Perhaps you have noticed that in most churches, if you want to be part of the life of the church, you have to go to meetings. Don't laugh, but in one church I attended, my application for formal membership was knocked back because I did not attend enough of the monthly communion services.
Back of heads fellowship meetings (Sunday morning), prayer meetings (maybe), Sunday school meetings, youth meetings, meetings for women, very occasionally meetings for men, bible study meetings, missionary meetings and so on.
A new ministry starts with another meeting after it has been decided to embark upon it after several committee meetings. (I was told that God so loved the world he didn’t send a committee).
Did the New Testament Church hold meetings? Well, yes they did but I get a distinct impression that they were nothing like the ones we have today in churches.
Today, what seems to be the most important thing about church meetings is the programme. We grace our “church” building with our presence and follow the meeting procedure set out by those who are in charge. We do things the same way as we have done for 500 years in many cases.
If you ask why we are doing things the same as we did 500 years ago, the usual reply is ‘because we have always done it this way.”
Why? Don’t know.
The New Testament Church, despite many vigorously stating they met in structures built for the purpose of meeting in, met in homes. If we are to believe archaeological history, that meant a maximum of 30 people for most homes.
The central feature of these “meetings” was a shared meal that all could partake of regardless of their social or financial standing in society. This was especially beneficial for widows and orphans who have meagre means of support.
Whilst eating they enjoyed each others fellowship. From my own experience, I do not know of a better way to relate to others than sharing a meal together.
As an aside, let me ask you how much fellowship you get with people during what is known as the eucharist/communion/Lord's table eating of a piece of bread or biscuit and drinking a thimbleful or sip of wine as most churches do today. If your experience is like mine, zero, zilch.
For that reason, I prefer the New Testament Church take on things than today’s religious ritual.
Add to the meal and fellowship, prayer and teaching and you have one well rounded and beneficial gathering. A meeting? Maybe, but I would say that it was more a meeting of mind and hearts rather than a meeting of traditions controlled by a programme.
The common factor in the New Testament Church was that they were all one in Christ Jesus. The common factor in the church today seems to be we are all one in meeting ritual. This is the way we do things and we are not going to change it for anyone…not even God.
I am very blessed inasmuch that I go to “meetings” where our main purpose is to meet with each other and with God. Any programme that we might have remains very flexible and fluid and is subject to change without notice if God shows up, which he often does.
We eat together (in armchairs), talk and share together; we sing a few songs of praise to God, not to make us feel warm and fuzzy, but to bring joy to the heart of God; we share the word of God with each other (forget sermons); and we definitely major in prayer. And it all takes place in a tin shed in someone’s back yard.
What does each others back of heads look like? We don’t know as we rarely see them. We connect with each other with our eyes, our bodies (lots of hugs) with our prayers and waiting on each other. Often we kneel in front of another as we pray for them. A kind of washing feet exercise.
When all is said and done and more is done than said, the overwhelming response is that we met God in the midst of our gathering. He came, and saw and blessed us beyond measure.
This happens more often than not because we are a small fellowship that is ready, willing and able to give God the right to do what he pleases, when he pleases, through whom he pleases and how he pleases.
We have enough confidence in God and each other to allow him to use whoever he wants to bring his blessing and presence into our gathering.
In comparison, going through the hymn prayer sandwich meeting week after week could not be more boring.
Going through the singing, communion, sermon meeting every week could not be more boring, especially when the whole atmosphere is fabricated by the type of music used to produce a warm fuzzy feeling.
If being alternate, strange, different, non religious, rebellious even means that we experience the God who is there on a regular basis, I raise my hand and plead guilty. Here I stand. I can do no other.
Showing posts with label CHURCH IN THE HOME. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHURCH IN THE HOME. Show all posts
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
WE ARE NOT TOO KEEN ON GOD DOING THINGS HIS WAY
Arthur Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”.
I found this quote the other day and realised how true it is, especially where the church is concerned. Down through the ages, the Roman Catholic Church has just about opposed anything they do not agree with. Most notable was the Protestant Reformation
The Puritan fathers, who colonized the USA, were escaping a State church that did not want to cede any power to another expression of Christianity.
The Evangelical church opposed the beginnings of Pentecostalism at the turn of the 20th century.
The charismatic renewal was opposed by the historical denominations in so many cases, although many did embrace it eventually.
The charismatic renewal opposed the “Third Wave” of John Wimber and the “Toronto Blessing” of John Arnott.
And finally and the most disturbing of all, denominations in general do not want to have anything to do with other denominations, even if they are across the road.
There is a new wave of the Spirit happening today which of course is being opposed by nearly everyone, because it challenges the status quo. I am talking about Christians who are leaving the man made church in droves and meetings in homes without priest, pastor, programme, pulpit, preacher, or protocol.
These people are going back to the roots of Christianity, the sort you find in the New Testament and which provided a vitality that the church does not have today. Most of what I have read has denigrated the house church movement, citing a lack of doctrinal statements, lack of accountability structures, lack of organized programmes, and lack of leadership and so on.
Like all the other moves of God, it will become the status quo of the church and everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. My hope and prayer is that it doesn’t get comfortable and stagnate like every other denomination has, but continues to grow, challenge the world and most importantly, replaces that which is of man.
I found this quote the other day and realised how true it is, especially where the church is concerned. Down through the ages, the Roman Catholic Church has just about opposed anything they do not agree with. Most notable was the Protestant Reformation
The Puritan fathers, who colonized the USA, were escaping a State church that did not want to cede any power to another expression of Christianity.
The Evangelical church opposed the beginnings of Pentecostalism at the turn of the 20th century.
The charismatic renewal was opposed by the historical denominations in so many cases, although many did embrace it eventually.
The charismatic renewal opposed the “Third Wave” of John Wimber and the “Toronto Blessing” of John Arnott.
And finally and the most disturbing of all, denominations in general do not want to have anything to do with other denominations, even if they are across the road.
There is a new wave of the Spirit happening today which of course is being opposed by nearly everyone, because it challenges the status quo. I am talking about Christians who are leaving the man made church in droves and meetings in homes without priest, pastor, programme, pulpit, preacher, or protocol.
These people are going back to the roots of Christianity, the sort you find in the New Testament and which provided a vitality that the church does not have today. Most of what I have read has denigrated the house church movement, citing a lack of doctrinal statements, lack of accountability structures, lack of organized programmes, and lack of leadership and so on.
Like all the other moves of God, it will become the status quo of the church and everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. My hope and prayer is that it doesn’t get comfortable and stagnate like every other denomination has, but continues to grow, challenge the world and most importantly, replaces that which is of man.
Monday, August 9, 2010
GOING FULL CIRCLE
It seems to me that the church is going full circle. You remember in the New Testament Church they met daily in the temple and from house to house for food, fellowship, prayer and teaching. It seems to me as I study church history, when the church stops listening out comes a new wave of the Holy Spirit and a new expression of the church.
After the New Testament Church was hijacked by the Roman Catholic Church and went into utter darkness and at times was worse than the world, God in his grace gave us the reformation which began the break from the RCC. This was followed by a few mores breaks that brought about the evangelical church.
When they stopped listening to God, he showered us with the Pentecostal reformation at the turn of the 20th century. Instead of letting this movement become fossilised, God introduced the “charismatic to the mainline churches in the 60s. What was known as the third wave followed this with a new emphasis on the supernatural.
Now it seems as though the church has stopped listening again, as it would rather repeat what it knows as opposed to reaching out in faith to what it doesn’t know and becoming dependant on God for everything.
The majority of the churches in the western world have become a monument to the past and refuses to address the present and the future. There seems to be a mentality of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
The problem is, the modern day church is well and truly broke. It has become irrelevant to most people. It attracts about 10% of the population in any one town at the most. Even serious and mature believers have ditched it as irrelevant. In most churches Sunday morning has become a spectator sport with a few professionals performing for the rest of the spectators.
Despite all this, we are seeing churches ignore the facts and insisting on their fantasies that we are doing all right. Is God pleased? I doubt it as has started a new wave which is generally bypassing the man made church (happens every time).
I went to a conference recently and found out that all over the world “church in the home” is growing at a rate of knots. With what has happened and is happening we are talking about a million of them operating. More are being added daily.
From where I am standing, the most successful church of all time was the New Testament Church. They started with over 3,000 new converts on day one and in approximately 25 years, has evangelised the known world with the good news of the gospel. You can’t get much better than that.
I would hazard at a guess that as Jesus said he would build his church (he did not ask us to do it) he is going to do it as he has done it…in the New Testament and that means from house to house, not cathedral to cathedral.
There is no doubt that Satan has a stranglehold on society. The church has allowed him free reign, if for no other reason we have abandoned society and retreated into our spiritual caves with the main purpose of keeping everyone happy. Meeting in homes is the most logical thing to do as it means we are moving out into satan’s territory. With prayer and commitment we can and we will take back the streets for God. But only if that is where we do our spiritual warfare against principalities and powers.
This new move of God back into the homes may be the last if it reflects his church of the New Testament, his teaching from the New Testament and his way of life shown in the New Testament. If that is the case I say “bring it on.” Who wants second best when God can and will give us the best, as long as we do things his way, not our way.
After the New Testament Church was hijacked by the Roman Catholic Church and went into utter darkness and at times was worse than the world, God in his grace gave us the reformation which began the break from the RCC. This was followed by a few mores breaks that brought about the evangelical church.
When they stopped listening to God, he showered us with the Pentecostal reformation at the turn of the 20th century. Instead of letting this movement become fossilised, God introduced the “charismatic to the mainline churches in the 60s. What was known as the third wave followed this with a new emphasis on the supernatural.
Now it seems as though the church has stopped listening again, as it would rather repeat what it knows as opposed to reaching out in faith to what it doesn’t know and becoming dependant on God for everything.
The majority of the churches in the western world have become a monument to the past and refuses to address the present and the future. There seems to be a mentality of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
The problem is, the modern day church is well and truly broke. It has become irrelevant to most people. It attracts about 10% of the population in any one town at the most. Even serious and mature believers have ditched it as irrelevant. In most churches Sunday morning has become a spectator sport with a few professionals performing for the rest of the spectators.
Despite all this, we are seeing churches ignore the facts and insisting on their fantasies that we are doing all right. Is God pleased? I doubt it as has started a new wave which is generally bypassing the man made church (happens every time).
I went to a conference recently and found out that all over the world “church in the home” is growing at a rate of knots. With what has happened and is happening we are talking about a million of them operating. More are being added daily.
From where I am standing, the most successful church of all time was the New Testament Church. They started with over 3,000 new converts on day one and in approximately 25 years, has evangelised the known world with the good news of the gospel. You can’t get much better than that.
I would hazard at a guess that as Jesus said he would build his church (he did not ask us to do it) he is going to do it as he has done it…in the New Testament and that means from house to house, not cathedral to cathedral.
There is no doubt that Satan has a stranglehold on society. The church has allowed him free reign, if for no other reason we have abandoned society and retreated into our spiritual caves with the main purpose of keeping everyone happy. Meeting in homes is the most logical thing to do as it means we are moving out into satan’s territory. With prayer and commitment we can and we will take back the streets for God. But only if that is where we do our spiritual warfare against principalities and powers.
This new move of God back into the homes may be the last if it reflects his church of the New Testament, his teaching from the New Testament and his way of life shown in the New Testament. If that is the case I say “bring it on.” Who wants second best when God can and will give us the best, as long as we do things his way, not our way.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
JESUS WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN
Yes that’s right, Jesus was not a Christian nor was he baptised into the Christian faith. He was baptised with a Jewish baptism by John for remission of sins even though he had not sinned.
First and foremost he was the son of God who came in the form of human flesh to show us the Father God. Then he was a Jew who observed the requirements of the Jewish faith. Bearing in mind that he was without sin, he kept the law perfectly.
When he left earth to go back to his father, he did not launch the Christian faith. He instructed his disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptise them and teach them to observe everything that he had commanded them.
He said that he was not doing away with the law it was going to be fulfilled in and through him as the final sacrifice for sin.
The church is only mentioned twice by Jesus and it uses the word that denotes the called out ones into his kingdom. Not called out into a church. The church in the New Testament was the called out ones that is why they could not meet in a church. That is why they met in homes and not in purpose built buildings.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said he would build his called out ones on revelation, not degrees or a religious structure.
Jesus started the “calling out” when he chose the 12 disciples. Later on at the day of Pentecost thousands more were “called out” by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It was common place for Jews to meet in homes and usually to eat a meal together. The New Testament called out ones did this because they were the called out ones. Meeting together in homes and sharing meals together was a natural outcome of being called out ones.
On the day of Pentecost, they did not become Christians. They were still Jews who were members of “The Way’ as they were known as. It wasn’t until Antioch that they were called Christians (Christ ones), not by themselves but by others as a term of ridicule.
The concept of ecclesia which is what called out ones were known as and meeting together was not exclusive to the new faith as any group that were called out for any purpose were known as an ecclesia so its roots were in Judaism, not Christianity.
The other aspect of “calling out” is the fact that we are not called out to be an individual believer. We are called out to be part of the worldwide church of God to establish God’s kingdom on earth.
The church was evident when the called out ones met together. Only two or three were needed for a visit from Jesus himself. This in itself signifies that large numbers are not important; that homes are quite adequate for the called out ones to meet; that ritual and religion has no part in the called out church.
That means most of what we do is a waste of time.
First and foremost he was the son of God who came in the form of human flesh to show us the Father God. Then he was a Jew who observed the requirements of the Jewish faith. Bearing in mind that he was without sin, he kept the law perfectly.
When he left earth to go back to his father, he did not launch the Christian faith. He instructed his disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptise them and teach them to observe everything that he had commanded them.
He said that he was not doing away with the law it was going to be fulfilled in and through him as the final sacrifice for sin.
The church is only mentioned twice by Jesus and it uses the word that denotes the called out ones into his kingdom. Not called out into a church. The church in the New Testament was the called out ones that is why they could not meet in a church. That is why they met in homes and not in purpose built buildings.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said he would build his called out ones on revelation, not degrees or a religious structure.
Jesus started the “calling out” when he chose the 12 disciples. Later on at the day of Pentecost thousands more were “called out” by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It was common place for Jews to meet in homes and usually to eat a meal together. The New Testament called out ones did this because they were the called out ones. Meeting together in homes and sharing meals together was a natural outcome of being called out ones.
On the day of Pentecost, they did not become Christians. They were still Jews who were members of “The Way’ as they were known as. It wasn’t until Antioch that they were called Christians (Christ ones), not by themselves but by others as a term of ridicule.
The concept of ecclesia which is what called out ones were known as and meeting together was not exclusive to the new faith as any group that were called out for any purpose were known as an ecclesia so its roots were in Judaism, not Christianity.
The other aspect of “calling out” is the fact that we are not called out to be an individual believer. We are called out to be part of the worldwide church of God to establish God’s kingdom on earth.
The church was evident when the called out ones met together. Only two or three were needed for a visit from Jesus himself. This in itself signifies that large numbers are not important; that homes are quite adequate for the called out ones to meet; that ritual and religion has no part in the called out church.
That means most of what we do is a waste of time.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
BUILDINGS
Buildings hide us away from the people out there. Every Sunday morning and at other times we huddle in our specialist buildings that we consider essential if we are going to have a relationship with God. What they actually do is keep us separated from each other and separated from those outside the kingdom of God.
In most specialist buildings, they are designed to keep people outside from looking in to see what we do and how we do it. In other words, it tends to be holy huddle that you are not invited into unless you are part of the club.
I believe that one of the reasons why the New Testament Church was so dynamic is due to the fact that they didn’t have buildings. Their fellowship and activity was conducted in homes where the people were on a daily basis.
Frank Viola in his book “Pagan Christianity” says that Christianity was the only religion that was born without sacred objects, sacred persons or sacred buildings. The Christian faith was born out of homes, courtyards, along roadsides and in living rooms.
In other words, where the people were which is the embodiment of that verse that says where two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be in the midst.
It doesn’t say “Where two or three are gathered together in my name in the church sanctuary.”
Although the mainline churches seen to be oblivious of the fact or are trying to deny it is happening, the home is replacing the edifice as the meeting place for the saints.
Society is built on the family structure and the home is where the family resides. What better than to build the church on society’s foundation, the family and the home. Taking them out of the home and putting them into a public building is not building the church on the family and the home.
In fact, the ritual and religion that parades as Christianity in the edifices that we build are probably one of the main reasons why members of families give up Christianity once they reach their twenties. What goes on in the “church” is not relevant to them any more.
However, they don’t give up on their family and home because that always was and still is relevant to them. It is their haven from the machinations of a secular society that is trying to convince them that God is dead.
If every so called “church” building was shut down, life for the Christian would go on because they still have their families and their homes. In fact, their quality of life may improve dramatically as they no longer have to serve a system that in the main keeps them from knowing God.
Most of the time, this system is good at helping us to know about God, but not to know him in the same way that we know our father, mother, brother, sister etc.
Perhaps we need some homing pigeons to rescue us from those things that are a replacement for the real deal.
In most specialist buildings, they are designed to keep people outside from looking in to see what we do and how we do it. In other words, it tends to be holy huddle that you are not invited into unless you are part of the club.
I believe that one of the reasons why the New Testament Church was so dynamic is due to the fact that they didn’t have buildings. Their fellowship and activity was conducted in homes where the people were on a daily basis.
Frank Viola in his book “Pagan Christianity” says that Christianity was the only religion that was born without sacred objects, sacred persons or sacred buildings. The Christian faith was born out of homes, courtyards, along roadsides and in living rooms.
In other words, where the people were which is the embodiment of that verse that says where two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be in the midst.
It doesn’t say “Where two or three are gathered together in my name in the church sanctuary.”
Although the mainline churches seen to be oblivious of the fact or are trying to deny it is happening, the home is replacing the edifice as the meeting place for the saints.
Society is built on the family structure and the home is where the family resides. What better than to build the church on society’s foundation, the family and the home. Taking them out of the home and putting them into a public building is not building the church on the family and the home.
In fact, the ritual and religion that parades as Christianity in the edifices that we build are probably one of the main reasons why members of families give up Christianity once they reach their twenties. What goes on in the “church” is not relevant to them any more.
However, they don’t give up on their family and home because that always was and still is relevant to them. It is their haven from the machinations of a secular society that is trying to convince them that God is dead.
If every so called “church” building was shut down, life for the Christian would go on because they still have their families and their homes. In fact, their quality of life may improve dramatically as they no longer have to serve a system that in the main keeps them from knowing God.
Most of the time, this system is good at helping us to know about God, but not to know him in the same way that we know our father, mother, brother, sister etc.
Perhaps we need some homing pigeons to rescue us from those things that are a replacement for the real deal.
Friday, October 30, 2009
HOME OR INSTITUTION?
The New Testament Church was not based on an organisation that employed professional staff to run it. It was based in the home where the head was always the husband.
In Genesis God said he would give Adam a helpmeet, not a boss.
The New Testament Church met daily in homes in Acts 2 and ministered to each other in that context. Central to that was eating meals together which ensured that everyone had a meal that day. Giving them a cube of bread and a thimbleful of wine would have been an insult and totally inadequate to someone who had no money to buy food.
There was no youth fellowship or children’s ministry as the family stayed together as a family, and the children learnt the ways of the new covenant from their parents and other adults in the home.
They were totally devoted to each other, making sure that all needs were met and any surplus was given for this purpose. There were no weekly offerings, tithes or salaries paid or buildings to be built. If there was a need, and there was someone who could meet that need, they did.
Because of the above facts, they were able to provide a counter culture that had different values to the world. After all, that was their mission, to establish God’s Kingdom on earth which by its very nature was different to what was already happening.
It would appear that we have lost our way when it comes to our purpose here. First, we are nothing like the New Testament Church. We have institutionalised the body of Christ and made it into a business, run by professional people.
The life of this institution revolves around meetings and programmes that divide families and congregations. Even in one group of people you could have several factions depending on what programme has been provided for them.
Usually what the institution or denomination wants takes precedent over what the word of God says and what God wants. When I was studying the New Testament Church and what we have today, I spoke to many about the discrepancies and was given justification for this solely on the basis of denominational tradition. It seemed that tradition had more authority than the word of God.
Because tradition is based on man made ideas, it is no surprise that the church is seen as irrelevant to most people outside of it. But I guess if you are happy to keep turning over the machinery with no or little visible results, who am I or God to say differently.
In Genesis God said he would give Adam a helpmeet, not a boss.
The New Testament Church met daily in homes in Acts 2 and ministered to each other in that context. Central to that was eating meals together which ensured that everyone had a meal that day. Giving them a cube of bread and a thimbleful of wine would have been an insult and totally inadequate to someone who had no money to buy food.
There was no youth fellowship or children’s ministry as the family stayed together as a family, and the children learnt the ways of the new covenant from their parents and other adults in the home.
They were totally devoted to each other, making sure that all needs were met and any surplus was given for this purpose. There were no weekly offerings, tithes or salaries paid or buildings to be built. If there was a need, and there was someone who could meet that need, they did.
Because of the above facts, they were able to provide a counter culture that had different values to the world. After all, that was their mission, to establish God’s Kingdom on earth which by its very nature was different to what was already happening.
It would appear that we have lost our way when it comes to our purpose here. First, we are nothing like the New Testament Church. We have institutionalised the body of Christ and made it into a business, run by professional people.
The life of this institution revolves around meetings and programmes that divide families and congregations. Even in one group of people you could have several factions depending on what programme has been provided for them.
Usually what the institution or denomination wants takes precedent over what the word of God says and what God wants. When I was studying the New Testament Church and what we have today, I spoke to many about the discrepancies and was given justification for this solely on the basis of denominational tradition. It seemed that tradition had more authority than the word of God.
Because tradition is based on man made ideas, it is no surprise that the church is seen as irrelevant to most people outside of it. But I guess if you are happy to keep turning over the machinery with no or little visible results, who am I or God to say differently.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
EMERGENT CHURCH
There has been quite a bit of criticism of the phenomenon known as the emergent church. As I understand it, this is a church that defies the conventional norm of church as it does not have a denominational structure where people somewhere beyond the blue dictate what its churches can and can’t do.
At the same time it does not have a hierarchy of leadership as many of them are led by people that are not ordained (by men) and there is no structure to climb. Many of the churches meet in homes and build their life around relationships and loving one another.
This seems to be the main criticism. They place more value on relationships and loving one another than on correct orthodox doctrine. I have no doubt that some of them are deficient in their doctrine as all churches are, but one cannot judge all because of a specific example. I know of groups that believe virtually what the evangelical church does. The difference is that they believe what they believe and show it in their actions, that is why they place a priority on loving one another.
Like all expressions of the church, there are good and bad. There are denominations where the leadership are dictators. There are some who have replaced the bible with secular cultural ideas. There are some that deny the supernatural. There are some that believe that doctrine is everything even though the church is dead as a dodo.
Because the emergent church is more diverse than any other expression, it is quite foolish to say that the emergent church believes this or believes that. Each one is autonomous and very often determines its own destiny quite separately from all the others. In other words, the system serves the people, not the people serving the system as is the case in most institutionalised religion.
I have a very distinct feeling that the criticism of the emergent church by the leadership of the institutionalised church is more to do with the fact that they can’t control it and the fact that they are losing adherents to it.
Very often the people leaving are not the wayward and feckless, they are the mature believers who are stifled by a system that only recognises the gifting of those who have gained the approval of man. If you haven’t, by way of theological degrees and ordination, your anointing for ministry is rarely recognised and used in any meaningful way.
In most cases, the important bits are done by those who are recognised by man made organisations and the rest do all the other bits the ordained don’t have time for.
If the religious establishment continues to ignore the reality of the situation that their systems are failing themselves and society in most cases, they get what they deserve and that is a dwindling membership. Saying “don’t worry boys all will come good” on a sinking ship is foolishness in the extreme.
The church is not known for asking the hard questions and facing up to reality. It prefers the “we have always done it this way” mentality which was born hundreds of years ago and in a society that doesn’t exist anymore.
The world in the meantime moves on, giving itself the right to kill itself and destroy those who don’t meet the perfect criteria. Whilst this is happening the church has been beaten into submission and is frightened of its own shadow let alone the forces of evil that are running rampant though society.
Now more than ever we need Jesus to build his church as he said he would and let man’s attempts at church to wither on the vine.
At the same time it does not have a hierarchy of leadership as many of them are led by people that are not ordained (by men) and there is no structure to climb. Many of the churches meet in homes and build their life around relationships and loving one another.
This seems to be the main criticism. They place more value on relationships and loving one another than on correct orthodox doctrine. I have no doubt that some of them are deficient in their doctrine as all churches are, but one cannot judge all because of a specific example. I know of groups that believe virtually what the evangelical church does. The difference is that they believe what they believe and show it in their actions, that is why they place a priority on loving one another.
Like all expressions of the church, there are good and bad. There are denominations where the leadership are dictators. There are some who have replaced the bible with secular cultural ideas. There are some that deny the supernatural. There are some that believe that doctrine is everything even though the church is dead as a dodo.
Because the emergent church is more diverse than any other expression, it is quite foolish to say that the emergent church believes this or believes that. Each one is autonomous and very often determines its own destiny quite separately from all the others. In other words, the system serves the people, not the people serving the system as is the case in most institutionalised religion.
I have a very distinct feeling that the criticism of the emergent church by the leadership of the institutionalised church is more to do with the fact that they can’t control it and the fact that they are losing adherents to it.
Very often the people leaving are not the wayward and feckless, they are the mature believers who are stifled by a system that only recognises the gifting of those who have gained the approval of man. If you haven’t, by way of theological degrees and ordination, your anointing for ministry is rarely recognised and used in any meaningful way.
In most cases, the important bits are done by those who are recognised by man made organisations and the rest do all the other bits the ordained don’t have time for.
If the religious establishment continues to ignore the reality of the situation that their systems are failing themselves and society in most cases, they get what they deserve and that is a dwindling membership. Saying “don’t worry boys all will come good” on a sinking ship is foolishness in the extreme.
The church is not known for asking the hard questions and facing up to reality. It prefers the “we have always done it this way” mentality which was born hundreds of years ago and in a society that doesn’t exist anymore.
The world in the meantime moves on, giving itself the right to kill itself and destroy those who don’t meet the perfect criteria. Whilst this is happening the church has been beaten into submission and is frightened of its own shadow let alone the forces of evil that are running rampant though society.
Now more than ever we need Jesus to build his church as he said he would and let man’s attempts at church to wither on the vine.
Friday, February 6, 2009
HOW DEEP?
If home is where the heart is and the church is losing most of the young people in the congregation, what about the churches that are filled with young people?
A very good question and one that needs an answer and here it is.
You can always attract people if you give them what they want. Which shops in a shopping centre attracts the most teenagers? Simple isn’t it. The ones that sell fashions that teenagers want to buy.
Which churches attract the most teenagers? The ones that provide the music that they want to hear and the entertainment that they want to enjoy. Simple isn’t it.
Almost without exception the churches that have the most teenagers in them provide entertainment, not worship.
One Sunday I watched the TV programme of one the biggest churches in Australia. In the middle of it I flicked over to another channel that was showing video hits. It was identical apart from the music content. The audience in both causes were doing exactly the same thing. Jigging up and down, waving their arms about and jumping into a Moshe pit. Block your ears up and you would not know who was who.
That is not biblical religion that is entertainment. But you say, isn’t it good that they are attending church services anyway? Is it? Let’s look at some facts.
Generally speaking, the larger the church gets and the more entertainment it provides the more superficial is its expression of faith. It has been said that these sort of churches have a faith that is 3 miles wide and three inches deep.
Most of them appeal to the lowest common denominator. In other words to the least spiritual and they do this to keep them happy without too much challenge and to keep them coming back so as they can boast about the numbers who attend. In most cases, that is all they do, attend get their weekly fix of entertainment and then go home and do nothing for the rest of the week.
I am led to believe that one large church loses 50% of its membership over a period of five years. You can entertain for so long and then it gets boring so people are either fed, which they are not or they leave to find somewhere where they can grow.
The people who run everything are quite happy because they are doing and telling others what they should do. Those that are being told are not growing and get bored with rules, instructions and expectations and eventually leave because they are dying spiritually. Those that stay usually do so because they are happy just being entertained.
The dying spiritually is inevitable because they are not being fed substance. A baby’s bottle is OK for so long but deprive a baby of solid food as they grow and you will have serious problems on your hands. Imagine only giving a baby bottled milk for five years!!
A very good question and one that needs an answer and here it is.
You can always attract people if you give them what they want. Which shops in a shopping centre attracts the most teenagers? Simple isn’t it. The ones that sell fashions that teenagers want to buy.
Which churches attract the most teenagers? The ones that provide the music that they want to hear and the entertainment that they want to enjoy. Simple isn’t it.
Almost without exception the churches that have the most teenagers in them provide entertainment, not worship.
One Sunday I watched the TV programme of one the biggest churches in Australia. In the middle of it I flicked over to another channel that was showing video hits. It was identical apart from the music content. The audience in both causes were doing exactly the same thing. Jigging up and down, waving their arms about and jumping into a Moshe pit. Block your ears up and you would not know who was who.
That is not biblical religion that is entertainment. But you say, isn’t it good that they are attending church services anyway? Is it? Let’s look at some facts.
Generally speaking, the larger the church gets and the more entertainment it provides the more superficial is its expression of faith. It has been said that these sort of churches have a faith that is 3 miles wide and three inches deep.
Most of them appeal to the lowest common denominator. In other words to the least spiritual and they do this to keep them happy without too much challenge and to keep them coming back so as they can boast about the numbers who attend. In most cases, that is all they do, attend get their weekly fix of entertainment and then go home and do nothing for the rest of the week.
I am led to believe that one large church loses 50% of its membership over a period of five years. You can entertain for so long and then it gets boring so people are either fed, which they are not or they leave to find somewhere where they can grow.
The people who run everything are quite happy because they are doing and telling others what they should do. Those that are being told are not growing and get bored with rules, instructions and expectations and eventually leave because they are dying spiritually. Those that stay usually do so because they are happy just being entertained.
The dying spiritually is inevitable because they are not being fed substance. A baby’s bottle is OK for so long but deprive a baby of solid food as they grow and you will have serious problems on your hands. Imagine only giving a baby bottled milk for five years!!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
HOME IS WHERE THE HEART IS
One of the most telling statistics against holding church in public buildings is the fact that most boys abandon their faith by the time they are 20 or go to college or university.
This is brought about because home and church are two different things and they compete with each other for your attention and time. One is essential, life giving, warm and connected and the other is irrelevant, boring, cold and disjointed by comparison.
One allows you to be yourself and you are loved and accepted with all your faults and failings and where you can let it all hang out and the other is formalised ritual which demands an artificial persona that hides most of the realities of your life and where the keeping of rules is more important than hugging and caring and loving and being.
Unlike the Jewish religion which places family at the centre and unlike the New Testament Church which places family at the centre of life because they meet in homes, in both cases, children were fully integrated into what happened as opposed to cold, meaningless Christian meetings in public buildings and where they are shunted off into a separate room so as not to bother the adults.
Unlike Judaism and the New Testament Church, the church today caters for individual faith. Judaism and the New Testament Church are and was a corporate experience based on the whole family where the father, the head of the house included all the family in what was happening.
Children were loved and wanted by their parents and were able to share the religious side of life because it was not separated from family. The fact that the church is moving back into homes is an indication that God has not changed his mind.
The fact that Satan through society and government wants to legislate perversion and question the validity of family is an indication how essential it is to civilisation and the understanding of who God is.
If the church shut up all its public meeting houses and reverted back to expressing their faith via the home what would be the end result?
It would bring the family into sharp relief and back into the centre of everything. Instead of Christianity being something you do in private inside four walls, it would be integral to every facet of life. The life of the church would revolve around the family, hospitality and relationship, not ritual and irrelevance.
It would deal a fatal blow to those who want to challenge the family as ordained by God and who want to impose a family experience that can be legitimised by any Tom, Dick and homosexual living together.
One thing that would not happen if the church shut up shop and moved back into homes and that is die a death. Just the opposite would happen. Like the New Testament Church, in all probability we would have new converts added to us daily.
Tradition can be a rigid, implacable master if it isn’t allowed to develop and grow to meet contemporary needs. Today we need more than anything to re-establish the family as the core of our faith and live it out through it if we are to prevent society destroying the very thing that it needs more than anything else.
The only thing that will stop us doing this is not the world but…implacable tradition which is brought about by witchcraft.
This is brought about because home and church are two different things and they compete with each other for your attention and time. One is essential, life giving, warm and connected and the other is irrelevant, boring, cold and disjointed by comparison.
One allows you to be yourself and you are loved and accepted with all your faults and failings and where you can let it all hang out and the other is formalised ritual which demands an artificial persona that hides most of the realities of your life and where the keeping of rules is more important than hugging and caring and loving and being.
Unlike the Jewish religion which places family at the centre and unlike the New Testament Church which places family at the centre of life because they meet in homes, in both cases, children were fully integrated into what happened as opposed to cold, meaningless Christian meetings in public buildings and where they are shunted off into a separate room so as not to bother the adults.
Unlike Judaism and the New Testament Church, the church today caters for individual faith. Judaism and the New Testament Church are and was a corporate experience based on the whole family where the father, the head of the house included all the family in what was happening.
Children were loved and wanted by their parents and were able to share the religious side of life because it was not separated from family. The fact that the church is moving back into homes is an indication that God has not changed his mind.
The fact that Satan through society and government wants to legislate perversion and question the validity of family is an indication how essential it is to civilisation and the understanding of who God is.
If the church shut up all its public meeting houses and reverted back to expressing their faith via the home what would be the end result?
It would bring the family into sharp relief and back into the centre of everything. Instead of Christianity being something you do in private inside four walls, it would be integral to every facet of life. The life of the church would revolve around the family, hospitality and relationship, not ritual and irrelevance.
It would deal a fatal blow to those who want to challenge the family as ordained by God and who want to impose a family experience that can be legitimised by any Tom, Dick and homosexual living together.
One thing that would not happen if the church shut up shop and moved back into homes and that is die a death. Just the opposite would happen. Like the New Testament Church, in all probability we would have new converts added to us daily.
Tradition can be a rigid, implacable master if it isn’t allowed to develop and grow to meet contemporary needs. Today we need more than anything to re-establish the family as the core of our faith and live it out through it if we are to prevent society destroying the very thing that it needs more than anything else.
The only thing that will stop us doing this is not the world but…implacable tradition which is brought about by witchcraft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
