Do you believe that the Bible is the absolute, infallible, inerrant, inspired, word of the living God? Do you believe the 66 canonical books to be true and uncontradictory from Genesis to Revelation? Do you believe the entirety of these books to be good for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction (2Tim 3:15-16)?
If yes, then as we are in agreement about the absolute authority of scripture, I have a few questions. If no, let us first discuss scripture’s authority.
Please do not render any answer without solid Biblical support, with each scripture referenced in context.
*Are we supposed to dress up (in your “Sunday best”) to go to church? If so, why? (Matt. 6:25) (1Tim. 2:9-10) (James 2:1-9)
*What kind of fellowship do you get with a 2 min. handshake time? (Acts 2:42) (1John 1:3-7)
*Why do we have a clergy laity separation? (Matt. 20:25-28) (1Pet. 5:2-3)
*If we are to come and “be filled” with what the pastor has been given, where was he filled and why can’t we be filled from the same? (1Cor. 14:24-25) (Heb. 5:12-14)
*How much edification of one another is there when a preeminent speaker preaches to a passive audience? (Heb. 10:25) (3 John 9-11)
*What good does it do to preach a salvation message to the saved on a weekly basis? (1Cor. 3:2)
*Why are we encouraged to invite the unbeliever to the gathering of the brethren? (2Cor. 6:14) (Psa. 94:20)
*Why does America spend over 12 billion dollars annually in church building maintenance alone? Why do we even need a large expensive building when we only spend a few hours a week in it? (1Cor. 4:2) (Acts 2:46-47) (Acts 20:20)
*Why do we tolerate denominational divisions in the body of Christ? (1Cor. 1:10-13) (1Cor. 3:3-4)
*In light of these questions, are we really doing things “by the book”? (Acts 2:40-47) (1Cor 12-14)
Since the time of Constantine, those that are called after the name of Christ have wandered from the foundation He set.
We long to see the gathering of brethren under the headship of Christ, and not any man, as modeled in Acts and elsewhere in Scripture, where each one brings forth moved by the Holy Spirit to exhort and encourage one another, where a multitude of elders hold no exalted position, but being firmly founded in Scripture exist to model Christ and correct and guide when necessary.
The purpose of this post is to get you to think and question the foundation of your beliefs and practices and encourage you to be founded on the true foundation of God’s word rather than the traditions of men.
My Family
(Husband speaking)
*Are we supposed to dress up (in your “Sunday best”) to go to church? If so, why? (Matt. 6:25) (1Tim. 2:9-10) (James 2:1-9)
ReplyDeleteAre you speaking of dressing up fancy for church, or simply putting on our best for church? I agree that the scriptures are very clear on its teachings on vanity. However, I'm inclined to think it's alright to don your 'Sunday best,' if it means for example your clothing with the least holes, or your cleanest clothing; even if it means owning 2 shirts and wearing one for work and one for special occasions (a wedding, a funeral, a church service). What do you think? Another thought is that despite the scripture's condemnation of vanity, it does not condemn giving our material best (which doesn't have to mean wearing gold and having elaborate hairstyles) to the Lord when done with a humble heart, as the sinful woman who anointed Jesus with the fragrant oil (Luke 7:37-50, Matt. 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, John 12:3-8), or the construction of the Temple God instructs to Israel (Exodus 25-28 etc). Now, I'm not about to say this means we're "supposed" to dress nicely for special occasions; however I do think it means we should avoid judging others for it as we will never know their hearts as Christ does. Please share your thoughts.
*Why do we have a clergy laity separation?
Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your question and my responses are not useful.
(Matt. 20:25-28) A healthy clergy-laity relationship is not one where one "rules over" another, whether it's a priest holding absolute authority over others or a congregation pressuring a pastor to preach or run services a certain way. These verses from Matthew's Gospel call for leaders to be the greatest of servants, which I suggest is not only possible in a healthy clergy-laity relationship, but demonstrated many times throughout the book of Acts: 2:14-42, when Peter "standing up with the eleven" speaks for the apostles, witnessing to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, then baptizing about 3,000 who "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship." Acts 6:1-6, when the twelve instruct the multitude to choose from among themselves 7 deacons who the apostles then ordain. By this time we can see that the clergy (bishops and deacons) do have roles unique from the laity. Acts 8:14-17-the scattered disciples of Christ preach in Samaria, and when the apostles learn Samarians have received the word they send the 12 apostles Peter and John to lay hands on them. Acts 8:26-39 an angel instructs deacon (a clergyman) Philip to explain the scriptures to the Ethiopian Eunuch. Acts 10:48 Peter commands the newly-illumined Gentiles to be baptized. Acts 11:19-24, the apostles in Jerusalem (v. 1) hear that the word has reached Antioch, and so designate and send off Barnabas to minister and teach there. Acts 11:29-30 disciples in Antioch send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea, sending it directly to the elders for distribution.
If you wish I would be willing to share more; I figured this may be enough for discussion. My point with citing these verses is that the clergy (bishops/elders and deacons) having a separate unique role from that of the laity is perfectly Biblically appropriate; and being an elder/overseer does not have to mean you are "serving by compulsion" as you quoted in (1Pet. 5:2-3). I think this is also demonstrated in the next verse of 1 Peter (v. 5), "submit yourselves to your elders," who in context of the chapter are the "shepherds of the flock of God" of which Peter is a "fellow elder."
Again, please forgive me if I've misunderstood what you meant by 'separation.'
*Why does America spend over 12 billion dollars annually in church building maintenance alone? Why do we even need a large expensive building when we only spend a few hours a week in it?
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should spend more than a few hours a week there.
(1Cor. 4:2) Although in context I'm not convinced this passage is about material stewardship, I understand that the point carries over. And in light of your first bulleted statement, I would believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with giving to the maintenence of church buildings when done with a humble heart. Are there better uses for money than church maintenence? Quite probably; but if someone with a simple, humble heart is giving any amount to church maintenence, I personally could not speak against their action, for they are better than I.
(Acts 2:46-47) They continued daily in the temple; they were using it daily, rather than one day a week. We could spend time "daily in the temple" (Acts 5:42).
(Acts 20:20) Teaching from house to house does not at all conflict with teaching publicly, or in the temple.
*Why do we tolerate denominational divisions in the body of Christ? (1Cor. 1:10-13) (1Cor. 3:3-4)
I also am saddened by the divisions in the body of Christ. What a blessing it would it be if all believers in Christ would "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," and "continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42), aligning themselves with the true New Testament Church that Christ suffered for.
*In light of these questions, are we really doing things “by the book”? (Acts 2:40-47) (1Cor 12-14)
Please pray for me that I may continuously live a life obediently in Christ!
*Since the time of Constantine, those that are called after the name of Christ have wandered from the foundation He set.
Not since the time of Constantine (who didn't hold power until 306), but the very pages of the New Testament, necessitating the guidance of the Apostle Paul via the Epistles. There were in fact many major figures teaching heresies about Christ and the Trinity before Constantine was born, including: Marcion, who taught that the God of the Old Testament was cruel and petty, different from the merciful God of the New Testament, had a notable following by the year 150 (he was also, ironically, the first to put together a New Testament canon, and a catalyst for the Church of Christ to officially establish sanctioned New Testament writings); Montanus, who held that the authority of himself and his followers superseded that of the Apostles with teachings such as that Christians who fell from Christ's teaching could not repent; and Tertullian (died approx. 220), who once adhered to orthodox Christianity but later followed Montanus. Praise be to God that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Truth.
Please share your thoughts,
In Christ,
E.
*If we are to come and “be filled” with what the pastor has been given, where was he filled and why can’t we be filled from the same? (1Cor. 14:24-25) (Heb. 5:12-14)
ReplyDeleteWould you share more context/explanation? I'm not sure I grasp the issue you're referring to.
*How much edification of one another is there when a preeminent speaker preaches to a passive audience? (Heb. 10:25) (3 John 9-11)
Is this a question for why there is a preeminent speaker or are you admonishing a passive audience?
*What good does it do to preach a salvation message to the saved on a weekly basis? (1Cor. 3:2)
Are you referring to the belief that you can not lose your salvation? I'm missing the question-scripture relationship again; please explain.
*Why are we encouraged to invite the unbeliever to the gathering of the brethren? (2Cor. 6:14) (Psa. 94:20)
If you are implying here that the "fellowship" of which Paul speaks is the gathering of brethren, I would have to disagree with you. The overall context of the chapter is Paul encouraging the faithful to make themselves "yoked" to fellow believers rather than "unequally yoked" to pagans and/or unbelievers. So in v.14, "what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?" I believe is contrasting righteousness with lawlessness, as light with darkness, believer with unbeliever, or the temple of God with idols- rather than contrasting a 'fellowship of righteousness' with a 'fellowship of lawlessness.' If the fellowship as a gathering of brethren was truly the subject matter, then he would have been saying (many apologies for my paraphrasing) 'believing brethren should not have their meetings at the same time/place as the non-believing brethren's meetings,' or the 'brethren of God should not have their meetings at the same time/place as the pagan idol worshipers' meetings.' Although these points are quite valid; they are not only out of context of the rest of the chapter/book, but probably never even happened -you of course wouldn't plan on scheduling your next fellowship meeting at the local Buddhist temple while they were in session. I hope I didn't do too poor of a job explaining that. Along the same train of thought, Psalm 94 is about how God will have vengeance upon those who sin against His people, and how the Lord is the greatest consolation for those who love Him. I'm not sure I see the connection between God's justice upon humanity and the gathering of the brethren; please explain your reference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to point out some misconceptions I see coming out in the preceding comments.
ReplyDelete1.) The church isn't a service. Jesus never intended us to meet once a week and listen to a sermon for 30 - 45 min. The church is a family. They should be together all the time, they should eat together (the Lord's supper), they should confide in one another (confessing sins to one another), they should care for one another, etc. Please dont' retort, "Yeah, we should be doing that at a cofee shop and going to "church" on Sunday. "Church" should entail all those things. Where, other than traditions of men, do we get the idea that church is a "sermon". "Church" is when the believers get together and should entail everything believers ought to be doing when they assemble. This includes teaching, exhorting, encouraging, training, singing, praising, praying, breaking bread; and this is all one anothering... not a one-man show in other words. I am convinced, through scripture, and I believe the Holy Spirit, that if we don't assemble with other believers at least a full day a week for purposes of edification, finding out eachothers needs, the list goes on - then itS NOT church. Call it a seminar, a lesson, a oration, but please don't call it "church".
2.) "Church" is never a builing. So you can't give money to "church maintenance". Check it out. Every reference to "church" in the Bible refers to the believers themselves. Whether on a universal basis or local group it always refers to the people. It might seem like an argument over a word, but once you start thinking the church is a building you are WAY off base.
Here is a third misconception I noticed. It wouldn't fit on the last comment so I'm publishing it on this follow up comment.
ReplyDelete3.) The Temple in Jerusalem does not equate with our christian religious buildings today. The Temple was a symbol and type of Christ. When the temple was torn down for the last time, it was not rebuilt. Jesus instead was the real temple that was raised. Remember he said, "tear this temple down and I will build it up again in three days." Also, the old temple was a place where God dwelt; where the people of God could look to when they sought God. This is now Jesus, who is the temple of God. We look to him now. And furthermore, we are the temples of the Holy Spirit; and when we are gathered together, Christ is there. God is looking for people who know that you neither worship at the mountian in Samaria nor the Temple at Jerusalem but who can worship right where they stand; In spirit and truth. There was a transition period with the early church, when there was still a Temple in Jerusalem that the Jews held very high, because that is where God said His name dwelt. You read that the apostles went there to teach and pray. But as the gospel went out and Peter learned that God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles as well, most of the church met at the most convienant locations such as houses. If the temple were as important in early Christianity as the religious buildings seem to be, why didn't the apostles command to go there and worship and pray? Why don't you see a great emphesis on rebuilding the temple after it was destroyed in 70 A.D.? It seems to me man has resurrected the temple he can see, because he doesn't live by faith but by sight. Remember Jesus disciples saying "Ooo, look at the temple isn't it magnificence." The Temple at Jerusalem was referred to as "the house of the LORD". When someone refers to a christian religious building as the "house of God" they reveal their lack of knowledge in this matter. "God does not live in a house built by hands." (A quote from Stephen, one of the 7 chosen that "E" refers to in one comment.) So God has no house save the heavens (if you can call that a house). One might respond that it is God's house because He owns everything. I would agree, but then why emphasize one christian religious buildings as His house and not every other building we enter. This is the idolotrous nature of man. He is always ready to lift up something for worship other than God.
WWJD? We know Jesus by His word. He spent less time in the religious buildings of his day than he did in people's houses, seashores, people's houses, gardens, and people's houses. Constrast Jesus' mode of operation to that of say a mega church pastor. What's the difference? A lot. Now compare Jesus' mode of operation with that of his disciples. What are the commonalities? A lot.
What tradition are you going to follow? That of man? Or that of Christ and his Apostles?
From my earlier comments it may seem that I am opposed to Christians meeting in a building or a pastor teaching a congrigation.
ReplyDeleteLet me just make it absolutely clear that I speak contrary to a widely accepted ideology that is not based on scripture. It is widely accepted that when the church meets together it begins and ends with the sole preacher / speaker. Not only is this accepted, it is vehemently taught by those who promote its influence, and those who oppose scripturally are cast out. Remember Diotrophes who loved to be first.
It is also widely accepted that the church meets only or at least mainly at a building exclusively erected or leased for this purpose; and all activities must proceed from this building. Those that hold this idea, judge those, even if faithful Christians, that they are not worshipping God correctly or forsaking the assembling of ourselves... This building is glorified, deified, and even worshipped.
Where I do not oppose the sole speaker is where there is none other qualified to teach, exhort, comfort, give a word of revelation, a word of wisdom, or a word of knowledge. This would be more of an exception than a rule and might be a shame on the pastor for not discipling God's flock correctly; to become mature and come to a place where they can disciple or find and fullful another gift.
Where I do not oppose meeting in a building is when there is no house big enough to host the church. This building ought to be modest and might even be a town hall or community center. It should be a rare thing that a large expesive building be errected for the furtherance of the gospel. "E" pointed to the building of the Temple in Jerusalem with was ornate and made of gold, but remember again this was the old covenant. Most of which was the type and symbol of our spiritual lives in Christ.
Our equal to the temple is Christ. When Christ came he was lowly in spirit and avoided riches in this life. It was the Pharisees that made an outward appearance before men. They wore long robes with many tassles. They were lovers of money.
Thank you E for your interest and questions. Frankly I’m surprised that anyone is actually reading what I have written and further cares enough to offer a rebuke (or more appropriately- challenge) to my conclusions. This post among others were adapted from tracts I have written which due to space limitations are admittedly lacking in clarity of explanation. I will endeavor to be more clear in the future.
ReplyDeleteYour first concern as listed above was about dressing in your “Sunday best” my main point is the heart issue. Proudly arraying ones self in their finest apparel and looking down on others for not entering the building in a suit and tie. God is no more impressed with a Armani suit than he was with fig leafs.
Along the same lines there is the question of consistent character. Are you the same person among brothers in Christ as you are in the midst of antagonistic unbelievers. Though ones clothing is not directly related to ones heart condition, it can often indicate a consistent character trait. Such as wearing masks, hiding your true self by “keeping up appearances”
As far as your point about being clean, please do. If all you ever wear is overalls, pick up a clean pair and come on in. if your cleanest pair is stained and well worn come on in anyway. Clothing conditions should never stand in the way of fellowship. It is true that Christ spoke well of the woman that anointed him with perfume, he also spoke well of her who did the same with her tears. But what could we possibly be “giving God” by wearing clothing? Respect? If our righteousness is but filthy rags before the lord, what could we possibly put on our bodies to show God respect? To summarize the points: we should come before the Lord “dressed” in humility, in the company of brothers (and the world for that matter) we should have respect enough to dress modestly, and clean when possible.
Clergy/ layette separation
ReplyDeleteBy your response I believe you have missed the point. I’m not saying that individuals should not be charged in a particular area of responsibility in the body of Christ. I’m saying that the men filling these positions should not be exalted above the other brethren. They should be looked to as a caring father, not as an aloof dictator. A loving father seeks to raise his son to be a loving father cultivating and forming him for that role from infancy, a dictator only wants obedient subjects. We look to those who “have the rule over us” for guidance, and respect their authoritative advice because (if their position is rightly held) their concern is for our spiritual wellbeing not for their own personal interests. I love the illustrative term “pastor” meaning “shepherd”. A shepherd leads his flock to green fields not for his own nourishment but in the best interests of the sheep. A father is a necessary authoritative position in the family but he is still no more than a member of the family. Pastors, bishops, apostles, etc. are necessary authoritative positions in the body of Christ, but they are still our brothers in Christ.
The third comment was somewhat extensive, so point by point.
ReplyDeletePoint1- (context) I have heard from many pulpits that the pastor goes to God for spiritual nourishment then the pastor gives that to the congregation, it’s like a potluck where only one person brings food, only so much can go around. My point is that we all have direct access to God through Christ and He has made available to all the teaching presence of the Holy Spirit. Each Christian should go to God for the main body of their spiritual nourishment on a daily basis, not depend on the pastors scraps once a week(to put it crudely).
Point2- both actually, another slam on unqualified men usurping authority over a multitude and lording it over them (granted this does not apply to all pastoral situations) diotrophese is the perfect example here. And an audience that has stagnated in spiritual infancy weather by their own lethargic desired to stay in that state or because of leaderships opposition to their spiritual growth.
Point3- this speaks to two issues in one, many churches will have a sermon focused on a final alter call on a weekly basis. This does little in the way of growth for those who have already surrendered their life to Christ. Yet many congregants think that this sermon based meeting is all they need for salvation, fellowship, growth and development. The purpose of evangelism is discipleship and without something made available to the new believer for continual growth they will either be stuck in perpetual infancy or move on without the worthwhile guidance of those who have gone before them.
Point4- again this speaks to the idea that the sermon based meeting is the end all be all of brotherly fellowship. If it is a meeting for brotherly fellowship and edification, it is not for the unbeliever. If the Sunday morning sermon is for the unbeliever to hear a clear representation of the gospel, then this question can be disregarded. Again I apologize for the lack of clarity. The point is that a non believer should not be invited to a discipleship training course, a believer grows little from a repetitive salvation message, and there is no one size fits all forum. Many long standing church members show contempt for the curious showing up from off the streets yet at the same time say that the only way to witness is to invite someone to church
Necessity of church buildings
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that God has used these buildings and may He continue to do so. But many times the financial burden of a large building acts like a ball and chain on the church. I don’t think they are necessary but, as we have them may they be used for God’s purposes and indeed may they be used to the utmost extent. I do think it is irresponsible when a pastor looks to expanding the facilities to hold a growing congregation rather than training up a leader with which to split the responsibility, he seems to say that only he is capable of meeting the spiritual needs of the people.
I’m running out of time so I’ll have to come back and address the rest later.
Matt and Dana,
ReplyDelete1.) I agree completely that "the Church" is not simply a 45 minute service or building. I was using the term "Church" interchangeably as it's used Biblically and in the vernacular (as the building). I apologize for being unclear.
2.) Again, apologies for being unclear - when I was using "church" in referring to "church maintenance," I was using the word we are most familiar with in the American vernacular to describe the building.
3.) I was not trying to compare the Jerusalem Temple to our "churches" as "housing places of God" (because I agree with you that God no longer resides in the Temple); I was comparing them from the angle of meeting places for worship around the subject of material finery. I had learned that the main reason "the Way" moved from the Temple to the home (concerning communal worship) was largely because of persecution. And, concerning the use of material finery, I am be in agreement with you that giving your money for the construction of fine places to worship together is not the ideal stewardship of our money, but if the "milk has already been spilled" in true humility of heart, let us not judge our brother, but rather set an example for him and gently suggest different action next time. Again I recall the woman with the oil. The apostles were greatly bothered by the fact that her money could have been given to the poor. Jesus does not respond in telling them their objections were wrong (because surely it would have been righteous to give the money to the poor in the name of God), but rather corrects the apostle's judgment on the woman. Let us rejoice in any loving sacrifice made to God!
You stated that the Temple and its splendor was "Old Covenant," but I suggest this does not make it irrelevant, and certainly not wrong, but needs to be injected with and looked at through the lens of Christ-like love.
I'm wondering, do you have reason to doubt that Jesus prayed in the Temple? Please share your insight.
I'm also interested in learning your Biblical basis for the congregational nature of the gathering of the Church.
I look forward to your reply.
In Christ,
E.
E,
ReplyDeleteI must admit, this is a stimulating exchange.
I wish to address your question and interest in my Biblical basis; but first I would like to address your comment on the woman who spilled oil on Jesus' feet.
According to John, it was Mary (not the mother of Jesus) who broke a jar of expensive oil onto Jesus' feet. Of the disciples, it was Judas (who later betrayed Jesus) who rebuked Mary.
Imagine a woman who was forgiven of much sin, that even those who knew her said, "If Jesus knew what manner of woman this was, he would not even touch her." Her reaction to Jesus was based on her total broken spirit before God. An expensive oil used for purposes of darkness was now broken at Jesus' feet. A vessel, her body, once used for prostitution, was now fit for the master. This show of her love and appreciation for the master was in no way "spilt milk". Given the chance to do it again, I say, she should have. For Jesus said, "you will not alwasy have me with you. And wherever this gospel is preached, what this woman has done today will be remembered."
"Material finery" was forsaken in this circumstance, not bought and used to please God. This substance was already owned by this woman from her previous life style.
If this woman thought Jesus cared for "material finery" she might have put the ointment on her body so she smelled pleasant in the presence of Jeus. This is closer to how "material finery" is used today; as though God is pleased with ourtward appearance and smells.
"When you come to appear before Me,
Who has required this from your hand,
To trample My courts?
Bring no more futile sacrifices;
Incense is an abomination to Me."
E,
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting point you bring out. Did Jesus pray in the temple in Jerusalem? As far as I know, the Bible never mentions Jesus praying in the temple; and if he did it makes no difference to me. The Temple (house of God) was meant as a place of prayer. Jesus' disciples went up to the Temple during the hour of prayer. But what is more interesting are the places that we do find Jesus praying. From my recollection, they were all somewhere outside. It reminds me of when Jesus said, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father... But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth..."
Jesus called the Temple "A house of prayer." But all this has changed. The time has come and has been for about 2,000 years that we are not to worship in the "Temple" or at the "mountain". These ammount to specific, holy places, designated for the worship of God. Jesus abolished such pratices.
We are to pray "wherever we stand".
E,
ReplyDeleteI am assuming you want biblical basis for my approach to a congregation patterned after that of the Apostles.
There are many verses that lend to this idea, but the most pointed I can think of are these excerpts from scripture:
"For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged." 1 Corinthians 14:31
"And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." Hebrews 10:24-25
just a note for both of you as to which Mary poured the oil, I'm farly cirtain that it was Mary of Bethany (sister of martha and lazarus) that poured the oil, and Mary Magdelane that used her tears (no doubt contained in a laquarima bottle) of whom it was said "He should know what manner of woman this is" at the house of Simon the priest, if I'm not mistaken. I'll be making sure that my memory is correct tonight, in the mean time I refer you to the Gospel of John.
ReplyDeleteHusband speakng
It appears you are correct. I looked up the story in Luke 7 and John 12. They are similar in that both women used their hair and anointed Jesus with oil; but they do appear to be separate occassions. I could not ascertain they were different women, or furthermore, their last names by simply reading the text in Luke 7 and John 12.
ReplyDelete