S
o when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting,they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. Acts 14:23
In the New Testament, the process of one becoming an apostle, bishop, elder or deacon is somewhat confusing. It is not at all clear who did the calling, appointing, ordaining or by what authority they did so. In some instances, one’s "calling" seems to depend upon the Holy Spirit and the exercise of one’s gifts. In others, one’s "calling" is determined by the actions of men. Part of the perplexity might lie in the unique position of Jesus Christ as our High Priest. Another factor contributing to this incongruity is the role Holy Spirit, and Spiritual Gifts in the process.
In Matthew, it is Jesus who commissions.
go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (v.19) which, by the way, appears to be the duty of an apostle (NT 649, apostello, to send out on a mission). He promises the Holy Spirit will guide them in their forays into Judea, Samaria and the world (Acts 1:8). And He specifically tells them not to go anywhere and to do nothing until they are clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49). That command is repeated in Acts 1:4.In contrast, and before Pentecost, the 120 or so disciples were casting lots to determine Judas’ replacement (Acts 1:26). Similarly the newly constituted twelve instruct the "multitude of disciples" to select seven men as "deacons" (Acts 6:2-2). Necessary functions within the Body of Christ have become offices in an organizational hierarchy. Instead of being led by the Holy Spirit in missionary endeavors, the Apostles have become self-proclaimed heads of the Church. These accounts of replacing Judas and selecting the seven are noticeably different than the appointment of Barnabas and Saul,
the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them (Acts 13:2). And again, their mission is ordained by Him, So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia (v. 4).The writings of Paul carry the process one step further. He and Barnabas, without any indication that they were prompted or led by the Holy Spirit, appoint "elders" in the congregations of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. In this instance, it doesn’t appear that there was a vote or even a consensus of the congregations involved. In his ministry there are other instances that cloud the question of authority for action. The dispute over John Mark accompanying him and Barnabas (Acts 15:36) is one such. But in his first letter to timothy, Paul leaves little doubt who is making the decisions,
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence (1 Timothy 2:11). If this were not in contradiction with Acts 2:17-18, it might not be so confusing. In the same respect, it is the "I" speaking in his run-in with Peter, But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Galatians 2:11).On the matter of apostle-ship alone, we have three distinctly different methods of appointment. The original eleven claimed official authority by right of their connection with Jesus during His earthly ministry. Paul took the license of Apostle based of a vision to justify his occupying that office. Matthias and Barnabas were elected. Often they speak in the first person. Occasionally there is reference to prayer, rarely is the Holy Spirit invoked in their doings.
Jesus was not called, appointed or ordained by the lot or election of men, nor did He assume such authority. The Spirit of God descended upon Him in the form of above. The source of His authority and the power for all that He did was the Holy Spirit. He was "full of the Spirit: when He was led into the wilderness and He returned in the "power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:1-14). "It was the source," states The International Standard Bible Encyclopaeda, "of His own endowments of power for the endurance of temptation, for teaching, for casting out demons, and healing the sick, for His sufferings and death, for His resurrection and ascension." Where else should we look for our authority to do God’s holy work?
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel (Luke 4:18)
Out of
Church, Into Church
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but
few chosen Matthew 20:16
We have been taught to think of Sunday morning as the limits of our "church" obligations. We see our involvement as remote, almost as observers rather than active participants. We think our involvement in church is limited because of our lack of proper training, education and the overriding fact that we are not ordained. Virtually every denomination makes a clear distinction between the "priesthood" and the "laity." In many Protestant churches, the "laity" may not conduct weddings or administer the Lord’s Supper or baptize or perform other "sacred liturgical" duties. Most denominations consider the "laity" unqualified to "preach sermons." They may go so far as to disqualify them from conducting fellowship and Bible study classes. Of course, the restrictions found in the Roman Catholic Church are much more extensive.
This schism crept into the Roman and Orthodox Churches by interpreting Matthew 16:18 as ordaining Peter to be His "vicar." Although to do so places them in a particularly cumbersome position, Protestants continue to maintain the clerical distinction. Denying Peter as the first pope, has denied them any substantive Biblical support for a division between clergy and laity. When confronted with the glaring lack of any discussion of church organization in Jesus’ teachings, Protestant theologians take the position that He left this critical matter to His subordinates – those who never seemed to fully grasp His ministry and, primarily, the writings of Paul. Most see Paul’s "church" as an organized body of worshippers with any "apostle" at the head rather than just Peter. Unfortunately that would still leave 99.999% of modern clerics out of the running since "the one invariable and necessary qualification of an apostle was that he should have seen the Lord after the Resurrection" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). To burden Paul’s comments with such a divergent view from that of Jesus is indefensible, especially when the same passages are used in discussions of Spiritual Gifts (For example, Mark 3:14, Acts 1:2,26, and Acts 14:23 with 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11.)
The second argument Protestants use for a professional clergy is as a "defense against heresy." Only after an official course of study can one be certified, ordained, as having a true understanding of the Word. However, the vast array of Protestant denominations and cults each presenting "Scriptural" evidence that all others are teaching false doctrines is overpowering evidence that organization has not, will not, can not protect Christianity from heresy. This is more evident if one considers liturgies and a professional priesthood setting itself apart from and above other saints might be heretical in itself. Jesus the way the Truth and the Light, not a seminary or Bible college. The Spirit, not a professor, teaches from The Book not a seminary text.
Where does this leave us? Christ obliterated the existing priesthood of His day – And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom (Matthew 27:51). This ended the reign of the Aaronic and the Levitical priesthood forever. Only the Melchizedek order remains and therein resides only one High Priest, Jesus. None other than Jesus is the head of the church. Were it not for God’s infinite power, the damage done by such an absurd cleavage within the ranks of Christendom would be irreparable. We have become an audience with no other task than to critically evaluate the performance of the actor/pastor, the ambient staged settings and other trappings of what presumes to be "Sunday worship." Contrary to current practices, we are not called to offer up our financial resources to support the life-styles of these actors in place of our own ministry. All Christians are His Holy Priesthood. The implication of the "renting of the veil," without consideration of any other makes it indelibly clear that we all bear the responsibility of "church functions."
Therefore, we must break the mental bondage foisted upon us that, somehow, we are unworthy to fully participate in the process of emotionally spiritually and financially supporting one another. Nothing can be more denigrating than to learn of a brother or sister in the family of God committing suicide because they thought they were unloved. To know that a member of our congregation is languishing in a hospital room without visitation because we have been taught it is the pastor’s job description is criminal. To see the near total lack of Spiritual growth within so many congregations is as disheartening as to know there are those among us wanting for food, clothing and shelter. We are the church within which there are no greater or lesser members. We must begin to assume our God given pastoral responsibilities as faithful servants and stewards of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in service to one another and in so doing let our light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matthew 5:16).
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; Matthew 23:12
Return
to the Directory
Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? In this passage from Luke, the chief priests, scribes and
elders of the church were challenging Jesus’ authority. But, today, don’t
each of us face such challengers? Aren’t we taught by the church that the
limit to our missionary activity is supporting approved "missionaries" and
"missions?" Isn’t our personal involvement in missions just as detached as
church itself? Should we declare ourselves missionaries or evangelists
wouldn’t we be challenged just as much as if we started to preach, baptize
or serve communion? The word "mission" appears at most six times in any of
the multitudes of versions of the Bible – only once in the New Testament and
"missionary" does not appear at all. But, "evangelist" does - twice. Philip
is referred to as an evangelist in Acts21:8, and Timothy is told to
do the work of an evangelist in 2 Timothy 4:5.
Wanting a clear Biblical "office," who should be involved in evangelism? Who
is "authorized" to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is what
missions are all about anyway. Paul wrote about evangelism. In Ephesians 4:11 he stated,
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some pastors and teachers. This appears to be
the Scriptural basis for isolating evangelical/missionary activities as well
as the other "offices" in the church from the rest of the Body of Christ. It
appears to be because there is no other such reference. Was that Paul’s
intent? If Christ uttered these words, was it His intent to establish a
clerical hierarchy within the church? Where is it written other than in this
passage that Jesus so said or so intended? This excerpt for modern
Christianity ("Modern" here could be interpreted as meaning "post
Ascension.") has been as troubling as Jesus’ declaration of how blessed
Peter was, And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church (Matthew 16:18). Roman
Catholicism uses this passage as the foundation (the rock) for the papacy. In contrast to the King James version, the Living Bible
translates Ephesians 4:11 as Some of us have been given
special ability as apostles; to others he has given the gift of being able
to preach well – and the list continues. There is a vast
difference between "special abilities" and "gifts" over "giving
some to be" as we find the passage translated in the New King
James version. Those who choose to use this passage as legitimizing a
ranking of offices in a hierarchical church order must confront the fact
that within a few short years of this utterance the hierarchy had no head
because all of those with any claim whatsoever of being an apostle were
dead. That is unless Leo the First, through some special transubstantiation
became Christ’s vicar after Peter which would still leave Protestant
missionaries out in the cold. In Mark 16:15, Jesus said, Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Was He
just instructing the eleven remaining "apostles" in their
missionary/evangelical duties to the exclusion of everyone else? When
addressing this passage from today’s pulpit, don’t we generalize the charge
to this and every subsequent generation? In Acts 2:17-20, Peter quotes the
prophet Joel as prophesying the Holy Spirit will empower all people. What is
he intending to tell us? In 1 Peter 2:9, he speaks of a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.
How is that to be interpreted in light of Paul’s "offices?" That most quoted
passage on missions, 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, did Jesus intend this only for those in His
immediate presence? God is not the author of confusion. That does not mean
that translations and interpretations are immune from such confusion. Jesus
said, Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know
them (Matthew 7:19-20). That is how we are to know the true from
the false. Preachers are noted for chastising their flocks to do good works
with such warnings. For some 2,000 years, the Christian religion has
interpreted Paul’s comments in Ephesians 4:11 as a defense for a
hierarchical clerical institution. What have been its fruits? In simple
terms, 1/3 of the earth’s people profess Christianity as their religion. On
matters of personal conduct such as fornication, molestation and abuse of
children, rates of murder, rape, fraud, robbery and burglary there is no
difference between Christians and non-Christians for such behavior. Tastes
in music, theatre, television, motion pictures, sports and other
entertainment venues cannot be determined knowing a person professes
Christianity. Nazi Germany would have been counted as a "Christian" nation.
Christians all but eradicated entire cultures of North American native
peoples as they did those of Central and South America. Christian nations
were almost the sole participants in the African Slave Trade. For centuries
South Africa, predominantly Dutch Reformed Protestants, practiced the most
brutal form of apartheid second only to it is the racial segregation found
in the United Stated. Over half the marriages performed in the United States
will end in divorce. Most divorced individuals remarry, something that
Christ specifically forbids (Matthew 5:31). The classical missionary/evangelical model has failed. It
has failed at home. It has failed abroad. It failed in the past. It is
failing today. It will continue to fail. Look around; sample the fare on
television or at the local movie; note the life styles of increasing numbers
of Americans; tune into the pabulum beamed around the world from televised
pulpits and, with a straight face argue that Christian principles are
thriving in our culture. Honestly, don’t Islamic fundamentalists have a
point to argue when they find the life-styles of supposed Christian nations
contemptuous? We are cautioned not to take particular verses out of the
larger context of the Bible, yet there is no other way a formalized
Christian missionary effort can be Scripturally legitimated. The teachings
of Jesus do not support a professional missionary approach to evangelism.
Each of us has as central and important role in "preaching the gospel" as
anyone else. Surely God did not intend for 99.999% of us sit idly by while
the .001% of us did the work of the Kingdom. Whatever differences in gifts
there might be cannot justify relegating that work into the hands of a few.
2,000 years of effort producing a 30% "conversion rate" is eloquent
testimony that this is the wrong model. Aside from the fact that elevating
some, giving deference to others in the Body of Christ has not worked, it is
specifically and emphatically forbidden in the teachings of Jesus. It is
time for each of us to assume our role as missionaries, not in far away
places, but in our own homes. Let us remember His followers were first
called disciples, not apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers.
Isn’t the model He used sufficient for our purposes? What greater title
could one aspire than to be a disciple of Christ? To turn a phrase into a
question, which is more effective a lesson that is taught or one that is
lived? Jesus lived His sermons.
Or who is he that gave thee this authority? Luke 20:2
If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all Mark 9:35
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service Romans 12:1
"Volunteer Opportunities!" That’s how one church announces the opportunity to become part of the church. A denomination advertises "Global Volunteer Positions" as well as "Volunteer Positions In the Americas" in its national publication. Most denominations and many of the larger churches have an Office of or the Director of Volunteer Services. All seem genuinely eager to solicit people to become involved in the activities of their church. Newsletters, bulletins, fliers and other forms of advertising are used to notify members of the opportunities and promote the value of volunteering.
Volunteering is a good thing. It is good for the church because it helps keep operating expenses down. In all probability, much of what volunteers do would not be done if it were not for them. Most of us recognize that it is also good for the volunteers. They may actually derive greater benefits than the church. They become involved, develop a sense of belonging and contributing – a sense of owership.
What an idea, church members who are involved, feel like they belong and that they are actually making a contribution to their church. It could catch on. Has anyone ever seriously considered an all-volunteer church? Now, probably anyone who has ever worked with volunteers will be the first to say it would never work – well, maybe the second. Commitment, or what some might refer to as "sticktoitiveness," translated as – of all things – faithfulness. "What if they don’t show up?" is a frequently asked question suggesting volunteers are not dependable. But, perhaps the biggest obstacle to an all-volunteer church is getting members to do so. There are books written and training seminars given for professionals to learn what incentives work best at motivating volunteers to overcome their lack of commitment and dependability. One enterprising source suggests churches solve the volunteer riddle by,
Churches that successfully retain volunteers continually provide ways to show their appreciation, including holding annual or semi-annual volunteer appreciation events. Some of their other secrets of retaining volunteers include: 1. Communicating goals effectively; 2. Making the volunteer experience meaningful; 3. Matching volunteers to their interest, not just church need; 4. Making volunteering easy (i.e., respect time constraints, offer to pay for lunch, or transportation expense); and, 5. Providing ongoing support, encouragement and feedback. Churches who tap into these secrets will find it easier to attract and retain volunteers. (Lisa Crayton)
Now imagine this. Christians are so isolated from their churches that they have to be bribed to have any more than the most tertiary involvement. But, what if there wasn’t a paid staff? What if members of the church did what had to be done or it didn’t get done? If they pitched in to pay the bills or they wouldn’t get paid would they be more careful of the use of their facilities, more conservative, maybe have a sense of ownership? Most would be skeptical. Some, they say, would pitch in while others, probably most, wouldn’t do anything. Most wouldn’t pay their fair share of the bills nor do their fair share of the work. But are these things, true as they may be, inherent in volunteerism or the result of malodorous forces at work in the professional church?
Does Paul plea to the Roman congregation (Ch. 12, v.1) sound like he intended 99% of them to sit in their pews while he and the other ordained clergy and professional staff ran the "ministry?" Much of the point of the cartoon "Pastor Rusty River’s Ministry" is the intent to portray an ordained clergyman who has forgotten just exactly who’s ministry the church really is. Among other things, the professional church has deprived us of our right to fully participate in our ministry. Not as "volunteer" outsiders but as full-fledged stewards of our property, our time, our talents and our vicarage. Anything less than our heart and soul fully immersed in His service is not "reasonable." We aren’t, or we shouldn’t need to be given "meaningful experiences," "volunteer recognition" events, support, encouragement and feed back as Lisa Crayton suggests. We are the church not an adjunct or a supernumerary part of it. If the property is sufficiently large, perhaps professional managers should be hired. But the owner retains his rights, not the manager. Jesus, not the pastor and staff is the owner. He designates us as the church, as few as two united in prayer and praise, not buildings or organizations. Everywhere, under the New Covenant we are called the "priesthood of believers." No where is there a basis for a professional priesthood as we see today. We are deceived into abdicating our rights to our priestly and reasonable service.
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need Acts 2:45
Is there any passage in the Bible than this verse from Acts that better suggests the community quality of Christianity? Well, yes, it is found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. As found in the Gospel of Matthew it says, Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself (ch. 22, v37). In his letter to the congregation, Paul writes, Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification (Romans 15:2). What is the parable of the Samaritan if not about our responsibility to others – regardless of who they might be? Peter writes about having compassion for one another, for other’s welfare – to "love as brethren" (1 Peter 3:8).
Isn’t it interesting that among the attempts to make Jesus’ teachings fit into the Greek vocabulary, that the word agape means love, "giving" as to the poor and tolerance? Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, writes Paul, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal (1 Corinthians 13:1). We don’t like to use the word charity today, so most modern versions of the Bible use the "love" translation for agape. It also implies brotherly love, kindness. Now, just how important is love, agape, charity to our Christian faith? If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar (1 John 4:20). The passage continues, he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? It would appear to be no exaggeration to suggests charity, "love," is rather pivotal. Upon our love for God AND our love for our neighbors hangs all else (Matthew 22:40).
Adam Smith outlined the basic canons of capitalism in Wealth of Nations published in1776. Although it had been gradually emerging in the nations of Western Europe, it is he who is given credit for codifying its characteristics in a concise and cohesive manner. Now, he stated, people are basically and fundamentally selfish and will work best when it is to their own personal advantage. Thus, if people are free to pursue their own self-interests, the society in the long run will prosper. Rather than controlling self-centeredness, society should actively nourish and promote it for the common good. And "capitalistic societies" have prospered. How "common" has been the "good" is subject to debate.
There is another facet to capitalism not so easily recognized. It starts innocently enough by suggesting that individual ability and effort should be rewarded. Capitalism does so, presumably, by allowing the highly talented and motivated individual to benefit from his superiority by amassing wealth he alone controls. So it is "private enterprise" free from government and societal restrictions. The inequality of wealth we observe is the natural by-product of the unequally distributed talents and the differing levels of motivation found within the human community. Every farmer, well ever dairy farmer knows that the "cream will rise to the top." This, along with, "You can’t keep a good man down," and other such expressions give common expression to a concept inseparable from capitalism, that of Social Darwinism – the inherent superiority of some over others. Thus there are inherently superior and inferior individuals, nations – and races. Just look at where the wealth is and there is superiority; where the poverty is and there is inferiority. "You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear!" Even if true, how does all of this justify most of the world’s children finding their meals in the garbage dumps of the wealthy?
Is the idea of a "Christian capitalist" an oxymoron? At one time, the Christian pulpit rang with criticism of the materialism inherent in a capitalistic society. Love thy neighbor seemed to clash with getting to the "top of the heap" as quickly and as effortlessly as possible. Now the pulpit is silent. No, it is not silent, it has raised greed and materialism to a high moral virtue. According to this new theology, God now wants us to be rich and all we have to be able to do is to dream it, He will take care of the rest. If we aren’t rich, if we aren’t grabbing for the "brass ring," we are not fulfilling His commission for our lives. It may not be good theology, but it certainly plays well among the "jet set." And, after all, who can balance those skyrocketing church budgets better than the billionaire or two sitting in the front row reserved seats on Sunday morning? Would he be offended by the idea that we can’t serve two masters? What about that axiom upon which Christianity once was founded – charity – might not that trouble our patron? Could be the next thing we know he is attending that growing church down the road in that affluent neighborhood with folk more like him.
for where your treasure is there will be your heart also
Matthew 6:21
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God.
Romans 13:1
How many times in the history of the modern world has this passage from Paul’s letter to the saints of Rome been used to make Christians bashful -- an excuse for inaction in the face of injustice? Because of its seeming unqualified nature, it appears to eliminate any possibility of rebellion. The second verse is particularly severe in its implication, Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. With the specter of such dire consequences who, indeed, would muster the courage regardless of the nature of his cause?
Scholars point out that Paul’s counsel was in response to the circumstances Christians were facing under Roman rule. The deification of the Roman Emperor and their rebelliousness reputation put them in peril. Evidently these early Christians were not bashful in proclaiming the pending kingdom of God that would supplant all earthly kingdoms. Matthew Henry’s Commentary tells us that "his [Jesus] followers have been … called factious, seditious, and turbulent, and looked upon as the troublers of the land." Adam Clarke's Commentary adds another dimension suggesting that part of Paul’s motivation in writing the letter was that the Roman government might see a copy of it. "Since Christianity was then growing, and the powers of the world began to take notice of it, it was, not unlikely that this letter might fall into the hands of the Roman magistrates." Were these really the motivation for the letter? Matthew Henry's Commentary offers still another interpretation, "Paul had taught them that they were not under the law, they were made free by Christ. Lest this liberty should be turned into licentiousness, and misconstrued to countenance faction and rebellion, the apostle enjoins obedience to civil government." Romans 13:4 suggests this latter interpretation has merit -- that the laws are just and the lawbreakers are unjust, For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. What if the laws aren’t?
Whatever the reasons for Paul writing as he did, are Christians forbidden from rebelling against unjust and unreasonable authority? There are other verses from Romans that suggest not, For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same (v.3). If rulers are a "terror" and are not doing "good works," must we stand idly by? What about the brutality of feudalism, should the Church have spoken out against it or was that an instance of they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.(v. 2)? Should Christians have remained silent over the vile institution of slavery? Indeed we have not been silent. Over many centuries, Christians actually endorsed the practice. What of the Holocaust were Christian churches justified in remaining silent for so long? In these diverse times in which we seem to have no common standards, are we forbidden to take to the streets on pain of eternal damnation? Should the U.S. Government outlaw Christianity, would we have no recourse other than capitulation? Paul tells the Christians of Rome to, "do that which is good." Would denying Jesus Christ qualify as doing that which was good?
While we might agree with Adam Clarke's Commentary that "all would be confusion and anarchy, and the habitable world would soon be depopulated." As long as government is according to a constitutional consent between it and the governed and as long as those laws and those governments are agreeable with, and do not contradict the Scriptures, this may be true. Under such circumstances, nothing can justify rebellion against that authority. However, when rulers are a terror to good works, and not to evil, we may even conclude there is a moral obligation to respond. When governments cease to be God’s ministers, when they break the "social contract," nothing prohibits a swift Christian reaction. Christ before Pilate said, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John 18:37
†
Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness,
an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
All these things come from within and defile man.
So spoke Jesus. What causes us to overlook the Truth? Jesus was chastising those who were subverting God’s law by deciding for themselves what rules applied to them and even inventing some of their own. One can well imagine they were emphasizing and stringently enforcing those that applied to others. The surprise would be if it were otherwise, or, if over the several thousand years since Jesus spoke those words, people had changed.
Our government reflects the same base values as those of the Pharisees and teachers Jesus derided in Mark, Chapter seven. Anymore, we don’t even cringe when those sent to represent us in government do surveys to determine the most popular course of action. More than anyone could imagine, we are a democracy rather than the republican, representative form of government intended by our founding fathers and dictated by the Constitution of the United States. The majority rules, rather that what is right ruling. Our Founding Fathers recognized what we don’t, a tyranny of the majority. Ethics, morality, justice have gone the way of the courage of one’s conviction, out the window.
Today’s pulpit reflects the same amorality. It is axiomatic that the larger the church budget, which can be translated into the size of the staff, the buildings and grounds, the more sermons are intended not to offend. It is as if we are saying, "What value would there be in preaching to an empty stadium?" Once upon a time when traditional Judeo-Christian morality predominated the United States, that part of Mark 7 in which Jesus says, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery … make a man unclean (v. 21) was hammered at from the pulpit. Today, when chastity is defined as ceasing to cohabit and refrain from sexual intercourse for one or two months prior to taking the wedding vows, we don’t hear a peep about fornication. With the majority of American divorced, we hear nothing about adultery. How many years, centuries, has it been since someone preached against greed, hatred, lying, cheating and arrogance?
Are we so different from those who nullified the Word? They circumvented the Law by making their traditions religious virtues. We make idolizing the likes of Michael Jackson, greed and cheating moral virtues espoused from the pulpit. It is little wonder as the self-proclaimed Christian nation, so much of the world is aghast at our lewdness and greed. Our churches encourage us to "discover the champion" in us, to be "victorious," "be all that we can be," "dream dreams," "prosper" without a hint of God’s will His plan intentions while the door to carnality and rampant materialism is left wide open.
It’s the price we pay. The more expensive our facilities, the more they cost to preserve. The miracle of technology has made it possible for even the largest mega-churches to far surpass the possible audience within their services, but the piper comes calling. It isn’t a matter that mass media, television in particular, has made it possible for churches to broadcast their services to virtually every corner of the world as much as a question of the quality of the message being broadcast. We haven’t yet gotten to credit card "swipe" machines in the pews, but virtually every "ministry" web-site provides an opportunity to charge donations and purchases on line. It isn’t the marketing strategies used nor the ease and convenience with which churches incur and encourage debt, it is the message that is being marketed and sold. The price paid is found in that sanguine message acceptable, soothing, satisfying to all.
There was a time the believing community lamented the "cafeteria style" Christian who carefully selected and rejected the Word to his liking. Today, whether it is in a bombastic blizzard of words, soothing, cultured tones or carefully staged and scripted performances, the message is the same, "God loves us just as we are. He expects nothing from us in return. So, be happy, we are loved, be a successful dreamer of expansive dreams so we can support the church. That’s why so many contemporary Christians have difficulty comprehending the image of God found in the Old Testament. There we find the sharp edge of justice and His relentless stand against evil. He is the same. It is we who have been deluded by pulpit pabulum intended to pay the bills rather than honor God and advance His kingdom.
We are in a new dispensation -- the age of Popular Christianity in which the majority, the lowest common denominator, rules. Luke 21:20-28. Behold the fig tree (v. 29). Amen!
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me:
for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:14
Return
to the Directory
There is nothing new about an expensive sports car racing down the highway, which with the quick glimpse afforded by its speed, one can read that the frame on the license plate says, "I’d rather be in Cannes." Of course the doting golfers license plate is predictable as is the endless array of the "I’d rather be (fill in the blank)" touting the occupant’s preferences.
There is a new variation on that theme these days that on second thought sets one’s jaw. It says, "I’d rather be with my children." Admirable. What a wonderful sentiment. Bravo! The lady driver in her pricey SUV would really rather be with her children than whatever it is that keeps her from them. Then the second thoughts begin with a deluge. Where are they? Are they deceased? Are they in another state or country? Is she divorced and dad has custody? Are the grandparents babysitting? It is usually money that keeps the would-be playboy from his beloved Riviera as it is both time and money keeping the duffer from his beloved links. What’s keeping this adoring mom from her loving children?
Not only second thoughts but second guessing leads one to ponder if maybe this is a "working mom" and that what is keeping her from her longed-for mothering is the SUV she is driving with such aplomb. Her fine attire, the house in the suburbs, the club and social activities along with her "need" for a "meaningful" career might all contribute to the wedge between what she is doing and her expressed desire. The darkest cynicism might even lead one to question the sincerity of what she has chosen to express on her license plate frame. Surely not though, don’t mothers have a natural instinct that would prevent them from such abdication of parental responsibility just as it keeps them from abandoning them in McDonalds or dropping them off at the nearest convenient dumpster?
There is an interesting passage from the book of Micha 7:6, For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house. Isn’t that prophetic – or have you been sleeping? So many Christians today make such a fuss over the father as "head of the house," when in fact we should be focusing upon the home – or the lack thereof. Which is more fundamental that dad is the titular head of an essentially nonexistent family or that he or she is present on a full-time basis to provide the emotional support and the spiritual guidance necessary for children to grow into healthy adults?
If mom and dad are out "earning a living" in their "meaningful careers," to give their children what "they never had," who is raising the children? One option is the much lamented public schools that now extend down into the infant years and provide "after-school activities" to occupy the children ‘til a "parent shows up at 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. to retrieve them. The second option is that the crowd is "raising the children" – a classic case of the blind leading the blind. Then there is always television and the increasingly meaningful Internet that can help the child mature into somebody – or something.
In a recent article put out by Dobson’s Focus on the Family organization, the importance of heroes is stressed, "Heroes are important for a child’s healthy development because they give kids someone to emulate." While we might say "Amen" to that, instead of such individuals as suggested in the article (although these are exemplary – and we might even add Jesus’ name to that list), shouldn’t parents be the child’s primary and most significant heroes. One of the greatest myths (evils) perpetuated against the modern family is "quality time." There is no such thing. Those with whom the child most frequently associates are his role models – even if it is a blind "Pied piper" leading them. The Bible tells us, Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it Proverbs 22:6. Both "training up" a child and being a role model require time for which there is no substitute, for which there can be no compression into some misconceived notion of "quality time." Mom’s lament on the license of her Lincoln Navigator should be considered as shaky as the implication that mom and dad are just working to provide the essentials for their children. Your heart is where you spend your time.
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou are also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. 1 Timothy 6:12
One of the most cruel rebukes thrown at the poor is the title of this article. Those who would not hesitate to contribute toward paying for a Christmas or Thanksgiving basket frequently, with a good heart, come off with this one. While this habitual phrase of derision may be unwittingly used by the most tenderhearted good intentions it, in fact, suggest that poverty is the fault of the poor, that they are lacking in some vital, essential way. But poverty of material possessions in not the concern here, poverty of the Spirit is.
Indeed, around this country, if not the world, Christian congregants seem to be lacking the most fundamental skills and knowledge necessary for us to be good ministers of the faith. So impoverished are we that we aren’t even aware of our calling to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). We think He was speaking only to the Apostles then and that it applies only to our pastor, who was called to ministry, now. Where is the Scriptural basis for such exclusivity – then or now? To claim Jesus was only addressing the Apostles is very troublesome because they were mortal and every last one of them died. Where does that leave the next generation of believers – that is unless we want to go the Petrian papal route taken by the Roman Catholic Church?
Not only are Christian congregations not being taught to become "fishers of men," they are given the opposite message to "leave it to the professionals." Professionals indeed. Where has that gotten us? In the short history of this Nation, one can hardly recognize its Christian foundations. From the halls of our esteemed Congress to the streets of Hollywood and Vine, the filth of lustful and carnal materialism pervades every aspect of our daily lives – Christian as much as Gentile. Medical doctors are the epitome of the "professional." They determine what the lay person may do to treat his maladies. They set the tone for the practice of medicine and even determine who may become practitioners of their fine art. While such restrictions may be healthy, they certainly have produced one of the most powerful unions in the country and, consequently, enriched it membership far beyond the nominal skills required justify. All knowing, so we are to believe, they pontificate over the lowly and ignorant masses with disdain at our ignorance and their superior knowledge
In many respects, the profession of minister or pastor emulates that of medical doctors. The Word, we are told, is far too complex for the average parishioner to grasp. Remember the time when the Bible was only in Latin and then available to the priests of the Roman Catholic Church? Consequently, its comprehension and revelation must be left in the hands of those who are qualified. Only "men of the cloth" are qualified to administer the Holy Sacrament, perform the sacred liturgy or comprehend the blessed doctrines of faith. To preach, to marry, to minister to the sick and dying, to evangelize are professional duties and responsibilities. But that is not Scriptural.
It isn’t schooling or degrees that sets us on the path of ministry, it is the Holy Spirit. It isn’t the creeds and doctrines of man that are our prescription for orthodoxy but the Holy Bible. While respect is due the calling and education of men of the cloth, it is no substitute for our own calling and preparation for ministry. In as much as the Apostles were equipping the saints of their day to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, they were teaching others to be fisher of men. To the degree their actions had the effect of self-aggrandizement, they were guilty of wrongdoing.
The difference, we are told, between the conviction of our sinful nature fostered by the forces of evil and the Holy Spirit is that He always chastens us to bring us nearer, to a more complete understanding of our Lord and our God. It is almost the same between a self-serving "ministry" and one that is equipping the saints for service. As long as the "training" is for "lay" ministry, as long as the distinction is maintained, the "ministry" is self-serving because an artificial distinction is perpetuated. The invitation to take up his cross and follow Christ is equally extended to all Christians.
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men Matthew 4:19
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature Mark 16:15
Why are there so few good preachers, for that matter teachers and evangelists, these days? There are so few that only the magic of television beaming around the world from satellites seemingly prevents us from failing our commission entirely. Where would Christianity be without the likes of Billy Graham, Dr. James Kennedy, Bill Hybels, Joel Osteen, Chuck Smith, Rick Warren, Fred Price and, of course the WoW preacher himself, Dr. Robert Schuller? We jam ourselves into stadium sized auditorium style "churches" to hear such world renowned, world famous preachers. In so doing, we lose virtually every characteristic of the first century "church." We lose the intimate, family quality of communion within our congregations to hear the words of such great orators. The so called "mega churches" are growing while the "one room" country church is dying on the vine. Yet one cannot help but be enthralled, captivated, by the charisma of such "mega preachers." But why are there so few of them? It seems that silencing a few hundred, a few thousand voices at most would silence Christianity itself.
Jesus was speaking to his disciples in Mark 16:15 as He was on other occasions as that found in John 20:21, as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. He blessed them with the Holy Spirit, And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost (v. 22). To what degree were they to be an aristocratic elite, which most theologians have made them out to be, and to what degree were they the archetypal role models for us all? The answer(s) is/are absolutely fundamental to our Christian faith. But, before any speculation as to an answer a digression. While accepting the Bible as true, are we at the same time representing it as a perfect pattern of correct conduct? David for example. Would anyone argue his adultery and murder, because they are Biblical truth, are examples of correct Christian conduct? After all, Luke recounts that God said David was a man after His own heart (Acts 13:22). What about Peter’s extreme judgmentalism with Ananias and Sapphira? Is that the example we are to follow or Christ’s? Languishing in Jerusalem rather than going into Judea, Samaria and the world, Christ’s disciples were finally driven out by fear for their lives rather than by any urge to fulfill their commission. Admirable? What treasures did the disciples lay at Jesus feet and who did He appoint to wait upon tables?
Isn’t the Bible as much an instrument of learning from the mistakes and poor judgment of others as it is a study in correct theology? Because it is recorded that John did this or Peter that or another apostle something else does not automatically make that behavior Christ-like. The action of the remaining eleven in casting lots to determine Judas’ replacement is not an example for us to follow. Note that praying for guidance in this instance was an afterthought. How reluctant were they to accept Paul as an equal. How willing was he to endorse the belief that a worker was worth his hire?
Then, is it possible that some of what is written about the characteristics of the early church, particularly the increasing emphasis upon a separate clergy, might be an illustration for us to learn from rather than a pattern for the true church? Why were the Apostles so busy that it became necessary for them to appoint seven to essentially be waiters and janitors (Acts 6:2-4)? Were the Apostles the only ones with gifts of the Spirit; the only ones capable of praying and preaching? Are we to understand that others numbering perhaps in the thousands were so bereft of the Spirit that they could only step in as "stewards?" Or is it possible that this was one of many examples of unmitigated usurpation of authority – in simple terms "stealing the lime-light?"
Here we are today in the twenty-first century following the elementary model of the church laid out by Peter and Paul rather than Jesus. Indeed there are as few preachers now as then. Why is that? Is it a dearth of gifts producing the famine or are we following the wrong paradigm? 2,100 years after His birth, where exactly is Christianity? All those many centuries ago the saints were commissioned to go into the entire world. We may have beamed our television and satellite programs to every corner of the globe and sent our missionaries to every nation, kindred and tongue, but can we honestly say we have converted the world to Christianity? Why are there so few pastors capable of the simplest of Christian acts – baptism and communion for example? Why are there so few differences between the social and cultural patterns of believers and non-believers?
For everyone is a hypocrite and an evildoer Isaiah 10:9
Are we all hypocrites? A modern Christian response might just be, "Well that was in the Old Testament, it isn’t true of us today and certainly not of me." How often do Christians express the idea they may still sin but only occasionally and those are little ones? What are such statements, ignorance or denial? It is as though we believe there is none more righteous than ourselves.
First, may Christians ignore the Old Testament? Is it not applicable to us today? Is there nothing to be gained or learned from its study? What did Jesus mean when he said, Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17). If it isn’t a misinterpretation, doesn’t it suggest that there is just one Bible not two – one for them and one for us? Then, what about the expressed idea that we are not hypocrites is that true? Who is the only living, breathing person who may make the claim to be free of deceitfulness and all other sin? Isn’t it the same person who said, Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (v. 19). Please notice the two parts of this verse: (1) whoever breaks a commandment, (2) whoever teaches such. Doesn’t that suggest we should proceed with great caution in our proclamations – what we say to others and what we preach? What about the impression so many seem to have, maybe illusion is the better word, that our sinning is only occasional as though such rare instances were temporary moral lapses?
The Prophet Isaiah wrote But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Is that too harsh to be applied today or is it not the absolute Truth? If we remember Jesus words, when is it that we are not hypocrites, liars, cheats, adulterers and worse? Paul wrote, For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Are we by some special dispensation excluded, or is his theology in error? Is the world divided into saints and sinners with the footnote that even saints, on rare occasions might backslide and commit ever so small a sin? Or is it, as this passage from Romans suggests, that no one is capable of living a perfect life free from sin – saints included?
At the moment of being saved, are we automatically inoculated with anti-sin serum preventing any reoccurrence? Of course not. Otherwise, there would be no sanctification process, it would be instantaneous. That doesn’t seem to be the case. Paul, in 1 Thessalonians pleads with the saints to strive for a holy life (vs. 3-8). If it weren’t a concern, Paul would not have wasted his effort in such a plea. We often forget that sinfulness is in thoughts, words and deeds. Therefore, to claim we have not been hypocritical or murderous or adulterous is to claim a purity of thought beyond human capabilities. Indicating that we are freed from the bondage of sin as Paul wrote to Titus (2:13) is not the same as rendering us incapable of sinning, otherwise he would not have exhorted Titus to avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law (3:9).
To the list of misconceptions among modern Christians, things such as the belief we are to live a life free of worry, care, hurt and pain. To the belief that we are to be blessed with a cup overflowing with material comforts lavished upon us by our doting Heavenly Father, we must include the misconception that once saved we rarely if ever sin again. That is, of course, we claim to have never broken one, not even one of God’s commandments. Such a claim is easy to verify. Unless the person so claiming can walk on water in the summertime, it might well be safely concluded they don’t fully understand the extent of our base nature. Nor, it might be added, do they fully appreciate the full extent of Christ’s sacrifice. Unless we can say that Christians are not capable of sinning, we all are hypocrites. Indeed, who, other than Jesus is without sin?
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy4:1-2
Home
Page