The Elephant in the Chapel
And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Matt 24:11-13
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock...fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Act 20:28-30
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons... 1 Tim 4:1
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power... 2 Tim 3:1-5
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words... 2 Pet 2:1-3a
Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come... 1 Jn 2:18
But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." Jude 17
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. 1 Jn 5:21
The Elephant in the Chapel
I find myself at this SimpleChurch.com website for what I am guessing would be a typical reason motivating people who make their way here: to explore notions of what the church really is and whether it can be found in so-called “simple expressions,” or perhaps more usually, the house church. One distinct difference from most other folks finding their way here (I do not say “all other folks”—there is nothing new under the sun) which I might bring to these discussions is that I and my family have been with a house church for the last 12 years, and I have been primed for it for more than a few years beyond the last 12. My understanding of the church is such that if the real thing does exist, it certainly does not exist in any notions or, more importantly, practices we have of it, whether it be the institutional church OR the house or simple church.
Let me state unequivocally that I do believe the real thing exists, but I have to say that at this point my construct has been deconstructed, and what I am writing is my own attempt to either find a new construct, or perhaps better, learn to live without one. By construct I mean: A concept or theory devised to integrate in an orderly way the diverse data on a phenomenon. I believe I pulled that definition off the Web awhile back, and interestingly, found it to be connected in some respects to another psychological term: cognitive dissonance. This latter term had been used to explain the resultant behaviors of people in the aftermath of “The Great Disappointment”. If you’re not familiar with it, well, google it. It’s just one of many examples of the follies of date-setting the return of Christ, but more to the point of my musings, it is a good example of what we do when we find that things aren’t quite working out the way our constructs say they should be working out. Thus with church, we have an understanding of the way things should be, but then we start to learn either a different theology or more of the heart of God (the two not necessarily being the same thing!) and we come to see our constructs collapsing upon us. And so, here are many of us at this website who have left the ruins of our constructs of the institutional church. Ah, but what then, when you see the ruins of your construct of the house church around you?
I will now say unequivocally that this last statement is by no means an indictment of any of the brethren with whom my family and I fellowship. Nor is it meant to suggest that we recently went through some terrible split. No, for the time being anyway, we are all still together. They know the love of God in Christ and we have been the recipients of their love and God’s love through them in manifold ways. They are relatively mature in their faith and understanding of the Word (but then who am I to judge this?). So why then do I describe my construct of the house church as a heap of rubble around me? Simply put, the construct doesn’t work for me anymore.
Enter the Defenders of the house church Construct, those who would say that, “Sure, there are pitfalls, things to watch out for, that ‘Simple Church isn’t Simple’. But it’s still theologically correct.” Some might even say, “Just because you meet in a house doesn’t make it a house church.” To the latter, granted. But perhaps it’s also possible to say—and truth-fully to boot—that “Just because you’re a house church doesn’t make you ‘The Church’”—at least not in any meaningful sense of the Word. That last Word is meant to be capitalized, and that last phrase is lifted from a comment by a contributor to these forums named Jeramie, from Gulfport, Mississippi, who too seems to be seeking the real church, his own particular issue apparently mostly focused on a questioning of why the house church/simple church movements give short shrift to the Word when it comes to the role of Pastors/Elders/Bishops (as well as giving short shrift to the Word when it comes to truly living a life free of personal ownership of earthly treasures.) To be sure, these two questions are among those I have as I stand among the ruins, but they are not the only ones. I have to ask Jeramie, as I ask myself, what are you really looking for? If you or I are looking for a construct that works, I don’t believe we are going to find it in either the institutional church or simple church/house church, not at least until we deal with the elephant in the chapel.
So, what do I mean by this elephant? Put simply, it is the thing we don’t seem to want to confront but has been right before our eyes for 2,000 years of Church history: the effect of the false prophets and the spirit of antichrist as foretold by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, Jude and no doubt others of the apostles (Jude 17). Note I emphasize the effect, not the false prophets themselves. Confronting false prophets is one thing. Dealing with the effects is something altogether different. Concerning unequivocal speech, look right there in those verses I started out with. See how often the word will is used. There’s no maybe about it. But here we stand, 2,000 years hence, pretending that denominations are a good thing (oh no, not us house-churchers), pretending that we don’t need leadership, pretending that we can go back to doing church the way it was done in New Testament times, pretending that by leaving the institutional church and doing New Testament-style churches in our homes we are somehow not contributing to the continued atomizing of the One Body (at least as visibly expressed here on the earth.) How exactly is the house church immune from the “We are of Paul, we are of the Pope, we are of Calvin” phenomenon? Can we not just as easily say, ”We are of Viola/Cole/whoever”?
To be sure, the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail, but who are we kidding if we think that 2,000 years of savage wolves can have had no effect upon the Church (including the house churches) as she exists in the world today? To be sure, there is a Bride being made ready. But if we think that the Bride is going to be seen and enjoyed simply by re-establishing New Testament patterns (whatever those really are) while all around us “the love of many [has grown] cold,” then methinks we’ve got our eye off the true prize.
Let me give just one example of the effects of the savage wolves. Our fellowship over the years has had to deal with sin among some of its people. Grievous sin in some instances. Nothing unusual here. And certainly it has done damage to the life of the Body. Through it I (personally—the lesson is not necessarily a shared one) have learned that unless the sin is confronted with humility and love, but in the severe way the Word demands, we all suffer more than we ought, the sinner is never truly held to account and brought to repentance (by God, not us!), and the light of the Glory of God shown through the love we have for one another becomes a dimly burning wick. Of course what I am pointing to is “Church Discipline”. But that's just the theologian's term. That is, I'm not just talking about following a procedure because that's what the Bible says to do. I'm talking about moving in the power of the Spirit, a power promised to us who live in Him, and He in us. And I'm talking about this in a Corporate way, the only way that Jesus and his disciples taught us was the true nature of the Church. One Body. Universal.
But herein lies a conundrum. I can only speak of this movement and power in a theoretical way, having never witnessed the Body moving in this way. And how could it, really? Really.
Chew on that question a bit while I answer an objection some of you may have. You may say that you have seen church discipline in action, and seen a sinner turn from his ways as a result. But is there necessarily a causal link? Be careful how you answer! Could it not simply be that the kindness of God led the sinner to repentance (because that's what God does) without regard to the procedure employed? Bear in mind that what you witnessed was one isolated church putting a sinner out, but have you ever witnessed the Church putting out a sinner? If you are Catholic or Orthodox (which one? Greek or Russian?!) you might say yes, you have, since you believe yours is the One True Church. But let's say for the sake of argument that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are just two of the multitudinous examples of division the Church has suffered ever since Paul took up the problem with the Corinthians. If so, then it is impossible—due to the state of the visible Church today and the effects of the wolves—to put out a sinner, to do as Paul did, delivering such a one over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, yet so his spirit might be saved, or to refuse to feed the foolish busybody—to have nothing to do with such a one (ref: Corinthians and Thessalonians).
You know why this is an impossibility: the fool, the sinner, will simply continue to wreak havoc at the church down the street. Sometimes he'll build his own church right across the street! Or start a house church.
So, that is but one example of the teeth marks and shredded flesh. Obviously, following the whole question of Leadership would reveal another. If you look squarely at the elephant in the chapel, which again I am saying is the effect of the false prophets and the spirit of antichrist as previously foretold, you will realize that our constructs will not work, unless (Perhaps! But not likely!) our constructs are rebuilt with this understanding in mind. Or perhaps, as I suggested to myself earlier, it would be better to live without one.
Through all these admittedly negative musings I steadfastly maintain my belief that somehow, in some mysterious way, the Bride is being made ready, and when she is called to the wedding there will be Glory like we've never known. But I am going to have to let go of my idea that doing simple church gives us some kind of advantage in being able to see or walk in the Bride's glory either more or sooner.
I have had tastes of Joy in the Spirit and seen and experienced deep worship over the years, I have seen the Lord working among his people, I have known His presence in ways almost indescribable, and all of this in so many contexts beyond just the simple church. Among these contexts were a large evangelical Episcopalian church in Pittsburgh, a Southern Baptist church with a big-haired telegenic TV preacher, a fellowship group we led as part of a Bible Church, and even while viewing The Lion King on Broadway.
When I reflect on these points of closer contact with the Spirit, the elephant in the chapel, and the oftentimes misguided house churches I have witnessed or heard about (or even the times when I have contributed to the misguidedness!), I can't but help realize that while the concept of simple, house or organic church may be lovely in our image of it, the existential reality is something altogether different. What I do about it now, as I stand among the ruins of my own construct (my image, my idol—Little children, keep yourselves from idols), well, that is the question. Where the pneuma blows...
Views: 893
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew G. Parker on -
Shalom Crystal,
I waited a while to write this, because I wanted others to have a chance to reply. I hope I'm not butting in.
I just have a statement or two, and then I'll ask a question or three ...and then listen.
I too see little difference from the churches. The Catholic church still uses Old words like Priest. The protestant church just calls them "pastor" ...but they are really the same in function. They "feed" the flock (of birds, not sheep). Worms are bitter! The funny thing is, protestant denominations seem to think themselves so far removed. I however think that they have only taken one little baby step...
Therefore, if I may be so bold to ask you... "What do you see?" "What does the church look like?" verses "How should The Church look?"
NOTE: I see the walk with Christ as more of an "amazing maze" than a maturity verses immaturity thing. We are all trying to get to the finish, some of us are just on different paths!
Just sayin'.
Blessings,
Matthew
-
Permalink Reply by Marc M on -
Thanks for your words, Crystal. Its very poetic in its imagery and seems to get right to what I perceive to be the heart of my problem: the 2,000 years' entrenchment of organized religion (i.e., my elephant) in our very beings. And your reference to "our journey out of Babylon" coincided with my own renewed look over last weekend at what the Revelation means by the Harlot and Mystery Babylon. I'm not going to get into those musings here due both to time and the simple fact that I don't really understand it, other than to say that at my core I perceive that this too is a way of speaking about the elephant.
However... I also have to respond to your post in another couple of ways. Upon reflection and self-reflection I find that your saying, "GOD has blessed you with a powerful insight there. Indeed, you are blessed to be so taught by GOD," is at once flattering and troubling (or should I say it's troubling because it is flattering!) I know you meant it purely as encouragement, and I am indeed appreciative in that sense. But I also have to ask, how do you know this? The only basis upon which we can know (as far as I understand the Spirit and the Word) is by the fruit my words produce. If the fruit is that people who read this move closer to God in Christ through the Spirit, then Praise Him. And I pray so. Anything else is just hot air (or worse).
And on that note, and by way of Paul's second letter to Timothy I want to both respond a little more to Matthew (Hi, again, Matthew!) and point out how your last paragraph also illustrates the dilemma of the elephant. When you look at Paul's heart and desire you can see that it was firmly rooted in his calling to be "a preacher and an apostle and a teacher" (1:11). This alone tells me that Acts 6 was not a point of departure (stick with me, Matthew. I'm using this to illustrate something). And while Paul was not yet on the scene, surely the other apostles knew their calling in much the same way. God does indeed call preachers and teachers to focus on this work and not the tables. But more important than the apostles' calling is the message they preached. It truly is a simple one. But where did it go these last 2,000 years? A good clue for understanding this can be found in 2 Tim 2:14-23:
14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness." 20 Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
The clue is easy to see from the emphasized text, is it not? And can you see that in the center of this text is the Gospel?: "Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, 'The Lord knows those who are His,' and, 'Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.'" Is this not another way of saying that faith brings us into relationship with Him, and this results in the fruit of good works (that is, the opposite of wickedness)? Pretty simple, yes?
So, look what happens when someone comes along and talks about a concept called the Trinity, instead of, for instance, "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Or regarding my other illustration I alluded to, Matthew and I could start arguing about whether Acts 6 was a departure point for the wayward flock. It's not whether trinitarians or Acts 6 "Table-ists" (I just made that one up!) are wolves in sheeps clothing, it's what happens when we get dragged into these wranglings over words, which leads to our ruin. And don't tell me this doesn't happen in the house/simple/organic church. The wolves want to engage us, and the second we do, we start heading down the road to ruin.
So yes, Crystal, you may be completely correct in identifying false prophecy, but I believe Matthew's spirit in the "leaver alone" thing shows what seems to me to be the Godly response. Paul put it this way (in the very next verses following what I cited):
23 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
John expressed the idea of how to respond to the antichrists in somewhat similar fashion in 1 John. In essence he said, you have the knowledge of the truth ("The Lord knows those who are His"); stand firm in this knowledge; the antichrists will become evident on their own. Don't get sucked in. Unfortunately the church by and large did, and that is the elephant of which I speak: not the false prophets themselves, rather the constant wrangling about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew G. Parker on
-
Hey Marc M.
Please understand that I'm totally cool with having a “non” discussion. In fact, what I really like hearing about is “...how great things the Lord has done for you, and has had compassion on you.” I kinda like telling my story sometimes too...
However, (if I may be so bold) there is a very key word (that you highlighted) that really stood out to me.That word is “ignorant”. What the Greek actually says is “stupid and crude questions.”
Now, I for one, have been unable to find that here on this forum. What I see is reasonable folks seeking after truth. I find no "empty chatter" (the Greek is actually "profane foolish talk").
Herein lies the problem with using scripture to dictate behavior. Paul liked to argue. Here is an example in Acts 19:8-10
"8. And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
9. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
10. And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard The Word of The Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”
The Greek transliteration is "arguing" ...which is pretty close to the KJV "disputing". You see, for every Biblical point made, there is a usually a counter. I used to wonder why this was true (because I thought The Bible was a Book of rules).
BUT, after a lot of pain, I figured it out!
Folks did what they did in The Bible because they used their heads to THINK, and were trying to live as they personally felt they should.
Did they make mistakes? Yes.
Did they correct those mistakes? Not always.
Should we emulate those “men and women of God”? No.
Only Christ is worth that... and fortunately, we have a record to follow (X4) of what He did.
Blessings,
Matthew
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew G. Parker on
-
As Columbo would say,
Oh, and one more thing Marc...
To quote you;
“This alone tells me that Acts 6 was not a point of departure (stick with me, Matthew. I'm using this to illustrate something). And while Paul was not yet on the scene, surely the other apostles knew their calling in much the same way.”
You a “leaver” huh? 8^)
Well, this one is for free... 8^)
The fact that Paul and the apostles probably knew their calling, 1.) doesn't negate the fact that they were NOT perfect. The fact that they were NOT PERFECT 2.) negates the possibility that they never made a mistake. Therefore, I can conclude 3.) that they made mistakes, and 4.) that they could have made one in Acts 6.
NOTE: This is NOT an evidential argument at all, just a quick rebuttal. Next time it'll be the "court room". 8^)
Blessings,
Matthew
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Spear on -
Ok, If life is a test of character, I suppose our leaving church could be a failure in that particular area. Keep in mind that in judgement, we will be judged by our works, not by how much truth we get right. I don't think any church can ever get things completely right. It may be that God meant for no one to get it all right and unable to figure it all out. No one will ever agree on everything so I don't think getting it all right should be the focus. God knows we won't get it all so what is God then focusing on? Maybe He is looking at how we handle ourselve in our disagreements.
Galatians 5
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.The fruit of the Spirit has to do with our interaction with other people. God is not focused on how much we read and study the bible, go to church, pray, take the Lord's supper or any other religious stuff there is to do (the elephant). He's focusing on how we treat and interact with the people we deal with in our lives (home, work or church)... gentel, meek, kind, temperant.
Just a month ago, I had to pray and ask God for an attitude adjustment because at work it was going south and the stress of too much to do and impatient boss was wearing on me. Those kind of prayers God gladly answers and helps. He did help and work is still going well. Evil malicious thoughs, God takes away instantly after praying with a real desire to have them gone. His Holy Spirit doesn't want to have to listen to that crap.
Well, that my thoughts.
Ryan
-
Permalink Reply by Marc M on
-
"The fruit of the Spirit has to do with our interaction with other people."
AMEN!!! I purposely reintroduced Matthew's point about Acts 6 solely to show how easy it can be to get derailed. I hope you realized this, Matthew, which is why I said near the end, "I believe Matthew's spirit in the "leaver alone" thing shows what seems to me to be the Godly response." I was applauding you for not getting derailed.
On a visceral level I think I know more the reason why the constructs don't work anymore, and I think these last posts by Ryan and Matthew cut right to it: arguments and disagreements, biting and devouring. I'm dreadfully tired of it. I think I'm going to go chew on that thought for awhile...
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew G. Parker on
-
Hey Ryan,
You said,
“Ok, If life is a test of character, I suppose our leaving church could be a failure in that particular area.”
...to which I could agree. However, I didn't leave angry, hurt, disillusioned or etc. It was really just an “accident.” You see, there was this KJV scripture (that I had heard all of my life) that I decided to simply look up (I wasn't one of those KJV only guys, it was just what I had grown up with).
Anyway, the verse wasn't in there (in The Interlinear). When I pointed this out to my pastor, he not only knew (he had quoted it from the pulpit) but he pointed me to several other “glosses.”
His explanation was, “Holy men must have felt that the addition was necessary.” Mine was, “Okay, what in the [insert mild explicative here] is going on here!!!”
So I defected away from a [man] who would excuse the re-writing of Scripture, and tried a home church (hoping to find true fellowship). I delved deeper into the Nestle-Aland Interlinear, and my whole [Biblical] world collapsed.
Just a little about my why...
Having said that, I really like what you said here,
“God knows we won't get it all so what is God then focusing on? Maybe He is looking at how we handle ourselves in our disagreements.”
Which is totally profound I think! The truth is, anyone can fellowship if they agree on every point. It's when we disagree that really test us. You wouldn't believe how aggressive I am as a debater. The world of debate is a “court room” to me (my wife hates that!) so I agonize over every word I post (tone, inflection, etc don't come through this medium very well) and I use a lot of these things 8^) ;^) :^) ...to try and show a calm mood.
The truth is, I have several close friends that totally differ on many things. Three are even gasp! pastors. 8^) One is my brother. We talk about everything, even our faith.
Fortunately, I'm the only one that is right! ROTFLMHO!!!
ANYWAY... I guess I'll just quote you again...
"The fruit of the Spirit has to do with our interaction with other people. God is not focused on how much we read and study the bible, go to church, pray, take the Lord's supper or any other religious stuff there is to do (the elephant). He's focusing on how we treat and interact with the people we deal with in our lives (home, work or church)... gentel, meek, kind, temperant."
...and say, “Amen. Nuf said!!!”
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew G. Parker on
-
Hey Marc,
I guess you never know what's going to happen when a guy simply decides to VENT! 8^)
Fortunately (I think) there are people that see your elephant (I still like prison) and want something done. Unfortunately, I really believe that it is going to be a tough and bloody fight. There need to be those that are willing to “argue” and “debate” this thing, in order to strip away all of the added junk ...and get back to the simplicity of The Gospel.
The really difficult thing (I think) is to know what to do, because all we have now is what is broken. I see a starting place in 6, that's all. It really isn't “that big of a deal” ...to me anyway.
However, to the status quo...
A story? In 1995, I went to the Philippines as the head leader with a missions group. I lived there the whole summer, in a tent.
There, they have what they call Jeepneys. These are left over WWII jeeps that have been really REALLY altered. They look incredible (Wikipedia has some okay pictures of a few). They are colorful, chromed out, and often streeeetched. They make a really cool looking ride... but they are junk. (I rode in one where the driver had to get out and tighten the lug bolts every few miles!)
I guess the problem is, all we have any more are Jeepney churches. They look incredible, with tons of flash, and color... but the truth is, they used to be a simple Jeep.
What I see is a need to strip all of that colorful junk off, discard it in the “that didn't work so well” pile, and go back to the simple “factory” Gospel of 1.) Love God. 2.) Love others. 3.) Show it.
As you say, the source is unimportant. What is important is finding (or rebuilding) the simple thing that has been lost. Doing that IS going to be a fight. Folks like their chrome.
Blessings,
Matthew
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Spear on
-
I understand the 'prison' side of the I.C.That's the result of the 'system' that comes into being because of the brick and mortar business and its money dependency in order to exist.
A business needs 'paying' costomers to survive, a manager/owner and staff. So in order to survive, it needs to keep people coming and giving. It thrives on peoples free service and promotes people getting involved in its minstries. As we know, alot of the ministries are never-ending and getting involved in one of those never ending ministries traps a person into service to the institution and its members in the name of 'serving God' and 'Christian service'... like for years. The church leaders work hard to find a good pastor who will preach/teach well in order to keep people interested, learning, coming and draw even more people in. We all know churches promote and push going to church and give the impression it is wrong to not go. This is much the affect of money dependence.
Often there is no real outreach into the community. Most churches hold thier own and try to grab a church hopper or two when they pass through. Out here in the world, you wouldn't know a church exists if it wasn't for the buildings dotting the landscape. I'd like to say, there is no outreach going on.... at all.
Now being out of church for more than a year, I can't see anyone who doesn't go or never gone, just getting up one Sunday morning and going off to church out of the blue. Church is for church people, not for non-church people. Someone who has never gone to church is going to feel completely uncomfortable if they were to go, especially men. Some of these emotional comtemporary songs were making me feel uncomfortable.
I still think about going back occasionally but the 'system' just keeps turning me off even though I know I could meet and get to know some nice people.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew G. Parker on
-
Hey Ryan,
A few years ago, some scientist at Duke university discovered what the human appendix is for (it reboots the bowels immune system with good bacteria).
Intelligent design folks all said, "We told you it had a purpose! God don't make no junk!!!"
You see, the evolutionist claim was that the human appendix was a “left over” appendage, and that it no longer served any function.
However, when the discovery was made, all the evolutionist said was, “Wow! The appendix functions, and (unbeknown to us) still has an evolutionary purpose.”
Like the Borg, they simply adapted.
I see the church doing the exact same thing. There is this problem with going to a building, and all of the resources that that takes. And, I TOTALLY AGREE with you, that is a HUGE problem! However, the whole mess (starting when there became a pastor/laity split) needs to be addressed. Jesus said, "One Shepherd, one sheep heard."
I guess what I'm saying is, the problem is with the whole “church” theory. The Borg ...I mean the church, is notorious for being able to adapt. Every home church still has a "pastor" and "elders" because, RESISTANCE is futile! We HAVE BEEN assimilated! Borg is all we know...
Another story?
One day, a group of us home church guys were at a restaurant "fellowshipping." A fellow there was upset that a court case was in the news, that he felt besmirched Christ ...because it was [in his opinion] trivial. I wasn't going to say anything, but he just went on and on about it. I finally decided that this guy was going to monopolize the entire lunch, if I didn't try and explain a little about the law. I tried to gently explain that often cases had to start out with something small, to build precedent. Well, he got really insistent that I was wrong. Nothing logical I said changed anything. Then the home church “pastor” simply looked at him and said, “Matthew's right.”
His face turned bright red, and he shut up.
My degree is Criminal Justice. The “pastor” is an engineer. I simply find that hilarious! Because the guy with “clout” agreed with me, the argument ended in red faced embarrassment. How silly! I mean, what “qualifies” an engineer to make the closing argument!?! NOTHING, he was just “the pastor.”
Another story? The same church group sent out an email about a “retreat” they were having at a local campground with cabins. The cabins were numbered from one through [whatever]. The email said, “In no particular order, these are the cabin assignments." The email then went on to read rank and file... Cabin 1.) The traveling evangelist and his wife. Cabin 2.) The 'pastor' and his family. Cabin 3.) The 'assistant pastor' and his family. Cabin 4.) head 'elder' ...etc." NOTE: It was totally rank, not family size or anything like that. In fact, it was the exact opposite! 8^)
My wife and I smiled in amazement at that email, because they felt it necessary to say “In no particular order” ...because it was so glaringly true! 8^)
NOTE: Neither of these two things were offensive to me. The "pastor" agreed with me... and I didn't go (nor plan to go) to the campground.
Anyway, I agree that there are some really good books out there on how to do church. But, shouldn't we really refocus on Christ, and His example ALONE? Take what the early church was as a "best effort," and simply go back to what Jesus lived. Forget intimating the early church, and imitate Christ.
Why is that such a blasphemous thing to so many?
Blessings,
Matthew
-
Permalink Reply by Marshall Diakon on -
Only the full grace & power of God in Christ can free & keep a person from Religious Collective (including the hypocrisy, imagery & futility). The "best effort" of the early ekklesia (church) was much beyond their effort. Driven by the Spirit of God/Christ (rather consistently), they "turned the world upside down," and in example for us. Not that we should clone their deeds or worship their writings, but that we should be walking in the same Spirit they walked.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Wood on -
howdy saints.
I don't frequent this site much these days but have lurked a bit on this topic. Nothing to offer at this time. However, this from Matthew, explaining why he departed the *church* has me a bit curious:
However, I didn't leave angry, hurt, disillusioned or etc. It was really just an “accident.” You see, there was this KJV scripture (that I had heard all of my life) that I decided to simply look up (I wasn't one of those KJV only guys, it was just what I had grown up with).
Anyway, the verse wasn't in there (in The Interlinear). When I pointed this out to my pastor, he not only knew (he had quoted it from the pulpit) but he pointed me to several other “glosses.”
His explanation was, “Holy men must have felt that the addition was necessary.” Mine was, “Okay, what in the [insert mild explicative here] is going on here!!!”
Matthew, could you please indicate which scripture/s you're referring to. Thanks.
Our Partners
Badge
© 2013 Created by Dale Interactive.
