Simple church and Apostolic church: A comparision
Having read through many of the threads here, I have seen many discussions on the Simple church ideal and practical. What I am interested in here is a quiet comparative study of the Simple church, the Apostolic church, and the Bible verses pertaining to church form and function.
Tags: apostolic, bible, church, simple
Views: 143
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by michael on -
Hi Bill W et al,
You wrote:
Could it be that in stating that liturgy is required diminish what Jesus as the High Priest accomplished.
I am not saying that liturgy is required; I am saying it is inevitable! Therefore we are left with choices: Do we simply "wing it" and say we are not liturgical, when in truth we have invented our own liturgy? OR...do we seek to in some sense match our liturgy with what is happening in heaven? None of this is an affront to Christ's high priestly work! In fact, he followed/s liturgy in accomplishing his priesthood.
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Permalink Reply by michael on
-
Hi Jim L et al,
You wrote:
My thesis is that walking in the Spirit, speaking what comes from heaven, doing only the works of the Father, is what God is working toward in us as we are being conformed to the image of His Son. What do you think of this thesis?
Although I agree in essence with your thesis, I'd like to possibly challenge what I perceive to be an underlying assumption to your above statement based, first of all, on the life and example of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. If "speaking what comes from heaven" and "doing only the works of the Father" were the almost automatic results of Jesus' "walking in the Spirit," than how do we reconcile that idea with (a) the actual struggle Jesus faced to fulfill the Father's will at Gethsemane, (b) the way Jesus combated and defeated the devil in the wilderness, not by merely speaking spontaneous words of his own, albeit generated by the Spirit, but by quoting Scripture, (c) Jesus' testimony that he obeyed his Father's commandments (Joh 15:10), (d) the witness that Jesus "learned obedience" (Heb 5:8), (e) and the record that Jesus himself participated in synagogue (thus liturgical) worship (Luk 4)?
Do you see what I'm driving at Jim, or am I somehow misreading you here?
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Permalink Reply by michael on
-
Hi Jim L et al,
Glad to read your answer and I fully concur. However, there is a parallel to this and to what you wrote about a personal worship experience of crying "Holy...Holy...Holy" to the Lord apart from any perceived liturgical influence. In your series of related rhetorical questions you intimated that maybe the Lord prefers the non-rehearsed over the rehearsed, and that this spontaneous outburst points more clearly to "walking in the Spirit" then liturgical [albeit heart-felt] recitation. Thus I was just trying to show that there is a "both/and" before us and not an "either/or." Jesus's example of walking in the Spirit shows us both the spontaeous and the more structured ways to worship the Father with all one's being.
Do you get my point? One need not be pitted against the other, not even in theory.
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Permalink Reply by Sean Steckbeck on -
Michael,
Did you see my question?
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Wood on -
greetings branches,
Dear Michael it *appears* that you are trying to convince folks that if their worship isn't liturgical, then it's not true. Again, the words of Jesus to the woman at the well, "the hour is coming, and NOW is, that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.
What's this now that Jesus is speaking of? The now then was B-4 the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, or the one on *that* mountain in Samaria.
Michael you also say:
Again, the evidence is very strong that there was a level of continuity between the liturgical worship given by God to Moses for the tabernacle, that liturgical worship's transference to the Jerusalem temple, the modification and transference of liturgical worship to the ancient synagogue, and the modification and transference of liturgical worship to the Apostolic Church...
Me again: You talk about transference. Prior to the new covenant perhaps there was a liturgical transference, but Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, brought perfection which the Levitical priesthood could not. And with the change of priesthood then it's necessary for there to be a change also of the law. Heb.7:11&12
And if this is the case, and if the liturgy you speak of Michael is of the law, then.........................
The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ............that's where it's at. May He reveal to us what HE wants.
be blessed Michael in knowing Christ Jesus as your EVERYTHING
-
Permalink Reply by orthodoxyestad33 on -
Bill
I love your greetings :)
All my Christian life, i have sought an answer to: What is "Worship in Spirit and Truth?" I have stood in 30 years of worship, asking the Father to reveal this to me. I have been a worship leader, have been in home meetings, holy roller meetings, Benny Hinn meetings, Tommy Tenny meetings, Kenneth Hagin meetings, regular Methodist type meetings. I was very close to my last pastor of 17 years, and he and his wife sought the Lord with all their hearts, always inviting His Spirit to be in our midst. Every once in a while we seemed to get it right. The "Spirit" would be so thick... Most times, however, it was a serious drag. We lived for those times when He "showed up."
All the Christians I have been involved with were serious, sincere., always seeking God's will.
My question: How does one know for sure what worship in Spirit and Truth really is? This a serious question that I'm not sure anyone has the answer for....otherwise we would not all be looking for it outside of what we already knew. Will this last? When this fizzles out, like the charismatic movement of the 70's, the healing revivals of the 40's etc. What then? Do we keep trying? Are these different things, The Spirit carrying us forward to eventual union with Christ, to eventual unity? or is this another "wind " of doctrine? How do we really know?
Some of the most "Spiritual" people are struggling with the same sins over and over...(myself included). Was Jesus serious when he said that we should be perfect? Was he teasing when He said we should be one? How do we know what strong delusion if we are deluded, how do we really know??
I know this is a lot of questions, and maybe they are more rhetorical than anything, but they've dogged me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I came to the HC movement, and found SC at that time, while on my journey. For me, the credibility of Ancientness, has brought me home. I don't have to figure it out, I can just relax inside 2000 years of the life and experience of the Church of the Apostolic and pre-Nicene fathers, the martyrs, and great saints. The folks I worshiped with before are no less or more Christian than me, we are really all on a journey, and by the grace of God we will one daysee Him face to face.
Kim :)
Bill Wood said:greetings branches,
Dear Michael it *appears* that you are trying to convince folks that if their worship isn't liturgical, then it's not true. Again, the words of Jesus to the woman at the well, "the hour is coming, and NOW is, that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.
What's this now that Jesus is speaking of? The now then was B-4 the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, or the one on *that* mountain in Samaria.
Michael you also say:
Again, the evidence is very strong that there was a level of continuity between the liturgical worship given by God to Moses for the tabernacle, that liturgical worship's transference to the Jerusalem temple, the modification and transference of liturgical worship to the ancient synagogue, and the modification and transference of liturgical worship to the Apostolic Church...
Me again: You talk about transference. Prior to the new covenant perhaps there was a liturgical transference, but Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, brought perfection which the Levitical priesthood could not. And with the change of priesthood then it's necessary for there to be a change also of the law. Heb.7:11&12
And if this is the case, and if the liturgy you speak of Michael is of the law, then.........................
The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ............that's where it's at. May He reveal to us what HE wants.
be blessed Michael in knowing Christ Jesus as your EVERYTHING
-
Permalink Reply by michael on
-
Shalom Sean S et al,
I saw your "questions" but decided that I needed to put off answering until I had some more time on my hands, your "question" really being a series of questions, and good ones at that, but which require lots of thought, descriptions of scenarios, etc. Thankfully Tuesdays are for me [usually] a non-teaching/traveling day. So I can begin to dive in:
You wrote:
Could you describe how you would see a SC meeting in a Western Gentile context.
Sure. Opening prayer done by anyone who wants to...but presided over by the church servant-leader/s. Before this, of course, there could have been, like, 1/2 hour or more of smoozing until the designated time for the actual get-together. Once the prayer has sanctified the time, and greetings with regulars and newcomers have been exchanged, then the food begins. During the meal, lots of things are discussed, but the spine to the discussions, so to speak, would be the pre-assigned (to group regulars) Bible passages from Law, other portions of the OT, Gospels, and other portions of the NT...all thematically related (I suggest following the reading schedule of the Synagogue, with the NT readings perhaps following Beth Yeshua's, or some other established Messianic congregation's schedule...although another option is to following a nearby liturical church's reading schedule). Eating, talking, eating, praying, eating, joking, eating, prophesying, eating, healing, eating, singing, eating... Some of the talking, prayers, etc could have been pre-planned, but room should be given for the group dynamic to breath and be extemporaneous.Then maybe (or maybe not) the groups goes into the living room and waits on the Lord, sings, prays, just hangs out and eats ice cream...whatever. Then, of course, there is the communion meal. It could have been done at the end of the table meal or kept somewhat separate. Either way. There is this balancing act to maintain...maybe a few. (1) Connecting to the Church today...but they have for the most part severed ties with the Synagogue and created new times, seasons, and customs...so that won't be easy. But it should be a goal. (2) Connecting with the Synagogue of today at some level, without becoming a Jewish congregation ("Western Gentile context"). How unbelieving Jews view us should be important, but not definitive. (3) Connecting relevantly to our cultural context/s. What we do should be distinctively Christian, but it should resonate at some level with those who are not yet Christians. Above all, what we actually do should be, and should be generally viewed as good for people, although that will never keep the rumors from flying or detractors from slandering us and our Master. Related to the first two balancing acts is (4) Connecting with the past (this can be done via the reading of or established practices of ancient non-biblical Christian texts (Didache, Justin's description of a gathering, Didiscalia [c. 250 A.D. - See the interesting article on this Jewish bit of HALAKHAH reinterpreted for Christians here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=343&letter=D ], etc) . There should be an understanding that people can get up to tend to their kids, use the bathroom, leave if necessary, etc. Liturgy should be explained when practiced, not just done. The fault of many liturgical churches is that newcomers, and even a lot of old-comers, are lost as to the rich meaning of so many of the rituals. There can be candle-lightings, praying toward Jerusalem or toward the east (waiting for the Messiah's return, an early post-biblical practice), responsive readings, etc. But I don't suggest that things get too dense with liturgy. Depending on practicalities (some people need to get up early for work the next day, or have other things to accomplish if the meeting is in the morning), people should feel free to hang-out together, make plans for doing things during the week, etc.
That' is just the first question and look how much space it took to answer. And I stayed pretty general. So...I'm going to end there for now. Maybe (but probably not) I will tackle your second question later on today. Let me boomerang your first question back to you, Sean. Then we (and others) can compare notes.
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Permalink Reply by michael on
-
Hi Bill W et al,
You wrote:
Dear Michael it *appears* that you are trying to convince folks that if their worship isn't liturgical, then it's not true.
No brother, you have misread me! :D Please go back and reread at least some of my earlier postings on this thread once the conversation swung to liturgy. Read me at face value: I am saying that some sort of liturgy is inevitable. And I am saying that people who say they are "non-liturgical" are still actually following liturgies, but liturgies that have come to them and their groups via their cultural values, or via something that they read or heard that impressed them, hodge-podged with things from the Bible, etc. I do NOT believe that being liturgical in any traditional sense of the word has a direct bearing on salvation. But I am noticing that western Evangelical Christians, and SCers in particular, tend to [wrongly] equate liturgy with legalism, and to thus eschew ancient/traditional liturgical worship. And that is symptomatic of something, what I call the "unhinging" or "discontinuity" of the Church from its past, and from the biblical revelation. The Emerging Church is trying to dialog with saints of the past and to employ some ancient practices into a contemporary setting. This trend is commendable. However, the EC usually just goes back to the Desert Fathers or Medieval mystics as they seek to find stability in the present from the thoughts and practices of the past. I am unsatisfied with stopping post-Pentecost. In fact, I am unsatisfied stopping at Pentecost or with the Gospels. The Bible or the earliest Christians is still in our canon (the TaNaKH or so-called "Old Testament") and I find great satisfaction and stability in linking back (along with many early post-biblical Christians) with the revelation that preceded the so-called "New Testament." This has a bearing on how I worship the Father (through His Son, in the Spirit) in meetings and how I conduct my day to day, week to week, month to month, and year to year affairs.
Again, the words of Jesus to the woman at the well, "the hour is coming, and NOW is, that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth. What's this now that Jesus is speaking of? The now then was B-4 the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, or the one on *that* mountain in Samaria.
I agree. What I wrote earlier was regarding Jesus' statement about a time coming when the Samaritan woman and others would not worship at either the already destroyed Samaritan temple (128 B.C. although the Samaritans still worshipped there among the ruins and hoped for a rebuilding) or the Jerusalem temple. That prediction was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Nevertheless, we see Jesus and his followers, AFTER JESUS' STATEMENT TO THE SAMARITAN WOMAN, participating in the temple cultus (E.g. Passover), including the offering of animal sacrifices (there were three mandatory feasts for all male Jews which involved the offering of sacrifices). The Jewish Christians (including Paul!) saw no conflict with offering sacrifices at the temple and their belief that Jesus was/is the sacrifice and great High Priest (E.g. Act 21:18ff). I guess what I am trying to say here is that Jesus et al were worshipping the Father in Spirit and in truth, yet they continued participating in liturgical temple worship and liturgical synagogue worship, so such worship is not negated by Jesus' reference to worshipping the Fath in Spirit and in truth. Do you catch my point?
Prior to the new covenant perhaps there was a liturgical transference...
No, demonstrably under both Mosaic and New Covenants. What you are offering us is a theological reflection on Christ's mediatorship, but it does not match all of the biblical evidence.
And with the change of priesthood then it's necessary for there to be a change also of the law.
Referring in context to a modification of the prieshood law regarding Levi, making room for the Melchizedek priesthood already hinted at in Genesis, then later made explicit in Psa 110. This is not a change of the entire Law (i.e. Torah) as can be seen by the many quotes and allusions to the Torah made by the Apostles et al while they were trying to make their points about New Covenant life and practice. Not to mention by reading the many OT prophecies of what the New Covenant would be and accomplish. : D
But perhaps this will take us to far afoot from the focus of this thread.
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Permalink Reply by Neil Lacy on
-
From my perspective "Houses that change the World" by Wolfgang Simson does the best of showing how organic and house churches facilitate the 5 fold ministry. Part of what may cause confusion is that there is nothing in the N.T. that calls the church "Apostolic or Simple" so comparing those may always become subjective. The form and function of "The Church" is possibly the most important ?'s for our generation if not all generations. Simson as well as many other writers may help with those questions as well. The one central value that the folks I am in fellowship w/ is that Jesus be preeminent in all things.
-
Permalink Reply by michael on
-
Hi Neil L et al,
You wrote:
Simson as well as many other writers may help with those questions as well. The one central value that the folks I am in fellowship w/ is that Jesus be preeminent in all things.
Your point about nomenclature is well stated. Also Simson's (and others') books are helpful. However, the controversy surrounding the SC Movement (and one only need go to the Wikipedia article on "Simple Church" to see this) is that at its core is a re-writing of ecclesiology and even Church history. Now, I am all for revisiting old paradigms and seeing how they might stand up under new light, but we have to be careful that we don't simply filter out the aspects of the evidence that (postmodern, low church, Charismatic, etc) cultural conditioning now causes us to personally find distasteful. Furthermore, Simson et al have as a foundational assumption for their paradigm/s a huge DIS-connect between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant which cannot be sustained in the light of Scripture. If we desire to see Jesus Christ preeminent in all things then we should see our Lord working in and through the Old Covenant (and before) in an organic unity with his plans and purposes for his people; not as a big gear shift from one direction to an almost completely new direction. As if those millenia working with Israel and promising them certain things turned out to be a huge waste of time, an exercise in futility designed only to demonstrate to humanity that the Law (Torah) cannot be obeyed and that all of the ritual and pomp included in Moses' writings (and afterward) were against the very nature of Christ and his God. An ecclesiology that has as its basic premise that the Church started during the event recorded in Acts chapter 2 ignores the biblical evidence to the contrary and frames for itself a house...from the roof down.
Not a stable foundation for life and godliness. And one that necessarily denies the preeminence of Christ in some things.
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Permalink Reply by vigel on -
indeed if we look back to the biblical lifestyle, especially about early church early and we compare it with the lifestyle of the church today we will find that the lifestyle of the church today is not in accordance with the style of early church life, in other words the church when it was taken out of context tends biblical and more, "selfish / thinking about a particular group or organization" should be aware of the church must be quick and do the noble Lord Jesus and to build alliances as biblical / early early church.
-
Permalink Reply by Sean Steckbeck on
-
Michael,
I would see something similar as you, but adding liturgy not from day one. I would add it little by little with some discipleship. I would start out as simple as possible.
Since the strength of the SC movement is its ability to reach non-believers, my spiritual mentor and I came up with five steps:
Phase 1.) Discipling or pre-discipling man of peace: The disciple maker meets with the man of peace- may be a seeker or new believer.
Phase 2.) Pre-Discipleship Group: The disciple maker starts a pre-discipleship group of pre-believers with the man of peace's sphere of influence.
Phase 3.) Discipleship Group: Disciple Maker disciples man of peace and his newly believing sphere of influence.
Phase 4.) New Congregation: Disciple maker only disciples man of peace who then disciples the SC congregation.
Phase 5.) Disciple maker/team and man of peace recognize elders/deacons (could also be man of peace), and disciple maker gives it over to elders/deacons to maintain discipleship and group dynamic and multiplication.
So the group dynamic depends much on which phase each group is in.
You were speaking of a group that is already established believers.
As my calling is mainly apostolic, I concentrate more on how to start with unbelievers.
The other day someone noticed about the groups our team started that they are 100% to 90% new believers, while the majority of congregations in Israel are at the most (a really evangelizing congregation) 20% new believers- I would give the example here of Eitan Shishkoff, Asher Intrater, or Ari Sorkoram at the higher 20% level, but the majority are somewhere between 1-6% new believers (including beloved Netiviyah). Someone asked me why and how we got in our entire movement somewhere around 90% new believers.... I told them, its easy.... just follow Luke 10. Nobody here understands Luke 10, which is in my opinion, the simplest strength of the Simple Church Movement. Even the more evangelizing movements that see fruit have relational evangelism and tract evangelism, but still do not understand Luke 10 and the power of discipling a new believer and his sphere of influence within their own context (their home or place they meet regurarly before they became believers). We only have one house congregation which is 50% older believers who left the IC and 50% new believers (this happens to be the Jewish one), even then, 50% of our messianic Jewish movement is new believers- still higher than most congregations; all the others are 100% new believers mostly MBB's and Druze. This does not include all our Jewish and Muslim pre-believing groups going on right now that may take time.
The Jewish pre-believing groups take more time, which is ok. I am calling our team an Isaiah 19 team referring to the nature to be both messianic Jewish (mostly mizrachi sabras and former Orthodox/masorti) and Arab Muslims.
Anyways, even among the Arabs and Jewish people we have different modes of discipleship, and even within different groups of those.
For instance, those coming from religious Muslim backgrounds or religious Jewish backgrounds may adhere to liturgy faster than those from secular, or vice versa, depending on what they are searching for. So it may take less or more time depending where a person is at.
Liturgy does not play an extreme role with us as if it is sacred. For us it is at a level of memorization, discipleship, and customs from which they came from.
If they are from Muslim backgrounds, they maintain some of their former Muslim liturgy that is redeemable, and the ones that are not we replace it with the Lord's prayer and the like.... it may take years before we are able to encourage Jewish liturgy of any kind and understanding their Jewish roots.
With Jewish believers, we do the simple Jewish liturgy from the day of salvation (Hamotzei lechem, borei pri hagefen) and we do Shabatt meal with them with lighting of candles and messianic liturgy (sh'natan lanu et yeshua or haolam).
Our Partners
Badge
© 2013 Created by Dale Interactive.
