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

THE PREACHERS OF WORLDLINESS
(Prosperity Christianity)
Return to the Church Directory

And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts
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!"

Return to the Church Directory
 

The Disenfranchised Church
Return to the Church Directory
 

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

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
Return to the Church Directory

WHEN IS BIG TOO BIG?
Return to the Church Directory

FALSE PRETENSES – A Crisis in Faith

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?

Return to the Church Directory
 

WE CAN’T AFFORD THE JUICE!
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many Mark 14:24

Return to the Church Directory

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

Return to the Church Directory
 

VENUES
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 1 John 2:20
Return to the Church Directory

THE DISTRACTION OF THE CHURCH

And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Acts 2:47b
Return to the Church Directory

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. Acts 8:3

Return to the Church Directory

Don’t Shoot Your Family
Return to the Church Directory

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:35

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

Return to the Church Directory

If the Church Could Save: If the Pulpit Could Evangelize
(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

Return to the Church Directory

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

Return to the Church Directory
 

FAVORITISM
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
Return to the Church Directory
 

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

Return to the Church Directory
 

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 14:17
Return to the Church Directory

Most 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; Philippians 2:15
Return to the Church Directory

HEAVEN IS A THEOCRACY, THE "CHURCH" IS NOT
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
Return to the Church Directory
 

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? 1 Corinthians 1:20

Return to the Church Directory

Can We Get Too Friendly?
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
Return to the Church Directory
 

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 is that they reflect the impersonal world in which we live. "Getting lost in a crowd" has its advantages. Yet the greatest affirmation for small groups comes from mega-churches. Among them, Willow Creek Community Church, Lakewood Church, Harvest Bible Chapel and New Life Church have active "small group" ministries because, as Willow Creek states, "Small groups offer a place for more focused spiritual growth." New Life puts it this way, "Friendship that’s really what small groups are all about! Friendship with others provides a source of strength, encouragement, and fun in a way that no sermon, book, or conference can. So whether you are sailing smooth or in the midst of a struggle in life, go ahead—find a New Life Church Small Group that interests you."

But is it possible to be too small and too friendly? Scriptures don’t seem to suggest so. Hebrews 13:1 tells us to Let brotherly love continue. Peter counsels us add to our faith virtue and, among other things, brotherly kindness (2 Peter 1:7). Paul advises the saints of Galatia to Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Our Master teaches us to love one another as I have loved you (John 13:34). In the next verse, He tells us that By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples (v. 35). While, ideally, such brotherly love may be extended to a corporate body of 15 to 40,000," it is more natural as a member of a "family" of worshipers rather than as a member of a church audience.

Consider worshiping with a group of people that know when we are hurting and offer their genuine caring, in need and they provide for our needs, alone and they welcome us into their midst. In some congregations members refer to one another as "brothers" and "sisters." Paul, in his letters to the saints in Roman frequently referred to them as "the children of God" – Romans 8:16 for example. Now, in what family do we remain strangers? In what family would we wonder if we were getting "too friendly?" Isn’t it true that Christianity regards the family as the very foundation of society? Isn’t it also true that all Christians regard God as our Father and Christ as the head of the "church" and that love shall rule the relationship? And, this "love," how shall it manifest itself? For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (Matthew25: 35-36) Truly, what brother or sister, mother or father would turn their backs on a loved one in need; cast them out in the cold; ignore them; shun them? Maybe that’s why we asked the question – "can we get too friendly" because we know the responsibility "getting friendly" carries with it even in this jaundiced society.

Return to the Church Directory
 

The "Body of Christ" Isn’t A Church
 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28

Return to the Church Directory

To be even more insistent, the "body of Christ" isn’t the church either. In the first place, the "body of Christ is not, cannot be an "it" – a thing. We are the "body of Christ. We, "the whole election of grace, the general assembly, whose names are written in heaven in the Lamb's book of life" are the "Body of Christ." In the KJV, the phrase "body of Christ" is used only four times. The comment provided by John Gill best explains what that phrase really means and why it is so important for us to understand that meaning. Put in the present tense which it must be, Gill states, [we are] not only members of Christ, and of his body, but [are] particularly members one of another, in strict union and close communion, and of mutual use and service to each other. Might we not ask ourselves as Paul asked the saints at Corinth, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Paul also writes, Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. That we are. You see, the body of Christ is people, you and I. We, and our brothers and sisters around the world who are disciples of Christ, are the "body of Christ." A "disciple" is first and foremost a "person," not an official or an office anymore than an organization. A "disciple" accepts the views of the teacher (Jesus the Christ) and he/she is also an adherent. McClintock says it best, "A disciple of Christ is one who believes his doctrine, rests upon his sacrifice, imbibes his spirit, and imitates his example." This is the "body of Christ." We are; it isn’t. It represents an impersonal thing.

That is what the "church" has become. Impersonal it is. It is buildings and organizations and denominations and ritualistic practices, dogmas and orders to be followed. It is something we join, belong to and attend. It is a place we go to – once in a while. It is separate and distinct from ourselves and our lives outside of it. Bishops, elders, pastors and ministers, boards and committees govern it. It is a government of the "ordained" over the "laity." When we speak of the church, invariably the reference is to buildings or organizations. We go to the buildings and we may belong to or work for the organization. It isn’t personal. The impersonality of "church" means it never was and it never may be the "body of Christ." If nothing else, the "body of Christ" is a personal relationship with Jesus the Christ. But, then, that is everything.

When, where, why and how this metamorphosis occurred is unclear. About the only solid information is that the earliest traces of a "church" building date back to the third century – the earliest one discovered in the modern Nation of Israel so far. Another earlier discovery was made in the Roman port of Aila dating around AD 300. There is evidence that a home in the ancient town of Dura Europos in Syria had been used as a church dating around 235AD. Undoubtedly, the process of change from meeting in homes and occasional synagogues to structures dedicated exclusively for Christian churches took place gradually. The consequences have been devastating.

The transition from gifts of the Holy Spirit to offices in an organization probably occurred over many, many years. There is no record of this mutation. Of the seven Greek words for "office" found in the New Testament, only two (Praxis and Huperetes) are used in the writings of Matthew, Mark and John referring to Roman or Jewish authorities. Paul writes about the "office of a bishop" and the "office of deacon." In Romans he speaks of the fact that we are the same body but we don’t have the same office. These are the only three instances in which the word is apparently used to mean somewhat the same as we think of it today. Along with "office" goes "occupation," work, employment, compensation and the ball is rolling downhill full steam. Any similarities between where we started with the gifts of the Holy Spirit where we wind up with the religious bureaucracies of today are purely coincidental.

The "Christianity of Jesus the Christ " and the "Christian religion" as an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices it has become cannot be explained nor defended Scripturally. To the contrary, it can be argued that the practices common in the "churches" of today are what He found so objectionable in the Judaism of His day and contrary to His life and His teachings.

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

Return to the Church Directory
 

Pastor
When they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord, "thou knowest that I love you." He saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." John 21:15
Return to the Church Directory

Jesus was telling Peter to be a pastor – to love the flock. The Greek for pastor (Poimen) found in the Gospels can have several meanings." One is of a shepherd whose job it was to "watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep - to heal the wounded and sick sheep - to find and save lost or trapped sheep - to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust." What Paul writes to the saints in Thessalonica is characteristic of this attitude, But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children is expressive of a pastor’s heart. The next verse is even more touching, So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. In a letter to Timothy, he tells his friend what the true character of Christ-like "evangelism" is, And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient. Isn’t this simply a restatement of Christ’s own words? By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Here we are talking about a "communion of saints," a togetherness, a fellowship, a brotherhood.

The second meaning given for "pastor" (Poimen) seems most prominent today, "the presiding officer, manager, director of any assembly: the overseers of a Christian assembly." Something like a C.E.O. Its prevalence suggests this is the version being taught in seminaries. Like any good C.E.O, these "pastors" measure their "success" by the number of buildings, the size of the crowd, and the size of the budget funded by "tithes, offerings and other gifts." What one "pastor" told his audience is characteristic of this attitude. He said that he didn’t visit homes, hospitals, do baptisms, weddings or funerals because there were just too many for him to do them all. And, if he couldn’t do them all, he wouldn’t do any. Another urged his TV audience to "jump on a plane come to the church and he’d baptize them – sight unseen as it were.

The ever-growing popularity of "mega-churches" is testimony to the popularity of the "CEO-pastor." The ego-inflating appeal to a "pastor" addressing crowds numbering in the thousands is fairly obvious. The willingness of more and more people to sit in auditorium-sized buildings watching a "super-star pastor" on jumbo-sized TV screens suggests that the avoidance of "intimacy" may be just as much a factor as anything else. It may well be a case of wanting to get lost in the crowd. That’s easy to do in an facility so large that only about 10% or so of the audience can actually make out the speaker while the other 90% are forced to watch the program on the "tube" just as if they were home alone. Truly a mystery. Why in the world – unless it’s the same "crowd mentality" that attracts people to athletic events in arenas nearly the same size.

When Jesus said, I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep He wasn’t saying He was the C.E.O. of the "church" although that He was – and He was going to die for us. More important to Him was giving to His disciples His loving care. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. Today, what "pastor" of an even modestly large congregation may make these claims to "know his flock? It’s fascinating that in every instance "poimen" is used in the Gospels it is translated as "shepherd" not C.E.O. It is obvious that Jesus the Christ had nothing of a presiding officer, manager or director in mind when three times He challenged Peter to "Feed my lambs," "feed my sheep," "feed my sheep."

When the role of "pastor" got turned into an administrative "office" isn’t nearly as important as the consequences. Little is written about how the now Apostles, fulfilled Jesus the Christ’s command That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. If we follow what is passed off as "Church History," (i.e. the history of the Roman Catholic Church) this pattern of the C.E.O "pastor" and the image of "apostleship" is ancient and well entrenched in all branches of "Christianity." There is little attempt to meet of the physical needs of the audience let alone the emotional/psychological in today’s "churches" whether that is in a stadium-sized auditorium, through television "ministries" or even more incomprehensible in many small churches across the country. It isn’t being practiced by the "pastor" or emulated by the membership. Even with feeble attempts to play at "small groups," there is no communion here. No one is minding the store. What ever happened to what Jesus said? One commentator wrote, "And why is it that believers are not in the same spirit now? Because they neither attend to the example nor to the truth of Christ." (Adam Clarke's Commentary) But, then, aren’t we sheep just following the lead set by our pastor?

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: Acts 4:32
 

Return to the Church Directory
 

Street Friendly Churches

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld,
he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. Acts 1:9
Return to the Church Directory

Somehow, somewhere, we’ve missed the boat. We don’t seem to know or we have forgotten some of the most basic and fundamental lessons Jesus taught us. We have forgotten what the "church" really is. On the occasions when Matthew 16:18 is read to us, most probably think Peter is being referred to as a cornerstone of a building or the keystone of an arch. We probably think of him as being compared to the foundation of a church or to its basement – in those parts of the country where such exists. Having other fish to fry on that Sunday, the preacher probably does nothing to correct the misconception. One that is actually two fold. First, Peter is being likened to some sort of actual building material since we think of "church" as a literal structure. Second we make the dicey mistake of thinking Jesus appointed Peter to head "church" when it’s his confession of who Jesus, any present or future position he might have in the "church."

The consequences of these two errors for the "church" have been devastating. In this time when the Iraq "war" occupies so much of our Nation’s energy and resources, must of us are aware of the phrase "a timetable for withdrawal." God has such a timetable, but He’s not divulging it. One thing is for certain, however, it will not be defeated. Nonetheless, just like the exodus from Egypt, one can only wonder if that timetable isn’t being slowed down by our recalcitrant nature. Like the Exodus, had we been more obedient to His Word might the Second Coming have arrived centuries ago? In Jesus day, many were convinced they would see that great event in their lives. 2,000 years later despite many false alarms, we are still waiting.

Now to the issue at hand – the "church." Every one of the 115 times the term is used in the KJV, it is from the Greek Ekklesia. Not once is ekklesia used to refer to a building or even an organization. It refers to people. We have forgotten in the morass of temples, cathedrals, shrines and mega-churches that Christianity is first and foremost about people. When Jesus said By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, He wasn’t talking about The Temple at Jerusalem any more than to St. Peter’s Basilica on Rome or the Cathedral of Notre Dam in Paris. He probably gives no thought to Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral or to Joel Osteen’s Compaq Center mega-church. Christianity has nothing to do with mortar and stone, glass and steel or with the numbers attending. It isn’t involved with bishops, vicars, priest, pastors, elders or deacons or the budgets. Christianity has everything to do with relationships. Jesus, finished his statement, By this shall all men know that ye re my disciples saying, if ye have love one to another. He prayed for his disciples, not that their lives should be purpose driven but, That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Loving "at oneness." This is the "church." This is also the Biblical theology of evangelism in a nutshell.

Instead we find stone and glass, bishops, priests and an amazing aloneness sending a chill into the heart. Edmund Gibbs thinks that’s a good thing. He wrote, "they (megachurches) give people a feeling of anonymity. And that's particularly important to those who have been hurt or burnt out in smaller churches." Taking away the cliques, one finds a herd mentality in our congregation. Head down, eyes averted, not speaking, pushing and shoving, a crowded rush into the "sanctuary" and a mad stamped on the way out – that’s church 2,000 years later. You get more positive responses from strangers you pass on the street if you look at them, smile and say hello than you will people in church. That’s not your Jesus’ church. There won’t be any strangers on the streets of Heaven there shouldn’t be any in the isles of our churches either.

In discussing the major events in Jesus’ life, His Ascension is frequently ignored. Preachers mention His birth, ministry and death ending their discussion with His resurrection. He ascended! That fact is just as important as the rest not just because He is a living Savior but because He sent the Holy Spirit to empower us to complete the work started by His disciples to "evangelize" the world. But not with tracts and cute tricks but by showing our compassion and love for our brothers and sisters in Christ. All it takes is a glance and a smile to get started – not just by the volunteer greeters and ushers but by each of us as we say hello to members of the family of God. We conveniently forget this little caveat:

The Casino Church Movement

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,
where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. Matthew 6:19

Return to the Church Directory

We’ve had the Christian researcher, George Barna, telling us how to market the "church" and Rick Warren how to fill our lives with purpose. One is informing us that the Biblical "marketing plan" for the church is either obsolete or inadequate and the other that the directions Christ gave us for our lives are vague or outmoded. Wouldn’t one think Jesus the Christ perfectly capable of showing us for all times how to "grow the church" and fill our lives with purpose? Evidently not. These two experts, among many feel their expertise more pertinent than His. After all, the world has changed in 2,000 years.

There has been a decidedly noticeable effect on the Christian community as a result of applying the goal directed and marketing mentality of the secular world to the church and the lives of Christians. In its heyday, Dr. Robert Schuller’s church could seat around 3,000. With two services it would just qualify as a "mega-church" today where some churches have 45,000 attending a single service. To attract such crowds, these stadium sized churches have become "seeker friendly" and "culturally acceptable" – surveying their "communities" to sample the interest and wishes of prospective members. Wow, market driven Christianity!

But, if we measure the "success" of a church by the size of its membership, it seems we are overlooking the obvious. Nowhere is there such a drawing magnet for large crowds than a gambling casino. Now, we’re not talking about the bingo-in-the-basement type of gambling the Roman Catholic Church implemented once it had to give up selling indulgences to get loved ones out of Purgatory. No sir, we’re talking about first class, full-blown Vegas style casinos. No where is there such a concentration of casinos and money and people in those casinos than in Las Vegas Nevada. They go together. Why then, aren’t we looking for ways to adopt this casino-magnetism to the church? "If it happens in church, it stays in church!" On second thought there’s nothing new about that. If money and crowds are our purposes, why doesn’t the church embrace the "Vegas model?"

The possibilities are endless. Instead of the Bellagio, the Excalibur, MGM Grand, Wynn, New York New York, there could be the Crystal Palace and Casino of Garden Grove where top entertainment prevails. What would be wrong with The Saddleback Church and Casino or the Ever Increasing Funds Church? There could be the Lakewood Arena Casino and the Harvest Bible Casino. What an appeal. Why not "go all the way? And we could proclaim to the world that since our ‘church-casinos’ have opened thousands of jobs have been created. Just like the casinos, we could claim we have contributed millions of dollars to the local economy. Schools, hospitals, police and fire departments, all public services have benefited and blossomed from our generous contributions." And just between us no more fund raising in the name of tithing! There would be a pastor’s dream of unlimited budgets! They could go wild! Think of the possibilities for buildings and programs galore. A high roller’s tithe on a multimillion dollar payoff could take care of the most ambitious programs and missionary outreach. After all, the residents of Nevada don’t pay taxes. Las Vegas takes care of that. Talk about the cup running over! Paradise right here on earth! Hum? The church casinos could have themes, such as "Bringing out the winner in you" and "Ever Increasing Winnings" or even "Possibility Christian gamblers" or "neighborhood gambling, a place to grow" for their mottoes. Rather than the Gospel, their focus could be on "applied faith" in political activism and advocacy.

Is it even remotely possible that when Jesus said to lay up treasures in Heaven instead of on this earth that He was only speaking to us individually and not to the "church" corporately? If in our personal lives He warns us of the distractions of "things," isn’t it even more so when it comes to the church? Can’t buildings and grounds, staff and programs become distracting ends rather that a presumed means to an end? Where in Scriptures is it recorded that Jesus ever took a vote or looked for a consensus? Nine times in the Gospels, Jesus uses the word hated in describing the world’s reaction to Him and His Gospel. Remember, the throngs who gathered to hear Him, especially those who shouted "Hosanna" on His entry into Jerusalem were looking for a revolutionary to overthrow Roman rule like the two "criminals" beside Him on the Cross.

And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: Luke 23:18

Return to the Church Directory

 

Broken Fences

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold,
but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. John 10:1
Return to the Church Directory

Surely, it is not too much of a stretch of one’s imagination to believe that someone climbing over or under the fence of an animal pen instead of asking permission of the rancher to go through the gate is up to no good. It gets even more probable when we take into account the fact that a "sheepfold" (Greek, Aule) was a walled enclosure in the communities of Jesus’ time and the "door" was, in fact, a real door. Actually, in a number of Scriptural passages, "aule" is translated as "hall," "court," "palace," "fold" as well as "sheepfold." When we look more closely, we discover that in O. T. times the same term for "sheepfold" meant court or courtyard as found in the Tabernacle and at the Temple in Jerusalem. Obviously, they had thieves and robbers there too – of a different sort. We can apply the concept of "sheepfold" to anything that, in fact or fiction, is separated from the world such as what we may have at one time considered the "church."

Whether "good fences make good neighbors" or not, they do separate and define things. They make a definite statement of what is and what is not – what one owns as opposed to the belongings of others. The Bible attaches a lot of significance to separating things like sheep from goats. It also has a lot to say about ownership. Surely, that is demonstrated in His separating out Israel as a "peculiar people." That exact phrase is used in the New Testament to describe we Christians. How very delightful. Many other times the Lord declares, all the earth is mine. His sovereignty is basic to our Christian faith. Isn’t it one of our greatest comforts to know that All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out? We have been separated from the world and a permanent, impenetrable fence has been built around us. Fences aren’t as bad as Robert Frost may have thought. Words are fences, you know. They box-in, define, limit our experiences into finite boxes. That’s why the Israelites never gave a word-name to God – He is limitless. Notice, we say, "He" and cause all kinds of consternation in so doing because we seemingly have identified Him with the male gender creating all kinds of bewilderment with such passages as, And God said, Let us make man in our image. Maybe He doesn’t want to be boxed-in.

But, what about those who don’t like the world of limits or who want to change the meaning of things well set in our mind’s vocabulary – such as marriage, priesthood, church and so much, much more? Who are these "thieves in the night?" For one, they are "outsiders," government, non-believers, other religions, cultures and traditions, those who are "well intended. In order that no one feel offended, many of these agencies and groups struggle for a monolithic sameness. In the name of unity, they want to break down the fences that separates us. "Everything is relative; nothing is absolute," "Can’t we all just get along?" are their rallying cries. In the society of rigidly fixed uniformity, those with moral standards are seen as rigid, narrow-minded, fundamentalists. But these efforts only scatters the flock through doubt and confusion. In a word, it is the world climbing over our fences in the dark of the night bent on mayhem in the guise of personal freedom, toleration, indulgence and broadmindedness.

These are mostly outsiders in one form or another, either morally or philosophically – sacred or profane. It’s one thing, when the thief, the invader, is from outside the wall, in essence attacking it. It’s quite something else when the culprit is from within. They are not only wrong, they are deceitful. Little wonder Jesus called them ravening wolves. They are a den of thieves, robbers who do not, "come in by the door; of the shepherds of Israel, who feed themselves, and not the flock, but lord it over God's heritage, who boast that they were some great persons, but are only thieves and robbers" (John Gill). It’s interesting to note the Biblical titles and names of the saints. Such titles as "Beloved of God," "Brethren," "Called of Jesus Christ," "Disciples of Christ," "Heirs of the kingdom," "Joint-heirs with Christ." And the list goes on. One clue that we are in the midst of a den of thieves is when titles suggesting preferential status are used. Author of many books, Edward Fudge writes, "Elders have two kinds of derived authority and moral authority from God, which the congregation recognizes and acknowledges." They are to, feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. When we see something different, it might be another clue of thieves and robbers among us.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Ephesians 4:11

Return to the Church Directory

How Shall We Reach the Unchurched?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19
Return to the Church Directory

The resounding answer today is through the "church." Now, if at first that sounds like a contradiction, increasing numbers of congregations are persuaded by the success of other churches to give it a try. The conundrum is solved by the tactics (any and all) these so called "seeker churches" are willing to employ. For example, here is a recent report from The Dallas Morning News, "Shortly before the benediction at Fellowship of (Name) church last Sunday, the pastor made a gridiron move. Wearing Troy Aikman's jersey, some baggy pants and athletic shoes, the (Pastor) deftly threw a football, not across a yard line but a row of seats. M. W. caught the flying pigskin. He and his wife, sporting football game duds, were honored for bringing six friends to church. And hours before the Dallas Cowboys whipped the New York Giants, they got their trophy; a football signed by Dallas' star quarterback." Does that sound extreme or exciting? Whatever your opinion, it is increasingly the question that governs what transpires in this church, and so many others, is "How will the unchurched respond to this if we do it?"

How they got there in the first place has already been answered. Someone, a friend, loved one, co-worker, relative brought them under some pretense. It is no longer a question of the accuracy of the Word being taught, if it is at all. It is no longer preaching the Truth of the gospel, if it is even mentioned, but making the "seeker" feel comfortable and at home – so he will come back and, one day soon, get baptized. It isn’t so much that traditional worship patterns are being abandoned, they are, but that the Gospel is as well. Oh, there might be hints of it here and there as responses to the perceived needs and personal questions of the seekers who might infiltrate the audience. However, that is unfair. If anyone is infiltrating church audiences today, it is believers. Increasingly, they are the strangers in the strange land of the church. Even the music is designed more as stand alone entertainment rather than an integral part of any pretense of worship. The speaker (preacher) isn’t so much an expert on theological matters as he is on matters of psycho-sociological issues. Bits and pieces of Scripture will be thrown into, not sermons but lectures, on dealing with personal, social, work related, family and other such issues. As one source put it, "The movement (Church Growth) has an aggressively strong commitment to the use of the social sciences such as sociology, psychology and anthropology, holding the Bible with one hand and the social sciences with the other, all the time affirming, "All truth is God's truth!" How all this fits in with Christ’s rather terse statement, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God is simple; it doesn’t.

All well and good. Now, we’ve got them coming to church (catching autographed footballs even) and probably even getting baptized, filling seats in the audience, making financial contributions to the church building fund or to a missionary effort to Rwanda or Guadeloupe or some other strange and distant place. Maybe they are already making plans to join a mission vacation trip to Darfur or to AIDS infested Haiti any place but home. Keep in mind that humanitarian aid as well as providing resources for our personal and social problems are in the best traditions of Christianity. However, they cannot replace that Christian tradition anymore than a goal of "church growth" can replace salvation through the Cross as its message.

"Seeker churches" may baptize hundreds, thousands of new "Christians," but what kind of Christians are they. The Mormon Church, is the fastest growing denomination in the United States. Do we agree that those baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by the Mormon church Christians? What about the Moonies, Christian Scientists and a litany of others, would you consider the "converts" to these cults Christian or is there more to it than simply going to "church," getting baptized and paying your dues? Besides, where in Scripture are "churches" (ekklesia) instructed to be the agents of evangelism? What we do find is the church is for worship, fellowship, teaching and preaching the Word. For that we need a concise, intimate, and in depth knowledge of the Gospel. Furthermore it is we, individual Christians, who are responsible for spreading the Gospel. Our church services aren’t to be theatrical productions, anymore than we are called to be psychotherapists or social engineers. And, who said following Jesus the Christ was to be entertaining, easy or popular? Certainly, He didn’t unless that’s a description of taking up the Cross.

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

(The Ruins of Laodicea)
Hypocrisy
Thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins Jeremiah 12:2
Return to the Church Directory

Some liken Israel to "God’s Timepiece" against which they measure events that are supposedly indications of the "End Times." They don’t know just how right they are but in a quite different way; Israel’s history is a template, not a prophecy. Their history is a pattern, an example, for the world of what happens to those who disobey God. Look at it and ask if their history is anything to be desired, admired, emulated or envied. They disobeyed the prophets, including Moses. They intermarried and worshipped false gods. They never conquered the land it was promised. The heyday of the Nation of Israel was short and ungodly, limited to the period of the monarchies of Saul, David and Solomon whom the people had demanded rather than the monarchy of God’s rule. Following that was the dissolution of any pretense of a nation because of civil wars eventually led to its division and to its complete disappearance from the map of world nations. It is a model if a long slide into eternal oblivion. That’s what Jeremiah was prophesying about – Israel had forsaken God and raised up false religions and worshipped false gods.

But, Israel is not a prototype of what God will do to the godlessness of the United States as so many prognosticators argue. We are not the chosen nation or chosen a people as much a shock as that may be. That distinction remains solely Israel’s. We are saved and judged individually, not collectively as was Israel. Again, that distinction remains uniquely Israel’s. However, the warning may be correctly applied to us, individually. Assuredly, the "timepiece syndrome" does apply to our individual Christian lives not in our sinfulness, we are forgiven, but in our relationship with Him. It is not that He will necessarily wreak devastating calamities down upon us in this life but the consequences it will have in the hereafter are near certain. Should we, as Christians, forsake (that is deny) our God and pursue other gods (goals) and worship them, we will suffer eternal consequences.

Once saved, there is a strong emphasis placed on fellowship and community. That is testified to in Scripture by what, speaking to His disciples Jesus said, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. In 1 John 1:7 it is written, But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. The centrality of community is further buttressed by what Jesus said, Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me (John 17:20,21.)

There is a difference between an assembly, a crowd (or worse) a mob, that are little more than a collection of parts, and a community or a congregation. What we read of in Scriptures is not large arenas filled with the saints, but small group gatherings, small enough to meet in one another’s homes. That was clearly the condition spoken of in Acts 2:44 when they shared what they had with one another.

Today, as pastors are caught up in the fad of enhancing their image and proving their appeal and prowess by "growing their church," as it is called, the sense of intimacy and belonging is lost. The movement is from a group of friends, a congregation, to a crowd. Now we get all the trappings of an assembly, cliques, showing off, the "me-first syndrome," and the rest that accompanies those who are essentially strangers gathered together. Just imagine the dynamics of 16,000 gathered for a so-called church service with the "pastor" who can only know a few of that number especially with their primary interest being more feathers in his bonnet.

In Matthew 15:8, Jesus is calling the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites because He saw them just playing at religion for the effect. He said of them, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me which was essentially a repeat of what Jeremiah said of them in his day. Are we in the same boat? Are we putting on a "false appearance of virtue or religion?" With our arena-sized churches, their ecclesiastical, established institutional nature and their formalism, have we lost all traces of what the Christian community was and should be? Are we just going through the paces for the show of it all? Regardless of the size of the church or its orientation (traditional, seeker friendly, word-faith, evangelical, pentecostal or what) to ingredients are consistent: (1) a passive audience listening to (2) an actor on a stage. That is not Christianity. It is active participation, not passivity.

But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. Luke 13:27
Return to the Church Directory