I was reading a forum that was discussing the Lakeland revival and the eventual outcome. In all there were 103 pages of comments. I reflected on what has happened and the situation overall and I came to the realisation that the church sets itself up for such disasters.
In its attempt to be ‘relevant’ and ‘attractive’, one of the things that we have done is to take on board the ways of the world, Christianising practices used by secular society.
This has spawned the ‘celebrity’ preacher as society today is paying big bucks to ‘celebrities’ in sport, film, writing, art, politics and business. Companies are paying big bucks to sportsmen and women who they can sign to promote their products.
In my early days as a Christian I went to about one conference a year, a gathering of all Christian Endeavourers in the state. Today, we could go to a conference every week, somewhere.
Most of them are a showcase for one or more ‘celebrity’ speakers, people who have made a name for themselves in a particular field of Christianity. We all sign up to be mesmerised and awed by what they have to say. These conferences are getting more expensive by the day as the ‘celebrity’ speakers are costing the organisers more and more, just like the world.
I read of one ‘celebrity’ speaker who would not accept any booking unless there was a $10,000 up front fee, a luxury suite at a hotel and a fridge full of Perrier water.
This celebrity culture brings about a situation like Lakeland because adulation causes people to lose their sense of proportion. After all, he or she is a successful preacher and provides the miracles and high energy activity and entertainment so it must be all good.
As a result there is nothing to keep the ‘celebrity’ preacher grounded, so we set them up for a fall if there is anything lurking in the background such as really wanting power, recognition and lots of money.
Pride goes before a fall and if there is any sense of ‘look at me because of what I can produce’ or ‘he is God’s man of faith and power so he must be God’s anointed’, are seeds that can cause a person's downfall as a result because God has said that he will not share his glory with another…not ever.
I don’t want to get into the logistics of what happened at Lakeland except to say the people that put Todd Bentley on a pedestal are as much to blame for the outcome as he is, as they allowed him to assume God would share his glory.
True revival does not have personalities that are exalted above their station in life. When I think of the Welsh Revival and the character of Rees Howell, who was so instrumental in the events that happened, he would have run a mile from Lakeland as he would not accept any credit for anything that happened through him. He would put 90% of ministers today to shame with his refusal to claim special privilege and fat pay cheques.
I am pleased that these ‘celebrity’ speakers are slowly being removed from the scene as they cannot be a benefit to the kingdom of God. The scripture says that if Jesus is lifted up he will draw all men to him. Sadly we prefer to lift up the gifted speaker and Jesus hardly gets a look in.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the following words in 1 Corinthians 1:27.
God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong; he chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
I have yet to see a job application for a Christian ministry that sets out the qualifications needed as being foolish, weak, lowly, and despised.
I am so glad that I work for God, not some man made organisation. if that wasn’t the case, I would be on the scrap heap of Christianity as unemployable.
Showing posts with label CHURCH GONE WRONG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHURCH GONE WRONG. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
ONE SIZE FITS ALL
By their actions, in most cases the church believes that one size fits all. You want to start up a new branch of the church in some town so you rent a public building, you meet on Sunday morning, you sing some songs, you listen to someone preach and you have communion once a week, or once a month. During the week you meet in someone’s home for bible study and to sing a few mores songs and maybe do a bit of praying.
I have not been to a church that does anything different. I have no doubt that there are some who do things differently but they must be in the minority. In my particular denomination, you can probably count them on one hand.
When you have grown a bit, mainly with people moving from other churches and you have a bit more to your programme, you then try and find a ‘pastor’ from somewhere else to run the church and pay him for the privilege.
What is wrong with this model from a biblical perspective?
First, in the New Testament it was always the apostle who went out and established the new church, not a pastor. The advantage of this is that you had a person who was committed to building the church, not just maintaining the status quo as most pastors do.
Second, the apostle was in charge for however long it was necessary and when it wasn’t a team of elders chosen from within the fellowship were appointed to be responsible for the oversight of the fellowship. The advantage of this is that there was diversity in ministry and eldership and it prevented one man controlling everyone.
Third, the ministry of the fellowship was the responsibility of everyone in that fellowship, not a chosen few who were paid for the privilege. It was known as the priesthood of all believers. The advantage of this is that the body grew as the scripture says by every joint that supplies. Not by the one joint that is paid for the privilege.
Fourth, they met in homes so everything they did was very personal, friendly, warm, and caring. The advantage of this was the fact that no one was excluded and you were not judged by who you were or what job you did. At the same time it made sure that everyone had something to eat and everyone had the opportunity to bless and edify the other members of the body of Christ.
With such fluidity and involvement in the church of the New Testament, it doesn’t take much to work out that there was always something happening. It doesn’t take much to work out that each home where they met was not a carbon copy of the next. In each home, because there were different needs and gifting, each one had to operate differently to be relevant.
The church today seems unable to comprehend such a concept as most people will argue for formalised religion in public buildings rather than family orientated sharing in homes.
However, the writing is on the wall for those who ignore the obvious as I have been told that up to 1 million Christians a year are leaving the institutionalised church in the USA for a more authentic expression of faith in homes under lay leadership.
In other words, they prefer God’s design in the scriptures than the failed exercise of modern day cultural tradition in formal religion where the general consensus is that the church is irrelevant to society.
You can be another statistic or you can be part of a bible centred expression of the church that will change lives and communities. The choice is yours.
I have not been to a church that does anything different. I have no doubt that there are some who do things differently but they must be in the minority. In my particular denomination, you can probably count them on one hand.
When you have grown a bit, mainly with people moving from other churches and you have a bit more to your programme, you then try and find a ‘pastor’ from somewhere else to run the church and pay him for the privilege.
What is wrong with this model from a biblical perspective?
First, in the New Testament it was always the apostle who went out and established the new church, not a pastor. The advantage of this is that you had a person who was committed to building the church, not just maintaining the status quo as most pastors do.
Second, the apostle was in charge for however long it was necessary and when it wasn’t a team of elders chosen from within the fellowship were appointed to be responsible for the oversight of the fellowship. The advantage of this is that there was diversity in ministry and eldership and it prevented one man controlling everyone.
Third, the ministry of the fellowship was the responsibility of everyone in that fellowship, not a chosen few who were paid for the privilege. It was known as the priesthood of all believers. The advantage of this is that the body grew as the scripture says by every joint that supplies. Not by the one joint that is paid for the privilege.
Fourth, they met in homes so everything they did was very personal, friendly, warm, and caring. The advantage of this was the fact that no one was excluded and you were not judged by who you were or what job you did. At the same time it made sure that everyone had something to eat and everyone had the opportunity to bless and edify the other members of the body of Christ.
With such fluidity and involvement in the church of the New Testament, it doesn’t take much to work out that there was always something happening. It doesn’t take much to work out that each home where they met was not a carbon copy of the next. In each home, because there were different needs and gifting, each one had to operate differently to be relevant.
The church today seems unable to comprehend such a concept as most people will argue for formalised religion in public buildings rather than family orientated sharing in homes.
However, the writing is on the wall for those who ignore the obvious as I have been told that up to 1 million Christians a year are leaving the institutionalised church in the USA for a more authentic expression of faith in homes under lay leadership.
In other words, they prefer God’s design in the scriptures than the failed exercise of modern day cultural tradition in formal religion where the general consensus is that the church is irrelevant to society.
You can be another statistic or you can be part of a bible centred expression of the church that will change lives and communities. The choice is yours.
Monday, September 29, 2008
WHAT IS YOUR WORLDVIEW?
Your worldview determines how you live. The atheist has a world view that God doesn’t exist so it is up to man to make this world utopia by his own efforts.
The Christian worldview acknowledges God as the creator and sustainer of life and that he is part of our everyday existence. That Jesus is the son of God and salvation is only through him.
I find that most Christians don’t have a New Testament worldview. They have one drawing from four different sources.
The first is the Old Testament. I know that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our worldview, but when it comes to how we live we all too often appeal to Old Testament law that negates New Testament grace.
An example is tithing. Several OT texts are referred to as justification for the practice of tithing. “Would you rob God” “bring all the tithes into the storehouse” etc. They then justify spurious interpretations of New Testament text to justify OT verses.
In all this they ignore the fact that the concept of tithing is not mentioned once in the New Testament in regards to the giving by the saints.
Second, is the New Testament of grace. They use the general concepts of salvation by grace and then impose all sorts of law keeping rules.
Third is tradition. Having made a study of the New Testament Church and its leadership, my research has thrown up the idea that if scripture conflicts with tradition, then the scripture is wrong. For example, the qualification for Elders in Timothy is the scripture that says what the qualification is for the appointment of ‘a pastor’ from out of town.
Fourth, much of our worldview is taken from the world. Greed is good, bigger is better, charismatic leadership is best, God’s main business is to make you rich, we have to adopt worldly principles to stay abreast of things and so on.
With such a mish mash of ideas, it is no wonder that too many Christians don’t know what they believe or the fact that they believe whatever is the latest fad.
The fact that we have so many denominations is an indication that we attract those people who want to subscribe to whatever fad we peddle. The overarching worldview that Jesus Christ is lord and is to be followed and obeyed has faded into the background.
We would rather follow the tongues movement, the name it and claim it movement, the third wave movement; the holiness movement; the liturgical movement; the God wants me rich movement; the institutional church movement; the social gospel movement; but never God’s movement. You know, take up your cross and follow me.
A divided church cannot stand. We are as divided as we can be with 35,000 denominations. How do we expect to do what the New Testament Church did and that was to change the world.
The Christian worldview acknowledges God as the creator and sustainer of life and that he is part of our everyday existence. That Jesus is the son of God and salvation is only through him.
I find that most Christians don’t have a New Testament worldview. They have one drawing from four different sources.
The first is the Old Testament. I know that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our worldview, but when it comes to how we live we all too often appeal to Old Testament law that negates New Testament grace.
An example is tithing. Several OT texts are referred to as justification for the practice of tithing. “Would you rob God” “bring all the tithes into the storehouse” etc. They then justify spurious interpretations of New Testament text to justify OT verses.
In all this they ignore the fact that the concept of tithing is not mentioned once in the New Testament in regards to the giving by the saints.
Second, is the New Testament of grace. They use the general concepts of salvation by grace and then impose all sorts of law keeping rules.
Third is tradition. Having made a study of the New Testament Church and its leadership, my research has thrown up the idea that if scripture conflicts with tradition, then the scripture is wrong. For example, the qualification for Elders in Timothy is the scripture that says what the qualification is for the appointment of ‘a pastor’ from out of town.
Fourth, much of our worldview is taken from the world. Greed is good, bigger is better, charismatic leadership is best, God’s main business is to make you rich, we have to adopt worldly principles to stay abreast of things and so on.
With such a mish mash of ideas, it is no wonder that too many Christians don’t know what they believe or the fact that they believe whatever is the latest fad.
The fact that we have so many denominations is an indication that we attract those people who want to subscribe to whatever fad we peddle. The overarching worldview that Jesus Christ is lord and is to be followed and obeyed has faded into the background.
We would rather follow the tongues movement, the name it and claim it movement, the third wave movement; the holiness movement; the liturgical movement; the God wants me rich movement; the institutional church movement; the social gospel movement; but never God’s movement. You know, take up your cross and follow me.
A divided church cannot stand. We are as divided as we can be with 35,000 denominations. How do we expect to do what the New Testament Church did and that was to change the world.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
COMPROMISE
Certain renowned Christian leaders and scholars like A W Tozer concur: "Religion today is not transforming people; rather it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society's own level, and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender."
One does not have to look too far down the street to see this is exactly what has happened, due mainly because once you compromise the word of God, you have to keep compromising to cover up the fact that you are compromising the word of God.
It all starts with institutionalizing leadership which has given the impression that there is a two tier status in the church. Those that are paid to be good and those that are good for nothing, who by and large is an inferior class to the paid professionals.
This gave way to ‘why only men’, why can’t women be in leadership of the congregation? So to go with the unscriptural ordination of the “paid to be good” clergy” was added the “paid to be good” female clergy in the name of equality.
This was followed by the demand to give equality to those who enjoyed a life of sin but which was considered should not be a barrier to man made ordination. I emphasize this as God would not and does not give his approval of such.
Both the Uniting Church in Australia and the Anglican Church in the USA and the UK have made it clear you can live a life of sin and still be a minister ordained by man.
Because of the slow pace of reform or their inability to brow beat the church into accepting their version of the bible, the homosexuals have set up their own churches resplendent with homosexual male and lesbian female priests and a theology you can sin your way into heaven.
Other startling facts are that Christians divorce at the same rate as non-Christians: 20% of pastor’s children in the USA are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol; we are as greedy as the world when it comes to acquiring things; 95% of the churches income is spent on itself.
The self sacrificing Christian and self sacrificing church that shows the true nature of Christ is a thing of the past, whilst in a number of countries that is growing by the day, it can cost you your life if you admit to being a Christian or you refuse to convert to Islam or Hinduism.
Too often, our main preoccupation is our own comfort or how God can make us rich. To be poor because you have given all to Jesus is seen as a state of being to be avoided as people might think you are a failure.
I recently found a job vacancy advertised. The company wanted people to sign on for the duration. It promised hardship, discipline, suffering, very poor pay, not much thanks, constantly being misunderstood, vilified, and a possibility of death. But they did promise benefits that were out of this world.
The vacancy was for disciples of Jesus.
One does not have to look too far down the street to see this is exactly what has happened, due mainly because once you compromise the word of God, you have to keep compromising to cover up the fact that you are compromising the word of God.
It all starts with institutionalizing leadership which has given the impression that there is a two tier status in the church. Those that are paid to be good and those that are good for nothing, who by and large is an inferior class to the paid professionals.
This gave way to ‘why only men’, why can’t women be in leadership of the congregation? So to go with the unscriptural ordination of the “paid to be good” clergy” was added the “paid to be good” female clergy in the name of equality.
This was followed by the demand to give equality to those who enjoyed a life of sin but which was considered should not be a barrier to man made ordination. I emphasize this as God would not and does not give his approval of such.
Both the Uniting Church in Australia and the Anglican Church in the USA and the UK have made it clear you can live a life of sin and still be a minister ordained by man.
Because of the slow pace of reform or their inability to brow beat the church into accepting their version of the bible, the homosexuals have set up their own churches resplendent with homosexual male and lesbian female priests and a theology you can sin your way into heaven.
Other startling facts are that Christians divorce at the same rate as non-Christians: 20% of pastor’s children in the USA are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol; we are as greedy as the world when it comes to acquiring things; 95% of the churches income is spent on itself.
The self sacrificing Christian and self sacrificing church that shows the true nature of Christ is a thing of the past, whilst in a number of countries that is growing by the day, it can cost you your life if you admit to being a Christian or you refuse to convert to Islam or Hinduism.
Too often, our main preoccupation is our own comfort or how God can make us rich. To be poor because you have given all to Jesus is seen as a state of being to be avoided as people might think you are a failure.
I recently found a job vacancy advertised. The company wanted people to sign on for the duration. It promised hardship, discipline, suffering, very poor pay, not much thanks, constantly being misunderstood, vilified, and a possibility of death. But they did promise benefits that were out of this world.
The vacancy was for disciples of Jesus.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
DO YOU HAVE ITCHING EARS?
2Ti 4:3 is an interesting verse. It says “You're going to find that there will be times when people will have no stomach for solid teaching, but will fill up on spiritual junk food--catchy opinions that tickle their fancy”.
This was written by Paul to Timothy who was one his disciples. It was written to deal with an issue in the church at Ephesus where women were teaching and usurping their authority over men.
Using the original Greek, the verse goes something like this. People will not put up with healthy instruction; they will have a longing for teachers that will tickle their hearing.
The word “instruction” is the word “didaskalia” which comes from the word “didaskalos”, the Greek word for teacher in the five Ephesian Ministries.
This is interesting as the church today has a dearth of teachers. It has plenty of people who can hypothesize over the meaning of a verse of scripture, but there are very few who can teach sound doctrine and expound scripture truth.
All we get are sound bites or as the verse says catchy opinions, but no in depth study. What we are fed is milk but very little meat so we end up with “spiritual junk food”.
One has to assume that according to this verse we have no stomach for solid teaching.
How do we know when that happens? Advertise some charismatic preacher who makes you laugh and has learnt what gets him invitations, and you will have a full house. Advertise a gifted teacher who is going to give an exposition of the subject of holiness and you have a house that is less than full.
At the end of the day, the charismatic preacher adds very little to the life of the church. The gifted teacher on the other hand will probably give us something to think about for a long time to come. The first is milk the second is meat.
One of the reasons why most teachers do not get a look in is due to the idea that the “pastor” is the one anointed to lead, teach, evangelise, organize, and inspire etc. etc.
I have been told that a certain person cannot teach because that is the pastor’s job. I have seen people bring a vision from God to the church and who have no say in its implementation because they are not the pastor.
The end result is that we have a shallow, feel good Christianity that denies most of the scripture. Instead of chasing after Jesus, we are chasing after church growth, prosperity, name it and claim it, spiritually correct meetings, buildings, power and position and denominational superiority to name a few.
Paul said he didn’t want to know anything except Christ crucified. We would do well to heed his words. If we don’t all we produce is McChurch with the drive through being the busiest part.
This was written by Paul to Timothy who was one his disciples. It was written to deal with an issue in the church at Ephesus where women were teaching and usurping their authority over men.
Using the original Greek, the verse goes something like this. People will not put up with healthy instruction; they will have a longing for teachers that will tickle their hearing.
The word “instruction” is the word “didaskalia” which comes from the word “didaskalos”, the Greek word for teacher in the five Ephesian Ministries.
This is interesting as the church today has a dearth of teachers. It has plenty of people who can hypothesize over the meaning of a verse of scripture, but there are very few who can teach sound doctrine and expound scripture truth.
All we get are sound bites or as the verse says catchy opinions, but no in depth study. What we are fed is milk but very little meat so we end up with “spiritual junk food”.
One has to assume that according to this verse we have no stomach for solid teaching.
How do we know when that happens? Advertise some charismatic preacher who makes you laugh and has learnt what gets him invitations, and you will have a full house. Advertise a gifted teacher who is going to give an exposition of the subject of holiness and you have a house that is less than full.
At the end of the day, the charismatic preacher adds very little to the life of the church. The gifted teacher on the other hand will probably give us something to think about for a long time to come. The first is milk the second is meat.
One of the reasons why most teachers do not get a look in is due to the idea that the “pastor” is the one anointed to lead, teach, evangelise, organize, and inspire etc. etc.
I have been told that a certain person cannot teach because that is the pastor’s job. I have seen people bring a vision from God to the church and who have no say in its implementation because they are not the pastor.
The end result is that we have a shallow, feel good Christianity that denies most of the scripture. Instead of chasing after Jesus, we are chasing after church growth, prosperity, name it and claim it, spiritually correct meetings, buildings, power and position and denominational superiority to name a few.
Paul said he didn’t want to know anything except Christ crucified. We would do well to heed his words. If we don’t all we produce is McChurch with the drive through being the busiest part.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
UNITY IS NOT AN OPTIONAL EXTRA
What did Jesus pray? That we would be one as he and the father is one.
Are we one as Jesus and the father is one?
Of course the answer is no as we have 35,000 denominations worldwide. This tells us that we are anything but one. This tells us that we are building our own kingdom, not God’s, because God's kingdom is built when we are…one.
Jesus said that he would build his church. He did not say that he would build his churches. Therefore, the fact that there are 35,000 different denominations in the world is as good an indication that the visible church is not the church that Jesus was talking about.
How can it be when he said he would build one church…his church?
Of course I have heard it over and over again that our denomination is his church because we have the right doctrine. I can’t see anywhere where Jesus said anything about right doctrine being the criteria for building his church. When he said he would build his church, doctrine hadn’t been invented.
In fact, the New Testament Church didn’t have doctrine, it had experience. The experience of a risen saviour who had all power given to him by the father who would change the world through the power of the Holy Spirit which had come to dwell in them and anoint them for ministry.
Most denominations seen to nut out what their doctrine is, decide on a form of religion and then settle down into a boring routine to maintain the status quo. The status quo then strangles the life out of the church and makes it nigh impossible to hear from God.
The end result which is plain for all to see is that we divide up into our tribal spiritual enclaves, never to speak to one another unless you are like me and mouth the same doctrine.
What a sad apology we are of what we should be.
People are so wedded to the way they do things that they find it almost impossible to acknowledge that those of us who meet together in another building are brothers and sisters.
They find it almost impossible even for one week to leave their building and meet with the church in the other building.
They find it almost impossible to meet together as an expression of the body of Christ and pray for Satan’s stranglehold on their town to be broken.
They would rather limp along in their ineffectiveness, keeping a few people happy doing the same old thing week after week and demonstrating that Jesus Christ is not lord, tradition is.
Are we one as Jesus and the father is one?
Of course the answer is no as we have 35,000 denominations worldwide. This tells us that we are anything but one. This tells us that we are building our own kingdom, not God’s, because God's kingdom is built when we are…one.
Jesus said that he would build his church. He did not say that he would build his churches. Therefore, the fact that there are 35,000 different denominations in the world is as good an indication that the visible church is not the church that Jesus was talking about.
How can it be when he said he would build one church…his church?
Of course I have heard it over and over again that our denomination is his church because we have the right doctrine. I can’t see anywhere where Jesus said anything about right doctrine being the criteria for building his church. When he said he would build his church, doctrine hadn’t been invented.
In fact, the New Testament Church didn’t have doctrine, it had experience. The experience of a risen saviour who had all power given to him by the father who would change the world through the power of the Holy Spirit which had come to dwell in them and anoint them for ministry.
Most denominations seen to nut out what their doctrine is, decide on a form of religion and then settle down into a boring routine to maintain the status quo. The status quo then strangles the life out of the church and makes it nigh impossible to hear from God.
The end result which is plain for all to see is that we divide up into our tribal spiritual enclaves, never to speak to one another unless you are like me and mouth the same doctrine.
What a sad apology we are of what we should be.
People are so wedded to the way they do things that they find it almost impossible to acknowledge that those of us who meet together in another building are brothers and sisters.
They find it almost impossible even for one week to leave their building and meet with the church in the other building.
They find it almost impossible to meet together as an expression of the body of Christ and pray for Satan’s stranglehold on their town to be broken.
They would rather limp along in their ineffectiveness, keeping a few people happy doing the same old thing week after week and demonstrating that Jesus Christ is not lord, tradition is.
Monday, August 25, 2008
CELEBRITY CHRISTIANITY
I am not the author of this piece. Although we haven't gone down this road in Australia (I think) we do have our mini celebrity christians, so let this be a warning to us. There should be only one celebrity in our churches and that is Jesus. If there are others they should be counselled about their lack of humility.
Some bigheaded preachers demand rock star treatment. If the apostle Paul were around today he might throw rocks at them. Just when I thought we had finally taken enough abuse from the egomaniac ministers in our midst, I've learned that some of our leaders are taking things to a new extreme. We've moved beyond the red carpets, limousines, and entourages of the 1990s. A new strain of the celebrity virus is spreading in large segments of the church.
"What is this sickness spreading in the body of Christ? All I know is that God is grieved by all of this shameful carnality."
One friend of mine in Texas recently inquired to see if a prominent preacher could speak at her conference. The minister's assistant faxed back a list of requirements that had to be met in order to book a speaking engagement. The demands included:
* A five-figure honorarium
* A $10,000 gasoline deposit for the private plane
* A manicurist and hairstylist for the speaker
* A suite in a five-star hotel
* a luxury car from the airport to the hotel
* Room-temperature Perrier
This really makes me wonder how the apostle Paul, Timothy, or Priscilla managed ministering to so many people in Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica. How did they survive without a manicurist if they broke a nail while laying hands on the sick?
It gets worse, if you can believe it. At a conference in an East Coast (USA) city recently, a pastor stood on a stage in front of a large crowd and smugly announced that the guest speaker was "more than an apostle." Then the host asked everyone to bow down to the person, claiming that this posture was necessary to release God's power.
"This is the only way you can receive this kind of anointing!" the host declared, bowing in front of the speaker. Immediately, about 80 percent of the audience fell prostrate on the floor. The few who were uncomfortable with the weird spiritual control in the room either walked out or stood in silent protest. So today, I guess it's not enough to feed a celebrity preacher's ego by treating them like a rock star. We also are required to worship him.
And apparently in some places you even have to pay big bucks to speak with him. In a city in the South, a well-known preacher is known to ask for money in order to secure a five- or 10-minute counseling session. The minister uses Proverbs 18:16, "A man's gift makes room for him, and brings him before great men" (NASB), to support this bizarre practice. Some people are known to give more than $1,000 for a short meeting.
People on fixed incomes need not apply. (That would include lepers, blind beggars, Samaritan women, or any other social outcasts who were welcomed and healed by Jesus without payment.)
Source: J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine
Some bigheaded preachers demand rock star treatment. If the apostle Paul were around today he might throw rocks at them. Just when I thought we had finally taken enough abuse from the egomaniac ministers in our midst, I've learned that some of our leaders are taking things to a new extreme. We've moved beyond the red carpets, limousines, and entourages of the 1990s. A new strain of the celebrity virus is spreading in large segments of the church.
"What is this sickness spreading in the body of Christ? All I know is that God is grieved by all of this shameful carnality."
One friend of mine in Texas recently inquired to see if a prominent preacher could speak at her conference. The minister's assistant faxed back a list of requirements that had to be met in order to book a speaking engagement. The demands included:
* A five-figure honorarium
* A $10,000 gasoline deposit for the private plane
* A manicurist and hairstylist for the speaker
* A suite in a five-star hotel
* a luxury car from the airport to the hotel
* Room-temperature Perrier
This really makes me wonder how the apostle Paul, Timothy, or Priscilla managed ministering to so many people in Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica. How did they survive without a manicurist if they broke a nail while laying hands on the sick?
It gets worse, if you can believe it. At a conference in an East Coast (USA) city recently, a pastor stood on a stage in front of a large crowd and smugly announced that the guest speaker was "more than an apostle." Then the host asked everyone to bow down to the person, claiming that this posture was necessary to release God's power.
"This is the only way you can receive this kind of anointing!" the host declared, bowing in front of the speaker. Immediately, about 80 percent of the audience fell prostrate on the floor. The few who were uncomfortable with the weird spiritual control in the room either walked out or stood in silent protest. So today, I guess it's not enough to feed a celebrity preacher's ego by treating them like a rock star. We also are required to worship him.
And apparently in some places you even have to pay big bucks to speak with him. In a city in the South, a well-known preacher is known to ask for money in order to secure a five- or 10-minute counseling session. The minister uses Proverbs 18:16, "A man's gift makes room for him, and brings him before great men" (NASB), to support this bizarre practice. Some people are known to give more than $1,000 for a short meeting.
People on fixed incomes need not apply. (That would include lepers, blind beggars, Samaritan women, or any other social outcasts who were welcomed and healed by Jesus without payment.)
Source: J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine
Saturday, August 16, 2008
SPIRIT ANNOINTED LEADERSHIP
If you have read my previous post about the Holy Spirit choosing leaders, you might be wondering what spirit anointed leadership looks like. Judging by the leadership that some churches have, people do not know the answer to this one. If they did, they would do something about the fact that they do not have spirit anointed leadership.
The fact that leadership in the church today doesn’t look anything like the New Testament Church leadership is mainly due to the fact that it is denominational leadership, not the scriptures that determines what happens.
If you don’t believe me, look at these examples.
Does your leadership have a special car parking place right next to the door of the building?
If your congregation have a meal together, does your leadership sit at the top table and expect to be waited on?
Does your leadership insist that any ministry that is done has to be first approved by them?
Is new leadership appointed from outside of the congregation by the denominational hierarchy?
Does your leadership insist on or give the impression that they are the only ones who hear from God?
Does your leadership do the entire ‘glamour’ ministry and leave the leftovers to everyone else?
Does your leadership expect to be paid for what they do whilst everyone else has to do things voluntary?
Does your leadership give the impression that they know more than you do because they have been to Bible College?
Does your leadership insist that the Sunday morning meeting is planned down to the last minute?
Does your leadership insist that nothing must change on Sunday mornings?
Does your leadership try and set themselves apart by wearing funny dresses (I mean men)?
Does your leadership avoid spending time developing other people’s ministry?
If the answer to all or some of these, it is highly likely that your leadership has no anointing from God for what they are doing. All these scenarios suggest that the person concerned is more interested about himself and his ministry than other people and their ministry.
A true anointed leadership will always make sure everyone else has his needs met before they think about their own needs. They will set examples by not having special car parking; by not sitting at the top table; by ensuring that everyone has a meal before they get their own; they will make sure that everyone has the opportunity to be involved in the ministry that they feel gifted for, not just those approved by the leadership; they will try to blend in, not set themselves apart with funny dresses; they will acknowledge that God can use anyone to minister, not just those who have been to bible college; etc. etc. etc.
This is commonly known as servanthood the sort that Jesus said was the pathway to leadership. In other words, the way down is the way up. If you want God’s approval, you get it by serving, not by lauding it over others.
The reason we have leadership that lauds it over people is because they run businesses which means protecting their power base. They are not facilitating living organisms and the reason for this is the fact that you cannot control living organisms and for most leaders, that is anathema. Unless they are controlling, they feel very insecure.
The fact that leadership in the church today doesn’t look anything like the New Testament Church leadership is mainly due to the fact that it is denominational leadership, not the scriptures that determines what happens.
If you don’t believe me, look at these examples.
Does your leadership have a special car parking place right next to the door of the building?
If your congregation have a meal together, does your leadership sit at the top table and expect to be waited on?
Does your leadership insist that any ministry that is done has to be first approved by them?
Is new leadership appointed from outside of the congregation by the denominational hierarchy?
Does your leadership insist on or give the impression that they are the only ones who hear from God?
Does your leadership do the entire ‘glamour’ ministry and leave the leftovers to everyone else?
Does your leadership expect to be paid for what they do whilst everyone else has to do things voluntary?
Does your leadership give the impression that they know more than you do because they have been to Bible College?
Does your leadership insist that the Sunday morning meeting is planned down to the last minute?
Does your leadership insist that nothing must change on Sunday mornings?
Does your leadership try and set themselves apart by wearing funny dresses (I mean men)?
Does your leadership avoid spending time developing other people’s ministry?
If the answer to all or some of these, it is highly likely that your leadership has no anointing from God for what they are doing. All these scenarios suggest that the person concerned is more interested about himself and his ministry than other people and their ministry.
A true anointed leadership will always make sure everyone else has his needs met before they think about their own needs. They will set examples by not having special car parking; by not sitting at the top table; by ensuring that everyone has a meal before they get their own; they will make sure that everyone has the opportunity to be involved in the ministry that they feel gifted for, not just those approved by the leadership; they will try to blend in, not set themselves apart with funny dresses; they will acknowledge that God can use anyone to minister, not just those who have been to bible college; etc. etc. etc.
This is commonly known as servanthood the sort that Jesus said was the pathway to leadership. In other words, the way down is the way up. If you want God’s approval, you get it by serving, not by lauding it over others.
The reason we have leadership that lauds it over people is because they run businesses which means protecting their power base. They are not facilitating living organisms and the reason for this is the fact that you cannot control living organisms and for most leaders, that is anathema. Unless they are controlling, they feel very insecure.
Friday, August 1, 2008
CLICHE CHURCH
Cliché; an expression or an idea that has become trite.
The modern day western church runs on clichés. Here are some examples.
JEUSS IS LORD. You wouldn’t know this when you look at how good it is at ignoring the scripture. Amongst other things the western church is ordaining practicing homosexuals and lesbians to ministry; getting male ministers to dress up in fancy dresses; having religion that is based on ritual instead of relationship; ignoring the priesthood of all believers; doing all they can to keep the Holy Spirit out of the church; baptising infants; importing ministers from outside the church to run the show to name a few things that make it quite clear that Jesus is not lord.
JESUS LOVES YOU AND WE DO TOO. This is of course if you come into our church and fit in with our programmes and do all you can to be like us. If you don’t or are not you won’t be welcome or given any ministry, especially if you don’t dress like us.
THE SUPREMACY OF SCRIPTURE. Which means that the bible determines everything we do. If that is the case, why do we ignore most of it? OK, we may have the salvation bit down pat, and some the baptism thing, but beyond that we seem to ignore everything else. We don’t want the Holy Spirit to interfere with our programmes; we don’t want our traditions to be subservient to the scriptures like ‘ordained paid pastors’ which don’t exist in the New Testament Church; we conveniently ignore the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit because that would mean we would lose control of everything; we prefer the religious snack ritual than a full blown ‘agape’ communal meal which was the cornerstone of the New Testament Church and so on and so on.
WE BELIEVE IN THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS. Do we? Maybe, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the professional paid priest’s right to tell us what we can and can’t do.
A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS. How personal I might ask? OK, so we are united with God at the point of salvation, and we are told that we should pray every day, but beyond this it seems to me that is about as personal as it gets. When it comes to everything else like hearing from God or being led by the spirit, whoa! That is the job of the minister to tell you what you can and can’t do and you certainly can’t do anything that is not approved by denominational headquarters. Not if you want to be promoted up the ranks and get the prestigious jobs in the organisation.
PRAYER IS VITAL FOR ANY CHURCH. If that is the case, why do so few want to be involved in corporate prayer and why is it that most ministers don’t place any importance on prayer in the life of their church evidenced by the fact that there are fewer gatherings for prayer than any other type of meeting?
WE ARE FAITH BASED CHURCH. Really! If that is the case why does your minister get a regular weekly salary? If he was teaching and modelling faith, surely the best way to do that is to trust God for his income, then people would see that he practices what he preaches, not just ‘do as I say, not what I do’.
WE ARE A WORSHIPING CHURCH. Can I ask when the last time you prostrated yourself before the Lord in prayer was? Oh, didn’t you know that this is what worship means in the original. It has nothing to do with singing songs. That is more to do with entertainment. A true worshipper is aware that he is a nobody and that without God he can do nothing so he surrenders himself to God, showing his dependence in always praying. What you might call praying without ceasing.
If you are cliché ridden church, don’t be surprised if what you do is very trite…irrelevant and ineffectual.
The modern day western church runs on clichés. Here are some examples.
JEUSS IS LORD. You wouldn’t know this when you look at how good it is at ignoring the scripture. Amongst other things the western church is ordaining practicing homosexuals and lesbians to ministry; getting male ministers to dress up in fancy dresses; having religion that is based on ritual instead of relationship; ignoring the priesthood of all believers; doing all they can to keep the Holy Spirit out of the church; baptising infants; importing ministers from outside the church to run the show to name a few things that make it quite clear that Jesus is not lord.
JESUS LOVES YOU AND WE DO TOO. This is of course if you come into our church and fit in with our programmes and do all you can to be like us. If you don’t or are not you won’t be welcome or given any ministry, especially if you don’t dress like us.
THE SUPREMACY OF SCRIPTURE. Which means that the bible determines everything we do. If that is the case, why do we ignore most of it? OK, we may have the salvation bit down pat, and some the baptism thing, but beyond that we seem to ignore everything else. We don’t want the Holy Spirit to interfere with our programmes; we don’t want our traditions to be subservient to the scriptures like ‘ordained paid pastors’ which don’t exist in the New Testament Church; we conveniently ignore the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit because that would mean we would lose control of everything; we prefer the religious snack ritual than a full blown ‘agape’ communal meal which was the cornerstone of the New Testament Church and so on and so on.
WE BELIEVE IN THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS. Do we? Maybe, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the professional paid priest’s right to tell us what we can and can’t do.
A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS. How personal I might ask? OK, so we are united with God at the point of salvation, and we are told that we should pray every day, but beyond this it seems to me that is about as personal as it gets. When it comes to everything else like hearing from God or being led by the spirit, whoa! That is the job of the minister to tell you what you can and can’t do and you certainly can’t do anything that is not approved by denominational headquarters. Not if you want to be promoted up the ranks and get the prestigious jobs in the organisation.
PRAYER IS VITAL FOR ANY CHURCH. If that is the case, why do so few want to be involved in corporate prayer and why is it that most ministers don’t place any importance on prayer in the life of their church evidenced by the fact that there are fewer gatherings for prayer than any other type of meeting?
WE ARE FAITH BASED CHURCH. Really! If that is the case why does your minister get a regular weekly salary? If he was teaching and modelling faith, surely the best way to do that is to trust God for his income, then people would see that he practices what he preaches, not just ‘do as I say, not what I do’.
WE ARE A WORSHIPING CHURCH. Can I ask when the last time you prostrated yourself before the Lord in prayer was? Oh, didn’t you know that this is what worship means in the original. It has nothing to do with singing songs. That is more to do with entertainment. A true worshipper is aware that he is a nobody and that without God he can do nothing so he surrenders himself to God, showing his dependence in always praying. What you might call praying without ceasing.
If you are cliché ridden church, don’t be surprised if what you do is very trite…irrelevant and ineffectual.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
R U BEING LED?
Leadership is all about leading. What a strange comment you say as it is logical for leaders to lead, that is why they are leaders.
You would think so but the reality is that too many leaders do not lead, especially in the church. Let me explain.
In most cases a church invites someone from across the plain to come and lead the church. This in itself has no basis in scripture as the New Testament Church leadership was always made up of men who lived and worked in the town where the church was. How else could they fulfil the criteria that they were to be well thought of in the community?
The only outside leadership in the New Testament Church were the Apostles and Prophets who built the church from the ground up and then handed it over to the local leadership.
Once the so called ‘leader’ is installed, the church then expects him to do most of the ministry that is important and the rest of the congregation does what is left over.
That again is contrary to scripture as the New Testament teaches unequivocally that ministry is carried out on the basis of the priesthood of ALL believers, not just an elite few.
As a result, most of the church programmes reflect what the ‘leader’ is all about. In other words they are there to support his ministry. When that happens, in most cases, stagnation sets in and the congregation becomes mere spectators to one man’s efforts and performance.
This one man tells everyone what they can and cannot do and very often, this one man is the only one who can hear from God about the life of the church evidenced by the fact that no one can take any initiative unless the ‘leader’ approves.
This one man has great difficulty in believing and accepting that God might want to talk to his children direct, not through the mediation of the ‘leader’.
The real leader does not make everything revolve around ‘his ministry’. The real leader will take every opportunity to launch as many people as possible into their ministry. In fact, a good leader will see their ministry as only one of many, not a ministry in which all others have to culminate.
A good leader does not seek to control. A leader who is not a leader does. Because of their insecurity, they have to control everything in case they may be shown up to be less spiritual than everyone imagines.
A good leader celebrates the successes of others and will endeavour to develop other people’s ministry even to the detriment of their own.
A good leader will be a visionary who inspires others to greatness. A good leader will not be threatened by the greatness of others or when others get the glory or the spotlight.
A good leader will have time to hear the ideas and plans of others to make the organisation or church better than what it is. A bad leader will dismiss the thinking of others if it doesn’t fit into their plans or give prominence to their ministry.
A major problem in the church is that most are led by pastors, not leaders, visionary leaders. Pastors are interested in what is happening. Visionary leaders are interested in what can and should be happening. Pastors are more interested in the status quo. Visionary leaders inspire towards what is yet to happen.
When a pastor leader prevents a visionary leader from functioning and fails to treat him as an equal who is anointed by God for a specific role, the end result is guaranteed. The congregation will stagnate as it will move into maintenance mode and stifle all visionary thinking. Instead of being fishers of men they will become keepers of the aquarium and develop a ‘don’t rock the boat’ mentality.
When that happens the Holy Spirit will go on vacation and not come back until he is allowed to do what he wants to do.
You would think so but the reality is that too many leaders do not lead, especially in the church. Let me explain.
In most cases a church invites someone from across the plain to come and lead the church. This in itself has no basis in scripture as the New Testament Church leadership was always made up of men who lived and worked in the town where the church was. How else could they fulfil the criteria that they were to be well thought of in the community?
The only outside leadership in the New Testament Church were the Apostles and Prophets who built the church from the ground up and then handed it over to the local leadership.
Once the so called ‘leader’ is installed, the church then expects him to do most of the ministry that is important and the rest of the congregation does what is left over.
That again is contrary to scripture as the New Testament teaches unequivocally that ministry is carried out on the basis of the priesthood of ALL believers, not just an elite few.
As a result, most of the church programmes reflect what the ‘leader’ is all about. In other words they are there to support his ministry. When that happens, in most cases, stagnation sets in and the congregation becomes mere spectators to one man’s efforts and performance.
This one man tells everyone what they can and cannot do and very often, this one man is the only one who can hear from God about the life of the church evidenced by the fact that no one can take any initiative unless the ‘leader’ approves.
This one man has great difficulty in believing and accepting that God might want to talk to his children direct, not through the mediation of the ‘leader’.
The real leader does not make everything revolve around ‘his ministry’. The real leader will take every opportunity to launch as many people as possible into their ministry. In fact, a good leader will see their ministry as only one of many, not a ministry in which all others have to culminate.
A good leader does not seek to control. A leader who is not a leader does. Because of their insecurity, they have to control everything in case they may be shown up to be less spiritual than everyone imagines.
A good leader celebrates the successes of others and will endeavour to develop other people’s ministry even to the detriment of their own.
A good leader will be a visionary who inspires others to greatness. A good leader will not be threatened by the greatness of others or when others get the glory or the spotlight.
A good leader will have time to hear the ideas and plans of others to make the organisation or church better than what it is. A bad leader will dismiss the thinking of others if it doesn’t fit into their plans or give prominence to their ministry.
A major problem in the church is that most are led by pastors, not leaders, visionary leaders. Pastors are interested in what is happening. Visionary leaders are interested in what can and should be happening. Pastors are more interested in the status quo. Visionary leaders inspire towards what is yet to happen.
When a pastor leader prevents a visionary leader from functioning and fails to treat him as an equal who is anointed by God for a specific role, the end result is guaranteed. The congregation will stagnate as it will move into maintenance mode and stifle all visionary thinking. Instead of being fishers of men they will become keepers of the aquarium and develop a ‘don’t rock the boat’ mentality.
When that happens the Holy Spirit will go on vacation and not come back until he is allowed to do what he wants to do.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
10,000 MEN
Have you heard the nursery rhyme “The Grand Old Duke of York”? It goes like this.
The grand old Duke of York, he had 10,000 men
He marched them to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.
And when they were up they were up and when they were down they were down
And when they were only half way up they were neither up nor down.
What you might call an exercise in futility.
Have you heard about the churches 10,000 men and exercise in futility? Apparently there are 10,000 ‘pastors’ in Australia who are no longer serving in the church. It seems that they couldn’t cope with the pressures of the job.
Can I suggest why they couldn’t cope with the pressures of the job? I believe there are two main reasons.
One, the job of being paid to pastor a church does not exist in the New Testament Church. New Testament leadership was by a plurality of Elders, all of whom were unpaid. They were recognised as Elders because they grew up in the congregation where they served and had proved themselves to be men of integrity and service.
Taking on a role of a ‘paid pastor’ and being imported from outside the congregation is a recipe for disaster because it is contrary to the word of God. One cannot expect God to bless what he has not commissioned. I have debated this issue with people and they have come up with one or two verses to support their tradition and ignored about 20 others that say the opposite.
I would like to suggest that there are probably another 10,000 pastors who have not left the ministry but are struggling to fulfil the demands of the job.
Secondly, the one man paid pastor is contrary to scripture from the aspect that Jesus gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to prepare God’s people for works of service so that they may be built up to become mature and attain to the whole measure of Christ. It’s all there in Ephesians 4:11-13. Service in the Greek means attendance as a servant, not in charge of as a paid pastor.
Have you noticed how immature some Christians are?
How on earth any church expects one man to do the work of five is beyond me. No wonder they are burning out. How arrogant of us to believe that we can ignore the truth and insist on tradition over the word of God. Most churches using the one man model are in ’maintenance mode’ and are not growing.
How stupid of us to believe that we know better than the God of the word. While we persist we are going to deny Jesus the opportunity to build a spirit filled living organism. All we have produced is dead organisation that has a form of religion but denies the power of it. After all, when you ignore his teaching, what do you expect?
The grand old Duke of York, he had 10,000 men
He marched them to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.
And when they were up they were up and when they were down they were down
And when they were only half way up they were neither up nor down.
What you might call an exercise in futility.
Have you heard about the churches 10,000 men and exercise in futility? Apparently there are 10,000 ‘pastors’ in Australia who are no longer serving in the church. It seems that they couldn’t cope with the pressures of the job.
Can I suggest why they couldn’t cope with the pressures of the job? I believe there are two main reasons.
One, the job of being paid to pastor a church does not exist in the New Testament Church. New Testament leadership was by a plurality of Elders, all of whom were unpaid. They were recognised as Elders because they grew up in the congregation where they served and had proved themselves to be men of integrity and service.
Taking on a role of a ‘paid pastor’ and being imported from outside the congregation is a recipe for disaster because it is contrary to the word of God. One cannot expect God to bless what he has not commissioned. I have debated this issue with people and they have come up with one or two verses to support their tradition and ignored about 20 others that say the opposite.
I would like to suggest that there are probably another 10,000 pastors who have not left the ministry but are struggling to fulfil the demands of the job.
Secondly, the one man paid pastor is contrary to scripture from the aspect that Jesus gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to prepare God’s people for works of service so that they may be built up to become mature and attain to the whole measure of Christ. It’s all there in Ephesians 4:11-13. Service in the Greek means attendance as a servant, not in charge of as a paid pastor.
Have you noticed how immature some Christians are?
How on earth any church expects one man to do the work of five is beyond me. No wonder they are burning out. How arrogant of us to believe that we can ignore the truth and insist on tradition over the word of God. Most churches using the one man model are in ’maintenance mode’ and are not growing.
How stupid of us to believe that we know better than the God of the word. While we persist we are going to deny Jesus the opportunity to build a spirit filled living organism. All we have produced is dead organisation that has a form of religion but denies the power of it. After all, when you ignore his teaching, what do you expect?
Friday, June 6, 2008
MONEY
Unlike the New Testament Church, it has been calculated that today over 95% of Christian money is devoted to the maintenance of existing Christian institutions rather than looking towards outreach. So long as this maintenance mentality grips us, rather than mission, we shall shrink and deservedly so.
What do we spend money on that the New Testament Church didn’t spend money on?
First, they didn’t spend money on buildings as most of the time they met in the homes of the believers. Although the church was city wide i.e. the church at Corinth; the church at Ephesus, and they must have numbered in thousands, they did not fall into the trap of spending millions on buildings to accommodate mega churches.
Second, no one got paid to minister. There was no such thing as the clergy/laity divide as the ministry was in the hands of everyone as Paul makes very clear in his letter to the Corinthian church when he says “to each one the manifestation of the spirit is given for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7).
Meetings of the church in the New Testament were all about the manifestation of the spirit, not well planned and well organised programmes concocted by man. No one came to a meeting with a planned sermon or half a dozen songs they were going to sing.
When they were not doing that, they were meeting in homes to share their lives and substance together.
These two measures alone would have saved them millions of dollars, or shekels as the case may be. Consequently, there was plenty of money to go around for spreading the gospel and taking care of the poor which is where the money went.
When Paul and his companions travelled to a new place to teach the gospel and establish a church, he was not able to support himself, so the sending church provided finance for living. Once he got there he always started his own business of making tents to pay his own way.
The seven deacons selected in Acts 6 main ministry was to look after the poor and needy, the money for which was provided by the church (Acts 4).
Had the New Testament Church put up buildings and or paid ministry, neither of which happened until the third century, the great advance of the gospel would probably have not happened and their impact would have been lessened as there would have been little money for the poor and needy which was one of their hallmarks.
Today, we spend our money on unscriptural and unnecessary leadership and buildings that are white elephants as most of the time they stand empty. Instead of following the New Testament pattern and meet in homes, we choose to institutionalise what happens and as a result we lose our spontaneity and every member focus.
Because of this fact, we are no longer a living organism as we have been replaced with a dead organisation, one that drains most of the money that should be spent on more essential activity to build the Kingdom of God.
What do we spend money on that the New Testament Church didn’t spend money on?
First, they didn’t spend money on buildings as most of the time they met in the homes of the believers. Although the church was city wide i.e. the church at Corinth; the church at Ephesus, and they must have numbered in thousands, they did not fall into the trap of spending millions on buildings to accommodate mega churches.
Second, no one got paid to minister. There was no such thing as the clergy/laity divide as the ministry was in the hands of everyone as Paul makes very clear in his letter to the Corinthian church when he says “to each one the manifestation of the spirit is given for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7).
Meetings of the church in the New Testament were all about the manifestation of the spirit, not well planned and well organised programmes concocted by man. No one came to a meeting with a planned sermon or half a dozen songs they were going to sing.
When they were not doing that, they were meeting in homes to share their lives and substance together.
These two measures alone would have saved them millions of dollars, or shekels as the case may be. Consequently, there was plenty of money to go around for spreading the gospel and taking care of the poor which is where the money went.
When Paul and his companions travelled to a new place to teach the gospel and establish a church, he was not able to support himself, so the sending church provided finance for living. Once he got there he always started his own business of making tents to pay his own way.
The seven deacons selected in Acts 6 main ministry was to look after the poor and needy, the money for which was provided by the church (Acts 4).
Had the New Testament Church put up buildings and or paid ministry, neither of which happened until the third century, the great advance of the gospel would probably have not happened and their impact would have been lessened as there would have been little money for the poor and needy which was one of their hallmarks.
Today, we spend our money on unscriptural and unnecessary leadership and buildings that are white elephants as most of the time they stand empty. Instead of following the New Testament pattern and meet in homes, we choose to institutionalise what happens and as a result we lose our spontaneity and every member focus.
Because of this fact, we are no longer a living organism as we have been replaced with a dead organisation, one that drains most of the money that should be spent on more essential activity to build the Kingdom of God.
Monday, May 26, 2008
FEMALE BISHOP!!
So the Anglican Church has just appointed its first female bishop. Whoopee doo!! Another nail in its coffin. Just shows you that if you complain long and loud, you get your own way, regardless of what the scripture teaches.
I wonder why churches led by women are losing membership quicker than those led by men. I guess stark evidence like that is irrelevant if you are determined to get your own way. After all, there is nothing in scripture that says women cannot be bishops!!!
Of course, there is nothing in scripture that says they can be bishops, but I guess that is not important. I find that when cultural demands become the benchmark for decision making, what the scripture says has very little consideration.
I noticed that her ordination was quite a ridiculous spectacle. All those men dressed up as women. Can you imagine Paul putting on special robes and garments and silly hats to ordain Elders, the biblical directive for government of the church.
Talk about a spiritual elite trying to appear important and superior to everyone else. Perhaps people aspire to high office in the Anglican Church so that they can play dress ups. They do say that truth is stranger than fiction.
One other thing I noticed in her interview on the ABC’s Compass, she did not appear to be a Christian. Not once did she mention about being born again. Not once did she mention the name of Jesus. Like so many people who aspire to high office in religious organisations, all you have to do is be nice and do nice things and don’t say anything too controversial.
Don’t be surprised if the next significant event will be the ordination of practicing homosexuals. When you give in to one unbiblical practice, it is very hard to resist other unbiblical demands. Already there are those in the church who support the demands of the homosexual lobby. It pays to have friends in high places if you haven’t got God on your side.
All the more reason to ditch organised religion and get in on God’s revelation of the church. The one where titles, robes, positions, power, performance, hierarchy and keeping the plebs dumb doesn’t exist.
I wonder why churches led by women are losing membership quicker than those led by men. I guess stark evidence like that is irrelevant if you are determined to get your own way. After all, there is nothing in scripture that says women cannot be bishops!!!
Of course, there is nothing in scripture that says they can be bishops, but I guess that is not important. I find that when cultural demands become the benchmark for decision making, what the scripture says has very little consideration.
I noticed that her ordination was quite a ridiculous spectacle. All those men dressed up as women. Can you imagine Paul putting on special robes and garments and silly hats to ordain Elders, the biblical directive for government of the church.
Talk about a spiritual elite trying to appear important and superior to everyone else. Perhaps people aspire to high office in the Anglican Church so that they can play dress ups. They do say that truth is stranger than fiction.
One other thing I noticed in her interview on the ABC’s Compass, she did not appear to be a Christian. Not once did she mention about being born again. Not once did she mention the name of Jesus. Like so many people who aspire to high office in religious organisations, all you have to do is be nice and do nice things and don’t say anything too controversial.
Don’t be surprised if the next significant event will be the ordination of practicing homosexuals. When you give in to one unbiblical practice, it is very hard to resist other unbiblical demands. Already there are those in the church who support the demands of the homosexual lobby. It pays to have friends in high places if you haven’t got God on your side.
All the more reason to ditch organised religion and get in on God’s revelation of the church. The one where titles, robes, positions, power, performance, hierarchy and keeping the plebs dumb doesn’t exist.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
MIDDLE CLASS CHURCH
Do you know what is wrong with middle class churches? The fact that they are middle class. They are the antithesis of what the New Testament church was like.
Under Roman rule, society was very divided along class lines.
At the top was the senatorial or upper class, followed by the middle or business class, under them were the working class and below that were the dregs of society. The usual pattern was that each class rarely mixed with each other. For example, you would not have someone from the upper class inviting a working class person to have a meal with them. You certainly would not get an invitation from them if you were working class. Despite there being no welfare system, the upper class would not give material aid to the lower class.
The New Testament church turned this class structure on its head. Your class, social standing or financial position made no difference to your membership of the “The Way”. You were invited and included in anything and everything that the disciples of Jesus were involved in.
If it was a meal to which everyone contributed, you were not excluded because you could not make a contribution. Those that could brought food not only for themselves but for the less well off so that everyone ate at the meal.
In the New Testament church, you would find a senator sat next to slave with no distinction between the two. As the scriptures say, they were all one in Christ.
When it came to the gifts of the Spirit, he gave as he saw fit whether you were a slave or a senator, an apostle or a nobody, because they were all one in Christ.
That is what is wrong with a middle class church. It excludes those that are not middle class. A church can only be a true expression of the body of Christ when it includes all and any who are born again, regardless of their social or financial standing.
How do we know that they exclude those that are not middle class? The fact that there are no members who are not middle class. I have attended churches with a view to joining but they made it obvious that they did not want me there as no one talked to me.
The New Testament churches acceptance of everyone regardless of their standing in society was evidence of their love for one another. Our segregation into different levels of social structure is evidence of our lack of love for one another. What we are saying is that unless you are like me you are not accepted.
I am so glad that Jesus did not base salvation on our being middle class. The fact that he didn’t means we have to ask ourselves “where does that leave us if we insist on being a middle class church?”
Under Roman rule, society was very divided along class lines.
At the top was the senatorial or upper class, followed by the middle or business class, under them were the working class and below that were the dregs of society. The usual pattern was that each class rarely mixed with each other. For example, you would not have someone from the upper class inviting a working class person to have a meal with them. You certainly would not get an invitation from them if you were working class. Despite there being no welfare system, the upper class would not give material aid to the lower class.
The New Testament church turned this class structure on its head. Your class, social standing or financial position made no difference to your membership of the “The Way”. You were invited and included in anything and everything that the disciples of Jesus were involved in.
If it was a meal to which everyone contributed, you were not excluded because you could not make a contribution. Those that could brought food not only for themselves but for the less well off so that everyone ate at the meal.
In the New Testament church, you would find a senator sat next to slave with no distinction between the two. As the scriptures say, they were all one in Christ.
When it came to the gifts of the Spirit, he gave as he saw fit whether you were a slave or a senator, an apostle or a nobody, because they were all one in Christ.
That is what is wrong with a middle class church. It excludes those that are not middle class. A church can only be a true expression of the body of Christ when it includes all and any who are born again, regardless of their social or financial standing.
How do we know that they exclude those that are not middle class? The fact that there are no members who are not middle class. I have attended churches with a view to joining but they made it obvious that they did not want me there as no one talked to me.
The New Testament churches acceptance of everyone regardless of their standing in society was evidence of their love for one another. Our segregation into different levels of social structure is evidence of our lack of love for one another. What we are saying is that unless you are like me you are not accepted.
I am so glad that Jesus did not base salvation on our being middle class. The fact that he didn’t means we have to ask ourselves “where does that leave us if we insist on being a middle class church?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
