THE CHURCH THAT PETER BUILT   
"Peter, because of your strength of character, your growth in wisdom and piety, I will call you apart?"

THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH
How we derived such structure and complexity from the simplicity of Jesus' teachings

There's A Fresh Wind Blowing
Somewhere between Pentecost and today. the "church" separated itself from the "People of the Way."

INDULGENCES? WHY NOT?
Why not use a tried and true method for fund raising?

12141
Addressing the Challenge Facing Christianity Today

CAIAPHAS
Astonishing that the works of men had totally supplanted the will of God in the church of the Chosen People.

THREE TABERNACLES
Our inclinations for buildings

A HIGH VIEW OF THE CHURCH
Have you noticed an absence of lessons about the Holy Spirit?

THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
What is that? What does the Holy Catholic Church really refer to?

DIVIDED WE STAND
Do we need a new "paradigm" for the church?

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION
By what authority do we hear confession of sin and grant forgiveness?

ALL GOD'S PEOPLE ARE MINISTERS
Whether it is the reticence from vested self-interest or from a genuine belief to the contrary, most contemporary clergy today seem unable to embrace a meaningful lay movement.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ORDAINED?
Have you considered the possibility that you are already ordained?

THE MULTIGIFTED BODY OF CHRIST
We have different gifts. Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans. It is unfortunate that so many of us feel, if we have any, it is the gift of "bench (pew) warming.

Y2K
Robert H. Schuller in his 1982 book, Self Esteem the New Reformation, predicts the year 2000 A.D. will be the end of the "Reactionary Age" in church history.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
Worship cannot be isolated from life.

LAWGIVER
The Biblical foundations of the church. What was and what isn't.

SUPEREROGATION
Is the church today appearing to "broker" deals with its members in its fundraising efforts?

SPIRITUAL GIFTS
Are Spiritual Gifts confined to the organized church?

INSIDE THE BELTWAY
Is the same "disconnectivity" found in Washington, D.C. infecting the church?

STEPS IN THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRIESTHOOD
"A priest," we are told by Bruce Larson, "is someone who stands between God and another person as a link or a channel person."

A BOOK REPORT
Wouldn't it be nice if there was Scriptural support for restricting "ministerial" and "pastoral" gifts and then elevating them to preeminence within the community of saints?

The Key to Knowledge
These hoary gentlemen of the cloth were respected leaders and teachers of the church.

The Persecution of the Church
The American "church" seems to have a renewed, if somewhat belated and embarrassed, interest in the subject of the persecuted "church."

Why Does the Church Exist? I
 What is the purpose of this "functioning body of Christ?"

Why does the Church Exist II
Is it true that Christians "shoot their wounded?"

The Reformation - Part I
Reformation means to put an end to abuse, to correct or improve something that is wrong, corrupt or unsatisfactory.

The First Reformation - Part II
What is greatness? What is blessedness?

A Time and a Place
 Christ’s commands to the "church" to Go ye into all the world, just as surely as, Feed my sheep. Yet, they represent two distinct Gospel messages.

The Lord Is Long Suffering
Swift to judge? Quick to condemn to eternal damnation? Evidently, such haste is characteristic of humankind rather than the Divine.

"A priest," we are told by Bruce Larson, "is someone who stands between God and another person as a link or a channel person." (The Presence, pp. 72-73) He intervenes before God on our behalf because he is more acceptable than we. He offers up prayers and sacrifices on our behalf. He is our representative to God and God's representative to us. With the break from the "established church," the "orthodox church" of the Old Testament, that is the priesthood and leaders of the synagogue and Temple, and with Jesus' Ascension, Christ's followers were leaderless. However, almost immediately, Peter began asserting his authority. In the days before Pentecost, he determined it was appropriate to replace Judas. He proposed that the replacement should have been with them from the time of John's baptism. (Acts 1:22) We aren't told how Barsabas and Matthias became finalists, but the rest of the process is clear. First they prayed and then cast lots with Matthias determined to be the successor. The head of the church was becoming apparent and the method of selecting the new priesthood was established.

Following Pentecost, the Book of Acts records many of Peter's activities, healing, preaching, converting and even a stint in jail. Nothing is more indicative of his exalted position as Prince of the Apostles than the account of the unpleasant happenings surrounding Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5) By the time of the selection of the first seven deacons (Acts 6), not only is Peter's ascendant authority well established but the foundations of the tri-fold priesthood has been laid as well. Unfortunately, nothing is recorded indicating how Peter or the other "officers" of the church transferred their authority. It is most likely that it was similar to the manner described in Acts 13:3 in which Barnabas was "set apart." Regardless, sometime around 67 AD, Linus became Peter's successor, the first in a long and unbroken line of supreme heads of the Church on earth.

The church grew from a few hundred to millions. With growth came diversity and questions of the character of the true church and the nature of true doctrine. Beliefs regarded as heresy began to emerge. The response was to expand the role of the clergy and the church through: 1. Orthodoxy - the development of sound or correct statements of faith. The "Council" at Jerusalem excused Gentiles from the ritual of circumcision. The Council of Nicaea in 325 determined Christ is God. The Council of Constantinople in 381 decided the Holy Spirit is God. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 affirmed Christ as both Man and God. The Synod of Dort in 1619 condemned modern day revelation, the teachings of the Quakers and Methodists. It approved the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort. Ecclesiastics consolidated the sanctioning position of the church through: Creeds, fixed formulas summarizing the essential articles of the Christian religion and enjoying the sanction of priestly authority were written. Canonization, the process of recognizing Christian writings as inspired by God and having divine authority in the life and ministry of the church, began. The Church canonized the New Testament around AD 175. Confessions, public declaration of commitment to God and Jesus Christ that binds oneself in loyalty to the church and having eternal eschatological consequences were drawn up. Catechisms, a series of formal questions and answers containing the principles of the Christian faith are often used as a test of membership were established. 2. Organization - a hierarchy of offices with distinctive functions. Peter determined that there should be seven appointed to serve tables and in Philippians 1:1, Paul speaks of bishops as well as elders and deacons. One of the recognized Fathers of the Church, Ignatius wrote, "Do ye all follow your bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Do nothing without the bishop." By 461, the Bishop of Rome, Leo I, wore the title of pope and vicar of Christ. By 590 the Church referring to the "Petrine theory" based on Matthew 16:16, Luke 22:31 and John 21:15-17 pronounced that Peter had "ecclesiastical primogeniture" and that this superior position was transmitted to his successors. 3. Clerical Vestments - special clothing used for ecclesiastical purposes. As early as the fourth century, ministers wore distinctive clothing to distinguish themselves from ordinary members. The chasuble the cope, the amice, alb, cincture, maniple, stole, cassock, tunicle, dalmatic, surplice, sandals, buskins, gloves, mitre, pallium, succinctorium, fanon, and the most basic, the stole, became the emblems of priestly status. Even among Protestants, the stole is considered the unique badge of the ordained ministry conferred upon ordination. Most Protestant clergy forsook this potpourri of garments in favor of the Geneva gown or "robe de Calvin" made popular by the Calvinist clergy of Geneva, circa 1820, with a "built-in" stole and academic hood as a mark of learning appropriate to the pulpit. 4. Sacraments - "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible gracious action of God" (Our Reformed Church, Hageman, p. 25). Saint Thomas Aquinas an Italian Dominican theologian, the foremost medieval Scholasticist, considered all sacred actions as sacraments. Hugo of St. Victor later reduced the number to thirty. Peter Damian to twelve and Peter Lombard defined seven (A History of Christianity, Latourette, p. 528). The Council of Florence in 1439 accepted Lombard's seven as the authoritative number. Protestants usually consider only the Lord's Supper and Baptism as sacraments. The contribution of the sacraments in re-establishing the priesthood lies in the restrictions on who may perform them. Williston Walker writes, "The church came to be more and more regarded as possessing of life-giving mysteries, under the superintendence and dispensation of the clergy." (A History of the Christian Church, Walker, p. 85). Roman Catholics after the Council of Trent declared that the Church had the Divine authority to change the "substance" of the sacraments - specifically the Eucharist so that the bread became Christ's body and the wine His blood. Further, Catholics contend "it is through the Eucharist that the passover of Christ, his redeeming work, is made available to us" (The Study of Liturgy, Jones, Wainwright, et.al., p. 13). While the Reformation mostly rejected transubstantiation and the boldness of these statements may seem strange to Protestant ears, among the bastions of the Reformation we find the sacred mystery and the spiritual potency of the sacramentum advocated in more subtle tones. "Whether it be the brain and the tongue of the preacher, the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper, or the water of Baptism, the Spirit of God transforms these objects into channels for God's presence in our midst." (Hangman, p. 24) In the Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof attests that the sacraments must be administered by "lawful ministers" (p. 153) or by "a duly accredited minister" (p. 169) thus making ministers/pastors special people serving a special function for the people which they cannot do for themselves. Sacerdotalism, the belief that the substance of an ordinance for dispensing grace is made effective by the priestly celebrant, is an inseparable part of the sacraments for both the Church of Rome and most Protestant denominations. 5. Liturgy - the ritualization of the worship services. Pope St. Leo 1 (the Great) who reigned from 440 to 461 believed that what our Christ did during His earthly ministry is now contained in the liturgy of the Church. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "in Christian use liturgy meant the public official service of the Church, that corresponded to the official service of the Temple in the Old Law." Hageman writes that in the "mystery of preaching, God speaks to us" (p.24). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia restricts "preaching" to ordained ministers, "In the New Testament sense a preacher is a man who has the inner call from the Holy Spirit and the external call from the church the witnessing body of Christ on earth, and has been duly set apart as an accredited and qualified teacher of the Christian religion." Thus, the concept of liturgy seems to restrict what is preached as well as who preaches. The likely intent is to squelch what some have called the charismatic fervor and putting the brakes on the immediacy and spontaneity of worship just as much as heresy. 6. The Church - the visible organization, its offices and government. Although some give lip service to a more esoteric definition of the spiritual nature of the true "invisible church," the most common usage among all segments of the population points to the visible organization as the understood meaning. It is this, the "visible church" or the "church gathered," that unifies all of these concepts into a functional whole. We become official through organization. In a real sense, we cannot speak about the priesthood and its re-establishment without reference to the church and its re-assertion. If Berkhof's statement is correct that "Protestants broke with this external ["visible church"] conception and seek the essence of the Church in the invisible and spiritual communion of the saints" (p. 151) the breach is largely healed. If the church determines what is right and lawful, only its appointed can rightly administer the sacraments. The return to the Catholic belief in church membership as a condition for salvation is at hand. In as much as baptism is linked to salvation, so is the church as its lawful administrator. Regarding priestly administration of the sacraments as a means of grace is regarding the church as the means of grace.

All of this development must be taken within the context of Joel 2:28-29 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. (Also Acts 2: 16-18) and Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. and Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. and 1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: and Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; and Hebrews 4:14-15 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Acts 1:6 Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? †

 (A Shekel for a Priest, Hi-Tiqvah, al-Mamilikah al-'Urdiniya al-Hashimiya, Simon ben Kosiba, et al, Thomas Nelson, NY, NY, 2001)

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

In 1989, an archaeological expedition exploring the 50 miles of banks and gorges of the River Yarmuk , a tributary of the Jordan River in the area of the Sea of Galilee (O.T. Sea of Chinnereth) made a significant Biblical discovery. There, near the confluence of the two rivers, the Yarmuk cut through the lava of the plateau to the soft, chalky limestone beneath creating a steep-walled gorge. In one of many limestone caverns, scrolls similar to those found near the Dead Sea were discovered in an earthen container. Without the apparent historical significance, the Scrolls of Chinneroth remained in obscurity until recently. However, in January of 2000, the Archdiocese of Rome in cooperation with governments of Jordan and Israel began an examination of their content. To the surprise of scientists, government authorities and Church officials alike, they are of more recent origin than the Dead Sea Scrolls and are beginning to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge of the early Christian Church. These "papers" appear to be a page or pages from a letter/letters Paul wrote to the churches in the area of Gadara. Some Biblical scholars even think there may actually be several letters from Paul the existence of which was never before known. The condition of the scrolls prohibits an exact determination.

The setting of the find is near where Jesus called Peter from the boat and walked on the waters of the Sea of Galilee. He fed the 5,000 and healed the man with demons and preached the Sermon on the Mount not far from the spot. Close to the town of Gadara, just ten kilometers from the site, the Gospel of Matthew records He healed another man with demons (8:28). According to historical accounts, Gadara was part of the kingdom of Galilee with Tiberias as its capital. Although Tiberias was an important city in the days of Christ, there is no record that He ever visited it. In 100 AD, the Romans assumed direct control of the region and after the fall of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin retreated to Galilee and ultimately to Tiberias. . After A.D. 150, it was well known as the seat of the Sanhedrin and the rabbinical schools from which came the Talmud and the Masorah. Gadara lies approixmately nine kilometers south.

This recently discovered archaeological data suggests that just prior to and during the period of Roman domination, a thriving Christian community developed in and around Gardara that supported several churches. The records are not clear on who may have started the Churches of Gadara, however most Biblical scholars attribute their establishment to Philip the evangelist, one of the seven chosen to serve the early church. Nonetheless, the interest has been in the evidence brought to light concerning the activities of this community and the surprisingly well-defined system of church governance found to exist. It clearly suggests that each of the churches was governed by a body of elders headed by a chairman or senior elder who served in the capacity of our modern day pastor/minister. Assisting the work of these boards of elders was a third group of men apparently functioning in the capacity of deacons. A modern-day type bishop ruled over these churches whom, in turn, was responsible to a larger church structure found in the city of Tiberias. Of particular note is evidence that the "presidents" of these boards of elders were supported in their ministry by their respective congregations. In turn, the ruling body in Tiberias, bishops, apostles, prophets and evangelists, were supported by a tithe levied upon each of the several congregations. The most widely accepted interpretation of the "pay scale" for these church officers is that bishops were paid 150,000 denarii or 37,500 sesterces. apostles 96,000 denarii or about 24,000 shekel, prophets, 99,000 denarii, evangelists, 105,000 denarii, and pastors 100,000 denarii. Teachers, elders and deacons were unpaid lay ministry volunteers. Although officers of the church were well paid, other citizens like senators were extremely wealthy, with a value of more than 800,000 sesterces. People working normal jobs were paid only about 1,000 sesterces (4,000 denarii) a year. The denarius would be the ordinary hourly wage of a soldier and a day laborer. What was the cost of living like? The price of pork was 12 denarii a pound. Sewer cleaners would have to work a day and a half for just one pound of pork. A ½ liter of Falernian wine cost 30 denarii, ½ liter of beer would set one back 4 denarii.

The moral of this story is that the Bible provides no record of a number of rather significant issues that seem to trouble, divide and weaken modern Christianity. The efficacy of infant baptism, the number and significance of sacraments are only two of a multitude of illustrations. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Scriptural evidence of Peter ordaining pope Linus with the Keys to the Kingdom? What monumental significance that would have. Never mind that Luther might not have liked such material at hand, there is nothing Biblical indicating any such transfer of authority ever took place. What a blessing if Scriptures allowed tithes to pay non-Levitical ministerial salaries or maintain buildings and grounds instead of restricting them to supporting the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. If it was recorded anywhere that all the gifts of the Spirit were to reside in a paid priesthood or that the local church was a building. Wouldn't it be nice if there was Scriptural support for restricting "ministeral" and "pastoral" gifts and then elevating them to preeminence within the community of saints over such as wisdom, knowledge, faith, teaching, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues -- love.

To conclude, there are just a couple of things: (1) This is not a book report. (2) There is no book with the title, A Shekel for a Priest . (3)There are no Scrolls of Chinneroth.

Finally, there is as much Scriptural evidence for a "profession" of ministry as there is fact in this fictional account pretending to establish such a foundation.

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Luke 11:52

In this passage from Luke, Christ was addressing those Biblical scholars (experts in and teachers of the law of Moses) who were using false interpretations of the Old Testament to deny the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. They were keeping the people from seeing the Scriptures showed that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states that the Pharisees, “were supposed to enlighten the people by explaining the Law; instead, they had kept them in ignorance.” This same judgment (And it is a judgment, make no mistake about that. In this chapter, there are eight “woes” condemning these religious leaders.) is reflected in Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

These Scribes and Pharisees weren’t acting out of ignorance; it was intentional. Hypocrites they were called, short for bad, wicked and godless. The Bible makes it clear that these respected and revered leaders of the church knew Jesus was the Messiah. They knew He was the One promised from their studies of the law and the prophets. They knew the truth and choose to hide it.

Their motives are lost to history. But, unless human nature has dramatically changed, one could speculate that these church leaders were protecting their positions of authority and honor within the church and community. These hoary gentlemen of the cloth were respected leaders and teachers of the church. They had the venerable ancestry with a history of service in the church, why should they submit themselves to the authority of this unknown and unlearned Jesus? He had no schooling. His father was not a Scribe or Pharisee. Where did he get his authority?

The lessons from Luke are clear. These leaders of the church chose to mislead their congregations. They intentionally lied to preserve their place of honor. They did not present the full Gospel to their flocks. In so doing, they condemned themselves and endangered their charges. Barnes’ Notes writes, “If there is any sin of special magnitude, it is that of keeping the people in ignorance; and few people are so guilty as they who by false instructions prevent them from coming to a knowledge of the truth, and embracing it as it is in Jesus.” Undoubtedly, the condemnation Jesus had for the historical leaders of the church would apply today. Perhaps it might not be too far off the mark to use 1 Corinthians 8:9 as a paraphrase of the warning, But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. †

Return to the top

The Persecution
of the Church

Return to the top

 Matthew 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you,
and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

KJV

 The American "church" seems to have a renewed, if somewhat belated and embarrassed, interest in the subject of the persecuted "church." It is struggling to explain the absence of persecution the Scriptures clearly say will come our way and in the face of that confronting Christians in every other part of the world. This matter, that of martyrdom and the wrath of God is not a subject for polite Sunday morning pulpit prattle. Our pastors lead us to believe these issues are nothing to take much notice of in our Christian lives. We'll take up a collection for the unfortunate victims of persecution, hold a special prayer vigil for the families of those martyred and be moot on the subject of His wrath. In the place of such dreary and grim topics, American preachers proclaim the morality of a materially prosperous life. They provide us with easy steps to guarantee success, furnish formulas for an effective (One that God can't say no to.) prayer life, and coach us on how to claim all the promises of the Bible for ourselves as children of God. No one is stressed. No one is offended. No one is accountable. Life goes on. God is in His heaven and all is right with the world.

Well that message might build buildings and fill the pews. It might makes us all feel comfortable and unchallenged in our faith but will it build God's kingdom? Did Jesus proclaim the easy life for His followers? No, to the contrary. He was persecuted and He repeatedly warned His disciples that it was a certainty for them as well. Read this from Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Does that sound like the life of comfort is for us? This same challenge is found in the Gospels of Mark and Luke as well. And what did Jesus say to the rich young man, who by his own admission was without sin? Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, 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 Of course, we all know about the camel and the eye of the needle. So much for the good life.

Jesus gives us a test of discipleship in the parable of the sower. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. Matthew 13:20-21. He also tells us, Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven Matthew 5:10. The Stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58). The church driven from Jerusalem in Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. Paul, just before his conversion was on his way to Damascus, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, Acts 9:1 Matthew 5:12 and 10:23, the Book of Acts (12:1-3, 16:1, etc.), as well 1 Peter 4:12-13, 2 Timothy 4:16 and the Book of Revelation strongly suggest persecution as a way of life for Christians. Explaining the persecution early Christians suffered, the International Standard Bible states, "To every loyal follower of Christ compromise with other faiths was an impossibility." Uncompromising, a point well remembered. Aren't we to be uncompromising in our standards as well?

The American church is unscathed - even prospering. The opulence of so many churches, particularly those very large "mega-churches" and the lifestyles of their clergy are obvious. Together with affluent life-styles of their congregations, a picture is presented to the world suggesting that our faith pays and pays very well. But, aren't we called apart as a "peculiar people?" That's what it says in 1 Peter 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: What is that meant to imply, peculiar in the level of our materialistic affluence?

It seems that the church as found in Scriptures was well aware that its commitment to God would produce enmity between themselves and the values, goals and ideals of the world around them because they were contrary to the will of God. Has anyone asked why the church in America is not under persecution? It could be argued that was then. Times have changed. The world is more civilized. We could make that argument if it weren't for the persecution of Christians through most of the rest of the world - Europe a notable exception. Have we, like the church at Ephesus, "lost our first love?" (Revelation 2:4) Jesus gave an explanation for persecution in John 15:19, If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Are we now "of the world?" Is it possible that the church in America and the world are indistinguishable from one another? Does the lack of enmity suggest we have lost our commitment to God? "Christian" was originally a slur, a derision, coined by the unbelievers from in Antioch. Has it now lost its savor?

John 15:20

Remember the word that I said unto you,
The servant is not greater than his lord.
If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you;
if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

KJV

 †

Return to the top

Return to the top

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:34-35 KJV

Theologians refer to this as the "age" or "dispensation" of the church. A time, presumably, for the church to be the mechanism for advancing God's plan. Certainly the church is a pervasive force in modern Christianity and it seems entirely justified to speculate on its purpose and its nature. Unfortunately, Biblical scholars rarely tell us how they are using the word. They probably assume everyone is thinking of it in the same way they intend. Yet, people may have quite different meanings in mind. "I'm going to church," suggests a building. "How was church today" implies Sunday services. "Well, the church ought to do more for its members," indicates the hierarchy and corporate staff typical of the institutional church. "What is the church's stand on abortion," alludes to a denomination or all Christianity. All of these are reasonable, frequent and justifiable uses of the same word - church.

The New Testament "church" was those confessing Jesus the Christ as their Lord and Savior, a priesthood of all believers, a community of saints sharing their possessions (Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32). By the end of the first century, the "church fathers" had relegated Christianity to the status of a religion with an established priesthood and an organizational structure copied from the synagogue. That was their church. Today it is many competing institutions interested in preserving their own specific orthodox principles considered the essentials of Christianity. Modern Christians travel miles to "their" church passing "other" churches without even considering worshipping with them. At "their" church, they are consumers of an assortment of programs groups and activities including the Sunday sermon. Is this appropriate for the church? Is this what is needed in the twenty-first century? It may be what we want. It is what we have come to expect, but is it the church to continue the course of God's will?

Writing about the mission of the church, Dr. Gene A. Getz, author, Christian radio host, pastor and Director of the Center for Church Renewal suggests, "The church therefore exists to carry out two functions - evangelism (to make disciples) and edification (to teach them)." But, he is using the word in two different ways. "Generally speaking," he continues, "unsaved people are to be reached by the church, not in the church." He is first meaning the body of believers -- it is our task to "save souls." In the latter, he is speaking about church services or even a building. He continues, "We have made the church a 'soul-winning' station," rather than a 'life-building' station, thus weakening both the functioning body of Christ and our witness in the world." "Soul-winning" he contends will naturally follow "life-building." He's right

What is this "functioning body of Christ?" It is supposed to be those Christians routinely coming together in their usual meeting place on Sunday morning. Unfortunately, it is also where we find the modern, "institutional church," and it is failing. An honest assessment of Christianity could only conclude the institutional church is not functional. It has not met its stewardship responsibilities in furthering the Kingdom because it has ignored what Dr. Getz calls "life-building." Not atypically, two senior citizens were overheard commenting as they left an hour-and-a-half "service," "I just love our new pastor. I think he is just wonderful." "I do too," replied the second, "he's so sincere." After an animated, forceful, lengthy and emotional exhortation from the pastor, a second couple joined others of their congregation to answer their fifth altar call in this the forty-second year of their being Christians. A third, leaving another church, had just spent two hours and twenty minutes listening to music, most of it secular, with a fifteen-minute sermon tacked on the end. A fourth couple was prevented from approaching their pastor, whom they simply worship and adore, by his bodyguards as he entered his limo. Another thought the sermon was boring and after services, a sixth got bumped, shoved and glared at by others rushing out of the church in a race to the parking lot. There they encounter a Friday afternoon style traffic jam complete with short tempers and orchestrated by uniformed "rent-a-cops" directing traffic with blowing whistles and snarled commands. The "sanctuary" so hastily exited was reminiscent of a forgotten ticker-tape parade. Classrooms and grounds more suggestive of a rowdy night on the town rather than two hours of Sunday school and church. All of this is indicative of lack of caring; lack of involvement; lack of belonging; lack of ownership.

These examples are drawn from real situations. They illustrate the lack of attention being paid to life-building within our congregations. They typify a "dysfunctional body of Christ." "Its show time!" might just as well be the call to worship. Whether TV lights go on or not, the pastor/minister is on stage and the cast is assembled by the call to "Places!" The mega-church with its preacher-star is particularly susceptible, but even the smallest congregation is not immune. When it comes to helping the financially poor, we frequently suggest that they need to learn to fish. We are Spiritually poor and yet no one suggests the same remedy. In some congregations, there are attempts to bring the collection of "worshipers" together into a community of saints, but the deadening aura of an audience to be enthralled and entertained hangs over the effort like a pall. We must come to the realization that Christianity is not a spectator sport and that "mass hysteria" does not make many members one body. To paraphrase Shakespeare, as long as the church is a stage, it will be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Jesus did not start a church as we usually think of it. Only one interpretation of His comments to Peter, out of character with everything else He said and did, requires us to consider He intended such for the future. His command in John 13:34-35 does not preclude our love for others, but it was clearly intended as the highest calling for His followers. We are to love our fellow Christians, our brothers and sisters in the faith, as He loves us. From Paul's Epistles, we are given a vivid impression of the "functioning body of Christ." We are to avoid judging, lying to, speaking against, and showing partiality for some members of our congregation over others. We are to love, accept, serve, forgive, comfort, encourage, teach, admonish, and confess our sins to one another. We are to be devoted to, of the same mind, kind to, subject to and hospitable to one another. A communion of saints, that is what the church is to be and its reason for existence. Fellowship founded upon our confession of faith, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Matthew 16:16) and the example of the first communion. Take this and divide it among yourselves:(Luke 22:17) is the first reason the church exists. Jesus said, And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Mark 12:31) - Life-building!

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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; Matthew 5:43-44

Is it true that Christians "shoot their wounded?" It has been said that we virtually disown, ostracize those among us we perceive as having transgressed. Isn't this the type of behavior we would expect from the "secular world?" If this is the case, what's the difference between Christians and non-Christians? Is the above passage of Scripture intended to apply to how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ? Perhaps we take it to mean our actual next door non-religious neighbors and our literal National enemies - currently Osma bin Laden. Do we think Jesus is saying to us to love outsiders, but it is perfectly all right to shun and ostracize those among us whom we've taken to dislike? Particularly within our own families and the Christian community, is it acceptable to avoid and condemn those we disagree with or don't like, whatever the reason?

In the first place, are there Christians capable of casting the first stone? Is that possible? Just an occasional sin now and then - once a year or so we slip? What about the major sins? Certainly Christians are not guilty of those, are they? Unless we have never broken one of the commandments, not even a very, very little inconspicuous sin once or twice a year or so is it spiritually healthy to condemn or ostracize others? Isn't the prerequisite for our judging others - no sin? There are a couple of Biblical references that apply here. In John 8:7 we are told the story of the prostitute about to be stoned, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Without sin! That is what it says, "he that is without sin." The accusers in the Biblical story had the sense to walk away. Paul, in his letter to the congregation in Rome wrote, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:23).

Do we suppose God makes fine distinctions between "first-class" sins and our more common garden-variety "third" or "fourth-class? Sort of the same distinction between a "little white lie" and a "whopping big one?" Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19) Enough of that rumor. Anyway, wouldn't most people consider their transgressions (If they are willing to admit to any.) of the "garden-variety" type and those of others as the "whopping big ones?"

Is it a question of whether we should forgive or how many times we are to forgive? Is there a Biblical principle in what Jesus said to Peter? Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. (Matthew 18:21-22). Please observe Peter was talking about a brother, presumably one of Christ's disciples, rather than a foreign enemy - let us hasten to add the principle applies there as well. Seventy-seven times seven! Isn't it fortunate we have computers.

The Bible asks us, And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:3 The answer seems reasonably clear. In the annals of psychotherapy there is a phenomenon know as "mote-beam projection." It is used to explain such excessive hatred as homophobia, anti-Semitism, racism - actually the full range of outrageous human rage. We accuse others of being, that which, in our deepest anxiety we believe we are. By vilifying their behavior, we distance ourselves from our anxiety. How embarrassing, we are showing others our deepest darkest secrets by those we choose to hate.

Let's do a little historical rewrite. Hitler, just before he died, accepted Jesus the Christ as his Lord and Savior. Is he saved? We might get some vehement opinion to the contrariwise, particularly from survivors of the Holocaust, but he is saved - right? Had those heathens who murdered untold thousands on September 11th, 2001 accepted Him just before they died, would they be saved? Yes? During the Second World War, we rightly prayed for our Nation, our soldiers and the countrymen of the Allied Nations along side whom we fought. As we became aware of the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, we added the countless millions who suffered and died at its hands. Did we pray for Hitler and his henchmen? Should we have? Yes? Should we be praying for Osma Bin Laden and his network of terrorists?

Hate and enemy are such strong words, Holocaust such a horrible and now historical fact. Just like apartheid and slavery, we can discount them as simply remote and not part of our experience. What about rejection and ridicule? So many ridicule and scoff at Benny Hinn that he prayed over the matter because it troubled him so much. He reported that the answer he got was in so many words, "Why should you be any different than I?" Something to think about. When was the last time we snubbed another person? Is that any less a stench in God's nostrils than monstrous, heathen acts? The person sitting in the next pew in church or at the far table in Sunday school, who has offended us, what rules apply? Is it OK to ignore a brother or sister because we don't like them; because they have done or said something, of which we don't approve? What's the consequence for us if because of our actions, a person leaves the fellowship? Is it any less than murder? No? Try Matthew 5:21-22 -- Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother [without a cause] shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

People hurt because they hurt. Jesus knows that and wants us not to suffer any longer from our pent-up self-hatred or embarrass ourselves any further. He is the great physician. Surely there is a safe haven from the hurt - some where. The church is a sacred place, a sanctuary and a holy place. Shouldn't that be our refuge? Once fugitives could find immunity from arrest. It is no more a refuge, no more an asylum from scorn. Deliberate slights and affronts, ignoring others, behaving coldly toward our brothers and sisters in Christ appears to be perfectly acceptable - at times even encouraged. No one seems concerned that this goes on before the very table of our Lord's Supper. Yet, the Biblical principle on forgiveness is clear. If the church can't get this simplest message of human civility across, what has it accomplished in two thousand years of existence? If forgiveness is not in church, Jesus is not in church. If He is not in church, where is the church? When that plain message does get through, what a poultice for humanity it will be. He is the God of love.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: KJV

Return to the top

When Christians think of The Reformation, Martin Luther's name is probably the first that comes to mind. Reformation means to put an end to abuse, to correct or improve something that is wrong, corrupt or unsatisfactory. Over the centuries, many false doctrines and corrupt practices had crept into the Roman Catholic Church. The wisdom and knowledge of men had displaced Christ as the sole revealer of knowledge and truth. Luther began the process designed to bring the Church back in line with the teachings of Jesus as the foundation for Christianity. Luther is recognized as the principal architect of Protestantism. He was excommunicated for his work. As great a reformer as Luther was and as necessary as his revisions were, they pale into insignificance when compared to the reforms in Judaism instituted by Jesus. We usually don't think of Him as a reformer, but in the most fundamental sense He was -- His is THE Reformation.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3) Speaking with authority, Jesus corrected basic errors, elementary misinterpretations and crucial misuses of God's word that had emerged over the centuries. He put an end to Jewish doctrines and customs that were more corrupt, "man-centered," and misdirected than Luther found in the Church. His earthly ministry so dramatically changed the traditions and practices of Judaism that the contemporary authorities within the "church" found it unrecognizable and unacceptable. Consider the differences between the Jewish expectation and the reality of His coming. He completed the incomplete.

In our understandable effort to preserve links with Judaic religious and cultural history, the roots of Christianity, we frequently understate how dramatically Jesus' spiritual leadership changed Jewish doctrines, customs and expectations. They had come to rely upon their own wisdom. They had forgotten to be a blessing (Genesis 22:17-18). He returned Judaism to its true foundation. He was crucified for His work.

The Jews did not expect the Messiah to be God incarnate. They would not accept the elementary fact that He was (and is) greater than all the prophets. Greater than Ezekiel, Daniel and Isaiah. He was greater than Noah, Abraham, Moses Jacob and Joshua. He was greater than all the kings - Saul, David and Solomon. Greater than Melchizedek. Superior to all the Judges of Israel. Greater than all the high priests of the Temple, the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees. He was the pillar of a cloud, the pillar of fire. He was the Ark of the Covenant. He is the Word toward whom all pointed for whom all desired. Subordinate to none, second to none. Remember the response of the church to His claim? Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. (Matthew 26:65)

Jesus corrected their view of the role of the Messiah. They were looking for a political and military ruler, a national hero to save Israel. Their messiah was to be a prince, a philosopher and a conqueror. The messianic king was not to be God. God was to lead him into perfect wisdom and power. Yahweh's Spirit would lead the king and his subjects into righteousness - and fame and fortune. His power would lead the kingdom into victory over all its enemies. This was the everlasting covenant as they saw it, a man in a place governing a triumphant people - a nation above all nations. This was the caveat used by the Pharisees in their attempt to have Jesus executed as a traitor and enemy of Rome.

He corrected the national claims of Israel. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Genesis 17:8) The Jews of Jesus day were looking for the kingdom to be restored to what they remembered as its former glory with Jerusalem as the capitol as in the days of Saul, David and Solomon. Jesus would have none of this. A kingship and a fiefdom were not what He was about - not of this world. Some of His followers tried to make him a king, remember? It was on the occasion of the miracle of the loaves and fishes - feeding the five thousand. Afterward, after twelve baskets of leftovers had been gathered, He sensed what they were about, When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. (John 6:18) He fled. Just the perception of what they had in mind was sufficient for Him to depart. He would again. What had been forgotten was God's response to their demands for a king, But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (1 Samuel 8:6-7) There weren't to be any human kings over the nation of Israel. He alone was to be their sovereign. They were in rebellion.

God's promises of a "great nation" in Genesis 12:2, and a "great and mighty nation" in Genesis 18:18 spoke of their righteousness, not their power; not their wealth. That is how, in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:3) They had forgotten or did not understand this unique nature of the nation of Israel. Their influence was to be moral, not political. It was the nation led by God not by kings. How much more exalted could a nation be? Their version of a kingdom lasted for 120 years. God's version will last eternally.

The last time Jesus fled the allure of king and kingdom is of monumental consequence. First, because it made possible the gift of the Holy Spirit in each of our lives. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7) Second, because it ended forever the speculation that He, the Messiah prophesied of old, would become King over a rich and powerful nation. That speculation lingered right up to the very end. Remember the Apostles question moments before He ascended? When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6) He dramatically refused the invitation. Why? Matthew Henry's Commentary suggests that for Him to be crowned over such a kingdom would be to lacquer gold or paint a ruby. The Commentary makes another timely observation, "Right notions of Christ's kingdom would keep us to right methods for advancing it." Amen.

No greater testament could be given that Jesus the Christ came to reform Judaism than His life and His teachings. He did not say the prophets, priests and the law are the truth and the light, He said He was and that He came to fulfill all. Lest WE forget.

Return to the Top

We naturally seem to focus on the "I will bless you" part of God's covenant with Abraham. Thus we are sympathetic with Israel expecting and setting about to garner as many "blessings" as humanly possible and to complain when they were not forthcoming. We think we know what God meant by a great nation and a great name. The blessings promised are obvious to us. Greatness is simply an abundance of the things we value and covet. A great nation is a powerful nation. A great name is a recognized and influential name. We seldom consider what God meant by "blessings" or "greatness". We are prone to ignore the "to be a blessing" part all together. Centuries later Moses told the Pharaoh to let my people go ------- that they may serve me. (Exodus 7:16, 8:1, 8:20, 8:21, 9:1, 9:13) In the movie, Charlton Heston bellowed, "Let my people go!" He forgot the rest. So do we.

If we regard material things as the measure of success, we must look at Israel as a failure. If we think of blessings as accolades from others, of things, goods and services and wealth, Israel was anything but blessed. If power and influence are the measures of greatness, Israel was irrelevant. The only period of Jewish history that measured up to anything close to such standards was the brief 120 years of the rule of Saul, David and Solomon. Accordingly, the overall history of the Chosen People was an abysmal failure. Israel did not fully occupy the Promised Land. They never became a "world leader." They soon divided into two rival camps and fought a vicious civil war. They were invaded and conquered. Their holy city and Temple were desecrated and utterly destroyed. They were driven into exile. For the rest of their national history, the survivors remained subjects of the mighty Roman Empire. As the ark was lost the Temple was lost the city was lost the nation was lost. So it was when Jesus was born.

That doesn't sound very blessed. Was that their great good fortune? Had they fulfilled their destiny or did God fail? Was God helpless to lead His people into their rightful inheritance? Did He not foresee the outcome? Maybe, somewhere along the way, He changed His mind and decided they weren't worthy of the blessings. Are these things the sort of blessings God had in store for Israel? Is it possible that material wealth, prestige, might and power was not in the cards for them?

What is blessedness? What is greatness? Jesus utterly changed our understanding of such. More correctly, perhaps, He restored their original meanings. Humble service, not recognition, wealth, power or prestige is the goal of our lives. The glory of God! Abraham was 75 and had to leave his wealth and family in Haran before he was blessed. Moses didn't do God's work as a prince of Egypt. He was 80 and it was only after forty years of banishment that he received the Ten Commandments and led the Israelites to the gates of the Promised Land. A defeated Israel, not a nation united and powerful changed the course of history. From Andrew to Zacchaeus, Jesus used the humble rather than the proud to accomplish His purpose. Paul was struck blind before he could be used. None became rich, or powerful. Fame was posthumous. As the inheritors of the Covenant of Abraham, Christians often overlook this absolutely fundamental point.

We aren't even to trouble ourselves about the necessities of this life. If we do His bidding, those things will be provided. Jesus said, Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:31-33)

For that matter, we are not even to concern ourselves about earning our salvation. That is a blessed gift from God. Lest any man have the opportunity to boast that he did it his way as a "self-made" man. Our lives no less than our good fortunes, are not intended as ends in themselves. Like the ancient Israelites, we are, chosen and blessed for a reason. It was not God's purpose to prosper Israel individually or collectively. It was not to make them a mighty and powerful nation. It was not for any reason other than to be a blessing to others. The whole scenario for the Old Testament Jews was focused on that one simple theme - to be a blessing. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 3:6

God did not fail, nor did He slumber or sleep. Israel accomplished its mission. It was and is a blessing to all people through Jesus the Christ. No other people could be more honored. Within its bosom God became flesh and dwelt among us. Its name became great because the Savior of the world came from its midst. It dramatically fulfilled its destiny. It was a blessing to all mankind. It was the "delivery system" for the redemption of the world. Such success. Such greatness. Such blessedness. No other people have so completely altered the course of the world. Is the Covenant for the nation of Israel in the Old Testament any different than for each of us as Christians in the New Testament?

Return to the Top

To every thing there is a season,and a time to every purpose under the heaven
Ecclesiastes 3:1

The Lord is Long Suffering

Return to the Top

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, As some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering toward us, Not willing that any should perish,
But that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

Two thousand years ago, Jesus disciples asked if He were about to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:7) In effect, they were asking if condemnation was about to fall upon the Gentiles. Lest we forget, the world then was divided into two camps, Jew and Gentile. Most of our ancestors were Gentiles. Their impatience is understandable but as one Gentile to another, aren’t we glad they were still waiting? After the day of judgment, don’t you imagine the damned will wish He had waited just a bit longer?

Swift to judge? Quick to condemn to eternal damnation? Evidently, such haste is characteristic of humankind rather than the Divine. Isn’t it much like immigrants in this Country trying to close the door to others as soon as they are in; like those who impose restrictive barriers in a neighborhood or community to keep the poor, the indigent, the undesirable out? The consequences are infinitely more severe, but the pattern of exclusivity behind a rush to judgment is no less. What does our Lord and Savior say on the subject? Judge not, that ye be not judged For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Matthew 7:1-2). Maybe we need to reexamine our haste. Who is responsible that there are poor, indigent, undesirable among us? Does "love thy neighbor apply? Are we our brother’s keeper?

If we have confidence in the certainty of our salvation what is the rush? We have our mansion, don’t we? What value is there in locking others out? Jesus said, Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you (John 14:1-2). There is plenty of room at this Inn. Remember how He chastised Peter when Peter, upon learning of his own violent death, asked if John were going to receive the same? "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." (John 21:22) Maybe our Father’s business is as a travel agent obliged to secure adequate accommodations for all His guests.

Shouldn’t the attitude of Christians be prayerful petitions for His continued mercy on the unsaved? Shouldn’t we, of all people, plead for more time for those unsaved yet to receive the Word? We know and understand the consequence of not knowing, of rejecting Jesus as the Christ. Lest we forget, hell is eternal damnation. In anyone’s book, that is a very long time to suffer unthinkable torture. There is another point. Isn’t it generally agreed that Jesus came to earth to pay the required blood sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. All will not be saved, but who will make that determination?

There is another point that is not moot. We are the shepherds. We are the workers in the field and in the vineyard. Could the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) be applied to our effectiveness as "hearers and doers of the Word?" The Lord is just. He demands recompense, but a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years. Only we, the saved, seem in a rush to the judgment condemning unbelievers to hell.

In the name of the Father and of the Son And of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19

†

Return to the Top

†

Return to the Top

Return to the Top

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud. Proverbs 16:18

True humility, we are told, produces gratitude. What, then, could be more Christ-like than humility as we recognize our total dependency upon Him? Some consider it the essence of Christian living. Jesus told us that the meek were blessed (Matthew 5:5). Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:4). He said of Himself, I am gentle and humble in heart (Matthew 11:29). James, speaking to teachers and preachers, emphasized "meekness of wisdom" (James 3:13). Recall that the Messiah made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass (Matthew 21:5).

None other than Jesus, told us not to choose the best seat at a banquet, but the worst (Luke 14:8, 10). For those of us who are Christian, at the "banquet" of life, where honor and recognition is forthcoming, who should be seated at the "head table? To whom belongs the honor and glory? Paul told the Christians in Colosse that He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have preeminence (Colossians 1:18). In Romans 11:36 he puts it this way, For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen -- and Amen! Doesn’t it seem He deserves the preeminence, the honor and glory? The "church," after all is not the building on the corner anymore than the congregants meeting within, every Christian, the body of Christ, is the church.

It was He who washed the feet of the disciples for no other reason than to teach them the lesson of humble service. This is what He said, You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for I am. If then your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet (John 13:13-14). Isn’t Christ saying we Christians should follow His example of humble service? The timing of this object lesson suggests that even they, who for three years witnessed His ministry, were subject to ambition and self-centeredness.

By setting its self apart and calling attention to its self, does our modern priesthood cease to be humble? Have mega-churches with 10’s of thousands attending and radio/television "ministries" reaching millions every Sunday made some clerics super stars? Is it presumptuous for a priesthood to offer the sacraments on our behalf, act as our intercessor, "sit in Moses’ seat" (Matthew 23:2)? Does donning the robe of office presume to transmit a consecration to the wearer, as it did in the days of Aaron? Is it intended to suggest an uncommon wisdom and holiness above that of other Christians? Is the authority of the priesthood greater than that of the Holy Spirit? Does it presume to succeed Christ? Isn’t He our matchless and perfect High Priest? Is assuming the title of "reverend – worthy to be revered – respect tinged with awe," or the name "pastor," "minister," elevating oneself above others? Paul told us not to glory in men (1 Corinthians 3:21). Who are we to call "father," "rabbi," "teacher," (Matthew 23:8-10)? Who is our "Bishop," "Vicar," "Pope," "High Priest?" Have we strayed from focusing on God to arrogant, self-absorbing, egotism?

But all their works they do to be seen by men.
They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
greetings in the marketplaces
and to be called by men ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ (Matthew 23:5-7)
†

Return to the Top

What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?
And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. Matthew 26:15

We’ve pretty much left Judas’ betrayal of Jesus stand on its own as if there were nothing more to grasp from the despicable act. The oldest of the Gospels is a little more kind to Judas than the account found in Matthew. Of the event, Mark’ Gospel indicates that several, presumably including Judas, were unhappy with the anointing of Jesus, And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her (Mark 14:4-6). Perhaps out of anger, he went to the priests to betray Jesus (v. 10) and they volunteered to pay him (v. 11). We don’t seem to like the idea others of the disciples were displeased as well. We prefer Judas alone in his devilishness; he was unique, serendipitous, not one of several in a crowd.

What about Judas? Some, like Matthew Henry’s Commentary, have equated him to the incarnation of Satan or at best his cohort. The account found in John 6:70, states that from the beginning Judas was condemned to hell right along with the devil, his master, "Judas not only had a devil, but he was a devil. … He is a devil, a devil incarnate, a fallen apostle, as the devil a fallen angel" (the emphasis belongs to the Commentary). Other commentators prefer to rely upon the version found in Matthew as a "more full account." It may not be that, but is more of a condemnation because, here, Judas proposed the payment, "What are you willing to give me if I hand Him over to you?" (Matthew 26:15). Hum. It isn’t clear that Judas was anymore inherently evil than the rest of us – unless one wishes to consider the Gospel of John superior to that of Mark. Nor is it clear, for the same reason of differing accounts, exactly who proposed money for his evil betrayal. These will have to remain mysteries less relevant to the lesson than to that over which there is no disagreement. There is no dispute among the several reports that he did betray Jesus and accepted payment for his actions.

If we propose Judas was a devil we remove his conduct from the human arena and it becomes a struggle of titans. Judas’ behavior would then be so extreme, so outrageous that ordinary humans like ourselves could not possibly be cast in such a deplorable role. Yet, the word "devil" here is diabolos, which can be translated as a false accuser or slanderer as well as Satan. One might say that Satan’s specialty was as a traducer. The distinction is important. As Satan, Judas’ acts are removed from the arena of human conduct. As a slanderer, liar, deceiver, he just acted like the devil and that raises the specter we might be capable of emulating his deceitful betrayal. Was he acting well within the range of his human potential? Surely Judas was a false accuser. He, literally, sold the blood of Jesus.

Judas’ intent in joining up with Jesus may have been for purely selfish reasons. Certainly his actions suggest he was out for himself. We are told in John 12:4 that Judas as the keeper of the purse, stole money from Jesus and the other disciples. If these accusations are credible, they make such theft even more incriminating of Judas character because the money he stole was intended to support Jesus’ ministry. In modern terms, Judas, the Chief Financial Officer of the church, was stealing from the tithes and offerings of its members. If we look at his actions that way, they are far more consequential than a Herculean struggle between the forces of good and evil some have depicted. Regarding his motives as the most base provides a lesson for us otherwise lost – don’t steal from the church.

Judas stole from the church, if in no other way he stole the life of our Master. If he also misappropriated its resources to make his life more comfortable at the expense of the ministry he is even the more disreputable. He prostituted the Word for his personal benefit. Of this, Matthew Henry’s Commentary states, "Where the principle of men’s profession of religion is carnal and worldly, and the serving of a secular interest, the very same principle, whenever the wind turns, will be the bitter root of a vile and scandalous apostasy" To which we say Amen.

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

Return to the Top

Return to the Top

Return to the Top

A PARADIGM SHIFT

American Christianity is facing the very serious problem that it is no longer a significant force in society or even within its own congregations. The church does not even make the list of forces in the lives of men and women, boys and girls. Movies, television, super stars, those forces regarded as "mass culture," are the shaping influences in our lives. The explanation for its loss of influence is that the church has failed to "keep up with the times," it no longer addresses our needs. This, they contend accounts for declining participation and consequently, the shrinking influence it exerts on people’s daily lives. The motivational speaker, Zig Zigler recently asked an audience which they read more often newspapers that no one trusts or the Bible that we all claim to accept as the Truth. Let’s expand the question to include television movies.

Many schemes have been tried to remedy these problems. Most employ some version of business-marketing strategies to fill the pews. Others have tried freeing themselves from what they regard as unnecessary rules and rituals. George Barna’s efforts at marketing the church, Rick Warren’s "purpose driven church," Philip Rieff’s "therapeutic church," Norman Shawchunk’s "pragmatic church," Bill Hybels’ network of 7,200 "action-oriented churches" or Joel Osteen’s discovering the champion in you slogan don’t address the flaw because they attempt to improve or reform the basic model. They are just putting new wine (humanism) into old wineskins (Catholicism). We don’t need to market, reform or improve the vestigial remains of Roman Catholicism," we need to eliminate them. They have a stranglehold on the Body of Christ. Through it all, the prototype has remained intact. That model, the "paradigm," of modern Christianity is as old as Roman Catholicism -- it is. Protestantism no longer regards the Pope as infallible. It no longer collects indulgences – directly. We don’t have a "father confessor," but a "pastor’s" council, his prayers, hospital visits and Bible teaching are better than an ordinary "layman’s." In structure, organization and ceremony, it is virtually a carbon copy. Under its fifteen hundred years of tutelage, the Western church gradually became structures, hierarchies and buildings instead of the Body of Christ. The church has become an organization rather than a dynamic congregation of believers.

Nor do we need to invent a new model. We don’t have to put Humpty Dumpty together without the plans. They are not lost, they exist between the covers of the New Testament. All we must do is follow them. We need to return to what the church was and what it must become again before to fulfill our mission – its mission. The first step is as Herbert Lockyer in All the Doctrines of the Bible tells us, "We must get it out of our minds that in the first century a church consisted of bricks and mortar" (p. 231). It did not. We must not so blaspheme the image of church by reducing the body of believers to a thing. Perhaps a beginning is to stop referring to the "it" and begin referring to us as congregation.

We must recognize the "sacred cows" of Christendom, canons, creeds, confessions and liturgies, are products of the human mind, alienating us from one another and from the Truth. As there is one faith and one baptism, there is one confession, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). We have one doctrinal statement – the Bible. The "church" is suffering from "theological malnutrition – sermons full of "sound" but not much "fury" and signifying nothing – lukewarm one might say. It must stop feeding us a "diet of junk food" in order to be popular. The tactic may win friends, but it won’t influence people for Christ, In 19 Gifts of the Spirit, Leslie B. Flynn writes, "God would have taken us to heaven immediately at conversion had He no purpose for us here. Among other purposes, "we are saved to serve" (p. 11). It isn’t that we have forgotten this most elementary truth, it has never been taught to us. Instead we are taught to ignore the Holy Spirit and our Gifts for ministry. As Flynn points out, instead of our churches being run by an "I’ve got to do it all super-star" minister/pastor we so-called "laymen" should be exercising those gifts in teaching, leading, counseling, healing and evangelizing and so much more. If we are all minister for Christ, the "church assembled" must reflect that unanimity. We shouldn’t erect stadium-sized buildings with cameras and spotlights focused on a stage and one super star’s Sunday performance but structures that facilitate fellowship, praise and worship. Many worship leaders, not just one. All performing pastoral duties, not just some. Recognizing evangelism and missions as a part of everyday activities, not rights, duties and obligations of a few. "Adding to the church" isn’t constructing another auditorium.