merely religious parties under human unauthorized leadership."(ref.) The Reformation broke the chain if it were ever forged.
Protestants and Catholics agree that the mission of the Apostles was not exclusively theirs. They agree that it will continue "until the end of time." Both use strikingly similar Scriptural support for these views. Both act as though this is to be accomplished as a formal organized religion with a distinct priesthood. However, Roman Catholicism takes an interesting turn in their definition of "church." They contend, "It is now agreed that it is derived from the Greek kyriakon (cyriacon), i. e. the Lord's house, a term which from the third century was used, as well as ekklesia, to signify a Christian place of worship." (ref) Note the conclusion it is a "place." But that can’t be all it is, because an article in Catholic Encyclopedia, discusses its organization loosely based upon Ephesians 4:11.
That verse reads, And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. The Greek translated as "some" is "mevn" is closer to truly, certainly, surely, indeed than to "some." The verse can read, "And he gave truly -- or he gave surely -- or he gave indeed." To say "he gave some" suggests a limited number – he didn’t give to others. To say "he gave indeed" may not read as smoothly, but there is no longer the "giving" to a few. It is an affirmation that He gave these gifts indeed. In Romans 2:25, mevn is rendered "verily in the KJV. The Message translates Ephesians 4:11 as "he handed out." In the New Living Translation it is rendered, "He is the one who gave these gifts to the church."
Service is the purpose of every Christian and to which each of the special gifts is to be devoted. For this reason "some" are to be prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. It is the reason some have the gifts of tongues, miracles, healing, administration, wisdom, knowledge, faith, discernment, etc. It is in that spirit that Peter called us a "holy priesthood," a "royal priesthood," not that some were to be set apart and above the rest but that we are to . In Jesus the Christ, the ancient priesthood and ancient sacrifices were fulfilled and the end for which they were created. The belief of Catholicism based upon John 21:16-17 that Peter was Christ’s "vicar" must ignore considerable Scripture, not the least of which is John 14:26. The Apostles were never the head of the church, Jesus the Christ is. Men are not our teachers, the Holy Spirit is. No one broke that chain because it never existed. If anyone broke a line of priestly authority, it was Jesus. It is written that at the hour of His death the veil of the Temple was "rent in twain" (Mark 15:38). Who would dare sew it together again? "Designed to conceal the ark, mercy seat, and the symbol of the divine presence," its destruction symbolized that Presence, His presence, is now in the hearts of all believers. "Before, it was death to go in, now it is death to stay out " (ref.).
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water Hebrews 10:22
Return to the Church Directory
THE
PREACHERS OF WORLDLINESS
(Prosperity Christianity)
of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
Mark 4:19
There’s probably nothing wrong with "worldliness" except ------. What does one do with such strong words from Jesus? He tells us again in Mark (10:25), It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. This is what He tells us in the parable of the seed, And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection (Luke 8:14). Is there any room to doubt His meaning? Shouldn’t such words from our Master give us at least a moment’s hesitation? An individual, by some accounts a rich, young man, perhaps a "ruler" approached Jesus asking how he could obtain salvation. He told Jesus he had not broken any of the Commandments to which Jesus replied, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me (Mark 10:21). Here, seemingly, was perfection in the flesh yet Jesus told him he had more to do – such obedience to the Law, if true, was still insufficient.
Yet, John Hagee says, "Investing in God's kingdom pays great dividends! If we give sparingly, we will reap sparingly, the Bible says; but if we sow generously, we will reap God's abundance (2 Cor. 9:6). How unfortunate this passage from Corinthians is so frequently used to cajole members to support church excesses when Paul was writing about alms giving – taking care of the poor. He continues, "God's word promises that if we're faithful to ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse" [the church], He will pour out a blessing we can scarcely contain. On the other hand, if we don't tithe, we are robbing God (Mal. 3:8-10)."
The first difficulty is the stated idea that investing pays dividends. How does one "invest and what dividends is he suggesting we might get paid?" What will we "reap?" What blessings will He "pour out" that we will scarcely be able to contain? "Investing" and "dividends" have unmistakable meanings in contemporary America that will hardly be missed by his intended audience. Without some caution, one might be drawn into the conclusion that rich parishioners have given abundantly and joyfully and the poor have not. The words of Jesus found in Luke 6:38 are frequently used to "encourage" people to be more generous in their "tithes and offerings to the church." Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over. The suggestion is that the rewards for our generosity will be immediate and material. Yet, the command has to do with mercy to the poor not to balance a church budget and as The Fourfold Gospel Commentary reminds us, "This not necessarily a promise of the return of our gift in kind. It rather means that we shall receive an equivalent in joy and in that blessedness which Jesus meant when he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’" Yet we find this, "God’s intention is to bless His people. The very word ‘blessing’ means to ‘confer well being and prosperity on someone.’ In his latest teaching series, Pat Robertson reveals the secrets of living a life of Financial Prosperity."
The second concern is equating the "church" with the "storehouse" that was part of the Temple at Jerusalem. To be true to that comparison, our "tithes" today should be used for exactly the same purposes now as then – for strangers, widows, orphans and the Levitical priesthood (Deuteronomy 26:12). Furthermore, they should be brought to the Temple – if it can be found ever again. Note, also that the Temple was the center for national worship. No church lays claim to such honors today. Therefore, no such comparison is valid. Even in the last days, the rebirth of the city of Jerusalem, the Book of Revelation records, And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (See the commentary on Revelation 21:22.) "The Temple, its treasure room and storehouse are gone forever. Yet we read, "In the Old Testament, the Jews were instructed to take their tithes" to the storehouse," which was the temple—the center of religion for the entire country. Today, since the body of Christ has so many manifestations (churches, colleges, television and overseas ministries, hospitals, relief agencies, etc.), people can choose where their tithes should go." That sounds reasonable enough. It just isn’t Scriptural. Finally there is the theme of buying our way into heaven, "Because as we've seen from the Word of God, those who are faithful with their money are the ones who will not only reap supernatural preservation, but they will also enjoy the other fruits of faithfulness: God's abiding presence, divine health, and an abundance of blessings!"
The Disenfranchised Church
- S
Few would disagree that the "church" is people rather than buildings, grounds. It is, "an assembly of Christians gathered for worship," those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body," "the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth," "the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven." (ref) "Church" is used in this way 115 times in the King James New Testament. Not once, not once, is it used to suggest or imply anything else. It is we who are disenfranchised – deprived of our duties, rights and privileges. We are "lively stones" according to Peter. Quarried at a great price, we are left in a pile rather than formed into a "spiritual house." (1 Peter 2:5)
Each of us is supposed to be in the process of being constructed into a spiritual house and into a "royal priesthood." "Christians" we are told, "are both the spiritual temple and the priests of the temple" (ref.). We are to be "Naos," the dwelling place of God. We are authorized to offer "spiritual sacrifices" including "prayers, giving of thanks, alms deeds, and all exercises of piety" (ref.). That process is called discipleship. The lessons to be learned are how to become Christ-like, how to become as servants of one another and how to become messengers of the gospel to the entire world. Yet, here we passively sit, as we have been taught, idly listening to the preacher drone on about his plans for his church and how we can help him with his ministry.
A "disciple" is a student, a pupil, a follower, not a stooge. Disciple is used 252 times in the King James New Testament. Not once is there even a hint of a disciple being anything other than as a student/follower of the Christ. According to the New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, disciple "applies to one who professes to have learned certain principles from another and maintains them on that other’s authority." Actually, in the Gospels, it is the only name given to His followers.
The Greek for "disciple" (Matheteuo) also means to teach or to instruct another. Hopefully, before we attempt to teach others, we will have studied and learned. Paul tells the "church" to study so we may know and understand the truth. If we don’t understand the Truth, if we don’t know the Gospel Message, how in the world are we going to "tell" others? "Dividing," (2 Timothy 2:15) means to "teach the truth directly and correctly." (ref) Otherwise, "The disciple aims to come up to his master, and he thinks himself complete when he does so: if you then be blind leaders of the blind, the perfection of one's training under you will only land him the more certainly in one common ruin with yourselves."
As the time for His mentoring was coming to a close, in a conversation with the Father, Jesus said, As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. (John 17:18) It was to His disciples he proclaimed, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15) not to the "writers and doctors of the law" or the professional students (grammateus) of church doctrine. Unless we believe that only the apostles were being so appointed, and their office was limited to them, why is it we so passively accede to the ministries of others when our own is wanting?
Are we also to dismiss Spiritual Gifts? Are they as well of a time, a dispensation, long gone? Was Paul’s admonition to Timothy alone, Neglect not the gift that is in thee (1 Timothy 4:14) or is it now as it was then an exhortation to consider our own ministry? In 1 Corinthians 14:12 Paul writes that our spiritual gifts are to be used to edify the church. Unless we are willing to invoke a dispensation on this, which would render much of the Bible obsolete, we must come to the conclusion that such gifts were/are bestowed upon all of us for our ministerial work, as they were upon the saints in the First Century church. As one writer stated, "the edifying of the congregation is a rule and measure of the right use of all spiritual gifts."
No one seems to believe that the command to "go into all the world and preach the gospel" only applied the Apostles and died with them. And, although the issue of Spiritual Gifts provides some problems for segments of the Christian community, even the most conservative among us grant their continuing existence. We don’t doubt that at His crucifixion the renting of the veil of the Temple (Mark 15:38) symbolized the end of the distinction of "priest" and "layman," yet we tremble at the thought of each of us having a unique, active and vital ministry to perform. We are lively stones and a holy priesthood designed to build up a spiritual house and offer up spiritual sacrifices 1Peter 2:5. Who would dare say otherwise? Who would dare act otherwise?
- And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven
The Parking-Lot Church
As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house,
and haling men and women committed them to prison. Acts 8:3
Where once churches were staid institutions standing on the corner encased in brick, today we find them everywhere, in some of the most extraordinary places. We are accustomed to being preached at from the television set and getting a sermon as we busy our way through terminals and stations. There are churches in stores and malls and others larger than the largest stadiums. The mold has been broken. The idea of a Parking-lot Church doesn’t sound new or revolutionary or innovative in today’s church world.
The mold of a stereotyped architectural church style has been broken. We may no longer be able to recognize the building as a church, but can the same be said for the attitudes and behavior of those attending? Just as conspicuous as the church on a New England towne square, there is a Christian mystique. Perhaps not recognizable to the insiders as much as to the stranger on the street, but there is a clearly discernable pattern to our behavior. It is centuries old. While the buildings around us have gone through an amazing and sometimes frightening transition, our conduct appears to have weathered all the building fads and trends. Sure, there is a liturgy and calendar of events to follow songs to sing and prayers to say Christmas and Easter to observe. At least these things were part of Christianity. In many churches they are no longer strictly followed if at all. There are two of entrenched rituals we have clung to, particularly noticeable to outsiders.
Televangelists recognize the taint, mega-churches have also and even some claim to be "seeker friendly" centering their church services around the occasional unbeliever who may, out of accident or curiosity wander into the building. But what has been recognized is the place and form of worship. What has remained unchanged is its practice. There are two of these aspects of the way we practice our Christianity First, and especially in these large modern church structures, we are strangers. Well, maybe once we get settled in our seats and the music begins there might be some change. Some pastors even incorporate, as part of their service, that we must greet one another. The suggestion is that without that requirement we might arrive, settle, sing, listen, sing and pray, leaving the "sanctuary" without ever speaking to or recognizing the existence of other worshipers around us. If we treat one another in such a way, and we do especially when we have taken a dislike to someone, what must be our attitude toward strangers and non-Christians? How often are they given a "glad-hand" greeting at the door and a "cold-shoulder" at their seats?
We’re talking about breaking that stereotypical Christian mystique "outsiders" have associated with us for years - centuries. Architectural forms have been broken, rituals, customs and liturgical traditions have been set aside, we even ignore or change Scripture to fit into the new "church," but the mold around our behavior is still very much in tact. And the most tenacious of all is the habit of leaving our Christianity in the building. Haven’t you noticed how really very different we behave toward others in the parking lot, to say nothing of the streets and freeways, when compared with how we act inside the church structure?
We’re not talking about a building, a denomination or a service in this "Parking Lot Church," we are talking about breaking out of the mold of how we live and how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus said to go into the highways, if you will the parking lots of life, and invite everyone we encounter to share the joy of glorifying the Father throughout eternity. There are even instructions showing us how to extend the invitation – sort of an Emily Post for evangelism. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 13:35) exactly that which we do not do. His New Commandment (John 13:35) we totally disregard. But what better invitation can we extend to a "gentile" than they see the loving concern we have for fellow Christians? Not just a hand shake and hug on Sunday morning but a genuine involvement with one another as though we were the family of God we are supposed to be. As appreciated as Thanksgiving and Christmas "baskets" to the poor are they still leave 363 days unaccounted for. Prepared meals and weddings, sickness and death are a wonderful start to approaching His command to love one another but, they still fall short of the full intimacy He requires. At least, our kindness should extend to one another until we get out of the church parking lot.
Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you
find, invite to the wedding. Matthew 22:9
By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou
increased thy riches,
And thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:
T
Bigness, greatness, fame and recognition are the corner stones of success in America, but does this apply to Christianity? It must be because "mega-churches" and "marketing the church" and "growing churches is all the rage in Christian circles. Some equate big churches and large congregations with success while not bothering to explain what success model they are following. How is "success" to be measured? In the financial world, it is measured money. In the world of education, it is measured by the number of degrees awarded and the accomplishments (works) of an institution’s faculty and alumni. Does it follow that in Christianity "success" is to be measured by the number of baptisms and good deeds of the congregation? How often do we hear how many souls the pastor has saved? Isn’t the Holy Spirit the one responsible?
We are attracted to the "beautiful people" like magnets to metal. "Wannabes," fans, groupies identify with movie stars, sports heroes (even teams) "captains of industry." The requirements for "stardom," the "who" in "who you are" seems to run no deeper than being rich and/or famous. Who are the "beautiful people in Christendom? Are they too, the rich and famous? What could be more "on stage" than "preaching" before 10 or 15,000 and to an incalculable worldwide television audience on Sunday morning? What greater success than to oversee "church" facilities worth $100’s of millions and awe 10’s of thousands?
When weighed against the temptation for a pastor to become or to be made into an icon, one worshipped and admired, when the temptation is to identify with him instead of with HIM, what does bigness bring to the table of Christianity? Unless Protestants are willing to accept the concept that there is one person capable of dispensing ultimate truths in "papal bulls" or that the "pastor" is a Vicar of Christ why run such risk. Where is it written that "pastor" is the dispenser of divine truth and wisdom? If it isn’t, Scriptural, why are such multitudes glued on his every word – as though it were Gospel? If the prophet Ezekiel were to speak to those pastor super stars today, might he write, "You used your head well, worked good deals, built a big church. But the fame has gone to your head, swelled your head – what a big head."
One rationalization used to justify "gigantic churches," aside from the infallibility and fame of their pastors, is the wealth of resources they can provide. It is true. They have a plethora of resources and services available that the little country church could not possibly imagine let alone supply. In the first place they not only have a pastor, they have a stable full of them. But, these things don’t come cheap. The G-church must provide stadium sized buildings parking by the acre and, prayerfully, an army of volunteer traffic "cops" to manage the tens of thousands who come and go every Sunday. In addition to crowd control issues rivaling Disney Land, the assembled masses have to be able to see and hear the service necessitating enormous expenditures in audio/visual equipment simply for in-house use. Facilities upkeep and maintenance assume gigantic proportions. That bevy of pastors has to be paid. The burgeoning support staff must be too. Taking up the collection to say nothing of serving communion is a monumental task. Superstar pastor can’t meet all the wedding and funeral requests or baptize new members. The ability to visit all those in hospitals, sick or homebound is lost – and who wants a "second-stringer?" Above all, a caring community, belonging and ownership must be sacrificed on the altar of greatness – all for the sake of economy?
First pride, then the crash - the bigger the ego, the
harder the fall. THE MESSAGE - Pride goeth before
destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18 KJV
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine
and fellowship,
and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:42
Why do we go to "church - "the called out ones?" Maybe the questions is better put as "Why should we go to church?" However phrased, the saints of the first century provide us with four very good reasons for going to church: (1) to learn about our faith, (2) for fellowship, (3) to share communion with one another on a weekly basis, (4) and for a time of prayer. We may also add singing (Colossians 3:16), alms giving for the poor (1 Corinthians 16:1-4) and the expression of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-11). Why else?
If we searched the Scriptures more thoroughly, we might come up with other reasons to assemble together but this snapshot of first Century church might help us answer the question "when is big too big?" We know from other passages that the body of believers grew very rapidly in the early days. Accounts have it that it grew to some 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost. Some claim the number of Christians in Jerusalem grew to over 100,000. We know that converts were constantly being added. There is no evidence, however that they ever met together at one time. True, those early Jewish converts continued to attend synagogue and went to the Temple, but there is very strong evidence they most frequently met in one another’s homes. Nor is there to be drawn a correlation between the "preaching" that took place in the temple and the "auditorium preaching" of today (Acts 5:42) Several of the apostles would meet with small groups in the various courts within the temple rather than thousands listening to Peter or one of the other Apostles. As rapidly as the church grew, its character changed. First it was predominately Jewish. It rapidly became Gentile.
While the Jewish Christians may have continued their trek to Temple those who were Gentile certainly would not. They would not have been welcomed particularly practicing and preaching their heretical faith. Where did they meet? There is no record written or archaeological of halls or meeting places, no indications of building programs or the normal housekeeping activities associated with the existence of buildings sufficiently large enough to seat several thousand. No mention of such is Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse or Thessalonica. There was none in Jerusalem. Actually, no church of any size is reported for the first 300 years of Christianity. Even if we concede that the rams horn would have been an adequate PA system, they would not have been able to meet in such large assemblies because the facilities did not exist. Nor are we despite powerful sound systems and massive TV screens. Don’t you wonder why people go to church and watch the preacher on TV from 65-70 rows back when they could do the same in the comfort of their own homes? Have our churches gotten too large?
A church is too large when (1) The people sitting around you are strangers? Is it possible to have a family of strangers? "Fellowship" implies some level of intimacy, sharing, having things in common, knowledge of one another’s lives? Many, many times Paul and other writers in the New Testament referred to one another as brothers and sisters because they were in Christ. (2) The preacher quotes Scripture that says we don’t have the right to judge those who are not in the church and proceeds to complain about the attire of "what’s-her-face." Are we able to call the apparent contradiction to his attention and ask for clarification? If our highest level of participation in the edification process is "filling in the blanks" in the Sunday bulletin, is our church too big? When can we ask questions? Where do we go to seek clarification?
A church is too big if (3) we can’t serve communion – if at all, certainly not on a weekly basis. If it costs too much or it takes too long, the church is too big. (4) As far as prayer is concerned, we’re doing well in an auditorium of 3 or 4 thousand to have a opening and closing prayer. Can one imagine the chaos if we tried to address the prayer concerns of such an assembly let alone provide the opportunity for others to pray than the preacher? If we can’t is the church is too large? How important is it to provide for the "expression of Spiritual Gifts?" Well we may not even want to broach the subject of "speaking on tongues" or healing or prophecy. We’re told those things were for another time and another place – really? Singing, oh yes, "congregational singing," we can do that. But what chaos would reign if we started expressing our Holy Ghost joy in praise – all 4,000 of us shouting, dancing – my sakes no; heaven forbid we should do anything like that. The church is too big when the preacher tells us it is and encourages us to join a small group. Someone recently said, "Phe only people who like big churches are pastors." Amen
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
Matthew 6:5
FALSE PRETENSES – A Crisis in Faith
- Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me.
Most of us who come to the faith do so through the exhortation of someone else a preacher, evangelist a relative or friend and occasionally a stranger who we meet in a public place or who had the courage to knock on our door. Although correctly speaking, it is the working of the Holy Spirit who "brings us to the Lord," who convicts us, it is common for Christians to say that they were brought to the Lord by Billy Graham or Uncle Henry or whom ever it was who did the exhorting. The question here isn’t those He saves or "predestination" or even the matter of "election." Rather it is a matter of those, however well intended who by design or out of ignorance get us to "accept Jesus" under false pretenses. That which attracts us incorrectly can be a beautiful church, a friendly face, promises of earthly riches and the elimination of all our cares, hurts, wants and needs, anything but the true Gospel message.
So what? They’re saved aren’t they? They’ve accepted Jesus into their lives haven’t they? That’s exactly the question, are they, have they? The full quotation of Mark 14:36 actually reads, And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. How often is the "all things are possible," and the "take this cup from me" used to "establish a common ground of interest" with the "seeker" while the "what thou wilt" is left out? How often is the "all things are possible used," which they are for God, to "capture their attention" without the context of the Garden of Gethsemane: in which this awesome prayer was uttered on the eve of Jesus’ Crucifixion? This is more than "milk" vs. "strong meat" (Hebrews 5:12) it a near total lack of any foundation for belief although it certainly gets to the matter of how much understanding one must have in order to be saved.
Is there a "mental age of accountability" much like for generations there has been a chronological age? Those denominations that set a lower age limit on "being accepted into the Faith," for baptism, do so because of the belief that before reaching that milestone, one is incapable of understanding what they are doing. Of course, this is precisely why other denominations are opposed to "infant baptism." It is also the basis for believing that the invitation from a TV evangelist and a rote recitation of a prayer or placing one’s hands on the TV set is sufficient for salvation is rejected. If these concerns are at all valid, don’t they establish the concept of a minimum level of understanding of what it is to be a Christian? Jesus did say, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 7:21). Clearly we must know the will of Jesus’ Father before we can ever expect to do it.
Using beautiful grounds and magnificent buildings or a "Santa Clause Christ" to attract people to Christianity is so typically American. What once was so sacred an institution, marriage, degenerated into a deceitful marketing strategy correctly named by a degenerate television program, "The Dating Game." Americans use exactly the same techniques for "selecting a mate" as they do for buying cars or persuading consumers to talk to their doctor about the latest craze hyped by the drug cartel. Billions are spent on everything from the "right" neighborhoods, cars, clothes, "make up" to plastic surgery to make one "presentable" to a prospective "mate" while hiding one’s "real self." It is as though we are saying, "if you really knew me, you wouldn’t like me." Perhaps it is such "let’s pretend" that is responsible for the divorce rate in this country roaring past the 50% mark well on its way to 70%. We may be able to maintain the illusion of our assumed disguise on a date, but the unrelenting day in/day out contact of marriage will dissolve the best cosmetics and expose one’s true self how ever much we try to hide. Marriage isn’t a case of "let’s pretend."
Now Christianity has entered the market place. Are we about to see a TV program called "The Come to Christ Game?" It’s already here. Tune in some Sunday morning and you’ll discover the "champion in you," "we believe you were born to win," "Living the Abundant Life If you want to be emotionally stable, spiritually strong, physically healed, financially whole and prosperous then….You Can Have it all," "God wants us to prosper," "Think big enough. Think so big that there's room for God to fit in to your dreams and your vision and the picture you have for your life," "We need to stop that business. God isn't a thief. He isn't going to let us pay for something and then refuse to give it to us." In the name of God, what did we ever, ever pay for? In each of these false pretenses, there is a foundation of Gospel truth with enough "mascara" to make Christianity palatable to a materialistic, self-centered world. Didn’t Jesus say, For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36. How can we love Him if we don’t know Him?
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many Mark 14:24
More and more contemporary churches are finding they can’t "afford" to serve Communion on a regular basis. Unlike the Passover, there is no rule governing how often we are to partake of the Lord’s Supper. So, they offer many "reasons" why the Lord’s Supper is not regularly partaken. One mega-church came up with the explanation that the cost of the grape juice used was in the thousands of dollars. They simply couldn’t afford it. (We are reminded of Matthew 6:21.) Others speak of the time and effort involved.
About all the Scriptures tell us is that whenever we do so we are to remember Him (1 Corinthians 11:25). Acts 2:46 suggests it was celebrated on a daily basis. In Acts 20:7, Paul speaks of the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread that some scholars interpret as meaning the early Christians celebrated communion every Sunday (see ref and ref). Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology states that, "It (Sunday) soon became a fixed day for worship, a celebration of the resurrection centered around the Lord's Supper." (ref) The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church believes it should be every Sunday because. "The holy Christian church through out the ages has identified the Lord's Day (Sunday) with the Lord's Supper. As such the Lord's Supper was never viewed as an occasional extra or as somehow not as important as the other means of grace (Word, Absolution, Holy Baptism)."
Paul asks, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10 16) Of course they are. The greatest, so much so as to overshadow all else, communion is to honor the life, the ministry, the sacrifice, the memory of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ. Second only to that, communion brings us who are many together into one Body. The Greek Koinonia means "fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation." (ref) The International Bible Encyclopaedia states, "Thus the communion of the elements is a real communion of the worshippers one with another and with Christ." It is the Sacrament above which there is none, beyond which there can be none. Jesus said, Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:54). What greater significance could possibly be given to any action, than as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:17, For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
The "church" is on a path that makes the "Lord’s Supper an "occasional extra" less important than other of the "sacraments." Whether or not contemporary "churches" can, "afford" communion, there is a higher than normal probability that they find it awkward. The "fear" is that altar calls, taking up the collection and having to sign a "guest book" or just fill out a registration card may make visitors feel uncomfortable. Even hearing a pastoral prayer concerning "sister Bertha’s ingrown toenail" might "turn them off." If that’s the case, ponder the question of who should take communion. For centuries, the norm was for it to be "closed" even to Christians visiting from other denominations let alone unbelievers in our midst. Never mind the awkward announcement from the pulpit in that regard imagine the awkwardness of the person sitting in the pew as the elements are passed. The more we want to avoid situations that make "visitors" uncomfortable, the more excuses we will find for not participating in this most sacred sacrament. However, could we set a better example for our unbelieving visitors than for them to witness the brotherhood of saints sharing "The Last Supper" with one another?
Is it possible that measuring the "success" of a "church" by the "growth/size" equation so much in evidence today does indeed compromise both its message and its mission? Just as much a question is the contemporary trend of using the "church" as the primary tool for evangelism. In both trends, we have a reason for Paul’s warning about being unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14). It is true that by our love we are to be known, but isn’t that to be shown at home and school, at work and while going to work, by how and what we do for recreation and relaxation as well as in church? Aren’t we more effective evangelists when we live our love rather than when we fear the "juice" will drive unbelievers from our midst? Maybe that is exactly why they came – to feel the fellowship of a community of people loving and honoring one another.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen 2
Corinthians 13:14
"Venue" is an avant-garde term with a number of meanings. One suggests it is a "distinct cultural setting" – a "scene." In common English, it is probably best translated simply as a location. Today, we’re hearing "venue" increasingly used in the Christian "church" especially in "mega-churches." In their drive to grow even larger, they establish a number of settings or "scenes" to attract a greater variety of people than what they think would be to a stodgy traditional church environment. We find "singles venues," "contemporary music venues" or even a "coffee klatch venue." Any thing goes, ethnic venues, "cultural" venues. Any special interest can be used. It would not be a surprise to discover in some mega-church a "duffer’s venue" with its own 18 hole course. The use of venues is spreading beyond the large churches, sometimes with humorous, if not tragic results. Small congregations have them for their congregations only to find some have only two or three attending on a Sunday and some with none.
In themselves, venues might be an excellent idea if the size of the congregation warrants their use. They might even be useful purposes other than "growing the church." Instead of catering to "special interests" or groups, they could be used for one of the most essential elements of congregational life – to enhance spiritual growth by giving members a choice of learning styles. Some of us learn by sitting in a pew listening to a good sermon. Why not a "traditional church venue?" But some learn by discussing topics with others. And there are those who learn by "filling-in-the-blanks." And, there are those of us who learn by listening to a speaker and then ask questions. Believe it or not, some of us only learn under the "threat" of a "test" or the press of an assignment deadline. There are many ways. One thing for certain, we all learn best by participating. Under the tutelage and supervision of an "elder," why couldn’t a venue system limited in numbers to perhaps twenty or thirty be designed to provide participants the opportunity to teach the "class." Honestly who learns the most the teacher or his students?
We accept the ideal that people are attracted to different styles of music and interests; that they feel more comfortable in familiar surroundings. It has been demonstrated that catering to different styles, interests and "comfort zones" produces real results in increased attendance. But, it is most likely if we visit a "French Café venue we’ll find the teaching/learning style the same as over in the singles venue and in the duffer’s venue as well – preaching from the pulpit and, in all probability, "piped in" from the "main sanctuary." What is the point of establishing 20,000 small groups if all the teaching is the same – listening to a video? Is it possible that this does not work for some? Actually today, greater attention is paid to music styles rather than teaching/learning styles. We are reluctant to alienate potential members by forcing them to listen to the "wrong kind" of music, why do we put up with stunting our spiritual growth by forcing all of us into one learning style?
We recognize the first century as a time of extraordinary growth in Christianity. Some claim the known world was "Christianized" then. If we look in on what was taking place, we didn’t find preachers in mega-churches. It was spread by thousands of new converts responding the urgings of the Holy Spirit. Having been taught the Word, they taught the Word. Aren’t we believers promised that He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26). The Roman Catholic church still snickers at the idea of a priesthood of believers – "The ordinary Christian cannot be a priest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice of prayer" (ref.) However, these two passages seem to outweigh their liturgy and even the Council of Trent – a chosen generation, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) and I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh (Acts 2:17). While the Jewish Christians continued in some of their religious habits, but they also adopted new ways, And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart (Acts 2:46). It is a stretch to suggest "house to house" is Scriptural evidence for different venues, but it does not even come close to endorsing a temple-like church service either.
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie,
and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27
The Impoverished Church
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever
shall swear by the temple,
it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he
is a debtor
There is no finer example of excellent organization, in business, industry, education or in religion, than the Roman Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, it is/was the "granddaddy" of all bureaucracies from which others took their lessons. Sociologists have contended that while the ghetto helped preserve Judaism after the Industrial revolution, the Church’s organization preserved Christianity. While Christians will, hopefully, disagree arguing instead that God, the Holy Spirit, may take the credit, the point is well made. In so many essential ways, the Christianity we see today bears the marks of Roman Catholicism rather than the "first century church." Most of Europe was, at one time Roman Catholic. (ref) It was through their methodical record keeping and the rigorous instruction of their priests and their monastic system that the history of Christianity was preserved if not civilization itself. After all, they had some of the earliest libraries and universities in the Western World. (ref) By and large they were the ones who could read and write.
The dozens of Cathedrals to say nothing of monasteries, "lesser" churches, and "royal" chapels (ref) are eloquent witness to the enormous influence of Roman Catholicism on Western Europe and the central importance of the Church in European culture. Yet, today Europe is overwhelmingly secular. For example, 13% of Britains and 10% of the French attend church. Today, only 28% of the British believe in hell. In 1940 43% of them believed there was a personal God. by the year 2000 that had dropped to 26%. Today 4% of the children attend Sunday school down from 55% in 1900. Only 24% of Britains attend church at least once a month (ref.) Archbishop John Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications states "The fact is that the church in Europe represents a minority view. So many countries and most public opinion simply don't support the stance of the Catholic Church any longer." (ref) And, another source states, "Fewer than half of all Germans, to take one instance - 43 percent in a poll - consider themselves religious (the U.S. figure is 77 percent)." In the admittedly extreme case of the former East Germany, 48 percent say they need no religion at all" (ref), this in the very cradle of the Reformation. And those magnificent cathedrals are, for the most part, empty except for the endless stream of tourists.
How could this possibly be? The history of Europe is the history of Christianity. Today, Evangelicals are not just talking about missions the former atheistic USSR or to Africa, South America, Indonesia and the other countries of Asia anymore. They are now planning missions to Europe. Doesn’t that sound like "carrying coals to Newcastle?" Well, no it isn’t. One organization Hope for Europe has the slogan, "the Gospel and a church for every European." Of all things, the Catholic World News headlines a recent article, "African Christians should evangelize Europe, prelate says." Yes, you read it correctly. Even more astounding is the Touch the World youth ministry tells its followers, "Your team will minister with Saints Equipped to Evangelize in Italy, a country with tremendous need for the Gospel" – Italy = Rome. Well, some of this zeal may not be new but old efforts to convert Catholics with a new enthusiasm. Maybe.
Samson was deprived of his strength when his hair was cut (Judges 16:17). What deprived European Christianity of its strength and riches? Is it possible Christianity mistook its magnificent edifices for the source of their strength as Samson mistakenly thought his was in the seven locks of his Nazarite status? Had they forgotten, if they ever knew, that their "singular" relationship with God was the source of their strength? Could European Christendom have mistaken the priesthood for its source of authority – Jesus the Christ rather than Peter – a priesthood of believers rather than a clerical order? Was European Christianity depleted or drained of something essential if it ever had it? Could that "essential" have been the Holy Spirit? He, not popes or denominations or any other source is our teacher. Did they forget to listen to Him and relied upon their own wisdom? If so, that would truly be an "impoverished church." Isn’t Jesus, quoted in Matthew 23 whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple warning all generations not to put their faith in things of this world or in themselves for that matter? Notice, in the beginning of that passage, He calls the leading religious figures of that day blind guides.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch
Matthew 15:14
THE DISTRACTION OF THE CHURCH
And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be
saved.
Acts 2:47b
We like to look back. A trip into the past, if it accomplishes nothing else, conjures up nostalgic memories of things that probably weren’t as we remember them at all. This could not be more true than when we reminisce on the first century "church." When we read passages like the samples at the top of this page alluding to "church," we most likely transpose our experience with "church" onto the reality of those early days resulting in a total fiction. There was no "church" at Antioch, Cenchrea, Corinth, Macedonia or in any of those other cities for that matter. Not as we think of "church." If we would examine the first century church more closely, we would discover the absence of buildings and grounds a pastor and staff." There were no Sunday schools, nurseries, fellowship groups, Bible studies (there weren’t any Bibles), Men’s breakfasts or Women’s prayer groups. These "churches" were people meeting in one another’s homes. The word used 115 times in the New Testament should have been translated as "congregation" or "meeting" or "group" for our understanding rather than "church." No Christian "church building has been found dating earlier that 300AD. Smith’s Bible Dictionary spells out the First Century church reasonably well, "The day of Pentecost is the birthday of the Christian church. Before they had been individual followers Jesus; now they became his mystical body, animated by his spirit. On the evening of the day of Pentecost, the 3140 members of which the Church consisted were (1) Apostles; (2) previous Disciples; (3) Converts."
So begins the distraction of today’s churches. Today, the expenses associated with the costs of of buildings and grounds are a burdensome distraction. Added to that are all the attendant distractions of salaries and everything else that goes with a paid staff. Stir a "TV ministry" into the stew and one has a "fine kettle of fish." There is an inverse relationship between the cost of operation and the amount of time spent accomplishing a church’s purposes. The more the operating costs, the less "energy" available for accomplishing the mission. Instead of focusing on "spiritual matters," pastor and staff must increasingly focus their energy on producing revenues to operate and maintain facilities.
Congregations repeatedly approached for money will see themselves as consumers and will demand increasingly specialized and highly labor intensive services further increasing operating costs. It is an incredible "inflationary spiral that only continues to grow. Means have become ends. Imagine the frustrations of the pastor of a mega-church. His "flock" expects personal attention that begins with the seemingly reasonable expectation that he be there after services to "squeeze the flesh" and kiss the babies. He is expected to baptize their children, marry them when they grow up, pray over them when they are sick, visit them when they are hospitalized and bury them when they are dead. He, on the other hand, is busy raising money to underwrite the budget. One well-known pastor had not been into the "building thing" but, now feels the pressure his because of his $72 million building project. In The Purpose Driven Church, Rick Warren tells us, "Every Church is driven by something. Tradition, finances, programs, personalities, events, seekers, and even buildings can each be the controlling force in a church." He doesn’t say so, but a "seeker" church will slight Spiritual growth. Churches with big budgets give preferential treatment to those capable of making substantial donations. Only Heaven can help the one with a "personality preacher."
In contrast, what was the First Century "church" doing? There was no organization, no well-defined doctrine and no Bible. Instead, they were filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 4:31). In Acts 4:32 we find that they were of one heart and soul and that there were no poor among them (Acts 4:34). Whether the breaking of bread was communion or a meal, they shared fellowship with one another on a daily basis. Again from Smith’s Bible Dictionary we are told, "In (Acts 2:41) we have indirectly exhibited the essential conditions of church communion. They are (1) Baptism, baptism implying on the part of the recipient repentance and faith; (2) Apostolic Doctrine; (3) Fellowship with the Apostles; (4) The Lord’s Supper; (5) Public Worship. The real Church consists of all who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ as his disciples, and are one in love, in character, in hope, in Christ as the head of all, though as the body of Christ it consists of many parts." They also met daily to praise God (Acts 2:42-47) and that they were faithful to the beliefs they learned from the apostles. We know this was in their homes and because of their unassuming life-styles, their moral living and their generosity, the Lord added to their number daily because they enjoyed the favor of all the people.
As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into
every house,
and haling men and women committed them to prison.
- By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another
Many times Jesus tells us to love one another. Perhaps the most recognized is A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another found in the verse preceding that cited above. What we don’t seem to recognize is to whom Jesus was referring. Who is it we are to love as He loves us? On a larger scale, it is humanity – especially our enemies. But, if we leave our sights focused on such a grand scale, we will surely overlook those immediately around us – we won’t see the forest for the trees. As a matter of fact, Jesus might be inclined to call us liars if we claim to love the whole world while ignoring, despising and abusing our own family members. Well, most of us who are reasonably sane wouldn’t consider harming family members in any way. The admonition is unwarranted. So it would seem.
If asked, we would respond without hesitation to name the members of our families: mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. We could probably get through the lists of aunts, uncles and cousins. If married, we could probably cite most of our in-laws – certainly Mr. and Mrs. In-law. Only when relationships get distant or when divorce clouds the picture might we begin to stumble. As important as these relationships are (it was Jesus who told us to honor our fathers and our mothers) in so many ways they are not the most important. At least of equal importance is the family Jesus said would be the most powerful evangelical tool in the whole world – that we have love for our "brothers and sisters in Christ." Even among our own congregation, within our own Sunday School class, how many of us can name their members let alone claim to love them? Yet He said all men would know we were His disciples.
Just as an aside, is there greater condemnation to mega-churches than this? Is there anything more facetious than to claim to have fellowship in a stadium-sized "church" seating 30 or 40 thousand in which the only welcome we receive is the glad-hand like a politician running for office offered by the volunteer greeters at the entrances to the arena? At least in such "arena churches" impersonality is comprehensible if not forgivable. When the group is small, say around the average church size in the United States that is about 100-150, how is it to be explained away? Somewhere in Scriptures we are warned about turning our noses up at those we find distasteful for whatever reason. As a matter of fact these, we are told, are those to whom we should be most gracious. James poses the problem this way, if we give deference to the popular and "well-healed" in our "churches" and shun those who are disliked and poor (which is saying the same thing twice) Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Our Master said it best, For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Are we not brothers and sisters to those in Christ? Are we not commanded to love them and in so doing the world will know who our Master truly is? In his letter to the congregation at Rome, Paul wrote, So we, being many, are one body in Christ and every one members one of another. Gill renders this somewhat awkward language to mean "as in union with Christ their head, so to one another in love, walking in holy fellowship together, sympathizing with, and serving each other." Surely this makes sense doesn’t it? Isn’t this how Jesus says others are to be brought to Him just as surely as standing up on "stage" in our long flowing robes with great gusto proclaim the Gospel in loud and winded terms? To put it another way, how are we to get around this command of Jesus, But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you? So, now, if we dislike the attire or the attitude of others in our assemblies, are we to turn our backs on them, ignore them hoping/praying they won’t sit near us or even come back again?
Instead of "shooting our wounded" as we are so well noted for, Paul told the congregation at Thessalonica that we should encourage one another, spiritually guide one another. Is that what we are doing when we show preferential treatment to some, shun others, ignore some and exclude others from our company? In relationships, the "devil" is in the details. It isn’t the "slap in the face" that destroys as much as it is the "cold shoulder." And anytime we feel we are perfection personified let us remember His words
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her
John 8:7
(Or what is God’s plan for salvation?)
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world
without end. Amen. Ephesians3:21
Take the word "church" any way you like, if the church building or the church corporation/organization or even the congregation were capable of it, wouldn’t the entire world already be saved? Aren’t there quite enough church buildings spread around to have done the job if they were able to do so? If, preaching from behind a pulpit were part of God’s plan for salvation, hasn’t there been enough of that in the last 2,000 + years to have accomplished the task? If an assembly of saints (a congregation) could save the work of redeeming the world would have been completed. Indeed, Roman Catholicism believes that the "church" (that is the church as a corporation/organization) is the necessary means of salvation. (ref.) By its own account, that organization has existed since the First Century. That means it has been in the "business" of salvation for over two thousand years. Yet the world founders still. As a matter of fact, the original bastions of Christianity appear to have been lost.
Advocates of the "brick-and-mortar church" place much confidence in it as an integral part of Christianity. Indeed the King James Version of the New Testament, does use the Greek word for "church" (ekklesia) 118 times. That would seem to make church central indeed. However, not once in any of these instances is there a hint of "organization," or "structure" in the Scriptural use of the word. An older word "kuriakos" meaning "of or belonging to the Lord" comes the closest to the Biblical intent of what in English is translated as "church." As much a Rabbi as Paul’s training made him, he spoke of the "church" as the body of Christ (Colossians 1:24, Ephesians 1:22-23). It is the believers he calls God’s building in1 Corinthians 3:9, not some structure.
Contemporary thinkers are now saying that the "traditional church" as a building scares non-believers away. They believe brick and mortar, vaulted ceilings and stained glass are barriers to seekers. The so-called "postmodern" Christian leaders believe all the ritualistic and liturgical stuff, rigid doctrines and codified doctrines being pushed on them by preachers in robes or suits is just too much for those seekers. Yet, as they so proclaim they continue to build the same, churches, differing only in their appointments – no stained glass, no pews, no vaulted ceilings. Some look like abandoned buildings from a strip mall, others like warehouses and some are even converted sports arenas. Preacher come out in shirt sleeves often rolled up and when there is a tie, it is loose and the collar unbuttoned, some even prefer Hawaiian shirts (hum) but never in a suit or robes. All of this to disguise where the seekers are and what they are listening to.
The Scripture above from Ephesians does not ascribe to the assembly of saints the task of evangelism. Instead what Paul is writing may properly be referred to as a doxology. Unto him be glory in the church means when we gather we are to offer our praises to God thus glorifying Him because as John Gill points out, "and the place where this glory is to be given, is the "church"; for the church, and true believers, only know the blessings and mysteries of divine grace; and they only know how to glorify God aright." Actually, the process seems to be somewhat reversed. God’s plan for salvation seems to be that people are saved and then go the "church" rather than going to church to be saved. At least that’s what Acts 2:47b seems to strongly suggest, And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Please note in this passage that it is the Lord, not the preacher, who added to the church. Jamieson, Fausset, Brown asserts it is the power of the Holy Spirit that convicts of the truth of the Word. 1 Corinthians 12:3b tells us no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Near the end of His earthly ministry, His three years with the disciples, Jesus told Peter upon his confession of faith, flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 16:17). In John 6:63, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that it is the Spirit of God that brings men to salvation.
Nothing we do and everything we do will bring others to their salvation. Its where we place the emphasis. It isn’t that a church, a preacher’s words, you or I can’t save souls, just not alone. A church without His Spirit is an empty shell, words without His inspiration are a hollow echo, a person without His Spirit is a wasted life.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26
And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest
rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of
God truly: Luke 20:21
Does your church show partiality in the way it treats different members? Are there reserved seats for certain preferred members? Do they have easier, more frequent access to the pastor and staff? Is there such a thing as "levels of membership?" Do you show preferential treatment to some over other members of the congregation? Maybe the question should be "do you expect such favored handling?" Is this something Jesus the Christ taught?
Let’ start with the "founder syndrome." These are those who were the original members of the church. Rick Warren tells the story that his mega-church was started with just a few people meeting at his home. Joel Osteen’s monstrous Lakewood Church in Houston Texas was begun by his dad, John, in a converted feed store on the outskirts of Houston. Actually every church has such founders. It would be impossible not to have them. The question is if being first in line is deserving of special treatment. Then there are those who make substantial contributions to the church. The next entry in the history of Lakewood Church is that John and his wife were hosting a "weekly television program which could be seen in 100 countries worldwide." Wow, even in the 60’s and 70’s that would take some cash. Rick Warren has a similar "rags to riches" story starting with one family meeting in Rick and Kay’s condo to a $50,000,000 expansion project on the sprawling 100+ acre campus Saddleback Church now occupies. Are those who funded this expansion considered "special?"
There are other avenues, faithful volunteer service for example. Fame is a good way to gain special treatment. If a movie star, professional athlete, statewide or national political figure or a well-known entrepreneur is a member of your congregation, are they treated differently than just ordinary church members? Whatever the reason, is it justifiable to set apart for special treatment one member of our congregation from another – including "senior pastor" himself? In the passages quoted at the beginning from the Book of Luke, neither acceptest thou the person of any, even Jesus’ detractors recognize His evenhandedness. He didn’t even consider outward appearances or riches or station in life worthy of note. Instead, He valued sincerity and honesty. Although their comments may have been insincere, they were correct. James cautions against such partiality. And, a little later in verse 9 he even calls this partiality a sin, But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. Even Peter confessed that, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Remember the appeal the mother of James and John made to Jesus and His response to her? Many times He warns His followers not to follow the examples of the Pharisees who loved to be special and to be recognized and to be given places of honor Luke 11:43, Luke 14:7, Luke 20:46, Matt 23:5-7 and Mark 12:38-39 for example. Isn’t that enough? How much more do we need before we understand that we should not require and we should not give preferential treatment to anyone other that Our Lord and Our God? Should it be offered to us is it not written that we should refuse?
In Matthew 23:8, Jesus tells us that all ye are brethern. In John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, there is a lengthy but worthwhile exposition of what he believes Jesus intends by the phrase. He writes,
not merely as the descendants of Adam, but as being in a spiritual relation, the children of God, and disciples of Christ, and so have no superiority one over another: this may regard the disciples, both as believers and Christians, partakers of the same grace, and standing in the same relation to God, Christ, and one another, and having an equal right to the same privileges: and as apostles and ministers, one as such, no, not Peter, having no pre-eminence over the other, having the same commission, doctrine, and authority, one as the other.
Should this be cause for pause? Maybe Roman Catholicism with its claims for Peter and the presumed unbroken papal lineage could claim otherwise, but how in the world could any Protestant group do so? Among the "evil thoughts Jesus speaks of in Mark 7:21-22 is pride. This He characterizes as evil things come from within, and defile the man. So much for favoritism.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matt 23:8-9
Do The Ends Justify The Means?
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you
John 14:17Most ethicists will say no to the question. Some business people will not be quite so quick or willing to reject the idea. In reality, we see many institutions, organizations, individuals, in all spheres of life acting as if ends do justify the means. Thieves and cheats are acting that way. Those who lie are. Athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs must believe so. Businesses and individuals who cheat on their income taxes are endorsing the concept just as certainly as a bank robber. From a football coach who intentionally moves the yard marker to get his team a first down to a United States Senator who accepts money to influence his vote are saying yes the means justify the means.
We know the depth of corruption the world. We also know who its master is. We know that as we participate in it we honor that master. In this corrupt world ruled by the Prince of Darkness, ends do justify means. What about in the realm of Christianity, do ends ever justify means? For example, is it OK to overstate attendance figures to make it seem the "ministry" is more "successful" than it actually is? Just a little "fib." More seriously, in order to keep the ministry solvent, is it justifiable to spend money designated by donors for other purposes to pay these over-due bills? Case in point, a ministry is "120 days out" on paying its bills (four months overdue) and can’t meet its payroll. Is it OK to use endowment money to pay those operating expenses? Keep in mind, just like in the real world, if the church doesn’t pay its debtors will sue it and the staff will lose their jobs. It might even have to declare bankruptcy. In the same vein, is it moral to solicit funds using falsehoods? For example a television ministry soliciting money to keep it on television when, in fact, the money is spent on landscaping.
Prayerfully, these are rhetorical questions. The only people who make such assertions are those who know they are doing something wrong, in their private lives, in business or in the church. Why else would they not be "up front and honest" with what they were actually up to? Surely, we also know that such behavior is not Christian. One is being an imposter, a swindler, surely we don’t subscribe to such behavior under any circumstances, for any reason – do we? Jesus said, Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother (Mark 10:9). Unless we think there is an implied hierarchy in this list, we must believe that Jesus was saying one was as much a sin as another. After all, contained in the word "defraud" is "fraud." To defraud is to deceive, to cheat, to trick. Therefore, a fraud is a cheat, an imposter, a deceiver. In every instance, Jesus uses in this passage from Mark fraud is inherent in the action. An adulterer cheats on his spouse, a murderer steals life, a false witness is a liar. There is nothing that would justify any of these actions by Christians – right?
Two words are often used to describe or, perhaps more correctly, set as goals for Christ’s disciples. They are "blameless" and "righteous." To be blameless is what Paul prayed for the saints of Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 3:13) as did the author of Hebrews in 8:7 for example. To those in Corinth, Paul wrote, Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:8) Speaking of the Last Days, Jesus said, Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:43) Does any of this seem to suggest that liars and cheats will be among that congregation? And what can we say of Jesus the Christ, is He to be counted among those who believe in "any means to the end" or in justice and righteousness.
One last consideration. Where are we to place our trust or, more correctly, in whom are we to place our trust? Then, are those Christians and "ministries" that use deception to accomplish their "missions" trusting in Him or their own devices? Luke records that we are to believe in the Lord (Acts 16:31) that is the means to the only end worthy of pursuit unless, of course we have something in mind other than eternal life.
- That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Is it Being Purpose Driven or the Purpose that Drives Us? (Part V –
Discernment)
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men. Acts 5:29
Some pastors say because disputes weaken the church and makes it subject to ridicule, disagreement is not permitted. Such a position is very close the Roman Catholic "doctrine of infallibility" for which they supply considerable Scriptural support – Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 16:18; John 14, 15 and 16; I Timothy 3:14-15; and Acts 15:28. The only problem is this doctrine does come from the Church putting Protestant ministers who wish to embrace it for themselves in a rather awkward position. "Infallibility" we are told, "means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error" (ref).
There are Protestant churches that require members to unquestioningly follow the leaders. In The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren writes, "At Saddleback Church, every member signs a covenant that includes a promise to protect the unity of our fellowship." (p.167). It’s interesting that Pastor Warren’s denomination derives from a separatist movement that split from the Church of England (which split from Roman Catholicism over the issue of divorce). The Baptist founder, John Smyth who baptized himself, was actually excommunicated from the church he established (ref.). Furthermore, Saddleback belongs to the Southern Baptists established in 1845 as the result of a squabble between Southern and Northern Baptists (ref). Maybe its anxiety resulting from his own denomination’s history driving him to make such demands.
In addition to the references cited by the Roman Church, Warren cites Romans 14:19 urges peace among the saints. We are to strive to keep harmony and peace within the church. Paul, in Ephesians 4:3 calls for just that. James (3:17) tells us, But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Hebrews 13:17 directs us to, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. Paul warns us about, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, (Galatians 5:20) as does Peter about false prophets and teachers as well as heresies (2 Peter 2:1). Instead of peace and love, these bring upon themselves swift destruction. Paul even suggests (1 Corinthians 11:19) that heresies and false doctrines are not only inevitable but they may be necessary for us to, "known who are the sincere followers of the Lamb, in doctrine, discipline, and conversation, and who not." (ref.) Where does this leave the entire Protestant Reformation because, it was protesting nothing less than the Church?
As a matter of fact, where does this leave "discerning of spirits" (1 Corinthians 12:10); that enables those with the gift to distinguish between those who speak by the power of the Holy Spirit and those who are moved by a false spirit? Are we to believe that the "cloth" makes one impervious to deception? Our Master warns us Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15). Paul also warns of grievous wolves (Acts 20:29) and that men shall arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30). If seminary degrees, the learning of men, could protect us from ravenous falsehoods, there wouldn’t be a need for the gift of discernment nor would there have been a Protestant Reformation. There wouldn’t be such a multiplicity of denominations. Are we to believe that the leaders of movements such as the Unification Church, the Mormons, Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t make the same demands for loyalty and unity?
Such pastoral edicts designed to squelch dissent suggest a level of perfection and understanding beyond human capabilities. The implication is that we place our faith in such leadership rather than in the Scriptures or, even more fundamentally, in the Holy Spirit who provides Christians with the gift of discernment among His other gifts to protects us from deception. Were such not a real possibility, there would be no need for such a gift. We need to remember what our purpose is. Prayerfully, we, the "church," are driven to glorify our Lord, our God by accomplishing His purpose(s) in our individual and collective lives. In Ephesians 3:10-11 we are taught that through the body of believers the manifold wisdom of God should be made known (v. 10) according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 11 NIV). We are united under Jesus. He is the head of the "church." Until we find another who can walk on water, calm the storm, see through the glass clearly, we should seek Him through His Word.
- Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the
disputer of this world?
hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread
from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of
heart, Acts 2:46
There weren’t any church buildings for some 300 years after Christ’s resurrection. We also know that the temple in this verse, Herod’s temple, was destroyed around 70 AD. That would leave 230 years in which Christians had to meet in one another’s homes. Unless those houses were very large, the number of saints who could gather at any one time would have to be rather small. It is likely that in these small congregations, everyone knew one another – and, one another’s business. Today, 60% of U.S. congregations have 100 or fewer members. While the 2% who attend "mega-churches" get all the "press" most Protestants worship in "small-town" sized congregations. Does this mean these congregations are all those things sophisticates disparage about small towns, members are too likely to mind our business – they’re too friendly? Does familiarity breed contempt?
How often, in such discussions, do we pose the opposite question? Is it possible to be too large with the inevitable depersonalization that follows? Rick Warren tells his audience that he won’t perform weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. because he can’t do all he is asked so, rather than seem to be preferential, he does none. Joel Osteen is confronted with the same dilemma. He has a Hospital and Nursing Home "ministry" that is "staffed" by volunteers. How many requests from his membership to conduct their wedding does he have to turn down because of his busy schedule? He is not unique in having to resort to such methods to "care" for the flock. The Greek word poimen from which we derive our word "pastor" means shepherd – one who cares for his flock. Nowhere in the Bible is a shepherd pictured as a foreman delegating care of his sheep to subordinates. Christ was not training His disciples to become CEO’s.
Some believe that one of the attractions of Mega-churches