Friday, January 8, 2010

What Is Church?

Have you ever truly paid attention in a pentecostal church service? No, I'm not talking about simply listening to the man of GOD teach or preach; I'm asking if you've ever truly observed and absorbed the actions, order, worship, and possibly even the sermon content of what we call church. If you have, have you ever noticed that the vast majority of our church services are centered around people who are already saved?


How do you define church?


Did GOD call us to have church or to be the Church?


Wasn't the foolishness of preaching given for the saving of the lost? If so, when did it morph into saint maintenance? Or—more importantly—when did going to church become more important than building a personal, intimate relationship with GOD?


There may be many reasons for the purpose-shift that seemingly has taken place in the Community, but it is my opinion that for too long we have ignored what Jesus actually said when He handed out the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16:13-20. Let's look specifically at verse 18:


And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 


When this Text is translated into English the word church is always used as the translation of the koine Greek word that Jesus actually spoke, which was ekklesia. Ekklesia can be translated as a church, or group of religious believers, but it translates more accurately into community, a gathering of individuals, committed to a common cause, theme, mission or goal. By the context, both in subject and geography, we can see that Jesus' words usage was not referring to a religious group, but rather a communal body. Jesus spoke these words while He and the twelve were visiting Caesarea Philippi; which was a community establish by the Caesar Philip, and was dedicated to the worship of Caesar as the son of god.

Jesus was not establishing another religious movement, He was establishing a community of believers who were to be dedicated to His Mission and Purpose.

So, getting back to the reason for the purpose shift, I believe that for too long we have focused on being religious rather than being communal. We want to build our churches rather than His Kingdom. We are dedicated to creeds established on conference floors rather than in the mouth of GOD. Because we've shifted away from His Purpose, we have focused on our religion. We have focused on us. Therefore, why wouldn't our church services be centered on us and the maintaining of ourselves?

In Matthew 28:16-20, Jesus gave His Community His Mission: go make disciples, teach and baptize. He never said go build cathedrals, tabernacles or mini-franchises all over the globe. He never instructed us to gather together and go through rituals that have their root in spin-offs of Roman cath holos, that demand that everyone, everywhere adhere to same structure and methodology.

We do ourselves a great disservice when we force the under-shepherd to preach to us (we who claim salvation). I've searched the Text, but I can't find one place where the 1st Century Community was instructed to preach to those who had been Spirit-baptized. Now, I'm not saying it's not there, I just can't find it. What I have found is many instances of deep teaching to the Community. But every instance of preaching I've found is to the unregenerate.

Who do we preach to on a regular basis?

Why are our sermons filled with pentecostal colloquialisms with which many a guest have no connection?

Why is there so much tongue-talking in our gatherings, when Paul specifically taught us not to babble in tongues in public?

Why are the vast majority of our song choices horizontal rather than vertical?

Why do we go to church so that we can connect with GOD, yet throughout the week we have little or no interaction with Him whatsoever?

Why are we so fixated with that old tyme religion? (Yes, I spelled the word that way on purpose). What took place in the 1st Century wasn't a religious happening, it was a GOD-happening. Our obsession with the early 1900s is stealing our focus away from GOD's Mission, to reach the lost. Not to put another butt on the pew (or chair), but to lead another hungry soul to Christ.

Honestly ask and answer these questions:

1. If what we've been given truly is everything we say it is, then why are so many of us leaving?
2. If what we've been given will truly change lives, how come many of those who are Spirit-baptized in our services do not stay for more than a few weeks?

The attrition in the Apostolic Movement is real.

Within the last three months I have heard the statement, "I go to church, then I go home and watch [insert the name of your favorite mega-preacher] so I can get fed," at least a dozen times. Look around. Be honest. Don't blame it on the economy. Place the blame where it belongs: in our own laps. We are the problem.

I know, I know, there are some who are already beginning the rip campaign. But you are the ones who truly need to ask the question. If it's so great, then why?

The truth is, what we've been entrusted with is the greatest gift GOD ever gave humanity. The problem is not with the gift, the problem is with us. We've stopped sharing the gift and have begun spreading a religion based on the gift.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing anyone. No, wait. That's not true. I'm bashing myself. I'm the problem. I've focused more on pentecostalism than on discipleship. I've been more concerned about building a church than growing His Kingdom. This blog post is self-medication that is awaking me to the realization that I have shifted away from the Missio Dei and into denominational religion.

What is church?

Church is not a religious gathering in which ceremonial worship is conducted according to the rites passed down from Azusa or the subsequent, myriad denominations. At least it's not supposed to be. Church is the assembling of ourselves together with people of like precious faith, who have come together to worship GOD in both Spirit and in Truth, to create an atmosphere in which GOD can begin to prick the hearts of the unbelievers, so that when they hear the Word of GOD preached with anointing they repent of their sins and are filled with the Spirit of GOD.

For too many of us, church has become either our social connection or our spiritual all-you-can-eat buffet. We come and shake hands with those in the congregation who we can actually stomach for more than five minutes, then we find our seat (the same seat we've sat in for years, passed down from our forefathers who held that patch of ground when we still sat in pews) and settle in for our me-fest, in which the worship leader can only sing songs that remind us of when were young, and the preacher can only preach sermons that challenge our spiritual intellect (an intellect not from study, but from countless repetition of the Text throughout the years). All the while we're ignoring those to whom Jesus Commissioned us.

Church is not about us, it is about the lost.

Steven Furtick made the statement that if you received the baptism of the Spirit last Sunday then that was the last service that Elevation Church was about you.

No, I don't agree with everything that he preaches or does. But I do agree with this. We may not like it, but he's right. It may make us very uncomfortable, but it is still truth. It's biblical. It's not a truth found in our manuals or fellowship articles, but it is a Truth found within the very Character of the Text. It is a truth that dates all the way back to GOD's covenant with Abram: I will bless you so that you can bless every nation in the world. GOD hasn't entrusted us with this awesome treasure so that we will build walls of protection that block the world's path to Truth. GOD's Mission is for us to take this treasure—in our jars of clay—beyond our walls to the hurt, hungry and lost world that surrounds us.

Yes, I want to be seeker-friendly (and with that I am forever damned by those who will completely miss my point). I want anyone who is seeking GOD to know that I won't get in their way, but rather I will take their hand and lead them into His Presence. No, I don't want to be like the world, nor adhere to the thought process of humanism, but I also don't want to be so heavenly minded that I'm no earthly good. No, I won't be so pentecostal that I'm afraid to get the stench of sin on my lily white robes that I use to conceal the rake, putrid, decaying rot that is my true underbelly.

Jesus took the twelve to the other side. The other side is where the sinners lived. The other side is that uncomfortable place where we're surrounded by prostitutes, drug addicts, spouse abusers, homosexuals, child molesters, murderers…

That is where Jesus ministered.

Are we ready to go?

And—when we get there—are we ready for church?

25 comments:

  1. Anonymous1/08/2010

    Shouldn't our assembling together be for the sake of the Body, and our sending out be for the sake of our neighbor? Most of our lives are spent outside the church, we just don't use that time invested on our neighbors, the poor and the unsaved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1/08/2010

    Our gathering is for each other first and foremost. There is value to the Body for community. It is for our sake. Through this community we are encouraged, instructed, discipled, and brought to maturity.

    I like intentional gatherings: some for the church, some for the unchurched.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kim Moyer Teague1/08/2010

    Thanks! Never really thought about it in that light!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only problem, Anonymous, with your thought is, it has no biblical basis. Can you find Scripture to back what has become the status quo?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aaron O Terrazas1/08/2010

    Love it! Jesus Christ asked us to and make disciples of Him, not us. We too often want to remake people in our vision & into our disciples rather than disciples Jesus. Great article bro.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1/08/2010

    So....is your point that we should do completely away with church services and start having community "studies" and cell group gatherings, or simply take the gospel to streets and leave it at that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous: Not at all. The point of my post is to demonstrate that our church services are about us, rather than about the lost; that we preach sermons to each other, but far too often ignore the lost; we sing horizontal songs that encourage us, but ignore GOD; we adhere to church structures that are not found in the Text, but rather tie back to denominationalism.

    We don't need to do away with church, we just need to shift our focus back to what church should be about: worshiping GOD and seeing the lost Spirit-baptized. It is my express opinion (only that) that there should be no church service that doesn't focus on GOD and the lost; both in worship and in sermon content. i also wholeheartedly believe that there should be weekly teaching to the Body, and that this teaching is for discipleship. Both of these settings (in my opinion) should be accompanied with small groups, home Bible studies, etc.

    Am I to assume from your last comment that you are making a distinction between "community" and "church"? That type of thinking is a misnomer that is the root of the problem that sparked the original blogpost.

    My next question to you is: what is the pattern that we should follow for "the assembling of ourselves together?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous1/08/2010

    Actually, you will need to provide scriptural support for the ecclesiology you are touting.

    If I am understanding you correctly, you are basically making the case that coming together is not for the benefit of the body, but is about the unsaved?

    Seems you are confusing missiology with ecclesiology, both which have purposes for the Church.

    I would use Ephesians 4:11-16 (purpose for the gifts of ministry=maturity of the church) Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians gives us the best view of what happened at NT gatherings, many of which was the body ministering to one another. This is critical, essential and should not be minimized by our need for evangelism. The need for one is not reason for reducing the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1/08/2010

    Christianity is completely relational, communal, etc. It's vital ingredient are brothers and sisters ministering to one another in prophesy, encouragement, exhortation, etc.

    NT scripture is replete with examples and a global picture of the Church having each other as a support. Now, does this mean the church has done it's job in mission particularly well? You may hve a a point. How much of our meeting, or how many of our meetings are for reaching to the lost? How much of our ministry is outside the church? How many are talking about Jesus on the job? How many even know their neighbors name?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous1/08/2010

    Hint: Ordinances like the Eucharist were not for the lost, it was for the Body. Worship is something the Body participates in, not for the lost, but for God. In doing so, the Body is built up together in unity. The Epistles were not written to the lost, but to the Body, that they may be instructed in how this Spirit birth is fleshed out. Discipleship, even, is not for the lost, it's for those who have at least made a small step toward following Christ.

    Every gathering should have an opportunity for the lost, as well as our special events, but the place we reach the lost is where each one of us individually lives: our own circles and bubbles. When our own homes become havens for telling people about Jesus, we know we've accomplished a more excellent missiology.

    I'm not advocating the "status quo," but I'm suggesting the idea that church services are to be directed to the lost is unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The ecclesiology to which I adhere is founded soundly in the Character and Mission of GOD: which is to find and save the lost.

    No, I'm not making the case that every gathering is for the unsaved. In fact, I said just the opposite in my last response to you. I believe that there are times for both. Sadly, far too often there is only "church" for us.

    There is no confusion on my part concerning missiology and ecclesiology, as the nature, constitution and function of the church should always be defined by the Mission of GOD. However, I do understand that there are many who would rather adhere to an organizational structure that has it genesis in 4th Century Roman religion rather than in the Mind of GOD.

    Ephesians 4 doesn't apply here because these gifts were from GOD for the ministry to the Body. There was never instruction from either GOD or Paul for these five to be present in every gathering, and by the context we see that these were given with specific calling, purpose and responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Acts 2:42, as well as 1 Corinthians are perfect examples of Community. If these establish your pattern (a perfect one in my opinion) then allow me to ask, is this how you conduct "church" with your congregation? If so, please describe for me an average Sunday and/or mid-week service.

    In no way does fulfilling the Missio Dei diminish the need for internal ministry. However, GOD never commanded us to go maintain His Bride; He said, go… make disciples. If we're not evangelizing we're not part of His Bride, therefore what's the point of in-reach without effective out-reach. Also, didn't He say for us all to seek out our own salvation?

    Don't get me wrong, I do understand the importance of gathering together; I do my best to spend time with people of like precious faith every day. I also understand the value and importance of gathering together with these same people to worship GOD in Spirit and in Truth. Where I lose you is why in all of GOD's green goodness do we have to continue to come together week after week, year after year to maintain one another? If we are in true relationship with the Lover of our soul there will be fruit. This fruit is the evidence of intimacy.

    No number of conferences (although I love a good conference) makes up for a lack of fulfilling the Commission.

    I wholeheartedly agree with everything in your last paragraph. We are growing steadily more fat spiritually. We—honestly—could go a couple of months without a service being focused toward us and be ok. If not, then we're not growing in personal intimacy on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Our last two comments crossed in the ether.

    Read back through all my responses. You'll find that I always adhere to worship being to GOD, never for the response of saints nor sinners.

    As to the Eucharist, is it your opinion that this should be observed in every gathering? Hint: if it is observed in every gathering it tends to become more commonplace, thus negating it's original purpose, which was for remembrance of Christ. Also, just so you don't assume me ignorant, I am fully aware that Paul gave specific instruction as to the administration of the Eucharist, and that this was specifically intended for the Body.

    Do you agree that preaching should be a part of our services? If you how can you say that our services should have a focus on the lost, when preaching was intended specifically for the lost?

    It seems that you have misunderstood the deeper meaning to my original blogpost. I am not advocating the ignoring of the Body at our gatherings. However, I am saying that we focus on us far too much. You and I can debate until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that truth.

    The unfortunate thing is that is has become status quo to focus inward when we come together, rather than fulfilling the Mission.

    ReplyDelete
  14. By the way, I'm enjoying our discourse. Shoot me an email, myoung@livingclear.net and we can discuss this in more detail. I believe that iron sharpens iron, and that we don't all have to agree on every minute detail. All that being said, I'm a Young, debate is in the blood.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous1/08/2010

    From Anonymous Number 3:

    From my question you should most likely assume nothing, other than the fact that it was a curious question. :) A "church" is basically a building, a "community" can relate to a body of believers; therefore the "community" can gather in a "church." However, I do think the all inclusive "we" is a little too all inclusive. That seems to me to be a somewhat cynical/caustical view of Pentecost in general.

    To generalize in such a way as to say "all Pentecostal church services are focused on us" or "all of our songs are about us" and so on......that may be true of the Prosperity doctrines that have taken the Pentecostal ranks by storm, and the recent fads of acoustic worship that tends to place a majority of its emphasis on US having God's favor, US needing something from God, US being a friend of God, etc....rather on singing songs such as "You deserve the glory, and the honor.....," is not a fair assumption. (Wow, that was a serious run-on sentence, sorry! :)) It would be interesting to do a statistical study on that; i.e. visit Pentecostal churches across the U.S. and research how many services a week, they preach only to the body of Christ, they only sing songs to edify the body, they only come together to socialize, they only come to church to satisfy their conscience...... Then, to go do studies in denominational churches across the U.S. to see how they compare.

    There are some definite subjective ideas being stated here. Maybe some of the emerging ministry of the Pentecostal movement should dig back into the Inspired Word of God, "go to Arabia for three years" like the Apostle Paul stated in Galations 1, get a revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for themselves and lose their debates, forums, and studies of the writings of men who tend "to preach another gospel." Much of the sense of disillusionment that one somewhat feels emanating from this post might be based upon too many churches' attempts to build upon all of the prosperity doctrines of favor and blessings for ourselves. Those doctrines didn't originate amongst us and neither are they based upon the gospel; however, they have definitely nurtured the narcissistic nature of the carnal man.

    The first commission of Jesus Christ was to "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel...." If a church/community/body of believers is praying, fasting, vision minded, relational and has a revelation of their calling, and has leadership accordingly, they'll be a well balanced congregation of outreach, discipleship, instruction and edification.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now the discussion gets fun.

    You said: A "church" is basically a building, a "community" can relate to a body of believers; therefore the "community" can gather in a "church." While these definition may be somewhat correct, they are contextually incorrect. Jesus wasn't referring to a building in Matthew 16, He was referring to a Community of Believers that He was establishing. Maybe some time in Arabia seeking illumination would be good for you as well (just ribbing you a bit).

    If my view of pentecost is caustic and cynical it is because we've departed from the experiential power of Acts 2 and morphed with the denominational comrades that were spawned in the early 1900s. Also, I never said that "all" churches were like this, only that far too many of us are. I'm including myself in this number because I have been just as guilty as anyone else.

    I don't think the prosperity doctrine has anything to do with this. Nor does the preference by some for more acoustic instruments in music have anything whatsoever to do with this. There are many acoustic style songs that are completely vertical in nature, and many of the old hymns that are totally horizontal. Conversely, there are examples in both genres that are quite the opposite. And, make no mistake about it, the Apostolic Movement is engorged with denominationalism, so a study within our own ranks would yield interesting data.

    Just an aside, since you brought up music. I remember, growing up, how the older generation tended to frown on the "black gospel" style worship of my generation, as they preferred a more "southern gospel" style of music. One of the major complaints was that it was too loud. Funny you should mention acoustic worship, as that tends to be much quieter than the choir music of the 80s and 90s. In addition, today's worship music is much more vertical on average than the choir music of 20 years ago. Please be careful in branding a style or genre of music bad or good, because it will definitely shift on you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have not intentionally made any generalizations. Primarily, I'm speaking to and from my heart about my own experiences and observations. This blogpost was cathartic for me.

    I'm also not advocating preaching any other Gospel, only the Commission, which we seemed to have drifted away from over time.

    As I am not of the "emerging" ilk, I'll let you make your comments to them in another forum. But I would remind you that the majority of those outside our ranks who formulated the "emerging" thought are all about poverty rather than prosperity. They tend to look at the large edifices of the Apostolic Movement as pomp and self-appreciating waste.

    As to narcissism, it would seem to me that the "my way or the highway," "us four and no more," and the "do it because I said it and don't question it" ethos has far more responsibility in nurturing narcissism in our ranks.

    Not to contradict you, but Matthew 28:19 is not Jesus' first Commission. Matthew 28:19 is His rabbinic yoke, which is a reiteration of the Mission of GOD that is evidenced throughout the entire Text, and is first stated in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12. Other than that, I agree with your last paragraph.

    I'll also again extend the invitation to discuss this via email. As you know who I am, it would nice to know who you are. That way you won't have to hide behind anonymity, let's discuss this openly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Monte, your comments to Anon#3 are right on. Where did acoustic music come into the discussion? Emergent? And who are "denominational churches?" Does that preclude that UPC/WPF/ALJC/PAW are not denominations? Sounds like a soapbox response to me.

    Other Anon (getting confusing) made some valid points about the necessity of both.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous#11/08/2010

    "However, GOD never commanded us to go maintain His Bride; He said go... make disciples."

    On the contrary, he commanded the early church leaders to "feed the flock of God" (1 Peter 5:2) as well as the many other job descriptions for church leaders in the NT.

    "Where I lose you is why in all of GOD's green goodness do we have to continue to come together week after week, year after year to maintain one another? If we are in true relationship with the Lover of our soul there will be fruit. This fruit is the evidence of intimacy."

    All apart of not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. Also very much part of the Early Church tradition, at least as early as 2nd Century(where they, in fact, did meet on Sundays together). If one feels they are strong enough to not need the Body, then let them stand in the way of his design.

    Re the Eucharist: Maybe not in every gathering, but more than once a year, and more often than most Protestant churches do now. I don't think it would diminish the purpose anymore than lifting our hands and crying "Holy" has diminished in purpose. But I also expect believers to celebrate the Eucharist in their homes with friends.

    Re Preaching. It is most definitely for the lost, for preaching is proclaiming the Gospel. But that doesn't mean preaching does not also edify the believer. And quite literally, the message of the Kingdom of God is not finished and complete at the realization of Jesus being the Son of God. What is missing from our gatherings is adequate teaching (1 Tim 4:13; 1 Timothy 5:17). Craftiness, creativity and oratory have made way for solid Bible teaching far too often. Also, we have interpreted preaching as a style, and not as a form. Preaching can be whispered or shouted - it's a revealing of who Jesus is.

    I also enjoy the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sherri1/08/2010

    These were great points:

    Why are our sermons filled with pentecostal colloquialisms with which many a guest have no connection?

    Why is there so much tongue-talking in our gatherings, when Paul specifically taught us not to babble in tongues in public?

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Holy Trinity of Anonymous have spoken.

    To #1… can I call you #1? (I feel like Capt. Piccard).

    Peter's instruction is part of teaching, something with with I personally feel is very lacking in our congregations. This leads directly into the assembling of ourselves together. Also, I have no problem with meeting on Sunday, or any other day for that matter, but you have to admit that more of our "church service" traditions are more akin to later centuries than not. In addition, anyone who thinks they can exist without the rest of the Body is just a foolish as the person who purports the lunacy that every weekly gathering is for maintenance.

    I would agree with you that more often than once a year good for the Eucharist. But am confused to when we became Protestant. Absent of solid Textual explanation of why we are participating in the process is integral to the process not becoming just another religious rite.

    Adequate teaching is missing at our gatherings because we're too accustomed to preaching the fire down every chance we get. So much more is accomplished—when dealing with the Body—through solid teaching the intricacies of Character and plan of GOD. I will admit that I fell prey to one the pentecostal colloquialisms which rail against; in referencing "preaching", I am referring to what most pentecostal churches hear at "Sunday services," because that's when we throw down (that last statement was gratuitous humor). I do understand that preaching is the declaration of the Word of GOD. But let's go to the Text, did GOD choose the foolishness of preaching to maintain the saint? If so, please provide me with Text.

    ReplyDelete
  22. John Junker1/09/2010

    Monte, hey buddy. Interesting post. I can't say that I disagree with many of the points that you put forward. I appreciate that you include yourself in these various weaknesses that you have identified. We, as humans, are definitely susceptible to fall into monotonous routines that primarily serve the self while citing making our “calling and election sure”. I would hope that the leaders of the various ecclesiastical bodies are teaching and even “preaching” against this.

    So, your identification of some of the issues in our movement is right, your rhetoric and tone is right, and your open ended Socratic discussion is spot on. The question that I have is what are YOU going to do in your community to change it? What are your plans in your own church? Can you give us some ideas and teaching that you have come up with to move your congregation in line with this discussion?

    Honestly, one of the main reasons that I have stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh and the likes is that their focus tends to be on the problems and the issues in which any defeatist can discover without looking too hard. In my opinion, this is why people fell for the idea of “hope and change” rather than the “caustic and cynical” orating of the political right in the last election.

    So, give us some of your ideas that you plan to implement to overcome these things that are currently serving to prevent us from preaching “Christ's gospel”.

    Thanks and God Bless You

    Bro. John Junker

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good point John. I do believe that it's high time to put up or shut up.

    Here's what I'm doing:

    As worship leader at SouthCoast, I am no longer filling the role of a cheerleader, I'm simply leading in worship by worshiping.

    As a teacher both at SouthCoast and LifePoint, I am doing my best to feed the flock in accordance with Peter's teaching. I am also doing my best to disciple new believers.

    As a preacher, I am determined to never again allow the congregation to determine my preaching. I will not preach at issues, rather I will preach Jesus and allow Him to what He wants. Understand—because I know where people's minds are going—I never consciously allowed the congregation to dictate a sermon, but if we're all honest, we do somewhat try to impress the crowd.

    Overall I'm doing my best to get as close to GOD as I can so that when I interact with saints, new believers or the lost that I am shining Jesus rather than my pentecostal religiosity. I'm dropping worthless traditions—such as the whole brother and sister thing—as it doesn't really mean anything. For example, I have a brother. His name is Myles. When we see each other I don't call him "brother," I call him Myles. Not to mention that since me and GOD are on a first name basis, I figure it's well and good to be on a first name basis with everybody else.

    I'm on a journey—and whether or not others admit it—they're on a journey as well; a journey to salvation. I'm also trying to bring as many people with me as I can.

    Most of all I'm learning to live clear (gratuitous plug of my book).

    ReplyDelete
  24. John Junker1/09/2010

    Monte, thanks for the insight. Again, I can't say that I disagree with your response on leading worship, teaching, and/or preaching. I think it was Pastor Bill Davis in Georgia who said that when he determined to remove himself and the other ministers off of the platform and into the congregation during worship that he prayed through and “talked in tongues”. LOL! His point was that when he got his mind on Christ and off of what was happening in the congregation, he got a lot more out of the service.

    Since you have used a touch of humor in your discussion of “worthless traditions”, I feel at liberty to do the same in my response. Since there is “none other name under heaven” in which we call upon for our salvation besides Jesus, He doesn't have a last name – so, yes, we are “on a first name basis”. In one sense, Jesus would/could be called Jesus Barjoseph, but as you know, technically that is not a last name and Joseph is not His true father. I suppose that if we were to ascribe a last name, it would be BarJHVH...but, that is taking it a bit far. Though, Mr. Tetragrammaton has a nice ring to it. Ha, ha!

    Additionally, it appears that the term brother and sister are both used throughout the New Testament to refer to those that share the familial heritage of being born again by the Holy Spirit and into the family of God. Though, it may be deemed as a “worthless tradition” by some, when I stepped into the church in my late twenties, I found it to be a term conveying inclusiveness of identity and one showing equality and respect. I certainly don't believe in it as a required step of salvation, but I don't see it as a stumbling block either.

    Oh yeah, I also saw in an earlier response where you asked the question “did GOD choose the foolishness of preaching to maintain the saint?” Correct me if I am wrong, but what I am inferring that you are suggesting here is that preaching is not supposed to be for those that already believe or are already “saved”. Hmm... interesting... that scripture really doesn't specify exactly if it is a brand new believer or how long the believer actually believed. In other words, “to save them that believe” doesn't automatically equate to “to save those that heard it for the first time and believed after they'd heard it”. Couldn't it also imply or suggest that preaching saves the current believer too?

    This appears to be a sticky point with some that I have heard before, where there is a difficulty in defining the exact attributes and qualities that separate preaching from teaching. I have to wonder if this is important for us to make that determination and distinction. Seemingly, we could slip into a semantical argument that has no end. For if preaching is only to be done to the lost, then the “manifestation of His word” (Titus 1:3) only happens “through preaching” and therefore, only one time in someone's life. Hmm... that is a mind bender and seems a little like a philosophical cerebral twister meant to cause confusion. I am not suggesting that you are attempting to do that, neither am I being argumentative...just talking. Perhaps, it is my own misunderstanding.

    Anyway, this is a great discussion. I will have to sign off for the evening – previous engagements, etc.

    Congrats on your book – it sounds like it is “Clear-ly” doing well. Also a gratuitous plug.

    Sincerely,

    Your Non-Anonymous Brother in the Lord :)

    John

    ReplyDelete
  25. i don't pastor in the traditional sense, but if i ever did, i'd remove the platform all together. too much emphasis is placed there. yeah, i know it's weird, but it's the way i think.

    as to humor, it's always welcome. in fact, in my opinion, a lil sacred cow tipping is always in order.

    in regards to the terms "brother & sister," there are a few examples of this usage, but not enough to determine a necessity. if you do a bit of research you'll find that our current usage is link more strongly to 4th Century Roman religion rather than 1st Century. i don't think it's bad if people want to use those terms, but neither do i think it's bad if people want to drop them.

    in regards to the "foolishness of preaching:" no i'm not inferring that preaching is not for the saints; i believe that it is. that being said, i do believe that far too much of our preaching is centered in and around us—the saints. this—i believe—is a mistake, and accounts for a large percentage of the attrition that is taking place in the Apostolic Movement; an attrition that many are reticent to admit is reality.

    this is only my opinion (i—unlike others—will admit when i'm speaking only from my preference and not from the Text), but i prefer to teach saints and new believers, and to preach to the lost. yes, there is place for both to the converse, but this is my personal preference. the reason is, when we begin to preach our masterpieces of oratory magnificence, far too often the lost soul that is sitting there is clueless of what we're talking about. now, if that sermon is glorifying GOD, exclaiming is wonder, then you'll see a different impact. i'm relatively traveled, so i'm speaking from experience when i say that much of our preaching is for those who have been in the faith a long time. in fact, most everything we do in our gatherings is for this crowd. they don't like the new songs, they don't like the new strategies, they don't like the new chairs, they don't like… you know what? i think they just don't like. perhaps a bit of Spiritual intimacy would do the trick; i know that always brightens my own outlook.

    and yes, i know there are exception, just so no one accuses me of generalizing.

    thanks for the kudos on the book. pick one up when you get a chance, i think you'll enjoy it. in fact, buy several hundred; that's how i feed my kids.

    m

    ReplyDelete