Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Bible’

Caytie's Trees

Submission – The Church needs to be Submitted first to Christ’s headship.  One of my main concerns – with conventional and unconventional congregations (including many house churches) is that they are not Submitted to the biblical instructions for the church.  Many of those instructions are dependent on the Holy Spirit, and I believe that He is not being Submitted to, either, in a typical gathering.  Finally, the way they exercise their Submission – if at all – to God-appointed elders is rather loose.  A well-functioning church honors the elders among them.

Substitution – The thing about conventional churches that most of us don’t even notice is how they have Substituted a whole bunch of things for the way God created His Church to be and function.  Tradition replaces the Submission they ought to be practicing.  It isn’t that they aren’t gathering; they’re gathering a different way than prescribed.  It isn’t that they don’t do the Lord’s Supper; it’s that they have made it this ceremony of confession and contemplation rather than the communal feast in remembrance of our One Savior.  Things that appeal to and originate from the secular world have been brought in.  There are programs where instead there ought to be exercising of spiritual gifts on a personal level, and real shepherding where a leader gets to know the condition of the spirit of each member of his flock, guiding them into functioning as a whole according to the ways God is leading and equipping the parts.  And when problems are identified, so often man’s wisdom is consulted for solutions, replacing getting on their faces before God to repent and grieve and cry out for the only effectual help there is.

Supplement – A lot of churches believe that they can relegate the biblical types of gathering to extra-curricular activities.  They make the primary meeting about preaching and singing; that’s what the paid staff is preparing for during the week; that’s where congregational announcements are made; that’s the first thing a visitor will come to in most cases.  And then some churches make available (with differing levels of assertiveness) the small groups that more closely resemble the body-gatherings described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Ephesians 4.  It’s already so easy to think of God as something we add on to the things we do ourselves: I try and then pray; I fill my day with activities and then have my ‘time with God’ in the evening.  What God wants His people to be busy with should not take second place to the things we’ve Substituted.

Suppression – By having a service centered on one man preaching, two things are suppressed: the headship of Christ and the participation of every member according to the movement of the Holy Spirit.  Another thing often hindered by the way church is done is holiness.  When the focus of a gathering is on evangelism – with a seeker-sensitive message or an altar call – it’s hard to enforce a standard of behavior.  While we ought to welcome unbelievers into our gatherings, it ought to be plain that they are outsiders: challenged by the work of God in building up and sanctifying His people, invited by the way we love one another.

Success – First of all, the leaders of those churches tend to be obsessed with “Success.”  These men feel that the outcome rests on them, and so reflects on their performance (often leaving them discouraged and desperate).  The way most conventional churches define success is not biblical.  They track church attendance, converts, baptisms, friendliness, amount of square footage in the church complex, health and wealth, popularity of the youth group or children’s ministry, retainment of staff or members, energy of singing or ‘amens’ during the service, the sales or audience of any TV/radio/books put out by their church and its programs and pastors.  All this, compared to the Bible’s characteristics of a healthy church: love, unity, righteousness, obedience, holiness, maturity, zeal, faith, generosity…

Read Full Post »

 

Once upon a time I went through and underlined every time “word of God” was used in the book of Acts.  The phrase occurred quite often in passages about evangelism, which of course is a theme of Acts. At the time I was accumulating evidence that if we wanted to be effective at converting the lost, we needed to use actual Scripture instead of our emotional phrases and cute metaphors.   A passage in 2 Timothy inspired me: “And that from Childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures of God, which are able to make you wise for salvation…”

 

Having been raised in the evangelical church, I didn’t at that time ask an obvious question.  When the apostles, Paul, the deacons, and all those famous evangelists spoke “the word of God,” to what did that refer?  Did they stand up in front of masses of Greeks and compile quotations from Exodus, Psalms, and Habakkuk to call men to faith in Jesus?  Obviously they did not yet have the New Testament written.  We do have some examples of the apostles quoting the Old Testament to people while preaching.  And there’s the story of Philip, who found the Ethiopian Eunuch reading Isaiah, so he explained how what we know as chapter 53 was a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, and led him to salvation from there.

 

I’m skeptical that “the word of God” could have been referring to the Old Testament.  There are words to refer to those writings: Scripture, Prophets, Law, Moses, Isaiah, “as it is written.”  But Acts didn’t use those to describe the apostles’ preaching.

 

Ok, Jesus when He was being tempted quoted to the Devil that man lives by “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”  Jesus Himself was using Scripture, so we usually interpret this as an exemplary double-punch.  I don’t need bread; I need exactly what I’m using now: Scripture.  Except, well, what did the original author mean, the one whom Jesus was quoting?

 

If you go to the Psalms, all over the place you find references to the “word of the LORD.”  David says he delights in “Your word.” Does he mean only that he delights in the Law of Moses?  Why do we think of something different when we read, “The word of the LORD came to…” the prophets?

 

When Jesus reaffirmed that man lives by “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” was He including the words God would speak during His earthly ministry?  Did He mean also those words that He heard from the Father and spoke obediently?  What about the New Testament, which we are today taught is God-breathed just like the Old Testament?  Are we to live by any other “words from God?”  I mean, if the apostles were preaching the “word of God” in Acts, and that didn’t just refer to what had been previously expressed in the Scripture or by Jesus, why don’t we have those preached words recorded?  Do we need them?  John supposes that if everything Jesus said and did were recorded there wouldn’t be books enough to contain them; why don’t we need all the words that Jesus spoke?

 

To God be all glory.

 

Read Full Post »