Just who IS responsible for this state of affairs?

The breakout session I did at Greenock had an underlying theme that I want to raise again. We hear constant criticisms of 'the church' and what it is doing and what it ought to be doing, but just who is responsible to do something about it? The knee jerk reaction will be 'we are all responsible' but this is only partly true. You are not responsible for things that God has entrusted to me and I am not responsible for the things that God has trusted to you.

I really believe many of us have a fundamental flaw in our understanding of 'the church' which creates a fatal flaw in our theology of revival. It is an axiom that we are to give an account for our own lives and that we must give an account of those things which have been trusted to us. So just who is 'responsible for the church'?

This may come as a surprise to many but the Bible does not use the word 'church' in the way that I have been using in in the previous paragraphs. We frequently hear reference to 'the church in America' or the 'church in the 21st century' or 'the church of today', but the Bible never refers to 'the church' in this way. This is not an academic point. The way we think effects the way we live.

It is significant the the scriptures refer to the seven churches which are in Asia (Rev 1:4) and NOT the 'church (singular' in Asia'. Biblically there is no such thing as the 'church in Asia' only the 'churches (plural) in Asia'. These churches were individual units which were individually held accountable for their life and witness.

The key point I am trying to make is that, biblically, the unit of responsibility is 'a church' not 'the church'. To blame 'the modern church' for conditions as we find them is a mistake. There is no such thing as 'the church' in this sense. There is an entity that we can call 'the church' and the one responsible for it is its head, Jesus Christ. To suggest that anyone else has any responsibility for 'the church' is either arrogance or biblical ignorance.

So where does that leave us? Where 'does the buck stop' for the current conditions were live in the midst of? There are two 'units of responsibility' for the testimony on earth at this time; one is the individual believer, the other is the local church.

To read the first chapters of the Revelation is to see spiritual responsibility as Christ sees it. Each of the 'churches' is unique, there is no general condition that fits them all, they are each unique. Christ presents himself in a unique way to each of these churches and begins by declaring that he 'knows' their current state. He reveals this 'state' to the messenger of each individual church and adds the necessary word for each church. The 'buck' stops with the messenger!

There is little point in ranting about the state of affairs in the US or the UK or anywhere else. We are not responsible for these things. As individuals we are responsible for our own lives and those lives that God gives us access into, but to complain is just blowing off steam. Such steam may make a piercing noise but it won't move the wheels one inch.

I have a simple word for all who complain about the state of 'the church'... mind your own business! ;-)

Wonderful post, I love it!

But enough euphoria, let's look at scripture.

Eph 1v22-23, 'And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,

vs23, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.'

Frankly, we are indiviually responsible for our own salvation, Phil 2v12.

Complaining aboout the condition of the churches, does not remove responsibility from us to do as we please, or to join in with the crowd because 'everybody is doing it'.

Or, safety in numbers.

It does hurt to see the name of the Lord dragged in the mud, or maligned, because someone who professes the name of Christ, acts in opposition to His name.

But, as scripture says, the end is at hand, therefore be serious and watchful in our prayers, 1 Peter 4v7.

God bless.

In the US, their are many "leaders," of the Church. And by that, I mean people who influence across the board. Dr Dobson, influences millions and speaks to them on a daily basis. Rick Warren, Benny Hinn. Ted Haggart was the head of the "Evangelical Alliance ," which included 33 million people. Pat Robertson and Gerry Faldwell come to mind as well. These last two guys in particular, have little to no influence outside of America, but their constituency here in America goes across denominational lines. They
"speak to the Church in America."

I think this is a great problem in many local churches. Because many have left off of hearing what Christ is saying to their local church and have substituted listening to the so-called leaders of our times, the masses have come to a similar impasse in their churches. Until they STOP allowing these so-called leaders to influence the affairs of that local congregation with it's unique needs I don't see how we will ever get past the problems that we face.

Just as countries have national characteristics, so do Churches. That is why the "American Church," is often, and rightly so in my opinion, referred to as the Laodicean Church.

I think I have been guilty in the past of painting with a broad brush whole sections of society as one group when the more I read Acts and Revelation 1-4 I see how individualized and unique each local church was.

The way this plays out in real time can be realized when I have applied messages right here on Sermonindex and other places that did [u]not[/u] apply to me at all. The preacher was speaking to a particular type of person and I was not them. But because I applied the words to my life, though I was already wildly out of balance, I listened to hear how I might apply even more pressure to myself until I have virtually overdosed on a 'medication' I never needed to begin with.

I truly believe that is what Greenock was about for me. I needed a detox from a lot of really potent and caustic teachings. If we continue to give blanket medications we will see more like damage in the lives of people being treated for problems they don't have. :-?

If we look at the State of the Church in the West, then, if you have been in leadership for the last generation, you carry a responsibility, which is different from the responsibility of the individual believer.

I understand. The question I have is what is the extent of the responsibility and has God even ordained that leaders exist as they do today? Is it God's will that men wield such influence over local churches or have men usurped the the prerogative of the Holy Spirit on an individual church level and [u]that[/u] is what they are 'accountable' for doing?

Is it the whole 'grievous wolves' thing of Acts 19 in which the people were hearing the word of God's grace, but men entered seeking to lead folk away from it and unto themselves. It that makes sense.

Eph 1v22-23, 'And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,

vs23, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.'

There is little point in ranting about the state of affairs in the US or the UK or anywhere else. We are not responsible for these things. As individuals we are responsible for our own lives and those lives that God gives us access into, but to complain is just blowing off steam.

Ron, I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this topic.

I think you are shedding light on an area of great bondage, pride, and even personal torment for many saints who feel they must shoulder more responsibility then God has given them and equipped them for.

One of the reasons I am increasingly drawn to 18th and 19th century books by Christians, is that their perspectives were much more primitive and simple in regards to living our their faith. Few of them felt the need to worry about the entire planet. They did not sit in judgement of their local church while imagining they are called to prophesy to or reform an entire society...for them the whole of their humble calling was first to be convinced of their own sin, and then, having received the blessing of justification by faith, to seek and live out Christ in their homes and their local church communities. A life of simply serving in their church, and being faithful to the measure of grace given to them in leading quiet Christian lives gave many of the 'old ones' peace like a river sufficient to sing hymns on their death beds.

Again Ron, I think your perspective here is a much needed balm for many sincere but overwhelmed saints who have confused the accessibility of global news with the responsibility to shoulder global responsibility. It is this overwhelmed feeling that eventually hardens into cynicism and indifference...the love of many waxing cold because their love seems irrelevant to all the news they hear every day. We cannot directly effect the sphere of the whole world, but we can touch those in our smaller spheres.

I've been told that such an attitude is indifference, but it is how Christians have been doing it for almost 2000 years. Once in a while we might triumphantly say that 12 men in the upper room changed the ancient world, but in truth this statement is an incomplete history. The Apostles touched lives, and those they touched in turn touched lives. The spread of ancient Christianity is a story of small spheres intersecting with small spheres...a miraculous Mitosis that only God can take credit for.

The technology we have today whereby we can feel like we know more information about the entire planet all at once in real time is giving us the illusion that we have more reach and responsibility then we really do. It is a debilitating illusion that should be recognized as contributing much towards inactivity and paralysis in the actual sphere of humble influence we actually have entrusted to us. It is a paradox that makes us feel aware and alert of the whole planet, while being less aware and interested in individuals. Indeed, individuals can seem like a waste of our time in the face of such national and international crisis' that demand great and drastic action.

In all of this, is there an application of the prophetic portrait of Jesus given by Isaiah...For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...as opposed to crushing our shoulders?

Blessings,

MC

I think the problem with your position is that it may be an academic one. The reality is that, as much as I hate the fact, the Roman Catholic church emerged and dominated for centuries. This was definately a "church," singular. Luther definately believed that it had to be reformed and he knew where the blame lay.

There are certainly Bishops and Apostles and they lead and guide and influence, not on a singular church, but accross a wide range of churches. Brother Denny Keneston(whom I love) has planted 50 churches I believe. He certainly operates in an "Apostolic," role having great influence among those churches. If he was to influence them in a way that was not of God, he would be responsible for that. There are sheep, and their are shephards. One has a certain responsibility, the other has a different responsibility.

Your illustrations are just illustrations of the wrong understanding of the biblical concept of 'the church' and 'a church'. I know that people use the language of 'the church' of the USA; what I am saying is that there is no biblical warrant for such a usage.

I reject the eschatological interpretation of 'development' throughout the 'church age'. Try to interpret the Revelation as it would have been understood by the people who first read it.

Again Ron, I think your perspective here is a much needed balm for many sincere but overwhelmed saints who have confused the accessibility of global news with the responsibility to shoulder global responsibility.

"Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth" Pron 17:24

You put you finger right on the spot. We are so busy minding someone else's business that we so easily fail to do our own.

In the revelation of John didn't Jesus always bring it down to "him" or in other words, the individual and thier personal responsibitity? While I see the possibility of such great good that could be produced from the combined efforts of the saints within the building complex we call "A" church, the reality is that many establishments take on the charateristics of thier leadership. The people follow and there in lies the problem, many good men who lead need to have a following inorder to pay the bills, so the people become a means to the end, so in much of the individual churches leadership doesn't develope Christ-character meant for reproduction independant of that leadership. That's why there is little to no life in the churches. I think that while the responsibility can be placed on church leadership, leadership really has failed Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
I also believe that the individual believer has some responsibility too, I do know that Jesus is faithful to call out to His own and they Must respond.

In the revelation of John didn't Jesus always bring it down to "him" or in other words, the individual and thier personal responsibitity?

I think that while the responsibility can be placed on church leadership, leadership really has failed Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

I want to comment about the identity of the 'messengers' of the book of Revelation but I want to establish the nature of authority among Christ's people here on earth first.

There is no trace of hierarchy in the New Testament. I believe in the continuing ministries of apostles. evangelists, prophets, pastor-teachers but these functions are never presented in a hierarchical way in the New Testament.

Well observed, Ron.

More commitment to [b]a[/b] church is needed by many believers today.

I think you are shedding light on an area of great bondage, pride, and even personal torment for many saints who feel they must shoulder more responsibility then God has given them and equipped them for.

I believe you are right here, however I also believe more than 75% of the pulpits are helmed by sincere men and women who are not called, but who went anyway for what ever reason, which can be many. 1Pe 5:2 shepherd God's flock among you, not overseeing out of compulsion but freely, according to God's will; not for the money but eagerly;
1Pe 5:3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
On a local level the church normally has no direction. As I go and speak part-time at some churches, I normally ask what thier vision is from the Lord. I normally get a blank look. I believe that godly men/women see exactly what is happening on a local level and try to do more inorder to compensate for the "lack" of what they either see or don't see in thier leadership. In other words, good intentions usually, more out of a knee jerk reaction than something being lead of the Holy Spirit.

Compton's: It is a paradox that makes us feel aware and alert of the whole planet, while being less aware and interested in individuals. Indeed, individuals can seem like a waste of our time in the face of such national and international crisis' that demand great and drastic action.

I think your observations are right Mike. I have felt the same for a very long time. I have also watched as people spun their wheels trying to accomplish something for God with a global outlook at the expense of local ministry. I have sometimes been 'criticized' (that is too strong of a word, but...) because I go into nursing homes to minister. Some see it as a waste of time, etc. But we can only make up our own spot in the hedge. I can only be responsible for that 'spot'.

Philogos,

How do you see local churches relating to each other / working together? In other words, what do you see as the "bigger picture"?

What happened to brother George?

I think you mean George Fox? I think God gave him a special calling to his times. But for the vast majority of believers I can't say that they could shoulder George Fox's burden or even Ravenhill's perhaps. I just don't think God intended for us to be carrying things that are not ours to carry.

It is not the role of Pastors and teachers and those in leadership to speak to the state of the church, because inevitably they will defend themselves, their record and their legacy.

People like A W Tozer are true servants of God but they cannot speak to 'the church'. One of the issues we have had to face here on sermonindex is the presumption that 'we' are 'the church' and that God can speak to 'the church' through sermonindex. Most of the world have not heard a dial tone yet, yet alone broadband access. What is represented here on sermonindex is a tiny fragment of evangelicals. To post rebukes and warnings to 'the church' through the sermonindex website is foolhardy and presumptuous but we have had more than our fair share of those too.

How do you see local churches relating to each other / working together? In other words, what do you see as the "bigger picture"?

As regards the 'bigger picture' I think this is our struggle that we think there is a 'bigger picture' and our 'eyes are in the ends of the earth'. We slip into the concept of strategies and look for 'church' strategists and 'church' spokesmen'; there never were such in the biblical period.

We tend to think that there must be a right way of doing it. We hear such phrases as...'what the Lord is saying to the church is...'. I have been listening to this for almost 50 years now and am convinced that the Lord is not saying anything to 'the church' but I am sure He is saying lots of different things to lots of different 'churches' if we only had the pattern of listening.

I am not an iconoclast. I am a conservative radical, but when a man says the Lord's message to the church in 2009 is.... I am sure the speaker is wrong.

I think you mean George Fox? I think God gave him a special calling to his times. But for the vast majority of believers I can't say that they could shoulder George Fox's burden or even Ravenhill's perhaps.

I think we do struggle with the concept of what God is doing in the world. Did you know that in the year 800 there were more Christians East of Damascus than West of Damascus? What God is doing is much greater than our narrow western perspectives.

We tend to think that there must be a right way of doing it. We hear such phrases as...'what the Lord is saying to the church is...'. I have been listening to this for almost 50 years now and am convinced that the Lord is not saying anything to 'the church' but I am sure He is saying lots of different things to lots of different 'churches' if we only had the pattern of listening.

I believe you are right here, most churches I visit one of the questions I ask are aimed at the vision the Lord has for thier local fellowship. I'll get normally two types of responses, 1- a religious response, something like "we are here to build up the body of Christ" , when probed a little further they have no real idea what that even means, 2- no response, they can't get me an answer at all. No meaningful specifics here! I believe that each church "cell", building, congregation has a specific call of God or vision or mission, but few ever discover it.

It might have been better to add "in my opinion."

I am supporting my opinion by reference to the only 'not in my opinion' source that we have ... the Bible. Every historian is writing 'in my opinion'. I am submitting my interpretation to the scrutiny of my peers here on this forum. I ask you to challenge my interpretations.

Just a thought. By the way, there was a stratedgy to the conference in Scotland, that is why we were there.

I believe you are right here, most churches I visit one of the questions I ask are aimed at the vision the Lord has for thier local fellowship.

What about someone like the Apostle Paul? He seemed to have some kind of input, or perhaps authority in some way, over many different churches which he had started.

(Please, I'm not saying I disagree with you. I just like to ask questions to "test" ideas.)

Don't you think that the policy of divivde and conquer by the enemy has been very succesful? We are in a war. It is time for good people of Christ to come together.

I think our greatest danger is to lose the candlestick. The gates of hell will not prevail against a church in which the Lord is tending that candlestick.

So a carefulness to come together with a readiness to hear and obey what God is saying is essential. Again, this is not crafty sermons- it is a conscious sense that God is speaking to the people.

Once the candlestick is gone there is nothing left but death. The voice of God is no longer present because the candlestick on which the oil is consumed is gone. No light means - no revelation.

I think it would be fair to say that some may need to seek the Lord to see if perchance they might need to meet together as a local church and allow Christ to move among them and reestablish a local church that is a true light in the community.

What about someone like the Apostle Paul? He seemed to have some kind of input, or perhaps authority in some way, over many different churches which he had started.

(Please, I'm not saying I disagree with you. I just like to ask questions to "test" ideas.)

You are right Paul has an authority in, notice I have switched your word from 'over', in the churches that God had raised up through his ministry, but they were individual local assemblies not something called 'the church'.

So, If Paul was writing to the church at Greenock, who would he write to?

Antioch, in that day, had a population of 500,000 and 70,000 Jews. Yet, from Acts 14:27 we see that "the church," was gathered so that they could be informed. Not a multitude of "local churches," within Antioch, but "the church."

Take a look at the word 'churches' in the New Testament. You will find several instances where our current usage would be to say 'the church' and in each one you will find the reference is to 'the churches'. This ought to tell us our current conceptions have strayed from the original.

I think that one could make a pretty good argument that one could lose the candlestick because of a lack of "one accord."

"Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth" Prob 17:24

As a young opinionated man becoming a father, it was a humbling and settling transformation when I realized that for someone who thought he could size up christendom, I was hardly prepared to raise three children. I find that there are many men who are ready to be promoted to high rank in the church who have neglected to execute the duties of home worship faithfully.

We are so busy minding someone else's business that we so easily fail to do our own.

One thing that I am continually impressed with by life in general, is how hard it is to do even one thing well. I am impressed with people who can repair an automobile engine, or build an attractive patio, or plant a productive garden, or a write a good song. Every-time I meet someone who can do one thing well, I see there is always a measure of integrity in their character, even if this virtue is not easily evident on the surface. They may be even be greatly flawed in other ways, but nevertheless they have persevered enough to master an area of knowledge. I find conversing them on their respective subjects usually very instructive to my own character.

Yet, among all the different people I find who have mastered various things, I find the rarest person is one who has mastered themselves. This is a man who is gentle but sturdy, one who is wise but not proud, a man who is aware of his own limitations yet not lazy, and one who has traveled far ahead in his spiritual walk, but always seems to have patience to wait for those who are lagging behind him.

Now there is one more trait this type of man has. He is simple in his heart. He may have two doctorates and a Masters degree, or he may just know how to fix car engines, but he is a simple fellow. That's his secret of self mastery; sophisticated men are too busy mastering other topics to master themselves.

Forgive my bit of country philosophy here, but this is how I see Proverbs 17:24 being played out in my own experience. Many men want to be like John Wesley, but John Wesley wanted to be like the Moravians. Their spiritual service was to clean the filth off of their sailing ship, because "it did our proud hearts good". And the great learned scholar Wesley marveled over and coveted their peace with God.

I am days away from my 43rd birthday, and the sphere of influence I desire has never been smaller. It is a weighty a matter to look to the conversion of my own children. There are times when my ambitious heart grows restless, and I begin to look outside the borders of my home, perhaps in pursuit of a business opportunity, or perhaps even in response to some flattery to take a more visible role in church...but then I see I have underestimated the task at home and an eternal pathos sobers my dreaming imagination.

I am not a great man, but a small one entrusted with a great responsibility. If I cannot keep my eyes diligently on this one task for God until it is completed well, then I have not been faithful, and if I have not been faithful in the responsibility I have been given, then how can I rightfully move on to instruct others in their business for God? It is my goal to learn how to do one thing faithfully for God, and to do it honestly and diligently, knowing these children are more his then mine.

For this specific task, God has provided my soul many rich instructions, both through his Word, and through the Holy Spirit's comfort in many ongoing trials and triumphs. I believe that completing my task successfully will teach me everything he wants me to learn should he have another task for me in the future, or should he take me home.

There is a pleasure I sense from God in me lowering my eyes towards my task. His pleasure brings me a deep abiding peace, and helps me to live daily in his presence. It is a paradox, that my stillness mitigates the awful dread I once had of seeing him face to face when I was busying myself with so many issues I had taken on in an attempt to make peace with him.

Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.Let Israel hope in the LORD from henceforth and for ever.

Blessings,

MC

I am following your key point, as I did in the Greenock breakout session ([i]"The key point I am trying to make is that, biblically, the unit of responsibility is 'a church' not 'the church'."[/i]) and I hope this thread gets to the second part of your original post ([i]"a comment on the identity of the messengers; the way in which Jesus Christ imparts 'vision' to the local assembly'[/i]). This second part seems very important to me. (Are you sure the second depends upon the first part?)

Going on with "the test" of the first half of your idea:

1. How do you understand the council at Jerusalem? Did they exercise governmental authority over one or many?

2. Do you see any difficulty in the one offering that Paul brought from many churches to Jerusalem?

3. How did Paul view the many churches he ministered to with their individual difficulties?

4. How did the local churches view the copying and sharing of Paul’s letters? (reading other people’s mail ;-) )

5. Are there more than seven churches (messengers) now? Were there more churches when John wrote?

6. Was there agreement so far on this thread that the church is His Body and that the “currently living in the flesh” aspect of His Body is spread out across nations and in throughout many churches? (I hope so.)

Note: There are distinctions made in the Bible (God’s view) between people groups/nations and groups are called by names though the land may not be divided as man has divided it.

Note: A particular shoe can fit many feet. A man can speak broadly without speaking hierarchically. Are we our brother’s keeper?(a serious question)

Mike MC
I am moved and challenged by your post. It brought to mind the forgotten verses of the Lamentation;

[color=0033FF]Through the LORD'S mercies we are not consumed.
Because His compassions fall not.
They are new every morning;
Great is your faithfulness.
"The LORD is my portion," says my soul,
Therefore I hope in him."

The LORD is good to those who wait for him.
To the soul who seeks Him.
It is good that one should hope and wait quietly
For the salvation of the LORD.
[b]It is good for a man to bear
The yoke in his youth.[/b][/color]

From my perspective 43 is still young! :-)

Whee Joan... quite a bundle of questions here.

"The key point I am trying to make is that, biblically, the unit of responsibility is 'a church' not 'the church'."

Going on with "the test" of the first half of your idea:

1. How do you understand the council at Jerusalem? Did they exercise governmental authority over one or many?

The later 'councils' were representative and sent delegates. The consequence was that the outcome of these councils was seen to be binding on all the churches represented. The Jerusalem had no legislative power.

2. Do you see any difficulty in the one offering that Paul brought from many churches to Jerusalem?

3. How did Paul view the many churches he ministered to with their individual difficulties?

4. How did the local churches view the copying and sharing of Paul’s letters? (reading other people’s mail )

5. Are there more than seven churches (messengers) now? Were there more churches when John wrote?

6. Was there agreement so far on this thread that the church is His Body and that the “currently living in the flesh” aspect of His Body is spread out across nations and in throughout many churches? (I hope so.)

Note: There are distinctions made in the Bible (God’s view) between people groups/nations and groups are called by names though the land may not be divided as man has divided it.

Note: A particular shoe can fit many feet. A man can speak broadly without speaking hierarchically. Are we our brother’s keeper?(a serious question)

Just who were these messengers and what can we gather about their role?

The Greek word is aggelos, which really means 'a sent one' from the Greek word meaning to send someone a with a message. There are other words which can be translated messenger but have their focus on the sending.

There is verse in 2 Cor 8:28 where is describes some as being 'messengers of the churches'. The English is the same as in the Revelation but the focus is slightly different. A messenger is this sense is someone sent with another's authority. In fact, it is the word 'apostle'!! The word apostle is used in more than one sense in the NT. So, in 2 Cor 8, who had sent these messengers and to whom were they sent? The 2 Cor 8 messengers were clearly representatives of the churches who were entrusted with the responsibility of collecting the funds which would be sent to Jerusalem. This gives us a valuable glimpse into life in the early church and their patterns of doing things.

But what of these Revelation 'messengers'. It seems they cmae from the churches in question. In Rev 2:1 the phrase is 'the Ephesian messenger'. the word translated 'Ephesus' in the KJV is actually an adjective, and so is the next 'town names'. So we have 'an Ephesian messenger', a Smyrnan messenger, From then on we have town names as nouns but I think we can make the point that the messenger belongs to the local church.

But what is their role? I have made the suggestion that the early churches were linked through itinerant ministries. Almost certainly these messengers were representatives of the seven local churches. They are not 'pastors' in the modern sense of that term but function a little like what in the US might be called the Secretary of State or in the UK the Foreign Secretary. They were the points of contact between one local church an another. A similar role developed in communist countries during the cold war; one person would be responsible for maintaining the contact with the outside world.

There is another interesting clue in Paul's letter to the Philippians. This letter was often used to describe a 'perfect church order' by some of the early brethren; the letter is addressed to both the elders and the deacons. But there is an interesting feature which emerges when Paul speaks about Euodia and Syntyche. Paul urges someone that he calls 'a true companion' to help these sisters to get along. In the middle of a letter to a local church there are specific words for individuals and one of these individuals is the anonymous person to whom Paul apparently sent this letter. Who was this and what was their role? The answer is 'we don't know' but it shows that Paul had an 'address' to which he could send his letter. Was this the 'foreign secretary' of the church at Philippi and a personal friend of Paul?

In one sense I am happy to have to remain a little vague on these 'messengers' in the Revelation. I know that they are held securely in the right hand of Christ; they are 'his men' in the situation and I am not being gender specific here. These were the 'routes' by which the ascended Christ would bring 'his message' to the local churches.

I'll pause to wait for comments on the Revelation 'messengers.

MC's: There are times when my ambitious heart grows restless, and I begin to look outside the borders of my home, perhaps in pursuit of a business opportunity, or perhaps even in response to some flattery to take a more visible role in church...but then I see I have underestimated the task at home and an eternal pathos sobers my dreaming imagination. I am not a great man, but a small one entrusted with a great responsibility. If I cannot keep my eyes diligently on this one task for God until it is completed well, then I have not been faithful, and if I have not been faithful in the responsibility I have been given, then how can I rightfully move on to instruct others in their business for God?

I think that the task of rearing children is indeed an awesome one. I have 6 children with two left in school. One thing that I don't frequently hear brought up is the fact that John 3:3 still applies to a child no matter how much training they receive. In many ways I have tried to teach my children rising up and lying down. They have practically 'heard' a bible college education in the years I have spent teaching them the ways of God. I have tried to model it- though far from perfect. Indeed it [u]is[/u] because of God's mercies that we are not consumed.

But at the end of the day the rod of correction will have only driven foolishness far from the heart of a child. The heart is still corrupt. The heart must still be replaced. The child is unregenerate no matter how well we try to train them to say the right things, act the right way and to pray and read the scriptures, etc. We have to know this. You cannot train a child into regeneration. This one challenge is the most difficult to reckon with of all.

Children must be born of the Spirit. If they are not they will turn from their upbringing as sure as the sun rises in the east. They might not do it in front of the parents or those they wish to impress, but they will [i]be what they are[/i] when the prick of the consequences of behaving badly are gone or the sting of someone they respect correcting them no longer has an effect.

My kids known when to pray. They know the scriptures. They know what to say and when to say it. They are talented in many ways. They have heard the Lord by the hearing of the ear. The know what to watch and not to watch. The question is; "Have they begun in the Spirit?" Rules and training and preaching, etc., are wonderful, but only their willingness to respond to God in regeneration will cause them to be children of God. So we are the 'schoolmasters' that through the word of God seek to lead them to Christ. We cannot chose for them. One may chose rightly in the same home as the one that rebels and goes into the far country.

And this is a parallel issue to this thread. How can we have genuine church life with a people that have not been regenerated? How can anyone even relate to this thread that has not known the life of God? It is all surface and superficial until the reality is experienced.

I have long believed that revival comes through an individual, or through the assemby of saints, or by a soverien act or move on the Lord's part. Now what do you do with the local pastor who might say that he is bringing forth the very word of God in his/her ministry and that it's the pews responsibility to act on that message in faith (many scriptures come to mind here but I'll leave it at that for now)?

I know that they are held securely in the right hand of Christ; they are 'his men' in the situation and I am not being gender specific here. These were the 'routes' by which the ascended Christ would bring 'his message' to the local churches.

Would this mean that these messengers were operating in [i]offices[/i] or would that be [i]functions[/i] within the local churches? Could the local church expect to hear the word of His grace from a certain person all the time or does God speak His word through the cumulative sharing of each person as they offer their oil?

I see James as that person in Acts 15; but could it be someone else next time?

Hi Robert,

We cannot chose for them. One may chose rightly in the same home as the one that rebels and goes into the far country.

So we are not in control of the outcome of events, nor responsible for the choices others make, even when it comes to our own children. Well noted brother. :-)

Blessings,

MC

Would this mean that these messengers were operating in offices or would that be functions within the local churches?

M.C: So we are not in control of the outcome of events, nor responsible for the choices others make, even when it comes to our own children. Well noted brother.

Well, I think I put so much pressure on myself and dreadful fears for my kids souls and for all that worry it added not a single cubit to my stature. I was not like Job, but I tried to do everything but decide for them. I just have to entrust them to God.

In other words I don't think that God gives messages based on either but either might receive such a word.

So that means that anyone in the local church might potentially bring the message? Everyone is a candidate depending on who God choses to use?

The phrase "The church," is used 70 times in the NT.

Laodicea was much larger than Colosse and was a major city, but it seems that the church met in the home of Nymphas; Col 4:15. From the letter to Philemon it seems that the church at Colosse may have met in the home of Philemon.

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks about a circumstance in which 'the whole church is gathered together'; this probably means the whole company of believers in Corinth. This would still be 'the church in Corinth' as a gatherable unit and hence accountable through its 'leaders'.

So that means that anyone in the local church might potentially bring the message? Everyone is a candidate depending on who God choses to use?

I just have to entrust them to God.

Amen. (Love can make it difficult sometimes.)

The irony for me is that even when I learn this hard lesson as a parent for my own few children, it is easy to forget or not apply it when I turn to consider the millions of people that comprise "The Church" and society...whom I have even less direct influence over. I share this admission in the context of the title of this thread.

Blessings Robert,

MC

So that means that anyone in the local church might potentially bring the message? Everyone is a candidate depending on who God choses to use?

potentailly, yes. the foot cannot say to the eye, I have no need of thee.

Just to bring another Scripture to bear on this situation:

[i]...and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to [b]faithful men[/b] who will be able to teach others also... (2nd Timothy 2:2)[/i]

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the privilege and responsibility of explaining the Scriptures is not something that [b]anyone[/b] in the assembly should/can do.

In Acts 6, men were set apart for preaching of the Word (the Apostles), and men were set apart for handling more domestical duties (the deacons).

In 1st Corinthians 14, prophets are given the freedom to speak in the assembly - but not everyone in the assembly is a prophet.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

The irony for me is that even when I learn this hard lesson as a parent for my own few children, it is easy to forget or not apply it when I turn to consider the millions of people that comprise "The Church" and society...whom I have even less direct influence over.

Amen MC, that is most sobering and very true. I guess I keep telling myself I'm going to just give them over to God, but the reality is that is very hard to do. It's the whole baby in the basket thing.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the privilege and responsibility of explaining the Scriptures is not something that anyone in the assembly should/can do.

it still stands that we do not see the word "churches," in the Scriptures unless it is in reference to a region rather than a town or city.

Oh what joy if genuine believers in every town and city could gather together.

I have realized that I may be presuming too much of those who might read these posts. Some know the background to this thread but others may not have the elements in place.

A vital element of this theme is the concept of 'the word of his grace'. This is a phrase which comes from Paul's admonition to the elders from the church in Ephesus. In Acts 20:32 Paul in making his concluding statement where he commends these elders 'to the word of his grace which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.' Paul is trusting these men and the church in which they serve to 'God and to the word of his grace...'

It is important to understand the context of this statement. When Paul speaks of the 'logos of his grace' he is not speaking primarily of the Bible; most of the New Testament was unwritten at this time. He is not putting his trust in the organisation that he has left behind but in God himself and in the enabling word of God as it is brought into their lives.

This is a challenge for all 'follow up' thinking. How do we ensure that our converts 'go on'? Paul's answer would be 'get them relying on God and in the way he can bring his enabling word into a life.' Is he for real??? :-( This kind of naive counsel is completely unrealistic, new converts need structure and patterns dont' they? How different the New Testament is to what most of us have every experienced.

Paul believed, I mean really believed, in the power of the Holy Spirit to take converts on. Paul speaks of 'the word of his grace'. Grace is not only unmerited favour, it is also enabling power. He is saying pretty much what the Lord said in the wilderness...'man lives by the word which is proceeding from the mouth of the Lord.' The tenses here are important; it is the word which IS PROCEEDING from the mouth of the Lord. It is what God is saying at this moment of time. Do we really believe that God is able to sustain us day by day... by Himself?

Of course, in our day, he may well bring that 'word of his grace' through the scripture. Alternatively he may bring it through a hymn, or through a testimony, or ... and this is probably one of the main ways... through a word of prophecy when the saints were gathered together in the local church.

I'll pause... or as Robert sometimes says 'I'll just go and get my helmet'.

I grew up in a non-denom setting as a babe in Christ where the services were open mic if you will and the leadership was spread all over the place, the assembly numbered about 500 or more and the elders waited on God for direction or a Word from the Lord. Since I was so young in the Lord at that time I really didn't grasp what the plan would be if God decided to be silent on any given day :-( . however there waas always something spoken. While I do believe that it's important for everyone to hear from heaven for themselves, I also see it being important for the exposition of sound doctrine on a regular basis. Of course the body of Christ (thoughs in the pew), normally can not get involved in the general service -- no real liberty of the spirit -- because leadership often time lacks discernment and wisdom in the "overseeing" of people and things spiritual. Often individuals will come in to hurt the flock of God, like Paul warned Eph. day and night, and there is where the rub is. So while I do see God as in charge, and the apostle Paul's faith as being supremely strong in that by his faith in Christ he was able to commit thoughs fellow christians to the word fo God's grace, I have some reservations about the quality of faith in the pulpit these days. Am I the only one here? I don't want to go negative because I can see much that's praise worthy,but....? :-o

Ron,

I would suggest that the "word of his grace" and the "word of Christ" (Col 3:16) is simply the gospel; that Christ has died for sinners that they may be forgiven and saved from the wrath of God. It doesn't seem to necessarily be a fresh prophecy.

The gospel, or the word of his grace, is sufficient for both the justification and sanctification of those who believe in Christ.

Dohzman - I'm not sure what you mean by "it is important for everyone to hear from heaven for themselves". In these last days, God has spoken to us by his Son - Christ. His words and the words of his apostles are recorded in the Scriptures for the better comforting and establishment of the churches. When we read the Scripture, and hear it correctly expounded, we are, in a very real sense, hearing from heaven.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

Do we really believe that God is able to sustain us day by day... by Himself?

Well, when we have decades of teaching that undermines the importance of the Holy Spirit to be front and center [i]speaking that we might hear what He 'saith' unto the churches[/i], it can be a challenge.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it is important for everyone to hear from heaven for themselves". In these last days, God has spoken to us by his Son - Christ. His words and the words of his apostles are recorded in the Scriptures for the better comforting and establishment of the churches. When we read the Scripture, and hear it correctly expounded, we are, in a very real sense, hearing from heaven.

There is a difference between an orator and an Oracle. the point here is that God has not abandoned man to proper exposition of the Bible. God has spoken to us by His Son, but listen to this...

[color=000066] And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that [u]the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city[/u], saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. (Acts 20)[/color]

This is remarkable. In every city Paul went the word of His grace was present to bring this particular revelation to Paul. We do not know how it played out, but Paul understood what he was hearing as testimony to the fact that he was headed for trouble.

[color=000066]And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, [u]Thus saith the Holy Ghost[/u], So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (Acts 21) [/color]

Here again, the Holy Spirit is testifying to Paul through this prophet Agabus that he is going to suffer.

And this is an essential ministry of the Holy Spirit in the local churches. God is wanting to speak directly into the situations at hand; not at the expense of Bible exegesis and teaching but in addition to it. Jesus said it over and over again- probably more than any other statement he repeated in his recorded ministry...

[color=000066]He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;...(Rev. 2:7)

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches (Rev. 2:11)

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches (Rev 2:17)

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches (Rev. 2:29)

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, (Rev. 3:6)

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, (Rev. 3:13)

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, (Rev 3:22)
[/color]

How many times do we have to be told until we seek to obey this commandment? We argue about a great many issues, but who can contend with a 7X command? Churches split over the color of the carpet and I have not heard a single sermon ever preached on this 7 times in a row command to HEAR, not just what the word of God has already said, but what the Spirit 'saith' unto the churches.

'Saith' here is in the present active indicative. That is, the tense is present, the voice is active (meaning that the verb's subject is acting), and the mood is indicative meaning a true reality. Surely this event in Revelation 2-3 is a pattern of how our Great High Priest tends the Candlesticks? The churches need to know what God's perception of their actions is. This is more than self-assessment; this is what the Spirit 'saith'.

Thank You Robert, you answered for me with great accuracy my very heart. I have always sought to hear/understand the voice of God in my personal circumstances. I think in the days ahead it will be very very important to hear His voice on a level that is other worldly, that transcends human logic or reasoning, bible knowledge and intellegence, not to do away with those but to be able to hear His voice in those things. Thanks again bro:)

When Jesus was on the earth the disciples could lean upon Him for direction. But yet Jesus said He needed to 'go'- but why?

[color=000066]Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, [u]he will guide you[/u] into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and [u]he will shew you things to come[/u]. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and [u]shall shew it unto you[/u]. (John 16) [/color]

This is an awesome passage. God was not only going to leave us with the God breathed scriptures, but would send the Holy Spirit to do on a massive scale what Christ was doing as an individual. We would have access to the direction of Christ through the Holy Spirit. Two things here, "He will [u]lead you[/u] and He will [u]shew you[/u]". This is Divine direction and Divine revelation. Did it really happen?

[color=000066]Then [u]the Spirit said unto Philip[/u], Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

And when they were come up out of the water, [u]the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip[/u], that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.(Acts 8)[/color]

This is the Spirit clearly directing the life of an individual. James says that in God there is no shadow of turning. This was His design for the Holy Spirit at work in the church and He has not turned from it. There is not a single passage in scripture that can trump the 7 X call to 'hear what the Spirit says' or to trump what Christ said in John 16 or the biblical recorded history of how this plays out in the churches.

[color=000066]While Peter thought on the vision, [u]the Spirit said unto him[/u], Behold, three men seek thee. (Acts 10)

And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. [u]And the Spirit bade me[/u] go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house (Acts 11). [/color]

First Phillip and now again Peter. The word 'bade' here is interesting as it is usually translated as [i]said, say or tell[/i].

[color=000066]And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and [u]signified by the Spirit[/u] that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11)[/color]

OK. Now here is an interesting point. The Holy Ghost felt the people needed to know there would be a drought coming. This was not an exegesis of Old Testament prophesy it was a present word of God's grace to the people in fulfillment of what Jesus said, [color=000066][i]He will shew you things to come.[/i][/color]

[color=000066]As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, [u]the Holy Ghost said[/u], Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

So they, [u]being sent forth by the Holy Ghost[/u], departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13)[/color]

This erases any doubt that God intends to be in charge in His churches. This is not just men having a 'hunch' they are called to some work. This is the word of His grace coming forth giving clear direction. (You will notice I have skipped some examples already such as God speaking directly to Peter in a dream not to call the Gentiles common, etc.)

[color=000066]For [u]it seemed good to the Holy Ghost[/u], and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15)[/color]

This is the gathering at Jerusalem. This is the Holy Ghost making the decision and the saints affirming it with a willingness to do what they believe the Holy Ghost just revealed as HIS will.

[color=000066]Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and [u]were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word[/u] in Asia, (Acts 16)[/color]

This really shows their resolve to listen to God. Imagine a human thought based on logic that God had said preach the Gospel to every creature and then hear what [i]appears[/i] to be a contradiction. This shows for sure that exegesis is not enough. Had they gone on exegesis alone [i]they would have gone into Asia[/i] as they intended to do when they were forbidden. They would have been out of the will of God.

[color=000066]And finding [u]disciples[/u], we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul [u]through the Spirit[/u], that he should not go up to Jerusalem. [/color]

Even having found these unnamed disciples Paul found the word of his grace. Think of the utter consistency hear. Everywhere Paul went He found the Holy Ghost speaking to him information relevant to the direction of His present course. This is the Holy Ghost utterly at the helm of the New Testament disciples lives. This is not pretense. This is them hearing what the Holy Ghost 'saith' presently and actively.

[color=000066] And said unto them, Sirs, [u]I perceive[/u] that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives. (Acts 27)[/color]

It is important to note that Acts 27 is devoted to Paul's shipwreck. Paul told the people that 'I can see' that this voyage will be with hurt, etc. Paul was the Oracle of God on that ship. And we do well to read this story and expound this story because it shows the consequence of disregarding what the Spirit of God is saying in any given situation. To have 'not heard' what the Spirit was saying would have brought similar consequences; shipwreck. how many have made 'shipwreck' because they did not hear what the Spirit was saying?

[color=000066]But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, [u]Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me[/u], and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss. (Acts 27)[/color]

Paul would not have said you should have hearkened unless he knew what he warned them of was actually true and not a logical deduction based on historical weather patterns. Paul could 'see' and therefore he warned. When they did not listen to the voice of God they were in blackness and darkness and fears without hope. they were carried along in disobedience. And God was [u]silent[/u]. They could not see their hands in front of their faces at night it was so dark.

But as with Jonah so also with these Romans the word of God's [u]grace[/u] came a second time:

[color=000066]And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. (Acts 27) [/color]

If you have ears to hear what the Spirit saith God will do what it takes to get you the word of His grace. So the question comes to this; are we going to be centurions or are we going to be disciples?

That is what Greenock was.

That may be the case, but has no real bearing on the fact that each city or town had "the church," and not churches plural. If this is in fact the case, then it is our model for today.

I really didn't grasp what the plan would be if God decided to be silent on any given day

The saints gathered and the meeting seemed to 'hang fire'. It is so easy for saints to rely on the experts to provide 'the word of His grace'. So one of the elders said 'Does anyone have a word from the Lord?' The question was met with silence. 'Let's go home then' said the elder...

It only ever happened once and the saints were left with a clear understanding that 'it is important that every saint brings his beaten oil to place at the feet of the high priest'.

hs in the pew), normally can not get involved in the general service -- no real liberty of the spirit -- because leadership often time lacks discernment and wisdom in the "overseeing" of people and things spiritual. Often individuals will come in to hurt the flock of God,

I would suggest that the "word of his grace" and the "word of Christ" (Col 3:16) is simply the gospel; that Christ has died for sinners that they may be forgiven and saved from the wrath of God. It doesn't seem to necessarily be a fresh prophecy.

[color=0033FF]Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, in grace singing in your hearts to the Lord; Col 3:16 Youngs Literal Translation[/color]

I am all for preaching 'the gospel' but this is not what is in view in this verse, in my view.

Ron's This is always the practical issue but it is the underlying instinct that is important. Paul said that an elder should be 'given to hospitality'. I love Tyndale's translation of this 'he must be harbourous'. An interesting word. Does the eldership have the instinct to be a haven for the storm tossed or is the instinct rather one of manning the barricades and hanging in under seige?

I heard a while back that in a meeting a young man wanted to give a testimony that has mental and behavior challenges. He typically rambles a bit, but not terribly. However, on this occasion an onlooker (when they heard him carry on a minute) began mumbling under his breath, "Shut him down! Shut him DOWN!" This person could never be a candidate for an elder with this attitude.

Sometimes people try to share things in the Nursing Home service that are at different levels spiritually and mentally. It seems to me that we get more impatient than God does. Jesus' attitude was 'suffer the little children to come to me and forbid them not...'. I think we must have this attitude also. If God can bring a message through our enemies surely He can speak through someone that may not quite fit the mold or may frustrate some with their slowness or difficulty speaking, etc. If we make room for them God will make room for us, I think.

I have a simple word for all who complain about the state of 'the church'... mind your own business!

Ron’s word aims at a malicious root that needs to be put death before we can be free to be what God called us to be. Sometimes I see it in myself; but most often I don’t – because it is submerged beneath a mountain of faulty assumptions about self, God, the church, and even the Bible. For me, the uprooting process continues to be an endless battle.

Ron said:

I am saying that we will never understand current circumstances until we understand the scriptures in their original context.

We tend to think that there must be a right way of doing it.

Yet, among all the different people I find who have mastered various things, I find the rarest person is one who has mastered themselves. This is a man who is gentle but sturdy, one who is wise but not proud, a man who is aware of his own limitations yet not lazy, and one who has traveled far ahead in his spiritual walk, but always seems to have patience to wait for those who are lagging behind him.

In terms of groups there is nothing larger than 'a local church' until you come to 'the church'. I mean in terms of 'authority'.

I ask:
Do we need government approval in order to practice our faith?
Do we need the “right” minister, the ideal church where everybody is saved, the ideal creed, the ideal music, the ideal elders, etc … in order to live as God calls us to live?
Do we need united denominations?

We hear such phrases as...'what the Lord is saying to the church is...'. I have been listening to this for almost 50 years now and am convinced that the Lord is not saying anything to 'the church' but I am sure He is saying lots of different things to lots of different 'churches' if we only had the pattern of listening.

Wow! Is Ron not suggesting that we abandon our tendency to project our own unrealistic dreams onto a non-existent entity?

That, to me, is intensely liberating! It frees us to really hear God!

Diane

I can amen this whole section here. I walked in on an African brother praying in the santuary, he had a map laid out of the whole world and was clutching the globe and just wepting over it all crying out to God (he had been there for 3 days and nights). I crawled out backwards realizing that even though I have a burden for my own children like that I fall way short where it comes to the rest of the world though. I have had seasons where I carried that kind of burden, but I don't know if I could function in life with that kind of burden on a day by day all day basis.

Just a personal observation for my brother Robert, since you've come back from abroad there is a fire that burns in your posts that wasn't there before. the above is a very good post and will preach too : !! God Bless

This is why I said I would get my helmet.

If we complete the quotation we will see how Paul expected the 'word of Christ' to be in the midst...

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, in grace singing in your hearts to the Lord; Col 3:16 Youngs Literal Translation

I am all for preaching 'the gospel' but this is not what is in view in this verse, in my view.

Ron, I still think there is a logical leap going on here. The word of grace, or the gospel of what Christ has done for us on the cross, is declared in our singing and our teaching. It still seems like the view of a continuing revelation is not necessitated by these verses.

Just speaking in terms of general Scripture observation, it seems that the apostles emphasized a faithful preaching of the gospel and the fruit it produces, rather than a focus on a "fresh word". Having read the apostolic fathers as well, I don't see anything in their writings that indicated a need for fresh revelation from God.

Honestly, I used to believe and cherish "words the Lord gave to me", however, I have since come to embrace a view that, now that the Old Covenant and New Covenant Scriptures have reached their completion, they are completely sufficient for every question of doctrine and practice (2nd Tim 3:16-17), for the encouragement and building up of the saints, and the conversion of the unbeliever.

[i]Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[/i]

Honestly, in my opinion, we will never see a growth in sound churches until a proper understanding of Scripture is reached, as well as proper church order practiced.

However, this is an interesting discussion. I am always open to see the churches grow into more Biblical theology and practice.

I did not post this last night after Jesus-in-God and Dohzman posted rejoicing with Robert.

I too have rejoiced with Brother Robert since his return (even during as he shared the last morning). I continue in prayer for God to work out what He worked in during those days. (You already encourage others Robert.)

Ron somewhere on this site I thanked God for your message to Greenock. Just to be clear, I have already applied the truth you drew out of Revelation, in prayer for my pastor, and have seen fruit. However, I am particularly interested in what you brushed against in the beginning of your breakout session before you continued into Revelation. I also think Brother Robert anticipates that hearing (more of that hearing). If you have found the Blood in “imparted enabling” (grace) please share it at some point. The Blood of the Lamb accompanies the Christ of “our” testimony that overcomes. I’d say we need that now. (I see your plate is full. I’m just putting in for my wish list. ;-) )

Are you saying that because there is hardly any resemblance between what the Church was like in Biblical times and what the Church is like today then the Biblical model is nullified? Yet, in an earlier post you said....

Consider the Puritans who left England because the king refused to enforce their ideal of Christianity.

I have studied, for many years, the history of the churches in England and their responses to the political climates. The Puritans, actually they were independents rather than puritans, did not leave England because the king refused to enforce their ideals of Christianity. They left because the king was trying to enforce his ideas of Christianity upon a whole nation.

He wanted an episcopal system because it is more easily controlled by monarchy. The strife rumbled on for many years and resulted, within 50 years, in our bloody civil war.

Just speaking in terms of general Scripture observation, it seems that the apostles emphasized a faithful preaching of the gospel and the fruit it produces, rather than a focus on a "fresh word". Having read the apostolic fathers as well, I don't see anything in their writings that indicated a need for fresh revelation from God.

The essence of prophecy is revelation, but not necessarily 'fresh' revelation. The prophetic utterance applies the particular truth of God to a context and to those within it. This 'word of His grace' is not an academic exposition, although an academic exposition may contain it,and frequently does.

However it is not to be restricted to the academic exposition. There is a distinction between teaching and prophecy although each may contain the other.

If you have found the Blood in “imparted enabling” (grace) please share it at some point. The Blood of the Lamb accompanies the Christ of “our” testimony that overcomes. I’d say we need that now. (I see your plate is full. I’m just putting in for my wish list.

Sorry Joan, you lost me there. Let's talk again after Christmas.

The family are here now... so I had better go and start Christmas... greetings to you all from the UK.

Let's talk later... :-D

philologos wrote:

Consider the Puritans who left England because the king refused to enforce their ideal of Christianity.

The Puritans, actually they were independents rather than puritans, did not leave England because the king refused to enforce their ideals of Christianity. They left because the king was trying to enforce his ideas of Christianity upon a whole nation.

Yes, I believe the Puritans left because the King was trying to promote his own idea of Christianity and they wanted to get back to the Bible.

1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The foundation cannot be modified or shaped so as to suit the wishes of people. It must be laid as it is in the Scriptures.

Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.

Upon this foundation all the faithful ministers of Christ build. Upon this rock all the Christians found their hopes. Those that build their hopes of heaven on any other foundation build upon the sand.

The doctrine of our Savior and his mediation is the principal doctrine of Christianity. It is the foundation of all other doctrines. Leave it out, and you have no foundation for our hope of salvation.

When preachers substitute their own fancies and inventions for the foundation of Christ they will not pass the test when the day of judgment comes.

There is a day coming that will cure all our mistakes, and show us ourselves, and show us our actions in the true light, without covering or disguise.

Building a church with human wisdom or eloquent speech that circumvents the cross is building with wood, hay and straw.

Not enough room to respond to all of Ron's posts, but would like to say the introductory post is excellent. I appreciated the need of its perspective in my own life. Some of the ensuing discussion is instructive as well. May God use it to teach us to be serious and studious, and then active about the church, meaning "the church we are part of" and not "the church".

Merry Christmas to you all. I had not read through all the posts I admid and I run in danger of repeaing something. Several verses came to my mind:

Numbers 25:7-9
7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman's body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

Pinehas did not have the responsibility of the spiritual state of the Israelites, yet his gruesome action prevented the plague from spreading. Aren't there many plagues that are spreading around us? It is not my fault nor my responsibility but blessed is the man would wields the spear in a righteous God given opportunity.

The Levites also unknowingly(!) consecrated themselves while acting out judgement against their brother and their friend. It was not their responsibility, nevertheless it effected their appointment as priests.

I believe there is also apostolic and presbyterian responsibility that affect the sheep under their immediate care which is differtent from the above example.

Isaiah 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

The responsibility lies with God, but he is looking for one to go for him. The bible is full of example of people whose bold action changed the course of things dramatically, and it is still so today. It would be sad to miss such an opportunity if it is given to you like this one below

Judges 4:9
"Very well," Deborah said, "I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman." So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.

This is the prophetic call and only few pass God's stringend prerequisites to be commissioned to speak for him now. Oh may God send us prophets who can bear reproach outside the camp and are more at home in the holy temple.

narrowpath

Having read the apostolic fathers as well, I don't see anything in their writings that indicated a need for fresh revelation from God.

I think we should distinguish between 'new' revelation and 'fresh' revelation. I would not say there was a need for 'new revelation', but there is an ongoing sense in which the Holy Spirit brings a fresh revelation of God's word.

[color=000066]
13 And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host.

14 And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground.

15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, [u]This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.[/u]

16 This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents.

17 And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less.

18 And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.

19 And Moses said, [u]Let no man leave of it till the morning.[/u]

20 Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank: and Moses was wroth with them.

21 And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted. (Exodus 16)[/color]

There was a fresh batch of manna for the children of Israel every morning. They were not allowed to carry it over to the next day. Why this commandment? God is a God of perfection; if the manna came from God surely it will be perfect a week from now?

The problem is not that God's word changes, it is that [i]our[/i] condition and circumstances change. The picture in Revelation 2, 3 was a 'snapshot' of a fast changing situation in the 7 churches. The dynamic nature of their condition demanded an ongoing remedy by the Holy Spirit. We have an expression, "rolling with the punches" that means that the situation changes and you have to adjust to it.

We need the Holy Spirit to speak to the moment. We need specific direction just like Peter, Paul, Phillip, the 7 churches, etc. in the New Testament. If they needed that guidance and they were Apostles, how much more do we need it?

Robert,

I say this respectfully, but the children of Israel gathering manna in the wilderness has nothing to do with fresh revelation. It does speak of the provision of God for his people, but to take this text and apply it to fresh revelation from the Spirit is simply a stretch. Jonathan Edwards gives a thorough discussion on this kind of Biblical interpreting in [i]Religious Affections[/i] - I would recommend it to everyone.

The letters in the book of Revelation are Scripture - so using them to support fresh revelation doesn't really make much sense.

You mention that our conditions change - I disagree. The Biblical teachings on sin, justification, the fruits it produces, church order, the ordinances of the New Covenant, and all other Biblical teachings are perfectly suited to our current condition the same as they were to the condition of the first century man.

This is really an entirely different topic, in some sense, than the original post, so perhaps, if people want to discuss this topic, it could be discussed in another thread. However, the topic has been discussed at length here before.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

I think one lesson is that each member of His body must learn to walk with God alone, and this is the very nature of Faith in itself.

that is the essence of what is being said when we hear a "fresh Word from the mouth of the Lord" it is not a "new" word but an old word with fresh life/grace in it.

No one will stand before God , in Judgement day for you. No leader and no Pastor or mentor

True but there will be much accountability in leadership when it come to the saints Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, an not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

I think that much of the church has dropped the ball on the gifts of the Spirit which would be fresh direction, maybe even vision, discernment, true discernment into the mind of God on a matter that is relevent for the moment.

The Lord has no place to express Himself, for Man is in control.

Scripture alone can get to be a god in itself, a legal billy club that is used by men to inflict control over other men, that is why every believer must be able to hear the Word of God within the Word of God for themselves. It is not that instruction and the teaching of sound/healthy doctrine is not important, it is, it is not that community and love of the brethren is not omportant, it is, but you can have all this and not have the life of Christ in your midst and in your life. Too many examples can be sited here. One who sits daily at God's gates or one who seeks His wisdom and understanding is the one who will be able to stand in the days ahead. It is not that they want a "new" revelation, but like Job they want to hear from God and God alone, not a man, although it may come from a man, but the very nature of the "Words" they hear will bring new life(fresh life if you will), it is that personal aspect of God interjecting into thier present life that is meant by "a fresh word from heaven'.

On much of your other observations I agree whole heartily, as pretains the church proper in its love or lack of love toward one another.

You mention that our conditions change - I disagree. The Biblical teachings on sin, justification, the fruits it produces, church order, the ordinances of the New Covenant, and all other Biblical teachings are perfectly suited to our current condition the same as they were to the condition of the first century man.

You totally disregarded the 7 X command of Christ to hear was the Spirit 'saith' and your answers are [u]woefully[/u] short of the operation of the Holy Spirit in my posts. God did not abandon the church with the scriptures to navigate this life alone with a manual in hand. God is present active in our affairs and expects us to 'hear' what HE is saying to us. This is the clear pattern of the book of Acts all the way to Acts 27. What about that 7 x command? What say you?

I say this respectfully, but the children of Israel gathering manna in the wilderness has nothing to do with fresh revelation. It does speak of the provision of God for his people, but to take this text and apply it to fresh revelation from the Spirit is simply a stretch.

Is God concerned to feed His people bread? Or is He concerned to speak to them presently and actively? These things were a figure just as the pattern of the Wildreness Tabernacle was a figure. What did Jesus say?

[color=000066]But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that [u]proceedeth[/u] out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)[/color]

[color=000066]Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. (John 6)[/color]

The key to this passage is verse 63:

[color=000066]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: [u]the words that I speak unto you[/u], they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)[/color]

They words are 'life'; they are the every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God that we are to 'live' by. They are quickened words spoken by the Spirit and not the profitless flesh. And this is critical to our understanding of edification. We are not just educated in God's word, but are 'built up' when the Spirit quickens the word to us. It becomes fresh manna. We need it daily.

God is not trying to make us Christians academically; He is working to speak to us the word of His grace that we might by built up have an inheritance among the sanctified. The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit- not the flesh.

The Bible tells us so much. There are so many examples of peoples lives that it is impossible to read their and discern God's will for ours or our local churches. We need ears to hear what the Spirit says. We need to reject the grievous wolves that come in in the flesh with Bible in hand leading disciples after themselves and proof text God's people into the will of fleshly men. That is the main problem today in many local churches. The solution is that we determine again to come before the Lord and hear what the present active voice of the Spirit is saying.

What is the true Manna? In a sense it is Christ. But when we couple John 16 with our previous passages it is clear that Christ needed to ascend to the Father to send the Holy Spirit to communicate what HE is saying to us; His words that are Spirit and life. How else will we know His will? We have a general sense of God's will in His word. But our [u]accountability[/u] is realized when God [i]quickens[/i] His word or will to the hearts of a person or persons. If we are not hearing what the Spirit is saying then we cannot make corrections and are doomed to our own fleshly applications of a spiritual word.

Jonathan Edwards gives a thorough discussion on this kind of Biblical interpreting in Religious Affections - I would recommend it to everyone.

You may commend us to Edwards, but Paul commends us to God and the word of His grace.

[color=000066]And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20) [/color]

I am shocked that you would commend Edwards words over Christ's 7 X commands? One of our greatest problems is our refusal to stop sifting through the blackened cold embers of a bygone generation. We need a fresh coal from off the altar and a cleansing of our blackened lips. We need to repent of our ongoing resisting of the Holy Ghost as our fathers did. We have kicked against the pricks long enough.

It is high time that we hear not Edwards, Finney, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Whitfield, Bounds, Tozer, Reidhead, Ravenhill, and a thousand others that we have formed into an almost 21st Century losely bound Talmud, and come before God until we hear in the present active voice what the Spirit saith to our churches.

This is really an entirely different topic, in some sense, than the original post, so perhaps, if people want to discuss this topic, it could be discussed in another thread. However, the topic has been discussed at length here before.

This comes off way wrong in my ears. Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is coming off way to dismissive of such a [u]critical subject[/u]. We cannot afford to go forward in the 21st century sermonizing and proof-texting. Bibliolatry is as great a sin as idolatry as it seeks to establish a religion in the absense of God. This is what the pharisees did when they declared [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1959]It Is Not In Heaven (Bath Kol).[/url]

The original post seeks to establish who is responsible for the church. Responsibility implies revelation and understanding. The extent of our responsibility is the revelation of God brought forth individually or on a local church level. We have general moral responsibility from God's word, but there is a responsibility on a local church level and that implies 'orders'. What are our 'orders' from God? To hear those orders the word of His grace has to be in operation in the assembly otherwise it is hunches and guesswork.

It is high time that we hear not Edwards, Finney, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Whitfield, Bounds, Tozer, Reidhead, Ravenhill, and a thousand others that we have formed into an almost 21st Century losely bound Talmud, and come before God until we hear in the present active voice what the Spirit saith to our churches.

Amen Robert, the great curse i think we focus so much on this. Yes it is a great blessing to read and and see what God said through these men. It can be of highly benefit for our spiritual life. But the truth is Edwards was not raised up for us today, edwards was raised up for his generation and wesley and Luther and all the rest for their time.

We can imitate Edwards and many do, with missing Edwards results by light years. We need to hear from God direct that he may rise us up and we be the man of the hour. And those who hear what the spirit says can be such a man.

Amen Robert, the great curse i think we focus so much on this. Yes it is a great blessing to read and and see what God said through these men. It can be of highly benefit for our spiritual life. But the truth is Edwards was not raised up for us today, edwards was raised up for his generation and wesley and Luther and all the rest for their time.

I have read these men for a long time. But they are no substitute for hearing from God. in fact, I think it can be a sign of [i]backsliding[/i] but I'll get my helmet for that one. :-o (We try to glean from their devotional life instead of having our own, etc.)

In fairness I am borrowing from the message of Art Katz on 'Two Judaisms'. The truth is, many have nearly come to Rabbinic Judaism and don't know it. Are was big on what is 'good' and what is 'best'. He believed we needed to hear from God.

The issue is [i]authority[/i]. Who is responsible implies a question; who is in authority and how has that authority been delegated?

The Pharisees formed Rabbinic Judaism by taking the Book and rejecting God. This is a sobering truth because they would kill a person for saying or implying that, but it is exactly God's estimate and histories virdict of what they had done. Now many many Jews are atheists and even many of the practicioners don't believe in a real God.

RobertW wrote:
The Pharisees formed Rabbinic Judaism by taking the Book and rejecting God.

I think you can leave the helmet on :-)

This is powerful Robert, i think this is probably one of the greatest deceptions in Christendom when i think about it, I have probably not read as much as you have yet of these men, but i have noticed the more "good" stuff i read, as good and true as it is, it only gives a "stirr" for the moment, the times I have been changed, the times I have been able to lay away sin and self is the times God spoke directly to me.

I think if God does not speak directly to us, what makes our religion different from islam?

And basically simplified, there can never be a real relationship unless both part is active. Imagine a couple where the bridegroom never spoke to the bride except through letters and messages. That would be a dead relationship. we see this in the number of divorses and destroyed marriges, how many is because there have been a lack of communication? i dont know but i am assuming a great deal. How many is there that have departed from God because they will not listen or even try to sit still and listen to Him.

I remember Zac Poonen said most people pray like this and he give a picture.

Imagine someone phoning you and imminently start speaking and asking and saying things for ten fifteen minutes and then just hangs up, you dident get a chance to get one word in. So many people pray to God, they do all the speaking and God all the listening.

be still....

------------------
for meditation:

Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever."

the word stand can also be translated abide, and i am sure God does not meen a book. Many do not even own a bible, but they can hear God more clear then those with sixteen different translations and study bibles and the rest. Blessed be God

Who is responsible implies a question; who is in authority and how has that authority been delegated?

Completley wrong in most churches if you ask me :-)

In my church we do not have a pastor, we have a set of elders that are resposible in the meetings to oversee. But they are not "higher" more like brethren, and the spirit is free to giva a word to whom so ever, or a psalm or a word from the book :-)

And i have been amassed how many times, one has Gotten up and gave his burden and word from the Lord and it turns out that after three hours (time is not a problem when the spirit is speaking)every single one that stood up to speak had been following the first message like a red line. And it is truly something to behold how the spirit can control a meeting and "speak forth something" to his church.

In my church we do not have a pastor, we have a set of elders that are resposible in the meetings to oversee. But they are not "higher" more like brethren, and the spirit is free to giva a word to whom so ever, or a psalm or a word from the book And i have been amassed how many times, one has Gotten up and gave his burden and word from the Lord and it turns out that after three hours (time is not a problem when the spirit is speaking)every single one that stood up to speak had been following the first message like a red line. And it is truly something to behold how the spirit can control a meeting and "speak forth something" to his church.

May God grant this in all of the churches! What an awesome thing if this could be true everywhere. May God grant it in our circles again. Thanks for sharing this.

Brothertom wrote:

I'm moving to Norway....well hmmhmm, that's an encouragement. Let this freedom consume all, to where we can really love each other.

youre welcome brother :-)

Although, even if we have this freedom, that in it self wont bring an automatic to a perfect church. Our church have issues just as any i guess.

here is a message Zac Poonen shared with our church this summer.

[url=http://www.spiren.org/media/bibelhelg08/080630-AaByggeEnNytestamentligMenighet.mp3]building a new testament church by Zac Poonen[/url]

You will learn some Norwegian to while listening ;-)

The doctrine of our Savior and his mediation is the principal doctrine of Christianity. It is the foundation of all other doctrines. Leave it out, and you have no foundation for our hope of salvation.

When Paul speaks of the prophetic in this sense he sketches the scenario of someone attending a meeting and discovering that God could speak to the heart. The reaction Paul expects is that the 'stranger' will 'fall down on his face, he will worship God, and testify that God is among you'. 1 Cor 14:25

This is not the result of exposition, although exposition is vital. It is the consequence of 'revelation'. God has lifted a veil and revealed the man for what he is. I know the cessationists would prefer to relegate these verses to history but I see no biblical evidence for that conclusion.

There is a doctrine concerning "The angel of the Church of Ephesus" etc, or the messenger of a particular Church, as being a leader of that church, city, or geographical area. I assume this doctrine was derived from the first few chapters of Revelation, and the letters to the 7 churches, prefaced by, "And to the angel,of the church of Pergamos or "to the angel of the church of...."...[ " "angelos", greek translated "messenger or angel.]

Paul's letter to the Corinthians is the only letter we have that gives us any clue as to how a meeting 'worked' in the New Testament period. The extraordinary thing about Paul's letters in there is no little reference to 'elders' or church leaders, other that in the pastoral epistles. Why would this be? Paul clearly believed in the functioning of an oversight/eldership and yet they are not addressed in the Corinthian epistles. It is the church that Paul holds responsible for their carnality, the church where 'each one is saying I'. Wouldn't you have expected Paul to lay this responsibility on the elders?

I am not saying that true 'leadership' is an obstacle to 'the word of His grace' being in the midst... but leadership wrongly understood can become a control mechanism and then it can be a real obstacle to such 'words of grace' coming into the meetings.

Ron's: Wouldn't you have expected Paul to lay this responsibility on the elders?

So in what sense are the elders accountable to God? It is starting to seem as if there is a responsibility that individuals share and the elders share? But who is responsible for what?

So in what sense are the elders accountable to God? It is starting to seem as if there is a responsibility that individuals share and the elders share? But who is responsible for what?

It is interesting that Paul does not address the church 'through the elders' which is the way of hierarchy.

The responsibility of the oversight is to oversee, or keep a watch,(like the Christmas shepherds.. they were 'keeping a watch over' not 'ruling over'). They are not the initiators of every move in the church but they are the safety element in the church.

Do you have those dual-controls for learners drivers over there in the US? In the UK dual-control usually means that the instructor has a clutch and a brake on his side of the car... but not a steering wheel! Consequently the instructor is able to veto any dangerous maneuover but does not 'steer the car'.

I see the oversight, and notice I keep using that phrase which speaks of multiple responsbility, as providing the veto as necessary. That doesn't mean that the oversight is prohibited from taking an initiative but that initiative in the church is not restricted to the oversight.

[color=000066] And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and [u]called the elders of the church[/u]. And when they were come to him, he said unto them,...

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you [u]overseers[/u], to [u]feed the church[/u] of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock...

Also [u]of your own selves shall men arise[/u], speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them...

And [u]now[/u], brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20)[/color]

I'm seeing some clues here. Paul says in that last verse, [i]'now'[/i] I commend you to God. Why now? Because he was leaving and would see their face no more. If I can say it like this, the Apostolic era was coming to a close. it is interesting that Paul knowing he was leaving did not seek to shut down the word of God's grace in favor of exclusively only the written word, but commended them to the word of His grace. It strikes a hard blow on those that think that the prophetic was the 'childish things' that are to be put away once we become men (as it were). If so, Paul is here commending them upon his Apostolic departure to the childish thing.

I also see an added responsibility to 'feed' the flock of God. A shepherd typically did this by preparing the land for grazing; i.e. removing hazards such as poisonous plants, fall hazards and ridding the area of dangerous animals (For those not familiar see A Shepherds Look at Psalm 23). The Lord still has to provide the grass, etc. The shepherd has to 'prepare the table' (tablelands as it were). This agrees with what Paul is saying, I think.

I believe you are right>>>>>>This agrees with what Paul is saying, I think.

I do believe there needs to be more freedom in the assembly of saints, however I don't see this happening short of a really big move of God within the local churches all at once. In this area the local churches tried to organize a church unity revival this year and it was man centered, man controled, man organized. What a flop! I wonder when we will gather to hear and follow the very "Word of God" in our midst? :-(

I wonder when we will gather to hear and follow the very "Word of God" in our midst?

I think this will happen when the Saints begin to gather, probably in homes, for the purpose of realizing [i]genuine[/i] church life. I think it requires a willingness to follow a biblical pattern and allow God to have [u]all[/u] of the glory.

I believe also the Lord is calling out a people for this very thing. I experienced this in the UK and coming home find it hard to muster the desire to return to having church as usual. Besides, the numbers of people attending church is dropping almost everywhere I have seen except some of the churches that have lots of activities for people. One of the largest Pentecostal churches in KC just stopped having services on Sunday Night recently. This is a trend that has no parallel in the 70's and 80's.

It seems, and I could be wrong, that the Lord is not blessing many churches with His presence as He once did when they gather. This may be due to the soulish nature of worship or because He is wanting a genuine church life pattern. just a theory I have. But truly the times will demand that we really come together with like minded believers and seek God together New Testament style. I believe the days of 'playing church' of 'entertainment based church' may be numbered.

If I can say it like this, the Apostolic era was coming to a close.

I also see an added responsibility to 'feed' the flock of God. A shepherd typically did this by preparing the land for grazing; i.e. removing hazards such as poisonous plants, fall hazards and ridding the area of dangerous animals

All of these things are "God speaking to us." Were their abuses? Yes. Was some of it merely soulish and generic? Yes. But, what price freedom?

As Ron would say, the solution for abuse is right use. Abuse is no excuse for non-use (or something like that).

I wouldn't want to overemphasize this aspect. I have watched shepherds in Romania. Their main role is to guard the flock and leave them to get on with it.

I'm still wondering what (if any) lesson can be learned by the walled in pastures in Scotland and England. Years are spent making walls then the latter generations don't have to shepherd any more. :-(

I wonder if we can return to this passage:

[color=000066]Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth. (Proverbs 17:24)[/color]

I have been giving a lot of thought lately to just how effected I have been by TV preachers having so-called mega ministries. There is a sense in which so many men of past generations were mightily used of God and yet I have somehow felt that I needed to attain to that.

Surely I should concern myself with just doing what the Lord lays on my heart and that alone? I think this is one of the things that contributed to such terrible burnout in my life. Trying to do too many ministries to change the world when I needed to just do what God laid on my heart to do. Where did I get the idea that I needed to be doing all this stuff?

Where did the notion come from that somehow I am responsible for the world? I think about Mike Compton's post earlier in this thread. It is a true saying, I think. But why would we not think that way all along? there has to be some influence that we are trying to attain to. Were the men and women of old 'conscious' that they were making an impact like they did or were they just doing what God called them to?

Hi BrotherTom...

Robert W., Funny thing about walls. The same walls built to define property and keep the wolves out, and the sheep in, will often keep error and coldness in, and new sheep out. The church has one analogy in Scripture as a river, flowing from the Throne. Always changing, always moving, always giving life. Ponds and lakes become stagnant, but not rivers. [I also believe that this is how our eternity will be...and that's everlasting life, like a river......it will be fun,,exhilarating!] I appreciate your insights and radical thinking to dare to venture upsteam against the status quo.

It has been my experience that there are many, many would-be prophets and apostles who claim to "hear God's voice" -- which they then force upon their congregations. Anyone who thinks, feels, learns, or discerns otherwise is simply "wrong" and is often cast out from the fold. In a way, it is "their way or the highway" -- giving no room for prayerful searching, because these men preach the "umbrella authority" message and claim to "hear God for us."

I used to know a guy who would talk about having "heard God's voice" about nearly everything. He would then judge other believers by what he thought (or claimed) that he "heard from God." Most of the time, he would just reiterate things that are entirely clear from Scripture. Yet often, he would stray into all sorts of doctrines that aren't clear. For a while, he dabbled into the charismatic prosperity "health/wealth" message. He would even tell sick people who didn't receive their healing that they must be in hidden sin...or simply be "faithless."

I finally asked this brother, "Brother so-and-so, have you EVER told someone that 'God told me...' and later have found yourself to be incorrect?" I explained that this could be a "personal message" received from God about himself, someone or something, or a supposed supernatural knowledge regarding the interpretation of a particular doctrine. He admitted to this, but said that he simply and sincerely "missed it." I explained that this made him a person who bore false witness against God Himself...and that this was no different from a false prophet from the Old Testament! He thought that I was "judging" him, but later thanked me for the reproof.

Today, one of the problems that I see in the Church is that we (the Body of Christ) allow men to pour out their interpretations for us. Much of what the modern Church teaches or believes has simply been passed down by preachers attending another preacher's message (at church, from books or from a seminary). Sometimes, nonsense comes in waves like a passing fad (ala "holy laughter") while other times it has taken root for over a thousand years (the "Church" format as taken from pagan Roman traditions). Regardless, we are in a mess because we easily adhere to what we are taught.

We need to be Bereans in ALL THINGS. We should trust no man...even those dear preachers that we admire. We all have one thing in common: We aren't entirely perfect and are wrestle against our flawed humanity. We should listen to teachers and test each and every thing that they pass on to us. This is true of anyone -- from those charismania "prophets" to beloved men like Leonard Ravenhill.

When I met Brother Ravenhill shortly before he died, he told me that this would be the most important thing that I would ever learn. He told me that the Church of God is in such a mess because it operates through flawed doctrines and practices that were easily believed when handed down by our "leaders." He instructed me to remain passionate for intimacy with God, to "test everything" that I have ever learned or been instructed (even those things that I was sure of) and to "hold on only to that which is good." He reminded me that "there is none righteous" enough to teach us without us proving his words.

One of the big problems that I find in the Body of Christ today is not just from those who are willing to believe silly things (like the extreme ends of the prosperity message), but from those who are willing to believe "hard" messages without truly searching them out. There are so many guys who teach as if their messages are beyond reproof -- that they feel that anyone who thinks otherwise must be in "gross error" (sincerely, at best).

God help us to remember our flawed humanity enough to even question ourselves and the things we think to be true! God help us to remain so closely intimate with Christ that we realize just how unlike Him we are...even though we try. May we instruct others to question our words and the words of others through the light of God's Word! May we realize that the condition of the Church (not individually, or in truth, but that vast "body" that claims to be part of the body of Christ when gazed upon as a whole) reflects the inability of each of us to search out the Word of Truth and only hold on tenaciously to that which we are completely assured to be truth!

May we instruct others to question our words and the words of others through the light of God's Word!

Amen. I was thinking about this topic earlier as the potential for false or wrong things may come forth at any given time theoretically. But I also think that 'personal prophecy' is not exactly the same as 'the word of His grace'. It may function the same, but it is not what I would be looking for specifically.

[color=000066]Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the [u]multitude[/u] of counsellors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14)[/color]

The wonderful thing about authentic church life is that most people come to the meeting ready to wait on the Lord and offer their oil to our Great High Priest. Since so many are really seeking God I think Proverbs 11:14 automatically comes into play. I think it provides a safer environment than most churches where the people come to service expecting to spectate with their mind and heart in neutral.

The wonderful thing also, is the [i]gentleness[/i] with which direction is to be maintained. You will notice that right in the middle of all those passages in I Corinthians on the gifts of the Spirit is the love chapter (13). The gifts in operation are expressions of God's love and grace to the people. I think that folk who come to a meeting with an ax to grind are of the wrong spirit already.

One does not have to be 'prophetic' to be of the wrong spirit. I think any message of repentance that does not flow from a heart of compassion is not of God. Typically it was the religious hypocrites that badgered the people that received the harsh words from our Lord. Those that were in sin and needed to repent there was an underlying compassion for them that [i]drew them near[/i] to Him that He might change them.

So any 'word' or contribution that comes forth that is not of grace and seasoned with salt may well be earthly, sensual or devilish. The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God. A word of rebuke from a critical spirit is not the same as a rebuke that is carried on wings of compassion and desire for restoration and reconciliation.

Very much good in this thread, yesterday night i listend to a Zac Poonen sermon from the book of Daniel. And he spoke briefly on building the body of Christ, the church and building babylon.

The verses that stuck with me in my thoughts where these.

Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?

1. Mans Plan
2. Mans Power
3. Mans Glory

How much church building is it today, not buildings but the church. Is built like this, with mans power and wisdom instead of Gods spirits power and wisdom that is layed down in scripture.

As looking at the pastor dominion in the church where one man practically runs the show, some is undoubted very godly men and do a good job in what they do, but is this Gods intent and will for the church? or has God in his wisdom another plan that is foolishness to men?

Looking at most churches they sadly is run like any worldly company, where the main interest is really to make the church go around, financially. Instead of of "to God be glory in the church"

What my own experience is that for some years my only participation was to sit in a pew, and give in the collection box. The thing that struck me was that i was just going to church, it was a relatively large church, and i noticed that if someone was missing no one would notice. And I look at the picture we have in the word that we are a body. Have any woken up and been missing a leg or an arm and not noticed?

I believe the intimacy and fellowship is of most importance. Yet we have large churches, and it would be an interesting poll to take in a church how many feel lonely.

another thing that i noticed from moving to norway and a new setting in church is that everyone is more involved when a church have elders instead of a pastor. Everyone has something to offer instead of being forced to listen to a pastors doctrinal convictions, right or wrong.

And how the sharpening of our love for eachother to se maybe two brothers that maybe not share the same convictions can go up and speak a word if they feel lead. To see people come up the next meeting and confess the word i shared last sunday was not a true word from God.

And how there is a "recipe" if you will in doing things other then we so often been brought up in, and how Gods ways have "hidden" things that when is done purges and cleanses out in many other areas. And most important i think it rings the saints together. The sad tragedy of todays church is that many go to church, most people, when we suppose to [b]be[/b] the church.

But also, we can have the print of a church, like we can have a model of the tabernacle in the desert, we can rebuild an exact replica of that tent, and yet Gods glory wont be there, we need be careful we do not make the same mistake when we build the church.

And most sadly much of christian work today are just a copy of another "successful" ministries. Successful hen looking at attendence, economy or conversions. Or having a right doctrine.

But Jesus never said any of these things.

Jesus said when they se how much you love one another.... is your church bringing you to that? that you can love your fellow church members with a heavenly love? ever increasing and growing and put into practice.

People often ask my church do this, we have this doctrine we do this, or we dont do this and we dont do that.

The question should be

do you love one another?

I have really appreciated Art Katz messages on community life and Gods intent with the church, and how vital it is with fellowship.

as far as i myself am from this at the moment i am more and more convinced as Art says ;

Next sunday might be to late.......

But i am very glad to see and hear that many is allowing God to work in them and leading them forward to the church as it should be. I think this thread shows more then we realize that God is working in these last days.

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And [b]to make all men see[/b] what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Can all men [b]see[/b] the what is the fellowship of the mystery? that has been hid but now is revealed?

and reading that passage and seeing how the church is a testimony to the power and darkness, and seeing the grand finale here

Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend [b]with all saints[/b] what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Eph 3:21 [b]Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.[/b]

I would suggest it is robbing God of His glory to "do" church the wrong way, at least we limit it.

just my thoughts on this huge subject and very important one

Christian

I'm still wondering what (if any) lesson can be learned by the walled in pastures in Scotland and England. Years are spent making walls then the latter generations don't have to shepherd any more.

I would like to return to the meeting of Paul with the Ephesian elders...
Paul had spent 3 years laying the foundation and had 'kept nothing back'. The church in Ephesus had 'elders' and a level of maturity. The gospel had gone out throughout Asia Minor from this centre. This was a vigorous and vital church but in his extended absence Paul 'commits' them to God and to the word of his grace'. This notion of 'committing or commending' is interesting; the word is often used of setting a meal before someone. Paul is placing before these men the way forward, through acute dangers, for the church at Ephesus... his recipe is 'God and the word of His grace'.

I am drawing attention to this with regard to the correpondence with Taylor. The foundations were in place but the ongoing step my step journey would be possible only as they depended upon 'God and the word of His grace'. The constant incoming 'word of His grace' is not an alternative to the solid foundations that Paul had laid but is the way forward.

I want to be sure that I am being understood here. Where i speak of prophetic input I am not equating that to what often passes as 'prophecy' in many of our gatherings. These usually begin with the phrase 'Thus saith the Lord, I know...' I am not mocking this but I think the prophetic gift in the gathering of the saints is much more comprehensive that this. I think we need to take a look at 'prophecy' alive and well in the Corinthian church.

In this context prophecy is not to be confused with teaching. Sometimes a man may exercise these gifts with such frequency that the man becomes identified with the gift and is recognized as 'a prophet' or 'a teacher'. Prophets are seen 'on the move' in the earliest inter-church connections. In Acts 11:27 a company of 'prophets' from the church in Jerusalem visited the 'church in Antioch'. The context makes it very plain that a considerable amount of teaching had already taken place through the ministry of Barnabas and Paul. Why then this perceived need for 'prophets'? Why was the 'teaching' not sufficient in itself?

Robert quoted the phrase 'the answer to abuse is not non-use but right use' and the abuse of so-called prophetic ministries in our modern day cannot be cured by 'non-use' but must be disciplined into 'right use'. This topic is one of the main topics under discussion in 1 Cor 12-14.

I want to be sure that I am being understood here. Where i speak of prophetic input I am not equating that to what often passes as 'prophecy' in many of our gatherings. These usually begin with the phrase 'Thus saith the Lord, I know...' I am not mocking this but I think the prophetic gift in the gathering of the saints is much more comprehensive that this. I think we need to take a look at 'prophecy' alive and well in the Corinthian church.

I think we have a good picture of what prophetic and holy spirit lead teaching will do, it will allow the spirit to speak in the church.

I think this is an amazing passage in scripture, concerning the Spirit and the church.

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

i would be very grateful if you people shared your thoughts on this passage. No doubt it is very rich in many different aspects.

i would be very grateful if you people shared your thoughts on this passage. No doubt it is very rich in many different aspects.

Prophets and teachers are clearly distinguished and this is important to our discussion. They are clearly distinguished in the 1 Cor 12-14 section too. In that section women and clearly expected to 'pray and to prophesy' but there are definite restrictions upon the prospect of them 'teaching'. (we have discussed them frequently on sermonindex, so perhaps we can leave this thorny issue to concentrate on the matter in hand.)

The Holy Spirit said... what a wonderful statement. This expression can surely only mean an 'utterance' which came into their midst as they 'ministered to the Lord'. This is NOT a committee meeting to make decisions about future mission. Barnabas and Paul were part of this gathering and no doubt seen as indispensable to the future of the church, but God had other plans.He wanted Barnabas and Paul for another purpose and needed them to be 'severed' from the church. This is interesting language; they were part of the body in this place. This word for 'separate' is the word that Paul uses to describe the cutting of the umbilical cord in Gal 1:15.

Most versions say that the saints there 'sent them away' but this obscures an important truth. Darby captures the distinction by translating it 'they let them go'. This is the word for 'release'; they released them and so cooperated with the word of His grace that had come into their midst. Verse 5 shows who did the sending; and they being 'sent forth by the Holy Spirit... The Holy Spirit said 'severe them for the task I have for them', the church 'released them' and the Holy Spirit sent them. I think the way in which God waits for the 'consent' of the church here is very moving. The word for 'sent' is a word used in Greek of the day to describe the 'export' of goods. The Holy Spirit is in the export business!!

This has great significance in the linkage of churches later. Antioch is often referred to as 'the sending church'. It was not; it was the releasing church. We have no record that Antioch ever supported Paul! I am not recommending 'non support', I am just making the comment that the church at Antioch did not have any 'organizational' responsibility towards Barnabas and Paul.

Just notice how spontaneous all this is...

Ron's: This is interesting language; they were part of the body in this place. This word for 'separate' is the word that Paul uses to describe the cutting of the umbilical cord in Gal 1:15.

So there is a sense in which the Holy Spirit prepares folk and matures them to function in some sense independent of the 'releasing' church. If we follow this metaphor on would it be reasonable to assume that the church may have in some sense continued to 'nurture' (for lack of a better word) Paul and Barnabas until they could fully fend for themselves? (financially, etc?)

Paul was 'called an apostle' from the moment of his arrest on the Damascus road. This was simply the fulfillment of that predestinating word. These events in the church at Antioch are at least 14 years after the Damascus road. I have no doubt that much of that time was preparation but a large part of that period we have no record of what Paul was doing.

I think Paul would have been very able to provide for himself 'financially' long before this.

I think Paul would have been very able to provide for himself 'financially' long before this.

This may be a topic of a different thread, but is it the normal pattern in Acts and the NT overall that ministers were able to provide for themselves? I know Paul made tents and told others to 'work with their hands the thing which is good', but were there full-time salaried ministers in the New Testament?

RobertW wrote:

I think Paul would have been very able to provide for himself 'financially' long before this.

This may be a topic of a different thread, but is it the normal pattern in Acts and the NT overall that ministers were able to provide for themselves? I know Paul made tents and told others to 'work with their hands the thing which is good', but were there full-time salaried ministers in the New Testament?

This is not scripture, but some interesting quotes from the early church.

If a prophet desires to abide with you, and if he is a tradesman, let him work and eat. However, if he has no trade, according to your understanding see to it that as a christian, he will not live with you idle.

Didache

----

Attend to your employment with all appropriate seriousness, so that you will always have sufficient founds to support both yourselves and those who are needy. In that way, you will not burden the church of God.... some of us are fishermen, tentmakers, and farmers, so that we may never be idle.

-Apostolic constitutions

This may be a topic of a different thread, but is it the normal pattern in Acts and the NT overall that ministers were able to provide for themselves? I know Paul made tents and told others to 'work with their hands the thing which is good', but were there full-time salaried ministers in the New Testament?

The early church may well have followed this pattern. Paul tells us, in 1 Corinthians, that God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should 'live of the gospel'. As far as I know there is no record of how this principle was implemented.

If a prophet desires to abide with you, and if he is a tradesman, let him work and eat. However, if he has no trade, according to your understanding see to it that as a christian, he will not live with you idle.

Didache

We still find 'apostles and prophets' itinerating among the churches and absolutely no trace of a single elder/pastor or the territorial 'bishop'. It is powerful evidence... but as you say 'not scripture.' Neither is there any evidence of the organizational linkage between the churches.

Although it is not scripture it is probably authentic and while its instructions are not 'scripture' it does give a fascinating insight into the patterns of church life in the period which comes right at the end of our New Testament period.

Then it is safe to say that as long as a person was able they were expected to work. I think of the passage, "if a man does not work neither should they eat."

The link I am looking into is the obstacle to genuine church life being so many full time pastors and leaders needing a source of income. I'll get the helmet. :-?

RobertW wrote:

Although it is not scripture it is probably authentic and while its instructions are not 'scripture' it does give a fascinating insight into the patterns of church life in the period which comes right at the end of our New Testament period.

Then it is safe to say that as long as a person was able they were expected to work. I think of the passage, "if a man does not work neither should they eat."

The link I am looking into is the obstacle to genuine church life being so many full time pastors and leaders needing a source of income. I'll get the helmet. :-?

You better leave that thing on then you wont have to go get it all the time :-P

In my church, that dont have pastors all who are elders have work, many of them have large family's also five, six and even ten children. How they find the time to organize and do what they do i guess is an enablement from the Lord and sacrifice from their part. But what i think is a key is the fulltime pastors are so busy because they do ALL the work that otherwise should be maybe divided up in the church among the members of the body. Imagine a hand doing all the work in the body, it wouldent work. The heart does something, the eyes something and the legs something. The head organizes everything into harmony.

And maybe our lifestyle also keep us in such a grip we need a very high income. Maybe we should settle for less so we can work and still have time for the Lords work in the church?

Here is an excerpt from a short article/testimony from Zac Poonen. I think its a great encuragement and a proof of it is possible to leave the system of paid pastors.

[i]Financial support for workers: In the New Testament, the Lord's workers were supported financially in two ways: Some were supported by the gifts of believers, while others like Paul supported themselves. But in India, almost every Christian worker was either a salaried worker of a church or supported by gifts from believers. So we saw a great need for some workers in India to support themselves and thereby demonstrate the second method of support found in the New Testament - and thus restore the balance. So I decided to support myself and to serve the churches in India freely. I also decided that I would not receive any royalties for my books and audio-tapes that our church published. I encouraged my fellow-elders also to follow my example. The amazing miracle we have seen is that we now have more than 70 elders in the churches in India, who have been serving the Lord freely for many, many years. And some of them are serving in India's poorest villages.[/i]

[url=http://www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/articles.php?display=article31]New Testament pattern[/url]

The word of God says a workman is worthy of his wages, and teachers are worthy of double honor, and not to muzzle the ox that treads out the corn and......etc. You get my drift.
So there is no doubt that scripturally there are some Levites--if you will--- who are to live off the free will offering of the temple as it were.
The problem I see is this 1) to many pulpits have minister in them who were never really called. According to a Gallop Poll done in the late 90's only 58% of minister believed that the bible was inerrant and divinely inspired and 13% didn't accept the virgin birth of Jesus the messiah. They tell me that that number has risen significally since than.
2)As I have said most pastors jobs are really to stand in the gap for thier flocks and to create an atmosphere of safty(boundry without stiffling the creative move of God in the midst), and to teach healthy doctrine inorder that the sheep can discern right from wrong not only in the great assemby but also in thier day to day fellowship/lives.

I can't go into some of the abuses I have seen from the pulpit but even that hasn't jaded my inderstanding as to the whole issue of support for full time ministers.

I've been following this thread with great interest. I'm very encouraged by what's being shared.

If I can go back a ways, Robert W mentioned early on that some may need to gather together and seek God about "reestablishing a local church that is a true light in the communtiy."

And he said also, "The gates of hell will not prevail against a church in which the Lord is tending the candlestick."

I think we are entering days when we are going to see the Lord of the church bringing forth this "candlestick" type of church structure, that is, church as HE has intended it.

...Meaning that in each locale according as He determines, there shall be a Candlestick type of church shining forth the true Testimony of Jesus Christ into the darkness.

...That Candlestick in each place will "mind its own business," and be subject to the heavenly Headquarters alone, that is, Christ Himself at the Right hand of God. I believe, as we seek Him, He will bring us into a powerful awareness that the churches are HIS... and we are to walk in obedience doing only what He bids us do.

We must come to this deep awareness that the church whether locally or universally is ALL His own responsibility, and ours only as we are in union with Him, doing just that portion that He calls us and graces us to do.

I was thinking about the candlestick recently, and reread the passage in which God gave Moses its pattern. It was to be made of one solid piece of gold, "all it shall be one beaten work of pure gold" (Ex. 25.36).

It seemed so clear to me upon reading this that the kind of unity we see being pushed so often these days, with denominations coming together in an ecumenical kind of unity, yet still maintaining their denominational identity... this is not the candlestick God has in mind.

The candlestick was not a bunch of pieces of metal, somehow held together with wire, or whatever. It was one solid piece of pure gold. This is the kind of unity that must be the characteristic of the church God has in mind.

I believe we are going to see this, although it is going to take great shakings to bring it into being.

And great suffering. ...One solid piece of gold "of beaten work." There is cost involved, and suffering, in this kind of church coming forth.

I feel so stirred about this. I want to see this kind of church.

...I read of Paul ministering in the churches. Oh, the reverence he had as he walked among the churches, I suppose you could say with his shoes off. He knew deeply they were the Lord's churches, for His own holy purposes. He never considered them his own. He never tried to bring them under his own dominion. He was a servant to the churches, doing His part as God commanded and enabled, and ultimately leaving them to God's own care. God was well able to keep them Himself, with "the word of His grace."

He is the One who is responsible for the churches. There was never in the heart of God this hierarchy kind of thing church has become(and became very early on, actually).

I read in Frank Bartlemans' book on Azusa Street a quote by the Reformation historian D'Aubigne. He said, "The church was in the beginning a community of brethren, guided by a few of the brethren."

How beautiful. So simple. We have gone far away from this simplicity that is in Christ. May the Lord help us to return to it.

Thanks to the different ones who are sharing on this thread. May we all be encouraged to know God will yet have the desire of His heart.

AD

I think Daryl raises a good point here. There is no doubt that the scripture teaches that those that labor in the Gospel should live of the Gospel (I Cor. 9). There are people that are not called serving and there are abuses.

The point I am trying to flush out is, does the one pastor type church pose an obstacle to shifting to an elder based church because of the full time support (often a salary and housing) of that one pastor? To what extent does today's salary package and home allowance type model compare to the New Testament?

Regardless, I read an article from the Southern Baptist Convention that mentioned that 50% of their present pastors will be out of ministry by 2020 due to age related issues. There are few replacements. So even the salary packages are not luring pastors.

Could this be God moving the churches back into an elder based model with genuine church life?

The link I am looking into is the obstacle to genuine church life being so many full time pastors and leaders needing a source of income. I'll get the helmet.

As a young man I was inducted as full time pastor of a local church and one of the elders would often use the phrase 'economically sanctified'... meaning a paid pastor. :-)

I can't go into some of the abuses I have seen from the pulpit but even that hasn't jaded my inderstanding as to the whole issue of support for full time ministers.

"Whoever pays the piper calls the tune."

The real question is 'how do you do it'. Does the church set a salary? If it does it will almost certainly want to set an agenda too. (As apollus writes in the quote above.) I recall encouraging saints in the church in evangelism and pastoral visiting. At the end of the service one man came to shake my hand at the door and said 'but Pastor, isn't that what we pay you for?' This is the problem that when people pay a salary they expect some accountability from the person receiving the salary; this accountability usually results in a job definition. As apollus writes 'the piper will think he has the right to call the tune'. So the payment is for 'successfully' doing a specific job, rather than being 'economically separated' to the work of the ministry. Notice I said 'the work of the ministry' not the 'office of the ministry'. ie the function not the role.

I was thinking about the candlestick recently, and reread the passage in which God gave Moses its pattern. It was to be made of one solid piece of gold, "all it shall be one beaten work of pure gold" (Ex. 25.36).

It seemed so clear to me upon reading this that the kind of unity we see being pushed so often these days, with denominations coming together in an ecumenical kind of unity, yet still maintaining their denominational identity... this is not the candlestick God has in mind.

The candlestick was not a bunch of pieces of metal, somehow held together with wire, or whatever. It was one solid piece of pure gold. This is the kind of unity that must be the characteristic of the church God has in mind.

These individual lampstands may indeed be of beaten work and from a single piece of gold, but they are not organically connected as were the seven branches of the lampstand in the church of Israel.

The real question is 'how do you do it'.

How and who? I guess I wonder what individuals are to 'live of the Gospel'? Elders, deacons, pastor/teachers, apostles, prophets, evangelists? Typically the individuals that 'live' of the Gospel or are somehow compensated are pastors, youth pastors and praise and worship leaders.

Who biblically should be on that list of [i]sanctified financially[/i]?

Also in Scotland, we have a saying "Whoever pays the piper calls the tune." Can we really expect ministers to "bite the hand that feeds them?"

I think this point is essential to this thread because I have heard of folk getting upset at what individuals shared in a meeting and pressure the pastor to shut them down. When the situation got hot enough a rule came down that no one could share anything in the service before they sang, etc. because it got the service going 'this way' and 'that way' and other undesired directions.

When this happened a death set in and there has been no real recovery. It is believed to have stemmed from high tithe payers upset that they were being challenged by the comments. Eventually they left the church anyway, but the betrayal was complete.

Ron's: I recall encouraging saints in the church in evangelism and pastoral visiting. At the end of the service one man came to shake my hand at the door and said 'but Pastor, isn't that what we pay you for?' This is the problem that when people pay a salary they expect some accountability from the person receiving the salary; this accountability usually results in a job definition.

This is a facet of what I was driving at earlier. If everyone comes to meeting with their oil ready to share and everyone has a heart to visit the afflicted and downtrodden. If everyone feels the need to evangelize and keep up their own calling, what distinguishes the paid pastor from those that do all those same things and yet work full time also? In fact, a few may actually minister as much or more than the paid ministers. Some paid pastors have enough time on their hands to actually work part time jobs on the side and yet still they receive a salary.

So I can see how that if folk go into a real church life mode the need for full time pastor may almost vanish. Am I missng something? I still have the helmet on :-(

So I can see how that if folk go into a real church life mode the need for full time pastor may almost vanish. Am I missng something?

I am not part of a 'pastor bashing' brigade. I don't actually believe that a change of system alone would effect very much. When I left the role of formal pastor I became one of the leaders of a house church. I banned the use of the word pastor but I was still the second man at all the births and deaths in the church; this was because of the relationship I had with the folk. This continues to some degree. Some people have known me for half a century; they are more likely to trust me and to want to confide in me. That is the role that a formal pastor would normally have. What I am saying is that you can have that function without that organizational shape.

In the church of which I am part there has never been a 'full time pastor' nor a 'full time elder'. There have been elders who have given themselves entirely to the work of God and have been full-time but their role was not perceived as 'full time elders'. Some of the elders have exercised ministries outside the local church and some of their time has been given over to that. We have a pastoral function in the church but not a visible 'pastor'.

Here is another feature and I may need to borrow Robert's helmet for this... we do not have the concept of 'elders' wives'. This is the 'minister's wife' concept where the spouse functions as part of the 'pastoral team' or is recognized as a 'pastor' in her own right. There is no biblical basis for an 'elders' wife'. Our elders are blessed with godly wives who function fully as part of the church but there is no 'pastor's wife' role for them; they just function as any other sister in the church would function.

I have sometimes felt that some of the protests of the 'house church' movement have been likely to create just another hierarchy. They would eliminate the local pastor but replace him with an itinerant pastor with the same hierarchical role. The rule simply passes from the local man to the traveling man or his team. i am not convinced that this is an improvement.

RobertW on 2008/12/30 9:02:39
Who biblically should be on that list of sanctified financially?

Quote: RobertW on 2008/12/30 9:02:39 Who biblically should be on that list of sanctified financially? Are you going to label these people?

Touche'. I got confused for a moment. What I should have asked is, what qualifies a person to be 'sanctified financially' biblically? Is the qualification based simply on their whole life being dedicated to prayer and the word?

Btw, I also want to sign out of any notion I would be anti-pastor. In trying to play the ball as Ron says I am really trying to examine some of the pitfalls to genuine church life in hope of finding some future solutions. It's that whole, "but those days are now gone" thing. I think it is imperative that I come into an environment of real church life and that will take either some major corrections or major changes.

But, I feel like I am belaboring the point on compensation here so we may need to just move on. :-)

RobertW on 2008/12/30 10:22:09
what qualifies a person to be 'sanctified financially' biblically? Is the qualification based simply on their whole life being dedicated to prayer and the word?

The only reference to a 'collection' in the NT seems to be a collection for a specific need which was the need of the poor saints in Jerusalem. From later church history, and even some clues from the NT, it seems that there was a separation between the responsibilities of the 'deacons' and the 'elders'. The 'deacons' had responsibility for caring for the needs of needy saints in the local church, particularly the widows and orphans. But as far as I am aware there is no reference to church funds being used to 'economically sanctify' those who laboured in word and doctrine.

philologos wrote:

These individual lampstands may indeed be of beaten work and from a single piece of gold, but they are not organically connected as were the seven branches of the lampstand in the church of Israel.

Yes, each of the seven lampstands John saw in The Revelation is an autonomous church responsible to the the Lord Jesus Christ in the Heavenly Headquarters.

I am just saying that in each locale (and I am not clear what governs the boundaries of a locale) all the true saints of the Lord are to be part of that one lampstand, and not, as now, scattered among various denominations with some earthly type of headquarters.

In a certain city, say, City X, for example, there may be a number of groups gathering here and there in different homes or whatever... but they would all integrally a part of that one lampstand.

I said I am not clear on what governs the boundaries of a locale. Perhaps it is simply an area where people are able to get together easily, practically, for fellowship?

Any thoughts on that?

AD

Brothertom wrote:

ps: I have felt desparately alone in this fight, for many years....almost like I was shadow boxing. I'm stunned that some are with me.

That's why I too have been so greatly encouraged by this thread. I believe we are in the dawning of a new day. We are going to see the kind of churches that are going to bring "the world" down. Needless to say, they will not be popular.

It seems we fall prey to the hierarchical kind of church order so easily. Even in China it has happened. The house church movement in China (not that they were trying to have a movement) has been such a testimony all over the earth. Over the years I've been much encouraged with what I heard was happening.

Yet more recently, in my reading I would come across things like, "...So and so, who heads up a house church of so many thousands of members in China..."

I came across words to that effect three or four times. And I grieved upon hearing of it. Why? Why? Why do we fall prey to this pattern so easily?

And what is it going to take for us to resist the temptation?

Please understand I have an immense respect, even awe, for what has happened in China over the past few decades. The selfless, sacrificial walk of the many saints there is a testimony second to none.

But I think it is a weakness, and not God's will, when church starts to take this hierarchical shape. (I'm suspicious it happened in China because of western influence.)

I think I recall reading, Tom, that you have spent time in China. Any thoughts on this?

AD

appolus wrote:
So, it looks like we are going to be starved into the right model. When we are hungry enough, when we are so thirsty that we are almost going to die, then we will gather where the water is, just as the deer panteth for the waterbrooks, so our souls will eventually longeth after Him.And we will seek Him in in a manner that is pleasing to Him, and He will, perhaps see us coming from a long way of and run to us.

I appreciated your words, Appolus. Just because we feel we have some understanding as to what is the right and scriptural pattern does not mean we can set about to manufacture it. It's been tried, and it fails.

Only God can do it. Those who are hungry enough will be drawn together to seek Him earnestly. If we seek Him with all our hearts we will find Him. Find GOD. What a thought.

A body can be a perfect body, but with no life in it, it is dead.

You can get all the scriptural things in place for a correct new testament church, and still find it dead.

Only The Life can cause the Body to take shape around its bones.

There will be no Light in the lampstand without the Oil burning in it.

How we must come before Him, and let the Lord of the Church have His Way.

AD

Thanks, Tom. Yes, that is helpful.

I knew of the "Three Self" church in China, the government sanctioned and controlled church. But I didn't there was also a counterfeit house church thing, like the one you've described.

AD

beaten work

I think this point is essential to this thread because I have heard of folk getting upset at what individuals shared in a meeting and pressure the pastor to shut them down.

without a vision the people perish. The primary role of any pastor is to help the people learn to discern between good and evil and to lay a good foundation in the thinking of those sheep so that when the Lord does move with vision, the sheep are ready to move into what ever God has called them to.
To use your soccer example, leadership needs to be willing to pass the ball and allow teammates to score a goal or at least shoot the ball, reguardless of the outcome, and that takes not only discernment but great faith and trust.

Just because we feel we have some understanding as to what is the right and scriptural pattern does not mean we can set about to manufacture it. It's been tried, and it fails.

The difference lay in 'faith'. It was not just the grasping of a concept but active faith in Jesus Christ to lead his church.

I have a short quotation which I always transcribe into the back pages of my Bibles. It comes from a man called Anthony Norris Groves... it reads.

[color=0033FF]What a blessing it is that the Lord's heart is so large, that He can help wherever he sees some good thing; whereas man withdraws whenever he sees some evil thing, which is generally found to mean something that wounds his own self-love in the little scheme he had set up as perfection.[/color]

I write it in my Bibles because as a Bible teacher it is my most persistent temptation. One day when I am able I plan to write a book on 'spiritual authority in the local church' I have a working title ready; I shall call it 'little schemes of perfection'!

I do pray that in all these discussions God will prevent us from creating another little scheme of perfection. Nevertheless we are honour bound to try to understand God's ways and to ensure that our ways are consistent with the inspired archive.

I think I recall reading, Tom, that you have spent time in China. Any thoughts on this?

I have strong links with China. You are right in what you have described. Not that it is universal but there are strong authoritarian models at work in some of the house churches.

I think that it takes a very special man/woman at the helm to patiently oversee any group of people in wisdom.

[color=0033FF]and God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, [b]governments[/b], diversities of tonguess. 1 Cor 12:28[/color]

that word 'governments' is from a Latin word 'kubernesis'. It means a 'helmsman'. It is also the word we get 'cybernetic' from which is a 'steered machine'.

interesting. Who was that took all the gold and silver statues of the roman church and melted as tax payment, and commented that they would put the saints into circulation?
I beleive that most christians are waiting to be used or at least feel that it is alright for them to be expressions of the work of Christ in a way that they would be used. Here too many that I talk to only see 2 dimentional ways to edify or help in the churches, things like nursery workers or washing and painting, basically the stuff most full time pastors will not do, and so they feel beneath the ministry. This has been very hard to break through in peoples thinking, even in my few speaking engagements. To get people to become an expression of Jesus in life and within the church. And to move out in faith believing that they can in deed hear from God for themselves.

Mention has been made of The Didache and I found this website which might interest some.

[url=http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Didache.html]The Didache[/url]

Go to Chapter 11 and read how to handle itinerant apostles and prophets! This is a fascinating document. Not scripture but a document which gives an amazing picture of life in the churches at the turn of the Ist century.

Nevertheless we are honour bound to try to understand God's ways and to ensure that our ways are consistent with the inspired archive.

Wow, what a chapter! I have read it before but forgot all about it. That might stop many a visiting ministers these days :-(

I wanted to add a little more to the mix.

The Ephesian letter is different to (English usage!!) any of Paul's other letters. He had spent 3 years in Ephesus and yet there are no personal greetings as with his other letters. There are manuscripts of 'Ephesians' which omit the word 'Ephesus' and have a space where the word could be inserted. This has led some Bible students to suggest that Ephesians was a circular letter and we 'happen' to have a copy of the one which was sent to Ephesus.

It may even be the letter to the Laodiceans which is mentioned at the end of Colossians. Col 4:16

This led some of the early Brethren teachers to suggest that 'the church' under discussion in Ephesians is NOT the church in Ephesus but rather the Universal Church which spans the generations and has its members in both heaven and earth as well as those who will join it in future times.

Why all this introduction? Well, to suggest that the functions spoken of in Ephesians 4:11 are 'gifts' given to the whole church and not to a local church. The interesting thing to note is that we know that 'apostles, prophets and evangelists' were itinerant roles in the New Testament era. So what about 'pastor-teacher'? Was that function 'itinerant' too? and if the 'pastor-teacher' was itinerant what are we to say about the modern pattern of having a 'resident pastor-teacher'?

I want to combine a couple thoughts here from Ron and Daryl:

Ron's: Was that function 'itinerant' too? and if the 'pastor-teacher' was itinerant what are we to say about the modern pattern of having a 'resident pastor-teacher'?

Daryl's: The function of visiting ministers in many cases is that they will address issues that many pastors will not, for what ever reason. The trouble is here too, that many churches will not have guest speakers anymore because of the cost and or out of fear that the guest speaker will leave a spiritual mess that the pastor will have to clean up.

I think of a situation the Lord was in:

[color=000066] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

And they were offended at him.

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching (Mark 6). [/color]

I understand that the role of 'prophet' is different than pastor-teacher, but would the phenomena the Lord experienced here be any different than what resident teachers and preachers experience? It has been my experience that I could teach or preach in my home church for years and not get the response I have gotten by driving 300 miles to another state (and spoke a very similar message).

Who was it that said [i]familiaritas parit contemptum[/i] (familiarity breeds contempt)? If the people were able to write-off Jesus, how much more would they write me utterly off? So it seems to me that an itinerant role is necessary to combat some strange human behavior that tends to give ear to strangers.

I think this also squares with I Corinthians 14:

[color=000066]In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. [/color]

Here we have a people refusing to 'hear' even after God sends them strangers, and more than strangers, even folk that did not speak their language!

Could this be why these functions (pastor/teacher) are itinerant?

"Whoever pays the piper calls the tune." Can we really expect ministers to "bite the hand that feeds them?"

I think the story Robert told, for rules being changed because large tithers complained, is the practical outcome of the system we currently have in many churches.

In some churches I can see this. The was a survey done in the AG (assemblies of God) some years ago and the average pastor only stayed a any given location for 6years. I think thats telling. I believe Wilkersons church serves as a positive example of a large church, I'm sure with some really big givers, and yet these men give a hard message that I believe is from the very heart of God. So I do believe that much of the local church condition is tempered by the leadership disposition and integrity, or lack there of.

Hi Mahoney.

I hope you won't mind if I respond with one general answer to all the questions you asked me.

First, just to review what you yourself say is the answer to these things... that we have the written word, and all we need can be found there. In the written word. You said this a number times.

I believe this has been spoken to in earlier posts on this thread, particularly the one in which the following scripture verse was emphasized.

"He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Take note. This verse is in the written word.

I love the written word of God very deeply. I respect the Scriptures deeply.

And the Scriptures tell us that the Scriptures themselves are not enough to enable us to walk in the whole counsel of God.

We must have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ the Lord of the Church in order to walk in the full will of God.

We must walk in the Spirit, be led of the Spirit, obey the Spirit of God.

This will often mean, perhaps always mean, leaving all that's written in the written word in the hands of the Spirit to fulfill, as we humble ourselves and walk in obedience to the Spirit.

At the same time, this kind of walk does not mean a total disregard to what is in the written word. If we are walking in obedience to the Holy Spirit we will always be in harmony with the written word. (I don't think I need to press this, it's been covered in other threads on this site.)

Just as an illustration. The Son of God Himself had the whole of the Old Testament before Him. He knew all that was in the written word concerning Himself. But did He try to fulfill it all? No, He simply walked in union with the Father, and all that He was supposed to fulfill in His days here on earth came to pass.

On one occasion-- the time when He read in the synagogue at Nazareth-- he stopped right in the middle of a sentence, and then said, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Lk. 4.21).

But what about the rest of the sentence (about the Day of Vengeance of our God)? Wasn't that in the written word, too? Yes, but He was sensitive to God's timings. He would yet fulfill that part of the verse also. In its time. (And its time is very close now, in my estimation.)

The same goes for the verse generally known as "the great commission," which you called the pattern. But the early apostles didn't immediately set out to fulfill that commandment. They waited on God. They tarried in Jerusalem for a time. They went forth in obedience to the Spirit of God.

(And in fact, I think James and no doubt others never did "go into all the world to preach the gospel," but stayed in Jerusalem. Were they disobedient to the great commission? No, they were being sensitive to the leading of the Spirit of God. They recognized His Lordship in the church.

This is what I meant by saying we can know the pattern of true church to some degree, yet still be unable to manufacture true church. Only the Spirit of God can do this.

Philologos mentioned (after your post) his own experience with this. Knowing the principles doesn't enable us to put the principles into practice.

We must walk in faith. And faith is totally the province of the Spirit of God alone. We must walk in the Spirit, giving Him His total lordship in the church in all things, before we can be given the testimony that we are walking by faith.

...Just one last comment. I mentioned in my post that if we are hungry enough, and seek God, we will find Him.

Your response was, "What if we have already found God... in the person of Jesus Christ?"

What can I say but that I too found Him... some years ago. But now He is way, way bigger than when I first found Him. And way deeper, and way higher... and I am so much smaller than back then.

And now I have a hunger in my heart to FIND HIM in such an intimacy of fellowship that God shines forth from my life in a way that those who meet me meet HIM. As it was with the Son of God, who said that those who had seen Him had seen the Father, those who had met Him had met the Father.

I won't settle for any lesser testimony than that... because the written word tells me this is the very thing for which He called me... unworthy as I may be. But to HIM be glory in the Church...)

Thanks for your comments, Mahoney. I hope this is helpful.

AD

I know for myself, I have been unnecessarily moved, at times, by the "words from the lord" of men in pulpits that seem to be speaking to everyone but those people sitting in the seats in their own church

I think many young preachers have taken their cues from preachers who think it is their duty to preach to the nation instead of the local flock that God has given them.

You hit the nail on the head here too, I think the Word of God calls it selfish ambition.

Quote: I think many young preachers have taken their cues from preachers who think it is their duty to preach to the nation instead of the local flock that God has given them.

Daryl's: You hit the nail on the head here too, I think the Word of God calls it selfish ambition.

I agree with this and observe further that young preachers do not understand that the local body is to be [i]edified[/i]. So many times (and I count myself formerly in the number) young preachers think it their job to correct every 'wrong' thing they see.

But the challenge is to examine ourselves whether we be in the faith and to speak those things that are good for the use of edifying. It is odd that those called to edify are in 'tear down' mode (lessen what is good, down play positives, weaken overall) more than 'build up' mode. :-(

I have read that the letter to eph. may have been a letter that was circulated before, but what I seem to see when I look at the churches in Asia was that each one seemed to be set up a little differently from each other in structure as well as basic function, while at the same time leaving room for the itinerant ministry that was in place from the apostle down. How do you see the churches in Asia as to structure and function one to the other?

What the church seems to want these days is a published speaker who is well known and who can gain them a crowd and produce a move of God like say someone like a Kathrin Kulhman (sp?) and all that on a $50.00 dollar budget :-o .

My question is this: Why are the churches in America so closed, even though what they are doing is failing? ( most do not use the itinerant any longer except once a year for a 2 or 3 day revival or camp style meeting and once a year for a visiting missionary)

It also seems that the church runs today so much like a secular buisness that they try to sanctify thier buisness dealings in the name of God! but they refuse to do things by the "BOOK" of God. Why is it we seem to fell that we can just use Jesus a blanket cover for all our local church failings? and operate things as normal or statis quo?

Daryl's: My question is this: Why are the churches in America so closed, even though what they are doing is failing? ( most do not use the itinerant any longer except once a year for a 2 or 3 day revival or camp style meeting and once a year for a visiting missionary)

This is a great question. I have wondered and thought about it often and more and more as I see numbers in my circles dropping tremendously. I have seen youth groups drop from about 30 to 1 or 2 simply because of a location change. I have watched churches that once ran 200+ now running in the teens. Etc. etc.

I think that the problem is an unwillingness to change and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, but a willingness to change and follow some [i]other[/i] thing that is less threatening. The cloud and fire have moved but the tents never followed. But the same individuals responsible for leading spent their time in books and even on sermons that were dead in the water to put breath in the carcass. I number myself in that group.

I think also a combination of fears from false revivals, fallen ministers, money issues, etc., fear of offending folk and the ongoing influence of TV and radio ministries has caused (contributed to) the problem.

I'm going to get in trouble here, but ministers need to be careful not to lean to heavily on vintage, revival and repentance based sermons from well respected ministers. These men have some great points to make but we need to make sure that we are allowing God to speak to put things on our hearts to share that are designed to edify according to the present need. Otherwise we end up answering questions no one is even asking (so to speak). And treating phantom diseases and conditions that are not relevant today. It may be 'fun' to talk about- but what does it have to do with where we are right now? It may be a wonderful series on apologetics or some doctrine, but is it edifying the body? Is it what the body needs right now?

Only the Holy Spirit can build a Church that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against. If man builds the work- the enemy has and will continue to prevail. We have to decide on this. What are we going to do? Continue dying or get ears to hear [i]what the Spirit saith unto the churches.[/i]" To chose rightly is to live- to chose wrongly will certainly spell total disaster, I think.

Hi again, Mahoney.

Sure, let's continue the conversation.

But let's bring it back into the context of this thread about responsibility for the churches.

When Paul gave his farewell message to the church of Ephesus in a little gathering with the elders of that church at Miletus, there are two things he didn't do.

One, he didn't tell them he would send to headquarters in Jerusalem, or Springfield, or wherever... and have a new minister sent down to look after the helpless flock.

Secondly, he didn't pass around Bibles to them all and tell them, "All you'll need is right here."

What he did do was, again, two things:

One, he exhorted the elders of that asssembly that it was to be their responsibility "to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over the which (in which) the Holy Spirit had made them overseers, to feed (shepherd) the flock of God which He hath purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20.28).

Secondly, he "commended them to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among them which are sanctified" (vs. 32).

And so, to apply this to our own day, it's clear that God would have local assemblies grow in strength because of the provision of the word of His grace in their midst, instead of having them kept in a kind of chronic immaturity that requires pastor after pastor to feed them all the days of their life.

This "word of grace" should be alive and well in the assembly of the saints, each one walking in a close relationship with Christ, and contributing to the well being of all by faithfully ministering their portion of grace.

To my mind, the word of His grace includes all aspects of the word of God. Teaching, prophesy... all of it.

I understand where you are coming from, and in no way minimize the importance of the written word. But I think in our day, with our abundance of Bibles, God sees we are weak in the area of this "ministry of the Spirit." This is indispensible to the church, and I believe God desires to alert us to our weakness in this area, and get us seeking Him for His provision to change the situation.

Jesus did not say, when He went away, that He would see to it that the disciples had the written word to guide them when He was gone.

What He did say was, "It is expedient for you (better for you, to your advantage, your profit) that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send Him unto you..." (Jn. 16.7).

And so, the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, would be in the church as the Son of God Himself, when He was here.

He, the Spirit of truth, is to be the Lord and Minister in our assemblies, guiding, teaching, prophesying, praying... just as if Jesus Himself were here in the flesh.

...I think you are in agreement on what I am saying (if I understand you), for you said at the end of your post that we are to be led of the Spirit and live in the Spirit... and that is, to quote you, "living by the revealed word of God."

And we have the written word to keep us on track and help us watch out for those areas where, thinking we are being led of the Spirit, we are going down the garden path with you-know-who.

...What you said is right: we are not Jesus. But we have the Spirit of Jesus. We are not the Son of God. But "God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

And so by His Spirit, we are to have the same kind and quality of walk with the Father that the Son of God did.

...As to that passage in Isaiah where Jesus broke off in the middle of a sentence, you are right that Jesus understood that the latter part pertained to something that would be fulfilled later down the road in the plan of redemption. But that is my point. He was sensitive to God's timings. He didn't say, "Look, it says this right here in the written word, so I am going to do this."

He was led of the Spirit. The timing for the rest of that verse had not yet come.

Thanks again for your comments, Mahoney.

AD

appolus wrote:

The closer I got, the higher they got, until I could not see around them or above them. The closer I get to God, the bigger He becomes, the smaller I become. Yet praise God, this vast God who is beyond knowing, says in His Word that I can be "filled with all the fullness of God."

When the saints seek the fullness of God, when the saints walk in the awareness of God, when the saints walk in His presence, then we will see what the Lord can do with a handful of men.....brother Frank

Good word, Frank. And a very apt illustration of the mountains growing bigger as we get closer to them. The mountains don't grow; they are always the same size. But the closer you get to them, the bigger they get. It is an awesome thing to get right up against "the rocks," so close that you have to look almost straight up to see sky. And you see the wild goats way up there, perfectly at home.

It seems so formidable to us, but there are those wild goats up there... perfectly at home (Ps. 104.18).

Now... if only I had hinds' feet!

...It is a very awesome prospect that God intends us together (ye, with all saints) to "be filled unto all the fulness of God." From this present distance I scarcely comprehend what that means. But as we get closer to Him...

AD

How do you see the churches in Asia as to structure and function one to the other?

This is one of the underlying problems we shall face when we begin to try to understand the patterns of church life in the New Testament era. What is our concept of 'the local church' and 'what is its prime purpose'?

What is our concept of 'the local church' and 'what is its prime purpose'?

The local church --as Robert put it---seems to stay in a self protective mode, they guard thier resources and thier reputations. While parachurches seem to have a few christians who give thier all in resources, time, and talents. Now I have had a hard time reconciling the two together. I hate to sound fleshly but they don't fell the same and they deffinitely don't function the same. I do know they are all family in the sense that Jesus is Lord, but it gets difficult to see the two churches as being supportive of one another, since in many cases they are not.
And so to your question which has followed me all day and begged for an answer, thats something I'll need to prayerfully work out because I just don't know. :-(

What is our concept of 'the local church' and 'what is its prime purpose'?

I recall from my studies in Jewish roots (:knockedout:) that synagogues were mini expressions of the Temple meant to be a light in that community. i understand that they were to be built on the highest hill of area of the town or city so as to be easily visible to strangers coming into town that might need help.

[color=000066]Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, [i]but on a candlestick[/i]; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5)[/color]

I think that the local church with its candlestick serves as a light first among the gathered believers and second to their community and then the whole world. It seems that the body being rightly edified will make increase of itself. This edification serves to cause the truth that is in Jesus to become the truth that is in us. And as a result you get:

[color=000066]the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4)[/color]

I see here increase in the body being the natural consequence of that body functioning properly and healthy.

I think that's the ideal, and like so much of what we see in life as it reflects or works out in the church verses scripture it seems to fall way short. I see para churches verses churches. The para church seems to stand in a bold contrast against the status quo of the church which is really nothing more than a safe place to go with your family on sunday morning. A place where the testamony is : "they are good and moral people", but that's about it. In the worlds eyes the JW's and the Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists....etc...are the same. That's why I said Ron's last post has some real radical and deep implications if thought out to its conclusions. Even in the house church movement, when he says Family, that really changes the whole dynamic especially as it pretains to practical helps and love one toward another set within the context of edification. In that context "the Word of His Grace" really takes on a different meaning. Don't you think?

Question;

Just who IS responsible for this state of affairs?

ME!

But seriously as I read through the thread I remembered what a buddy of mine said in prayer as he was angrily protesting to God about the church.
He said to the Lord "where is the God of Elijah?

The Lord answered "where are the Elijahs?"

Part of the answer could be in the example of Moses,Joshua, and the crossing of the Jordan,
.

We got across alright,and are gathered together.
Along with Moses and Joshua.

philologos wrote:

I have been part of a church which believed almost all of these things... as a principle. It was not until I became part of the church where I am now that I actually saw it in action.

The difference lay in 'faith'. It was not just the grasping of a concept but active faith in Jesus Christ to lead his church.

Please enlarge on this for us. What does "active faith in Jesus Christ to lead his church" involve?

AD

philologos wrote:
...the functions spoken of in Ephesians 4:11 are 'gifts' given to the whole church and not to a local church. The interesting thing to note is that we know that 'apostles, prophets and evangelists' were itinerant roles in the New Testament era. So what about 'pastor-teacher'? Was that function 'itinerant' too? and if the 'pastor-teacher' was itinerant what are we to say about the modern pattern of having a 'resident pastor-teacher'?

I think this is right. All the throne ministries, including pastors and teachers, are gifts to the whole church.

At the same time, they would be part of a local church, elders in a local church, and they would go out as the Lord led.

As at Antioch. "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers..."

AD

With many others I have greatly appreciated the conversation and various wrestlings here. I have been following this thread as I study through Exodus, which might help explain what follows.

[u]There IS something about man that wants to understand the order of things[/u]. Moses wanted to. He asked to know God’s way, to know Him, to find grace (imparted enabling) in light of the fact that these people were the people of God (not his people). Having found grace in God’s sight (enabled to bring forth God’s people), Moses needed this grace. Look at what had just happened (the idol). How could that possibly fit with what Moses knew of God? [Many “leaders” must cry out like this regarding events in their congregations and gatherings.]. What is going on here (what is God doing)? How is Moses to proceed? [u]What is the unseen order here[/u]? On a personal level we ask about the death of loved ones, Godly leaders used of God etc.

[u]And again, there IS something about man that wants to understand the order of things[/u]. Those that asked for an idol also needed some understanding of the order of things. With no leader to fix on, they went to fixing on an idol thing, their stab at making “an order of things”. This helps explain to me why [u]sometimes[/u] we might still fix on a leader as “a thing.”: namely, in an effort to establish an order of things; and why congregations decide they need a different pastor, or individuals decide they need a different church.

[u]And again, there IS something about man that wants to understand the order of things[/u]. Nothing lies outside of His power and authority. All of the Old Testament was required in filling up time (all those kings and prophets and captivity) and 400 years of silence. And in this New thing, man still wants to understand the order of things (even here on this thread). There are thousands of examples. Liturgy has to do with the order of things. What about “Roman Catholic Church,” Fox’s martyrs, Lakeland, etc.?

“And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory.” We often can see God in history, after-the-fact (from behind) such as when we see, in retrospect, His hand on us before we are born again and begin to know Him. We seek God’s way in things so as to go that way.

As an example to add balance to this thread, I noticed [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=26687&forum=45&2 ]this 12/30/08 posting[/url]: [i]“Christianity as an institution has long been occupied with things: churches, clergy, teachings, doctrines, religious things. The "house church movement" is similarly engrossed in the dynamics of how to meet, where to meet, and what to do when meeting. The "charismatic movement" is obsessed with alleged manifestations and spiritual gifts. The "prophetic movement" is absorbed with what they think God is saying, doing, or about to do. [b]Paul was preoccupied with a Person[/b],”[/i]

In revival God makes His way know “up-close”, makes Himself know, shows us his Glory “in-the-fact” or as close to “in-the-fact” as maybe we might hope for and live. And of course, like Moses there is all the “after-the-fact” seeing of His Glory in revival (Ex. 34:6-9).

In all of this there is encouragement:

1. God desires to make Himself known to man.
2. Although we cannot see Him and live, [u]we can hear Him and live[/u].
3. We have some praying ground in common with Moses (Ex. 33:12-13).

Edit: bold

Please enlarge on this for us. What does "active faith in Jesus Christ to lead his church" involve?

Christ as personal High Priest interceding is a familiar point, as is the seated High Priest reigning but Christ as the High Priest walking among the lampstands.. there is much less spoken of. And yet we all pay lip service to the notion that Christ 'is in the midst' but do we really believe it?

But seriously as I read through the thread I remembered what a buddy of mine said in prayer as he was angrily protesting to God about the church.
He said to the Lord "where is the God of Elijah?

Did you know that God forbids 'angry prayers'? 1Tim 2:8 ;-)

At the same time, they would be part of a local church, elders in a local church, and they would go out as the Lord led.

As at Antioch. "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers..."

1. God desires to make Himself known to man.
2. Although we cannot see Him and live, we can hear Him and live.
3. We have some praying ground in common with Moses (Ex. 33:12-13).

philologos wrote:
but if you read the earlier chapters you discover that they all appear to be 'imports' and possibly temporary imports?

Yes, I agree that's likely the case here.

But does this mean all who have a "throne-room" ministry have no local church where they are considered to be a member of the body there?

Lets say a pastor or a teacher (or a pastor/teacher, as some hold) lives in Ephesus, and has a family there, and a job. Isn't he a part of the lampstand in Ephesus? He's one of the elders at Ephesus, likely.

And when the Lord of the church calls him to go to, lets say, Smyrna, for a season, he is still minding his own business. He teaches there for a season as the Holy Spirit directs, and then goes back home.

Meanwhile back at Ephesus while he is away, the poor little flock isn't floundering helplessly in the absence of their pastor, but continue to function vitally.

AD

dohzman on 2009/1/1 3:12:31
I always thought the purpose of the local church was to raise up missionaries to reach the lost around the world,

What is a house for? It is a place to live. Who lives in Daryl's house? who lives in Ron's house? What is the purpose of 'God's house'?
;-)

But does this mean all who have a "throne-room" ministry have no local church where they are considered to be a member of the body there?

philologos wrote:

Please enlarge on this for us. What does "active faith in Jesus Christ to lead his church" involve?

It means not putting your trust in a principle but in Christ himself. Several times in Hebrews in one way or another we are enjoined to 'consider Him'...'we have such an high priest'. See how the writer focuses on the person of Christ in all his 'offices'.

Christ as personal High Priest interceding is a familiar point, as is the seated High Priest reigning but Christ as the High Priest walking among the lampstands.. there is much less spoken of. And yet we all pay lip service to the notion that Christ 'is in the midst' but do we really believe it?

I've been thinking of the following verse in the context of this thread.

"For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. 18.20).

As you said, "Do we really believe it?"

This is a function of the candlestick, isn't it? The Light of the world shining in the candlestick, whether it be two or three, or some larger gathering.

It is Christ who is the Apostle, the Prophet, the Evangelist, the Pastor, the Teacher... And not just way up there on the Throne of Heaven, but right here in our midst by the Holy Spirit.

And so any apostle or prophet or evangelist or pastor or teacher must minister in union with, and as an expression of, Christ (the Apostle), Christ (That Prophet), Christ the Evangelist, Christ the Pastor, Christ the Teacher... so that their ministry is a manifestation of Christ Himself walking among the lampstands, tending, trimming the lamps.

We certainly need an awakening to this, so that more and more, He who is "in our midst" isn't there just secretly, somehow, but shines forth and is seen, and recognized.

What an awesome prospect.

I have been thinking, and hoping that this thread is more than just an academic consideration of an ideal. Are we laying this to heart? There's a cost involved.

But if we lay it to heart, and seek Christ about this, it is going to cause change.

It is certainly going to bring a cross into the lives of those who take this seriously.

AD

Did you know that God forbids 'angry prayers'? 1Tim 2:8

And drunkenness?

"13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine"

Acts 2;13

by ADisciple on 2009/1/1 21:09:33

Amen, Amen, Amen

ADisciple's: It is certainly going to bring a cross into the lives of those who take this seriously.

Amen. One of the things I experienced in the UK was the love of God and the grace of God in the 'word of His grace'. I am so used to hearing a high octane, "thus says the Lord" type utterance that purports to speak for God but is somehow coming off as anything [i]but[/i] meek and mild.

[color=000066]But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James 3)[/color]

This passage requires that a person be in unity with Christ when they speak. There is no way to fake this. But so often when prophetic utterances come (in my experience) they are not easy to be entreated. You have the sense that you are being force fed something. This is not always the case, but in the UK I found a gentleness and meekness that didn't make me feel like I was under the arm of an angry father with a belt or a rod in His hand.

And I am coming to wonder what it is about men of God that want to present God in a way that thrashes and thunders when Jesus said:

[color=000066]Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11)[/color]

Moffatt translates "easy" as "[i]kindly[/i]." That is the meaning in the Septuagint for persons. We have no adjective that quite carries the notion of kind and good. The yoke of Christ is useful, good, and kindly. (Robertson's)

How refreshing is that? Why is Jesus depicted in other ways than this? Perhaps because of the book of the Revelation. But there must be no contradiction here. Christ is either offering an easy yoke or He is not. And even after all of the Majestic and fearsome ways He is presented in Revelation we still read at the end:

[color=000066][u]I Jesus[/u] have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22)[/color]

That is a precious thing. "I Jesus" as if to remind us that in Him there is no shadow of turning. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever. He is still meek and lowly and offering a kindly yoke.

So we see then what God will bless. He will bless a [i]right[/i] representation of His Son. We should ask ourselves why we do not receive Revival when we ask for it. Is it because we ask [u]amiss[/u] that we may consume it upon our own lusts? In other words, could it be because men have allowed their own wrath to color the person of Christ and God refuses to 'sign off' on that depiction of Christ by sending revival? We ask and we receive not. I truly believe that when a decision is finally made to rightly represent Christ we will see God's hand of blessing. We have already had a John the Baptist.

I Jesus

That moves me! your commentary on the yoke of Christ agrees with AD. in his last post. What a refreshing look at something known but somehow forgotten over the years. God Bless bro. daryl

Hi Brother Frank,

I have been following this thread since it's start and thought I would enter as a late sub (to follow Ron's analogy of soccer - 'playing the ball' et al)!

Regarding the point made by appolus about the local church structure, I think this is an important point. During my Christian life I have been involved in / with a variety of church structures ranging from the very 'un-structured' house church with no pre-planned worship or message to the more formal hymn/prayer sandwich with a 40 minute sermon at the end.

Although I have some quite definitive beliefs about church structure and government, I have concluded that it does not neccesarily matter which format is chosen (even if it is the most biblical) if there is no living, dynamic relationship with our living head (our Lord Jesus Christ) then all that will be ministered amongst the body will be dead religion at best and the philosophy of man at worst.

You can belive all the right things and structure the church to be in-line with biblical standards (to the best you can understand) and it can still have no life. Conversely you may have a church structure that is less than ideal (say a one man Pastor leadership model), but the 'Pastor' and members are 'abiding in the vine' and producing fruit from the life giving sap flowing through them.

I feel such a strong desire at this time to want nothing but to fellowship with my 'Living Head' and have His life flowing in reality in me and to fellowship with others (local church) who are also living in this flow. I have to confess that much of the time I myself fall far short of this position, but it is my hearts desire. Also I understand that my brothers and sisters will always fall short, but let us all at least have this desire and strive to experience that 'it's no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me'.

I had the priveledge of being at Greenock and was so blessed with the fellowship of other believers from such different church structures, but who had a heart for knowing our God. Coming back afterwards into the local church is hard and can be frustrating (not trying to be critical ) as so much emphasis is on things not of eternal importance.

This is a challenge and can be a fearful thing for many, as this will challenge many traditions that are held dear and considered to be foundational truth.

The only foundation is Christ and the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles. May God in His grace reveal to us any foundations that are not this, but just traditions of man or our own predudices.
I don't want to be mis-understood about this. I am not saying put aside truth, as the revealed truth is something we must contend for in these days of deception. However we need to be sure that which we hold so dear is really biblical truth?

I consider that Ephesians ch.4 tells us there are two aspects of unity. Unity of the Spirit (because we are one in Christ) and unity of the faith (the doctrines of Christ)which we are all coming into. We are told to keep the unity of the Spirit (v.3) until we come to the unity of the faith (v.13). This is accomplished by the ministry of the whole body (in a local setting?), who are equiped by the various ministry gifts such as apostles; pastor/teachers; prophets etc. (v.7-12).

I think this turns us back towards Ron's original point.

By the way (as it is relevant), although I am also from Reading, UK I am not at the same church as Ron B and we only met for the first time at Greenock even though we are local to each other! Hopefully we will meet up again as I will probably visit his (local) church at some point soon (advanced warning Ron!).

That is a precious thing. "I Jesus" as if to remind us that in Him there is no shadow of turning. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever. He is still meek and lowly and offering a kindly yoke.

You can belive all the right things and structure the church to be in-line with biblical standards (to the best you can understand) and it can still have no life. Conversely you may have a church structure that is less than ideal (say a one man Pastor leadership model), but the 'Pastor' and members are 'abiding in the vine' and producing fruit from the life giving sap flowing through them.

" Well, there is a generation arising that is tired of following this old leadership, tired of wandering around in a desert, tired of looking at the promised land and listening to people scoff and say "there are giants in there."

I really do plead with you to abandon this 'generation-ism'. We are in this together for better or worse.

Hopefully we will meet up again as I will probably visit his (local) church at some point soon (advanced warning Ron!).

It is the Thracian 'slaughter weapon'. It is essentially a double edged sword on a long handle, designed for [u]disembowelling[/u]. No wonder John passed out

:-o Well, I'm trying to get balanced I guess. For so long I have been so far on the passed out side that I couldn't see the meek and mild. I suppose as long as we are in Christ we have no need to fear that.

I really do plead with you to abandon this [u]'generation-ism'[/u]. We are in this together for better or worse.

This type language is easy to pick up because so many Pentecostal and Charismatics use it. Reading through [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/details.php?file=73]the Generation of Jesus Christ[/url] will be quite helpful.

I thought we ought to take a look at the nature of authority in the New Testament. Accountability and authority are obviously going to go hand in hand. If God has not given authority he will not hold that person accountable. This is a simple statement but vital to understanding the nature of spiritual authority on the personal and corporate level. This is why I asked the question 'just who is responsible?' The simple answer is 'that one to whom God gave authority'.

In business management there is an old saying. If you give someone responsibility without authority all you are giving them is blamability. It is easy to 'blame' 'today's leaders' but are they really responsible? Have they actually been given authority over the areas in which they claim to 'rule'?

What is the 'job definition' of 'today's leaders' and who authored that 'job definition'? What are the Bible's parameters of spiritual authority? Paul's instruction to the 'elders' from Ephesus is surely a critical passage in this quest.

[color=0033FF]Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God* which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20:28[/color]

The NKJV corrects a serious KJV mistranslation but using the word 'among' rather than the KJV's 'over'. These are 'elders'. They have a God-given authority and hence responsibility. These men are genuinely 'blamable'. They are those who must 'give an account'. Just what are elders?

These are the first references to Israel's 'elders'.

[color=0033FF]Exd 3:16\t Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt:

Exd 3:18\t And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

Exd 4:29\t And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel:

Exd 12:21\t Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.[/color]

Just who are these men and where have they come from? To understand the concept of biblical eldership we are going to have to start from the very beginning. Are you ready to make a start?

You wrote 'Just who are these men and where have they come from? To understand the concept of biblical eldership we are going to have to start from the very beginning. Are you ready to make a start?'

I think this would be an interesting subject to look into as there is so much tradition in the churches regarding leadership and much misunderstanding as to the New Testament model of church leadership. Note I am using the word leadership as a convenient word for church government, but it is probably not the best term.

I wait with interest Ron's and others views on this.

Jesus-is-GOD on 2009/1/3 15:57:42
The "authority" can come upon a babe in Christ - if need be - because that authority is 'at the moment' considering the need of the hour, at that moment. Say, in a concentration camp, or prison, like our brothers in China and elsewhere.

Authority for what? We all have a personal responsibility for ourselves under God and God will surely give us the grace necessary for each trial as it comes. However, we are not really speaking in this thread about those personal responsibilities; we are speaking about 'corporate responsibility' in the sense of those who bear responsibility for the 'corps' - the body.

God will always give leaders for his saints. The nature of that leadership and the way in which it is exercised may be part of our studies here, but there will always be 'leaders' of some kind.

Heydave on 2009/1/3 17:31:05
I wait with interest Ron's and others views on this.

Let's play Sherlock Holmes. Why did the dog not bark? :-)
In other words, let's ask the question, "why were there no elders before this time?" I suggest... because they were not needed. This may give us a real key to much of the way in which God works.. necessity.

We have a fascinating record of 'necessity' being the pre-condition for a provision of God in the choice of the Seven in the Acts. These men are usually called 'deacons' although they are not so designated in the scripture. The point is that these men were not appointed until the necessity arose; then God provided. Is the reason that God apparently 'does not provide' because there is really 'no need'?

How about this astonishing promise...

[color=0033FF]So shall they fear The name of the LORD from the west, And His glory from the rising of the sun; When the enemy comes in like a flood, The Spirit of the LORD will lift up a standard against him. Isaiah 59:19[/color]

..do you see how the necessity provides the setting for God's provision?

So let's rephrase the question... "why was there no need for elders before the time of the Exodus"?

appolus on 2009/1/3 18:34:50
In a recent Barna poll, it was stated that most Pastors in American churches believed that the spiritual health of their congregation was good. The purpose in Greenock was to call a "solemn assembly." Solemn because of the state of the church. We were to cry out to God and seek forgiveness for the state we had allowed the church to fall into.

Egypt. There was already in place a specific type of social structure or law.

Daryl's: Egypt. There was already in place a specific type of social structure or law.

And before this was not the patriarch or [i]pater familias[/i] (Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) essentially the ruling authority? Job almost acted as the priest of his family making offerings on their behalf to God. So we see then a connection between a man that fears God and God given authority.

Where people congregate their has to be an authority structure. Francis Schaffer pointed out that the ancient world struggled to maintain law and order because they had no foundation to set their society on; that is, they did not have God as the law giver. So when God is made the basis on which authority is established the whole dynamic changes.

It is interesting that Israel wanted a King, but God desired to direct the people through the Judges and Prophets. When the Rabbi's were ready for total self-rule they made laws that disregarded [u]anything[/u] prophetic. This is quite a lesson to consider. The Pharisees took the Law and created Rabbinic Judaism and locked God out by giving the authority to the Rabbi's.

So when God is made the basis on which authority is established the whole dynamic changes.

Egypt did have a social structure; it was a nation. The group dymanic of a nation is quite different to the group dynamic of a 'family'. I would not use the label 'pater familias'; that is an expression of Roman family dynamic and law and very different to what we find in the Old Testament. (the pater familias 'owned' the whole family and had the power of life and death over each member. It is the underlying dynamic of the Roman Catholic church and the Mafia.)

We actually see Egyptian elders functioning in the last chapter of Genesis. There are two groups identified; the elders of Pharaoh's own household and ALL the elders of the land of Egypt. Their function here is instructive and we will return to it later; they are functioning as 'official representatives'. They are the official representatives at Jacob's funeral. Gen 50:7. So yes, there was a group dynamic and a social structure already operating in the larger 'group' of a nation or a royal household. There was no need for representatives from the Hebrews, everyone attended the funeral with the exception of the very young. Gen 50:8

So if the Hebrews did not have 'elders' at this time what did they have? They had heads of 'houses'; twelve of them and originally Jacob/Israel as the patriarch; father-ruler. In other words they were functioning as an extended family.

When the Hebrews moved to Egypt they moved 'with their households' in line with Pharaoh's original invitation. Gen 45:18. It is important to remember that all who went down to Egypt were not blood descendants of Jacob/Israel. When the book of Exodus opens it explains that each son of Jacob went 'with his household'. These households would have comprised family and servants; we are not told the total number of souls who comprised these 'households'. However in the next verses we are told that the 'blood descendants' of Jacob who finally settled in Egypt numbered 70. Ex 1:1-5.

Abraham's household was able to supply 318 fighting men when the need arose. These 'households' are likely to have been quite large although probably not as large as Abraham's. Any estimate would be sheer guesswork but we are almost certainly talking about 'hundreds' rather than 'tens'! The Exodus takes up the story with Jacob/Israel gone and the 'group dynamic' is shifting.

In the story of the Exodus (including Lev - Deut) we find different labels used and the problems is really trying to see how these labels relate to each other; we have references (even before Aaron) to priests, to elders, to officials, in Numbers to 'princes' of the different clans. How are we to understand these roles?

(the pater familias 'owned' the whole family and had the power of life and death over each member. It is the underlying dynamic of the Roman Catholic [u]church and the Mafia[/u].)

Now this helps me understand the work God did in my heart in the UK. I no longer have a fearful sense that the family of God is like the Mafia in which God is ready to bludgeon a family member that gets out of line, but a loving family in which God comes alongside and brings change by grace.

In the story of the Exodus (including Lev - Deut) we find different labels used and the problems is really trying to see how these labels relate to each other; we have references (even before Aaron) to priests, to elders, to officials, in Numbers to 'princes' of the different clans. How are we to understand these roles?

I never really gave it much serious concentrated thought but what I see here is a complete structure with in a community. Here is how I see it at work. Level one is family i.e.>>>elders
This was a direct means to the individual tribes of Israel, each eldeer would have spoken the language of thier specific tribe and I'm sure there were stories past down about each of thier "heads" as it were as well as the over all heritage past down about the patriachs Abraham, Issiac, and Jacob. Which would help each group keep thier individual distinctive while at the same time hold them together as a nation.

While in the NT the priest is to be the head of the household, much like we see in Jobs witness, as it relates to church structure and the working of the priesthood. This would serve as a constant reminder to bring a nations attention always back the the One God hwo had brought them forth by election/redemption as a chosen people. That would give them purpose. But I'm not really sure how this system would transpose into todays "christian church" on a local setting.

Princes would almost have functioned as heads of state on a national setting and in the USA most local neighborhoods have counsilmen and women who represent the concerns to each neighborhood. I see princes as thoughs who represent. The trouble here is that when I hear the word prince I think in terms of authority which is often oppressive. So it's not elected authority but almost like birthed into authority,the silver spoon so to speak. I have NO Idea how this would play into the local church setting, not even a clue

:-o

blessings, bro. daryjl

dohzman on 2009/1/4 10:03:05
Here is how I see it at work. Level one is family i.e.>>>elders
This was a direct means to the individual tribes of Israel, each eldeer would have spoken the language of thier specific tribe and I'm sure there were stories past down about each of thier "heads"

The 'princes' do seem to have had tribal or clan connections as each tribe has its own 'prince'. It is not helped by the fact that the KJV uses the word 'prince' to translate several different Hebrew words and it is really quite a task to separate them out. I think the words tend to have a military feel and this is certainly the case in Num 1 where the 'marshalls' of Israel were one from each tribe/clan.

But that is running ahead of our story. The families had 'family type' leadership, the 'fathers' and this kind of structure could be called 'patriarchal'. It is when the whole nation is in view that we seem to get the use of the word 'elder'. One NT verse which this brings to mind is [color=0033FF]Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God* which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20:28[/color]

...which specifically refers to the responsibility of the Ephesian elders for 'the whole flock'. These elders do not represent groups within the church but are to 'shepherd' the whole flock.

I think we need to take our time in defining these terms. The danger is that because 'elders' are not the way we do our society we will try to interpret the role in language that is familiar to us. For example, we must not think of 'elders' as some kind of board of directors, or a committee or any of the patterns with which we are familiar. We have to find out by usage just how these roles functioned. The Latin for elders, for example, is senator but you folks over there are going to have to clear the word out of your minds before you begin to understand its use in the classical world.

We do have the use of similar words in many languages, senator, elders, aldermen, presbyters, but the word use will have changed over the centuries and we cannot use our modern conceptions of these words. This is why you should never use a modern dictionary to try to understand biblical words.

It was at least four generations before we read of elders in the Hebrew community in Egypt

It is true that American english is often times a a hinderence to understanding some of the words found in the bible, BUT, that's why God placed gifts in the church to help us understand so of these words :-)

Question: wasn't the word shepard used more in the sense of government leader in the OT?

dohzman on 2009/1/5 8:49:37
I see the elder for each tribe as possibly the oldest living son to the original head of the tribe, Like the tribe of Judah had an elder who was as close as possible a direct desendant of the man Judah and so forth.

and yes, the word shepherd does relate to rulers in the OT but then we have to work out which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Rulers are called 'shepherds' because that is their responsibility and God hold's them accountable to what he has entrusted to them. However, we need to be careful that we don't run that equation backwards. ie 'shepherds' are not automatically 'rulers', although there is clearly a 'ruling' role that operates.

The book of the Revelation tells us that...

[color=0033FF]Rev 2:27\tAnd [b]he shall rule[/b] them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.[/color]
...the word translated here as 'rule' is the verb [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4165&t=KJV]to shepherd[/url]. It is a word with a wide application as these verses will show.

There is an article on the word by Trench which is a bit technical but which might give some insights. Trench was a brilliant linguist and his work is always informative. You will find it [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=25&lexicon=true&strongs=G4165]here.[/url]

edit
It has occurred to me that there is a another little piece of evidence which shows that elders were not tribe-related,

[color=0033FF]Exd 24:1\t And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.[/color]

That expression 'of the elders' means that this was a selection of 70 out of number that was larger than 70. Again there is no link to specific tribes here. Nor again at

[color=0033FF]Num 11:16\t And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.[/color]

I think these 'elders' are 'senior' (another word meaning older!) people in the community. They represent the whole community and not specific tribes. When they wanted people to represent tribes, as in the 'spies' they chose individuals quite specifically who WERE tribe-related. What do you think?

When I traced back the OT word for Elder I came to Genesis 1

[color=000066] God made the two [u]great[/u] lights, the [u]greater[/u] light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; (Gen. 1:16 NASB)[/color]

It seems that this should be relevant because great and greater is also translated as [i]Elder[/i]. And if this is the first use of the term, what can we learn about what it means to be an 'elder' based on this passage? It looks to me like the governing was a natural consequence of being a great light.

I can see that about the seventy elders now, how would that relate to what robert posted from gen1:16 and how does that work out in the flesh so to speak? You know when the apostles in the book of Acts told the early church to search out for them seven men full of the Holy Ghost and faith to take care of the widows. They gave qualifications but it seems that there was a lot of room for mistakes because it doesn't seem as if the Holy Spirit picked these men out in the same way He set apart Paul and Barnabus for His specific work. So on a local level how are elders picked? Age? or am I looking at 2 different things?

RobertW on 2009/1/5 13:47:00
When I traced back the OT word for Elder I came to Genesis 1

God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; (Gen. 1:16 NASB)

It seems that this should be relevant because great and greater is also translated as Elder. And if this is the first use of the term, what can we learn about what it means to be an 'elder' based on this passage? It looks to me like the governing was a natural consequence of being a great light.

I think we may have got our wires crossed. The Hebrew word for elder in the references we have been discussing is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2205&t=KJV]Strong's H2205 - zaqen[/url].

The word for 'great' in Gen 1:16 is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1419&t=KJV]Strong's H1419 - gadowl[/url]. It is translated as 'elder' on a few occasions but it really means 'the great' or 'greater'.

They gave qualifications but it seems that there was a lot of room for mistakes because it doesn't seem as if the Holy Spirit picked these men out in the same way He set apart Paul and Barnabus for His specific work.

[color=0033FF]Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.[/color]

See how they were 'appointed' by the apostles to be in charge of 'this business'. They were given the responsibility of caring for the Greek speaking widows. It is interesting that each of the names of The Seven is a Greek name; these men had a natural link with the Greek speaking Jewish community.

I think we do need to move on to the way in which 'elders' were 'appointed' in the New Testament. But I want to be sure that we are getting a sense of who elders were. They are men of 'stature' in the community. They are already held in regard by their community; they are not imposed on the community from outside.

[color=0033FF]Num 11:16\t And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.[/color]

This is a very interesting instruction where God says you are to choose from the whole company of elders, 'seventy who you know are elders'. It appears that just as all Israel are not Israel, all elders are not elders! I think this is telling us very plainly that not all 'older man' are 'elders'. But from among the older men there were some who Moses would know were 'real elders'.

This is a clear choice of men from a larger company. These men are going to 'share' the Spirit that is on Moses. They will receive special empowerment to enable them to function as 'elders' for the whole community. These men will be like the community elders but with a special ingredient; a unique enabling of the Spirit. These men would function as the 'elders of the church in the wilderness'; the assembly of God, Israel.

philologos wrote:
This is a very interesting instruction where God says you are to choose from the whole company of elders, 'seventy who you know are elders'. It appears that just as all Israel are not Israel, all elders are not elders! I think this is telling us very plainly that not all 'older man' are 'elders'. But from among the older men there were some who Moses would know were 'real elders'.

"The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness" (Pr. 16.31).

I think we do need to move on to the way in which 'elders' were 'appointed' in the New Testament.

This is just a gentle excursus but it is with a purpose. I came across this article some years ago and was taken with the way it tried to explain something.

[color=0033FF]The first meme above was created by Clark at a 1992 IETF meeting and is now informally known as the IETF Credo. This maxim can not be read as stating that Internet culture has no authorities. Individuals of respect and standing play an important role in the aggregation of individual preferences and development of consensus within the community. [b]Internet rulers can be most likened to Elders: those who through merit, contributions, and experience became or built institutions that affect the Net. Elders are citizen engineers who built wonderful things.[/b] Examples of Elders include Tim Berners-Lee, ("Father of the Web"), the late Jon Postel (IETF RFC Editor and IANA Director), Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux), and Larry Wall (creator of Perl). Amusingly, Guido van Rossum, the creator of the Python, is often respectfully referred to as BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life). (In Web years, it need not take much time to establish oneself as an Elder, nor discredit ones-self amongst one's peers.)[/color]

It comes from a [url=http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html#_NoKings]Harvard Law Thesis[/url] and is trying to find a way to explain how the internet is 'governed'.

The reason I repeat it here is because I think it captures something of an almost universal concept of the 'village elder'. The problem with our modern society is that we don't have this instinctive sense of what a 'village elder' is really like or what they do. By virtue of their longer experience they have become the archive of 'community wisdom and lore'. They hold their position on merit. It is not an hereditary or elected role; folks just know who the elders are and when another is added to the number.

I am not trying to say we should follow this pattern in the church, just that this concept of a group of men who by mutual community consent are sought out for advice and guidance is an instinctive concept for much of the world. Our modern patterns of democracy and authority have made it difficult for us to understand this other pattern of authority.

But this simpler pattern of authority lies behind the whole concept of 'eldership'. It is authority by consent and its power is moral. It cannot take refuge in legal authority and ecclesiastic or denominational law; it functions at a different primal level.

This is where we are going to struggle. Our whole concepts of authority are based on Gentile power structures.

[color=0033FF]Mar 10:42-44 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.[/color]

This pattern of Gentile power structure, of power over people, is almost built into our genes. It will take grace and real mental effort to see the pattern of true spiritual authority. But if we can make it we may begin to see a whole new world of spiritual truth.

Ron's: But this simpler pattern of authority lies behind the whole concept of 'eldership'. It is authority by consent and its power is moral. It cannot take refuge in legal authority and ecclesiastic or denominational law; it functions at a different primal level.

I keep thinking of the word 'respect'. When I take the entire post together I can't help but think of 'earned respect' for a person based upon something they have accomplished that sets them apart. An unspoken recognition of 'authority' that is based on the fact that they are highly respected and in that respect they are the 'authority'. There is a saying that- respect is not something that is [i]given[/i] it is [i]earned[/i].

When I think of [u]respect[/u] I think of things like:

1. One with vast experience
2. One known for their faithfulness
3. One in reputation for being upright
4. One that has stood the test and prevailed
5. One in reputation for moderation and wisdom
6. One with a gentle, but strong disposition
7. One that rules his spirit well

Ron's: I think we may have got our wires crossed. The Hebrew word for elder in the references we have been discussing is Strong's H2205 - zaqen.

I kind of took a different route to look at the word. I found the first English reference for elder and then traced it back with an Englishman's to Genesis 1:16.

[color=000066]And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born. (Genesis 10)[/color]

I find it interesting that there is a link between being older and greatness. I believe this is where the Hebrews trace their ancestry? This is also the word used for 'High' as in 'High Priest' who had recognized authority even in Paul's time. David's three 'elder' brothers were certainly not greater than David, but yet they were 'older' and seemed to try to boss David around. God totally bypassed this power structure and gave it to David the man after His own heart.

I guess what I am seeing here is that God raises up folk (as in David's life) to prepare them to have a heart to rule by their dependence on God and not on their age, size or some other outward thing.

The only snag I see in the whole of eldership in what I'm reading is that most churches in America don't really operate thier eldership this way. Also how does authority flesh out in a church where the eldership is based, as it is in most churches here, on private buisness success, or young and available (usually in thier mid to late 30's), or someone with a certain charisma about them, you know what I mean(especially in churches like the AG and the COG), they wear the right clothes and say the right things etc... At what point does authority matter if a true elder is never reconized since most of these men would rather stay in a seculded place out of view and reconition. To what extent can or should they exercise authority? And when you say authority, could you define what you mean? Thank you.

RobertW on 2009/1/5 21:43:32
1. One with vast experience
2. One known for their faithfulness
3. One in reputation for being upright
4. One that has stood the test and prevailed
5. One in reputation for moderation and wisdom
6. One with a gentle, but strong disposition
7. One that rules his spirit well

I guess what I am seeing here is that God raises up folk (as in David's life) to prepare them to have a heart to rule by their dependence on God and not on their age, size or some other outward thing.

dohzman on 2009/1/6 2:00:24
The only snag I see in the whole of eldership in what I'm reading is that most churches in America don't really operate thier eldership this way.

When people like William Wilberforce set himself to see an end of slavery the British establishment could not conceive of the possibility. Their whole economy was based on the 'fact' of slavery. Wilberforce's opponents said it would mean disaster for Britain and all other nations would profit from Britain's too sensitive conscience. It took Wilberforce his entire lifetime to see just the beginnings of change. The practice of slavery is not ended even now but the doctrine of slavery has received a death blow.

Luther used to say "teach before you change".

One of the ways we may progress is if we have eyes to 'see' through the outward expressions of things to an true, inner, reality. Just as in the local church we see tares but the eye of faith can also see the wheat and is not discouraged. It may be that some of the 'current management' are 'true elders'. I recall the admonition of the Lord to those he had commanded to 'see the harvest'....'pray ye therefore... One of the first responsibilities of revelation is prayer.

To what extent can or should they exercise authority? And when you say authority, could you define what you mean? Thank you.

[color=0033FF]Act 1:7,8 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own [b]power[/b]. But ye shall receive [b]power[/b], after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.[/color]

1. the first 'power' here is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1849&t=KJV]Strong's G1849 - exousia[/url] which is the kind of 'power' that a policeman has to stop a truck. It is delegated responsibility, entrusted to him.

2. the second 'power' here is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1411&t=KJV]Strong's G1411 - dynamis[/url]; this is inherent ability. This is the kind of power the world's strongest men have when they pull a truck!!

Exousia can be understand as 'a right' but it is a given right not a deserved or earned right. All exousia is God given, even secular exousia.

[color=0033FF]Jhn 19:10-11\tThen saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.[/color]

Ron wrote:

'But this simpler pattern of authority lies behind the whole concept of 'eldership'. It is authority by consent and its power is moral. It cannot take refuge in legal authority and ecclesiastic or denominational law; it functions at a different primal level.'

'This is where we are going to struggle. Our whole concepts of authority are based on Gentile power structures.'

This I think is the whole essence of the issue of Eldership and church government and so rare today. The problem is not just that our concept of authority being wrong, but the that our 'flesh' and ego wants power and recognition. I think even if we get the right church structure in place with this pattern we will still have to struggle against the ego and flesh wanting it's head.

I guess that is why character is the all important credential when recognising who are elders and not talent or gifting. Do you think that it is possible for those who are gifted (as say teachers or evangelists)can still operate in these gifts, but may not be considered elders due to character weaknesses?

One scripture I think of in regard to laying down of ego is Phillipians 2v5-6.

'Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.'

The phrase ' not consider robbery' as I understand means 'NOT SOMETHING TO BE TAKEN BY FORCE OR GRASPED HOLD OF'. This in essence means that although Jesus knew who he was He did not have to HOLD ONTO IT BY FORCE, He did not have any problem humbling Himself to be a servant and even allowed Himself to be mis-understood and mis-treated as if he were the lowest of all men!! He did not assert His authority at this time (although He will when He comes back).

May God give us leaders like this and may we all strive to have this attitude. I don't know about you, but just when I think I am making progress in walking with God in a right attitude to Him and others, my flesh suddenly exposes it's ugly self in one way or another. I am then reminded that we are so so dependant upon His life lived out in us by His Spirit.

Ron's: Exousia can be understand as 'a right' but it is a given right not a deserved or earned right. All exousia is God given, even secular exousia.

Since authority is given by God, how is that authority recognized in a local assembly? How does an elder know they are an elder? At what point does the exousia and responsibility come upon the person and when does it lift off?

HeyDave's: I think even if we get the right church structure in place with this pattern we will still have to struggle against the ego and flesh wanting it's head.

I think this is why God has brought us to these truths about church life at this juncture because He has previously taken us through the revelation that those that are in Christ are [i]not[/i] in the flesh but are in the Spirit (if so be that the Spirit of Christ dwells in them).

So I see this happening step by step. Genuine regeneration first and genuine church life second. "Having begun in the Spirit" first and genuine church life second. The one baptism into Jesus Christ and His death (dead to the Law and the law of Sin, etc.) and genuine church life second.

Not as if the unregenerate cannot receive something in the meetings, etc., but rather genuine regeneration is absolutely essential among the members individually for them to be part of the process; especially as an elder.

Now I know that God can speak through a mule or from rocks, God's enemies, etc., but this is not the usual pattern. In these cases almost always the preferred pattern was missed because someone was off track.

So genuine regeneration, the receiving of the Holy Spirit, death to Sin and the law (he that is dead is free from Sin), the love of God poured out into our heart by the Holy Spirit, the spirit of disobedience replaced with the Holy Spirit, no longer in Adam- but in Christ, no longer in the body of Sin- but in the Body of Christ, grafted into the True Vine, yielding the fruit of the Spirit in place of thorns and briars, no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, sons and daughters of God where we were once by nature children of the devil (Eph. 2). The mind of Christ has replaced the carnal mind.

Love brings joy and joy brings peace, etc. Because we are full of love then we are free from bitter envy and strife that leads to a 'wisdom' that is earthly, sensual and demonic. This ought to protect our meeting from axe grinding, ego's, etc., many other hurtful things.

I think it is like the whole of God's creation. Today it is in a state of in-utility because of Sin, but there was a time when it functioned in perfect symphonic equilibrium. God as a master composer and director leading the whole of creation into a perfect and unfathomably complex harmony. But when sin entered the picture- the whole process became compromised.

I long to see Christ stand again in the churches as a Master Director- orchestrating the meeting- with human instruments after His own heart.

RobertW,

I Amen your thougts that there needs to be a genuine regeneration and walking in the Spirit, but are you saying that a regenerate person cannot get to function in the flesh?!

There are may exhortations by the Apostle Paul to regenerate believers to 'walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh'; 'to put on the new man' etc etc.

I know this is another subject so I don't want to divert the topic, but I thought your comments needed clarifying.

HeyDave's: but are you saying that a regenerate person cannot get to function in the flesh?!

Well, I almost had to laugh as I brought this up because it has been one of those hot topics over the years between Ron and I. I think (and he may challenge this) that we agreed that we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if so be that Christ dwells in us. But we also agreed that at times folk can act inconsistent with their new nature. To say more would be to open a whole can of worms. ;-)

Robert,

I did not know this was a well trod subject between you and Ron, so I except your explanation and best leave it here for now so the subject of eldership can continue.

Many thanks. :-)

RobertW on 2009/1/6 8:58:12
Since authority is given by God, how is that authority recognized in a local assembly? How does an elder know they are an elder? At what point does the exousia and responsibility come upon the person and when does it lift off?

a. the current eldership
b. the prospective elder
c. the whole church

When all three are in sync we move forward.

As regards 'lifting off' I would suggest the same triple filter although b. and c. might need transposition.

These decisions are so important that, in my view, they requires absolute unanimity.

Heydave on 2009/1/6 12:09:47
I did not know this was a well trod subject between you and Ron, so I except your explanation and best leave it here for now so the subject of eldership can continue.

RobertW wrote:
I long to see Christ stand again in the churches as a Master Director- orchestrating the meeting- with human instruments after His own heart.

So do I, Robert. And each one of us tuned to Him, and with our eyes on Him.

AD

philologos wrote:

dohzman on 2009/1/6 2:00:24
The only snag I see in the whole of eldership in what I'm reading is that most churches in America don't really operate thier eldership this way.

Nor on this side of the water! But this is why I have tried to stick to the 'revelation' rather than to our current experience. When we find that in personal experience many 'Christians' do not live as the New Testament believers lived what are we to say? "Well, this is all there is and we are stuck with it" or are we brave enough to take a long cool look at the biblical principle and then ask "Is there anything that we ought to change?"

"Are we brave enough?"

This reminds me of the days of King Josiah, who called for repair to the house of God. In the process, Hilkiah the high priest found "a book" (2 Chr. 34.14).

In my mind's eye I see him cleaning in a back room, and he comes across this scroll covered in dust.

It is a copy of the law of Moses, and Hilkiah gives it to Shaphan the scribe, who takes it and reads it to the king.

Josiah upon hearing it rends his clothes.

Hopefully something like this is happening on this thread. Maybe we aren't finding a Book-- for here in western lands we are suffocating in Bibles, as RobertW (I think it was) said in a thread some time ago.

But maybe to some degree we are discovering what the Book-- the Divine blueprint-- calls for.

Do we take it seriously? "For great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD that is written in this book" (2 Chr. 34.21).

...Not that we can then bring what we're seeing into being, but we can spread the blueprints out before the Lord, hold them up to Him, and say, Lord, you read this. You are the ARCHI-tect and Builder, and we want to be "workers together WITH you."

...I do pray an earnest Spirit of repentance come upon us, upon all who are reading this thread.

I know, the kind of church structure we see all around us is so entrenched that some of us have at times despaired of seeing real change.

But I see a glimmer of Light.

...To what extent, amid all the calls for revival these days... to what extent do we really want to see the Lord?

AD

When have a vague idea of the nature of 'elders' we need to move on to what they actually do. There is a word available for us but it will need a little unpacking.... overseers or as the older versions will have it 'bishops'.

The English word 'bishop' acutally derives from the Greek 'episkopos' If you say the word you can hear the similarity. Just say

ePISKOPos without pronouncing the lower case letters and you will here the link. Now what is an episkopos? Well technically the word just means someone who 'over-sees', now you know!
;-)

But the derivation of a word is only a tiny part of finding the meaning. Usage is the real key.

Ron's: But the derivation of a word is only a tiny part of finding the meaning. Usage is the real key.

I have been anxious to know what exactly they are responsible before God for doing. :-D

philologos wrote:

The responsibility of the oversight is to oversee, or keep a watch,(like the Christmas shepherds.. they were 'keeping a watch over' not 'ruling over'). They are not the initiators of every move in the church but they are the safety element in the church.

Relative to what overseers do, I thought of the above quote, which I recalled having read earlier, and found again on page 12 of this thread.

This reminds me of the words the Lord said of David. "I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep..." (2 Sam. 7.8).

In other words, David was just keeping an eye on the sheep as they enjoyed the liberty of feeding in the green pastures he led them to.

Quite the leader, who would be not in front of the flock, controlling and directing all things, but behind them...

AD

ADisciple wrote:

In other words, David was just keeping an eye on the sheep as they enjoyed the liberty of feeding in the green pastures he led them to.

Quite the leader, who would be not in front of the flock, controlling and directing all things, but behind them...

My thoughts (for what it's worth) on this are that the 'Elder' is the position and overseeing is what he does. That is shepherding the flock. No one really should be called 'Pastor' as Pastor is the function of an Elder. It's what you do not what you are. Could this equally apply to teacher; phrophet; evangelist etc?

I think that a shepherd in NT times would lead the sheep not drive them or follow from behind.

Heydave wrote:
I think that a shepherd in NT times would lead the sheep not drive them or follow from behind.

I agree, a shepherd doesn't "drive" the sheep, like cattle.

But if we understand what is meant by the shepherd "following the sheep," he is still leading them. But it's just kind of a watching over them, watching out for lions and bears, and giving them complete liberty to feed as their hunger leads them, and to grow in their own personal relationship with the Chief Shepherd.

Like Peter said. "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder..." (A fellow elder, I think it means. He called himself AN elder, not THE elder) "...Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight, thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock..." (1 Pt. 5.3).

So he led by example.

And notice again here, he says, "the elders which are among you..." Not over you. It's similar, I think, to the verse in Acts that has been discussed. ("Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers..." Acts 20.28).

Your comment about not being called pastor, and that it is a function of an elder, not a position, is interesting. I'll see what others have to say about it.

AD

Heydave on 2009/1/7 14:25:05
I think that a shepherd in NT times would lead the sheep not drive them or follow from behind.

This is often said but there are at least two occasions when God tells David that he called him when 'he was following the flock'. I think it can be both. Sometimes they 'lead' the way to new pastures and sometimes just let them get on with it.

Did you know that God is referred to as an 'overseer'? What is man that thou [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=8&v=1&t=KJV#conc/4]visitest[/url] him... In the Greek Old Testament that the early Christians used this is the verb for 'to shepherd' and yet if you check it out you will find it frequently refers to a 'check up' kind of a visit. The word is used in the NT quote from Psalm 8 in Heb 2:6.

'elder' is who he is 'overseeing/checking out' is what he does.

This is a linked verb [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1980&t=KJV]Strong's G1980 - episkeptomai[/url]. Check out how the word is used from that URL and you will see the sense of 'checking out'.

ADisciple wrote:

But if we understand what is meant by the shepherd "following the sheep," he is still leading them. But it's just kind of a watching over them, watching out for lions and bears, and giving them complete liberty to feed as their hunger leads them, and to grow in their own personal relationship with the Chief Shepherd.

Thank's for this, I understand what you are saying and agree. I stand corrected :-)
I think it can be either way as Ron says on his post, so sorry for making it one way. Most important thing is we agree it is NOT lording over the flock, but leading by example and watching over the flock.

Thanks for your correction.

Heydave wrote:
Thank's for this :-)

You're welcome. I've been appreciating the things you are sharing as well. :-)

AD

philologos wrote:

Did you know that God is referred to as an 'overseer'? What is man that thou [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=8&v=1&t=KJV#conc/4]visitest[/url] him... In the Greek Old Testament that the early Christians used this is the verb for 'to shepherd' and yet if you check it out you will find it frequently refers to a 'check up' kind of a visit. The word is used in the NT quote from Psalm 8 in Heb 2:6.

'elder' is who he is 'overseeing/checking out' is what he does.

This is a linked verb [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1980&t=KJV]Strong's G1980 - episkeptomai[/url]. Check out how the word is used from that URL and you will see the sense of 'checking out'.

This very interesting and helpful.
In 'Vines it says that the Greek Spt OT in Exodus 3:16 the word 'Episkope' is used where it says that God 'visited' Israel in their captivity. This would mean he did not just passivly visit, but looked into and checked them out! He was overseeing them; being a Bishop to them.

Interestingly in Heb 2:6 in the NKJV it translates it as saying ..'or the son of man that you TAKE CARE of him? Which confirms that visiting / taking care / checking out are all implied in these functions of Shepherd and overseer.

I'm still following this thread. I haven't bailed out, but for a little while I'll be in Detroit than NY than Ok and finially Ks. I'll try to keep up in the reading.
One quick question: Overseers, do they function the same as do shepards in the book of EZE 34? with its description of what they were to be about?

Hi everyone,

Have been peeking in here from time to time and when I read the following I thought of Luke 19:44(KJV):

"In 'Vines it says that the Greek Spt OT in Exodus 3:16 the word 'Episkope' is used where it says that God 'visited' Israel in their captivity. This would mean he did not just passivly visit, but looked into and checked them out! He was overseeing them; being a Bishop to them."

Thought I would share it with you all.

It appeares as though the word translated [i]visitation[/i] there in Luke 19:44 is related here?

Ron's: Did you know that God is referred to as an 'overseer'? What is man that thou visitest him... In the Greek Old Testament that the early Christians used this is the verb for 'to shepherd' and yet if you check it out you will find it frequently refers to a 'check up' kind of a visit.

OK. Now I'm coming off the rails a bit in my understanding. What then is the difference between elder and pastor/teacher? I always thought pastor and shepherd were the same? :-?

dohzman on 2009/1/7 19:39:27
Overseers, do they function the same as do shepards in the book of EZE 34? with its description of what they were to be about?

I wonder can we even imagine another way of doing things which is 'gift' orientated and consequently organic rather than organizational? The letter to the church at Corinth does not mention any of the 'officers' in the church in Corinth. This is not because they don't exist but because the letter is focussing on the church as a body and hence function rather than office.

Now to your quick question! ;-) Elder is the 'office', overseeing is the 'function'. All elders will have the responsibility of 'overseeing' but others may also 'oversee' who are not 'in office'. If this happens in a strongly structured local church it is likely that the 'officers' in the church will put the person who is spontaneously 'overseeing' in his place; it is not appropriate they may say for you to take this responsibility. But to 'visit'/oversee the widows and orphans is a responsibility for all God's people.. see James' epistle.

elders (recognized leaders) will have to give an account of their stewardship in their overseeing of the [u]whole[/u] flock, but each of will have to give an account of our 'overseeing' of our brother. Am I my brother's keeper or is that the elders' job?

Now look at this for the link between 'rule' and 'service'. Adam was given 'dominion' - 'rule' for all the creation but look how that plays out in the scripture..

[color=0033FF]The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. ESV[/color] That word 'work' is translated in various ways by different translators. The NASB has 'cultivate' and the RSV has 'till'. The KJV has 'dress'. But Young's LIteral translation has another word...

[color=0033FF]And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, [b]to serve it[/b], and to keep it. Youngs Literal [/color]

Why has Young's changed the whole picture? Simply because the word [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5647&t=KJV]Strong's H5647 - `abad[/url] is the ordinary Hebrew word for 'serve'. The KJV translates 'abad' as follows... AV — serve 227, do 15, till 9, servant 5, work 5, worshippers 5, service 4, dress 2, labour 2, ear 2, misc 14. The word, according to the BlueLetter website is used 290 times. The real sense of the word is 'to serve'. This is God's version of an eco-friendly humanity. Man was placed, great word, into the garden in Eden in order to 'serve and guard'. That could almost be a definition of 'eldership'.. someone who is place in a specific position/role in order to 'serve and guard'; you may notice the conspicuous absence of the word 'rule'. We have to re-educate ourselves as to what God originally meant by rule... he meant have delegated authority to serve and to guard.

Others may serve and others may guard but the specifically delegated responsibility for this in the local church is the eldership.

RobertW on 2009/1/7 23:16:07
OK. Now I'm coming off the rails a bit in my understanding. What then is the difference between elder and pastor/teacher? I always thought pastor and shepherd were the same?

Are we talking verbs or nouns?

I suppose both. :-? I can see how the elder has the task of oversight. But I also thought that pastor/shepherd had the task of oversight also. Are these basically the same function- only one is local and the other itinerate? Is it proper to think of pastor/teacher as shepherd?

Ron's: Man was placed, great word, into the garden in Eden in order to 'serve and guard'.

This is quite a link. If we play this out then we find that Adam failed in his eldership by allowing [u]Sin[/u] to enter. This may also give us a picture into what our accounting will someday look like. God called for Adam and began to question him with questions as [i]if[/i] He didn't already know the answers.

So the elders job primarily and that which Adam failed at is to keep Sin and Satan out or at least seek to prevent his infectious influence. I immediately think of I Cor. when the man was taken in the great sin of fornication. It seems that Paul reprimanded them for not putting him out; hence, for not protecting the local church from the little leaven that could have leavened the whole lump. He said they were puffed up.

Now, it seems to me that the elders (I suppose with the consent of the assembly) would have had the responsibility to deal with the man with 'sufficient punishment' that brought him to repentance while at the same time protecting the local church. I think now of the 7 churches when Jesus reprimanded them for 'suffering' people to do things that could injure the church.

RobertW wrote:

Are we talking verbs or nouns?

I suppose both. :-? I can see how the elder has the task of oversight. But I also thought that pastor/shepherd had the task of oversight also. Are these basically the same function- only one is local and the other itinerate? Is it proper to think of pastor/teacher as shepherd? The names are all interchangeable applying to the one office of Elder.

Pastor and Shepherd are two ways of translating into English the one Greek word. They are both the same as I understand it.

Elder is the name given to describe the type of person (and maybe the office) and Pastor/shepherd is the name given to describe what they do. Therefore an Elder is (or should be) a Pastor/Shepherd and an overseer.

Do you agree Ron?

Heydave on 2009/1/8 10:53:08
Elder is the name given to describe the type of person (and maybe the office) and Pastor/shepherd is the name given to describe what they do. Therefore an Elder is (or should be) a Pastor/Shepherd and an overseer.

Do you agree Ron?

When we read that 'Paul, called an apostle' it does not mean that they addressed him as Apostle Paul. (any more than when it says 'the Corinthians were called saints means Saint Dave or, perish the thought, Saint Ron!!) These are descriptions not titles.

I think this may be slow going for some but I think it is important that we take our time to make sure we are understanding what we are all saying. When we are sure what we are saying we can decide whether or not we agree with it! ;-)

The normal means of addressing Paul seems to have been ...'our beloved brother, Paul'. See how frequently this form of 'address' is used in the New Testament [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=beloved+AND+brother&t=KJV&sf=4]here.[/url]

RobertW on 2009/1/8 9:27:42
So the elders job primarily and that which Adam failed at is to keep Sin and Satan out or at least seek to prevent his infectious influence.

I immediately think of I Cor. when the man was taken in the great sin of fornication. It seems that Paul reprimanded them for not putting him out; hence, for not protecting the local church from the little leaven that could have leavened the whole lump. He said they were puffed up.

Now, it seems to me that the elders (I suppose with the consent of the assembly) would have had the responsibility to deal with the man with 'sufficient punishment' that brought him to repentance while at the same time protecting the local church.

RobertW on 2009/1/8 9:12:58
]I suppose both. I can see how the elder has the task of oversight. But I also thought that pastor/shepherd had the task of oversight also. Are these basically the same function- only one is local and the other itinerate? Is it proper to think of pastor/teacher as shepherd?

We struggle, I think, because we automatically think of 'pastor' as some kind of 'office' or 'title'; it isn't it is a description of behaviour and, perhaps more importantly, character.

These are just two words to express the Greek word for someone who has care of a flock.

Would it be correct to say the difference between elder and pastor/teacher is that one exists in the local church and the other is itinerate?

RobertW on 2009/1/8 14:44:11
Would it be correct to say the difference between elder and pastor/teacher is that one exists in the local church and the other is itinerate?

When the 'pastor/teacher' functions in a local church I would see that function as being subject to the local eldership and not in any sense 'over' them.

...I would see that function as being subject to the local eldership and not in any sense 'over' them.

Certainly. Are there biblical examples of apostles and prophets also being subject to elders?

RobertW on 2009/1/8 16:28:02
Certainly. Are there biblical examples of apostles and prophets also being subject to elders?

I am not sure that we have any biblical data for apostles/prophets and elders functioning in the same meeting. This has caused modernist to conjecture that there are two opposing models for local church in the New Testament. They claim that Paul favoured the 'charismatic' view whereas Peter and James favoured the more traditional synagogue pattern.

I have been thinking about the mention in Acts 15 of "the apostles and elders."

"...They determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15.2).

They (the apostles and elders) are spoken of together like this in a few verses: 15.2,4,6,22,23, and 16.4.

I've been thinking about this for a few days, just wondering why it doesn't read that they went up "to the elders."

Because Peter the apostle considered himself an elder (1 Pt. 5.1).

Why then say, the apostles and elders?

But then I realized I had my wires crossed in my thinking. I should have been questioning why it didn't just read that Paul and Barnabas went up "to the apostles" about this question.

No, they went up to Jerusalem to "the apostles and elders..." showing us, I believe, the weighty place the elders had in the early church.

We do not read of a separate council of the apostles as a sort of governing body. Or of the prophets. The apostles at Jerusalem were among the elders. Once again, this reveals to us the total absence of the hierarcy kind of structure that is so written in stone in our day.

AD

philologos wrote:

Now look at this for the link between 'rule' and 'service'. Adam was given 'dominion' - 'rule' for all the creation but look how that plays out in the scripture..

[color=0033FF]And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, [b]to serve it[/b], and to keep it. Youngs Literal [/color]

Man was placed, great word, into the garden in Eden in order to 'serve and guard'. That could almost be a definition of 'eldership'.. someone who is place in a specific position/role in order to 'serve and guard'; you may notice the conspicuous absence of the word 'rule'. We have to re-educate ourselves as to what God originally meant by rule... he meant have delegated authority to serve and to guard.

Others may serve and others may guard but the specifically delegated responsibility for this in the local church is the eldership.

This is a precious insight.

We, the church, are God's new creation. God's garden. "God's husbandry" (1 Cor. 3.9).

And he gives "some," who are themselves part of the Garden, a "dominion" which is expressed in their serving the other plants in the Garden. They till, plant, water... do some weeding from time to time. But God giveth the increase.

AD

ADisciple on 2009/1/8 20:02:34
We do not read of a separate council of the apostles as a sort of governing body. Or of the prophets. The apostles at Jerusalem were among the elders. Once again, this reveals to us the total absence of the hierarcy kind of structure that is so written in stone in our day.

Ron's: And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it. Youngs Literal

What is the scope of the responsibility of the elder? Is their responsibility mainly in the meeting, or do they visit the 'lost sheep' and the sick, etc.? How does that play out typically? Or is that considered the responsibility of everyone therefore the elders have not special emphasis there?

RobertW wrote:

What is the scope of the responsibility of the elder? Is their responsibility mainly in the meeting, or do they visit the 'lost sheep' and the sick, etc.? How does that play out typically? Or is that considered the responsibility of everyone therefore the elders have not special emphasis there?

Can I add to this question and ask how much leading and direction should Elders have over the flock in their Shepherding and oversight?

To what degree should they correct error (false doctrine) and sin among the local church which they are responsible for? Looking at some of the Epistles it would seem this is an important function, but when to step in and rubuke; warn, correct and when to hold back can be a difficult decision I think.

Are Elders responsible to give or confirm 'corporate' direction and 'vision' to their local church?

Let's widen it before we narrow it.
Those who are genuinely regenerate begin to partake of the divine nature. Every true son will carry the genes of his father. Christ is variously referred to as pastor, overseer: Peter calls him the pastor and overseer 1 Pet 2:25. This itself should show us that the two terms are not exact synonyms. He is also, in Hebrews 3:1 he is referred to as the apostle. He is also the prophet that Moses promised and is the embodiment of the Good News or evangel.

If Christ is in each of us would you not expect aspects of those characteristics to be present it all the saints? In essence every saint has aspects of apostle, prophet, shepherd, overseer... What we are seeing in the descriptions 'apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor-teacher are degrees of these aspects which have come to characterize the holders. They are not labels or job designations to be inserted into an org chart but mature expressions of the character of Christ himself which are now describable in those terms. This is not a hierarchy or org chart.

So all saints have a measure of responsibility in terms of the apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and pastoral. All have a measure of responsibility in terms of caring for the the saints and watching over them.

Elders only have the authority that is given to them by those for whom they care. If I do not give a man my trust he cannot serve me as a leader. Hence the admonition in Heb 13:17 "trust your leaders and submit yourself to them for they watch for souls as those who must give account..." Eldership cannot be imposed.

Heydave on 2009/1/9 9:28:10
Looking at some of the Epistles it would seem this is an important function, but when to step in and rubuke; warn, correct and when to hold back can be a difficult decision I think.

I think I have said previously that I see the eldership, as a body of oversight, has having a veto in the local church. As regards...

how much leading and direction should Elders have over the flock in their Shepherding and oversight?

As the elders too are partakers of Christ and his nature they are not less responsible that any others for seeking the mind of Christ in the local church. As 'older brothers' they will 'lead by example' in shepherding and oversight but not exclusively so. They, alone, will be required to give an account for the well being of the whole local assembly. Consequently there will be times when their decisive counsel will be necessary but not as those who are required, by job definition, to 'have the vision for the church'. Oh, Lord, where did this language come from. It preshapes so much of our thinking.

In terms of discipline they will often be required to take a lead in such matters but not in any domineering pattern.

philologos wrote:
quote] can you see that tell-tale 'over the flock' in that question? ;-)

Maybe a bad choice of word. Not intentional and I agree the thinking should not be about 'being over', but serving.

1 Peter 5 does say 'Shepherd the flock of God which is among you'. So you are right to make a point about it.

philologos wrote:
quote: 'have the vision for the church'. Oh, Lord, where did this language come from. It preshapes so much of our thinking'.

I deliberately used this term, not because I think it is right, but as this is a very typical way of thinking in many churches.
However what is meant by 'vision' can vary widely. Jesus has a 'vision' for His church (a glorious bride). You have a 'vision' for how a church should function. So having a vision can mean just how you see things. What I am asking is who is responsible (if anyone) for communicating and implementing how a local church should function and operate.
I think your answer will be 'everyone'.

Heydave on 2009/1/9 13:41:23

You have a 'vision' for how a church should function.

What I am asking is who is responsible (if anyone) for communicating and implementing how a local church should function and operate. I think your answer will be 'everyone'.

I am sorry if I am frustrating you. :-(

philologos wrote:
I am trying to distinguish, but not necessarily separate, roles and function. We, and the KJV, is dominated by the idea of 'offices'. This was partly due to the political agenda behind the KJV (which is still my Bible of choice!!).

Excuse me for backtracking here, but I recall reading somewhere about "the political agenda behind the KJV," but can't remember where.

Was it somewhere on this site? Or even on this thread?

Will someone please direct me to where I can look at this again?

And also give me, if possible, the instances in the KJV where this agenda is revealed?

(Hopefully nobody will take this as their cue to get into a KJV debate here. It is still my Bible of choice, too.)

Many thanks.

AD

philologos wrote:
What we are seeing in the descriptions 'apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor-teacher are degrees of these aspects which have come to characterize the holders. They are not labels or job designations to be inserted into an org chart but mature expressions of the character of Christ himself which are now describable in those terms. This is not a hierarchy or org chart.

I have been thinking of something that for lack of a better word I will call "among-ness."

Or maybe "in-the-midst-ness."

"...All the flock among which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers..."

"The elders which are among you..."

"Feed the flock of God which is among you..."

"...In the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain..."

"I will declare Thy name unto My brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise Thee" (Ps. 22.22).

What I mean is that when the saints are gathered together, you don't have all the elders, or all the ministries, up there at the front on the stage as a special, separate group. They are in the midst of the congregation...

I think this cuts to the quick, or at least ought to, the artificial clergy/laity distinction so prevelant in our day, a hierarchy that cannot be justified by Scripture.
How long, Lord?

...Why are things the way they are in the church?

Better ask, why were they the way they were in the early church? What precedent did they have to go by?

None, really. But they became a precedent because the One who was on the Throne of Heaven was also in their midst by the Holy Spirit, ruling, reigning, ordering all things.

That's why they gathered the way they did. That's why they had the kind of order they did.

It was centred on Christ in their midst, with His Law governing all things: the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

They recognized-- and had the capacity to recognize-- that it was not the pastor up front, but Christ Himself, who was "the minister of the sanctuary" in their midst.

All eyes were upon Him, as He would move in their midst, in this one, in that one, speaking a word, singing a song, giving a teaching, sharing a revelation, comforting a hurting one, healing a sick one... edifying the body of Christ unto God's ultimate objective.

I know we can't manufacture this, just because we begin to see the right order.

But if we recognize how far short of it we have fallen, how far from it we have strayed, we can repent (if we have the courage to do so) and turn to Him again.

God told Ezekiel to "shew the house to the house of Israel that they may be ashamed of their iniquities..." (Ez. 43.10).

"And if they be ashamed..." ...He would then do what only He Himself can do, in enabling all this to come into being.

AD

ADisciple's: But if we recognize how far short of it we have fallen, how far from it we have strayed, we can repent (if we have the courage to do so) and turn to Him again.

I think this would be the ideal thing, but there is so much riding on a genuine change that many are stumbling. It goes back to Ron's statement about a revelation requiring wisdom to present. This type of church life will require tremendous wisdom from God to see through.

But I think that the current system of the people up front leading and the people in the pew following is not working any more. It will take time for this to be admitted by many. But surely when things reach a crisis level it is time to seek the Lord for plain direction.

RobertW wrote:

This type of church life will require tremendous wisdom from God to see through.

But I think that the current system of the people up front leading and the people in the pew following is not working any more. It will take time for this to be admitted by many. But surely when things reach a crisis level it is time to seek the Lord for plain direction.

Amen, Robert. I feel so blind these days. I've never felt a deeper need than now, for that spiritual illumination called Wisdom.

"Surely when things reach a crisis level it is time to seek the Lord for plain direction."

Amen. And this is just where we are at. We deeply need to hear "a word behind us (maybe because we've been going the wrong direction?) ...saying, "This is the way: walk ye in it..." (Isa. 30.21)...and discover that word to be a word that does more than just point out to us the right direction, but a "word of His grace" that empowers us to walk in it.

(Edited for clarity and to correct quotation from Isa. 30.21)

AD

with reference to an earlier post I was reading in Deuteronomy today and noticed this combination of roles and functions...

[color=0000FF] ‘Ye are standing to-day, all of you, before Jehovah your God — your heads, your tribes, your elders, and your authorities — every man of Israel;
2 and Joshua calleth for all Israel, for its elders, and for its heads, and for its judges, and for its authorities, and saith unto them, ‘I have become old; I have entered into days;
1 And Joshua gathereth all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and calleth for the elders of Israel, and for its heads, and for its judges, and for its authorities, and they station themselves before God. Deut 29:10; Josh 23:2; 24:1 YNG[/color]

I noticed that in Titus their is a link between elder and bishop. Maybe you already covered this and I missed it. But it seems in Titus that the term [u]elder[/u] is being used synonymously with bishop:

[color=000066] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain [u]elders[/u] in every city, as I had appointed thee:

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

For a [u]bishop[/u] must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (Titus 1) [/color]

Paul seems to be calling an elder a bishop. I also noticed that they had 'ordained' elders in every church:

[color=000066] And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14) [/color]

I notice also here that Paul did not yet commend them to the Word of His Grace, but just to the Lord.

I noticed also that the term bishop has a root that means to 'visit'. I found a familiar verse with that root...

[color=000066]Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye [u]visited[/u] me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. [/color]

So what is the distinction between an elder and a bishop? Why did Paul ordain elders? Would this be an apostolic perrogative?

RobertW wrote:
I noticed that in Titus their is a link between elder and bishop. Maybe you already covered this and I missed it. But it seems in Titus that the term [u]elder[/u] is being used synonymously with bishop:

A quick response Robert. Yes this was covered earlier by Ron and I think myself.

Bishop and overseer are the same word and we established that an Elder should 'function' as an overseer (or bishop), i.e. he should oversee the church. Interestingly it says 'a bishop must...'. Which shows that sometimes the word is used as a sort of label (I suppose a bit like the Holy Spirit is called 'The Helper' in the gospel of John, but this is descriptive of His function), but yes an elder and bishop are one and the same thing.

So maybe we cannot forbid the use of the name of bishop or pastor, as long as we understand it really is descriptive of function and not a title of position. The problem is that these titles are so fixed in our minds in the wrong way that when applied to a person we easily fall back into the establised structure of church leadership thinking.

RobertW on 2009/1/10 9:12:53
I noticed that in Titus their is a link between elder and bishop. Maybe you already covered this and I missed it. But it seems in Titus that the term elder is being used synonymously with bishop:

The 'same' man is an elder, that's who he is...
the 'same' man is an overseer, that's what he does.

I noticed also that the term bishop has a root that means to 'visit'. I found a familiar verse with that root...

Heydave on 2009/1/10 11:19:05
Which shows that sometimes the word is used as a sort of label

So maybe we cannot forbid the use of the name of bishop or pastor, as long as we understand it really is descriptive of function and not a title of position.

Here is some more grist for your mill... Judas was an overseer!
Acts 1:20

Brothertom on 2009/1/10 15:14:46
Bishop is translated from Episkopos, which occurs 5 times in the testament..[Acts 20....Phil.1.....1Tim 3......Titus 1.....1Peter 2...] It means Shepherd, and yes, as a shepherd oversees, Overseer.

Shepherds, equal and plural, were always the leadership model,

The Scottish Covenanters fought a War, with King James 1, in 1539 and 1540, over unlawful assembly, outside the "LORD BISHOPS" dictate of the Church of England. This was called the "Bishop Wars".

Brothertom on 2009/1/10 19:45:16
Bishop and overseer are interchangeable. They have the same meaning and same function, stemming from the same word.

There is no preeminence; either by Pastor, by overseer, or by bishop. They are exactly the same in title, and in function.

My point is that preeminence did not exist among any of that ordained company. They were all equal.

In our own local church we have four elders but no leader. At different points in the church life individual men will take responsibility for some aspect of that church life but they are not designated to a particular authority. None of these men has a paid position in the church. There is, as you say, no hierarchy in this relationship.

Another very early document from the end of the Ist century is the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians. You can find a translation of it [url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lake.html]here[/url].

It is not scripture but gives a very clear idea of the moods of the saints around the time of the death of the apostle John. I know that everyone won't have the desire to do this but to compare this letter and the 1st letter of Clement to the Corinthians and then to compare them with the writing of Ignatious and the document known as 'the martyrdom of Polycarp' is very enlightening.

In the writings of Polycarp and Clement you will find no hint of hierarchy but when you move just a few years later and read the letters of Ignatious and others the difference in quite amazing. It is astonishing just how quickly things moved towards hierarchy after the end of the 1st century.

If you read the writings of Ignatious you will see how hard he works to convince people to recognize a single 'bishop' and to allow him to be the 'priest' of the gathering. He is working hard because he was selling a line which people were resisting, in my view.

Polycarp had known John the apostle and there is a tenderness and total lack of hierarchy which is wonderful to note. Polycarp and Clement are writing in the genuine spirit of the New Testament but Ignatious and the author of the martyrdom of Polycarp are a world away from the New Testament.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Polycarp. In the second passage he sorrows over a presbyter who has become covetous.

[color=0033FF]CHAPTER 6

1 And let the presbyters also be compassionate, merciful to all, bringing back those that have wandered, caring for all the weak, neglecting neither widow nor orphan nor poor, but "ever providing for that which is good before God and man," refraining from all wrath, respect of persons, unjust judgment, being far from all love of money, not quickly believing evil of any, not hasty in judgment, knowing that "we all owe the debt of sin."
2 If then we pray the Lord to forgive us, we also ought to forgive, for we stand before the eyes of the Lord and of God, and "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and each must give an account of himself."
3 So then "let us serve him with fear and all reverence," as he himself commanded us, and as did the Apostles, who brought us the Gospel, and the Prophets who foretold the coming of our Lord. Let us be zealous for good, refraining from offence, and from the false brethren, and from those who bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy, who deceive empty-minded men.[/color]

and this is the section which refers to the avaricious elder...

[color=0033FF]CHAPTER 11

1 I am deeply sorry for Valens, who was once made a presbyter among you, that he so little understands the place which was given to him. I advise, therefore, that you keep from avarice, and be pure and truthful. Keep yourselves from all evil.
2 For how may he who cannot attain self-control in these matters enjoin it on another? If any man does not abstain from avarice he will be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as if he were among the Gentiles who "know not the judgment of God." Or do we "not know that the saints shall judge the world?" as Paul teaches.
3 But I have neither perceived nor heard any such thing among you, among whom the blessed Paul laboured, who are praised in the beginning of his Epistle. For concerning you he boasts in all the Churches who then alone had known the Lord, for we had not yet known him.
4 Therefore, brethren, I am deeply sorry for him [i.e. Valens] and for his wife, and "may the Lord grant them true repentance." Therefore be yourselves also moderate in this matter, and "do not regard such men as enemies," but call them back as fallible and straying members, that you may make whole the body of you all. For in doing this you edify yourselves.[/color]

I, too, appreciated this excerpt from Polycarp.
Thanks.

AD

Brothertom wrote:

The entire model of Nicolaitan, or Clergy Laity heresies, derives it's power from a "Priest Class", or "Clergy Class", or, as it is in Western churches, the "Pastor, or Ministry Class of Christian brotherhood. It, in my opinion, has done more to divide the Church, and to quench God's spirit than [b]any other heresy ever.[/b]

Hi Tom. Through the years I've heard the term Nicolaitan used to refer to the artificial clergy/laity distinction, and myself have used it that way.

But is this actually what the Lord was referring to when using the word (in Rev. 2.6 and 2.15)?

I share your passion about this, I believe the clergy/laity division is responsible for the stunted condition of large numbers of Chrsitians. But I am wondering if this is actually what Nicolaitan refers to.

AD

philologos wrote:
Here is some more grist for your mill... Judas was an overseer!
Acts 1:20

...Or rather, an anti-overseer?

But actually, becoming an overseer was something which was there for him just potentially. When the Lord chose him (Jn. 6.70), he was not initially an overseer. He could have become one if he had walked faithfully. If he had been proven, and approved.

The "bishoprick" that was designated to be his was given to another because Judas disqualified himself, and "by transgression fell" (Acts 1.25).

AD

I share your passion about this, I believe the clergy/laity division is responsible for the stunted condition of large numbers of Chrsitians. But I am wondering if this is actually what Nicolaitan refers to.

I too had been told that this reference to the Nocolatians was to do with the clergy / laity devide, but have also heard that it probably refers to the group that followed the teachings of one Nicolas who was a Gnostic. Hence the error of the Nicolatians is Gnostism, which seems to tie in with Johns epistles dealing with this issue.

i. Irenaeus (writing in the late second century) described what he knew of the Nicolaitans: “The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrifice to idols.” (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 26. From the Ante Nicean Fathers Volume 1, page 352)

ii. Hippolytus, a student of Irenaeus (writing in the early third century) associated the Nicolaitans with the Gnostics: “There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion . . . But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. [He] departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food.” (Refutation of all Heresies, book 7, chapter 24; ANF volume 5, page 115)

The "bishoprick" that was designated to be his was given to another because Judas disqualified himself, and "by transgression fell" (Acts 1.25).

I too had been told that this reference to the Nocolatians was to do with the clergy / laity devide, but have also heard that it probably refers to the group that followed the teachings of one Nicolas who was a Gnostic.

niko (as in Nike) overcomer or conquerer
laos, people as in laity.

They concluded that we had the beginning of 'people conquerors' or clergy. I would take Irenaues with a 'pinch of salt' here. There is no evidence as to where he gathered his information. As far as I can see he is wrong when he concludes that the Revelation says they 'practise adultery and eat things sacrificed to idols.

[color=0033FF]Rev 2:14\tBut I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Rev 2:15\tSo hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.[/color]

I think the natural reading of this passage is pointing to two groups,

1. those who held the doctrine of Balaam (the libertines)
2. those who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans

So, in fact, we have no Biblical data to identify just what the Nicolaitans did (Rev 2:6) and taught (Rev 2:15)

These Nicolaitans seemed to have had both a distinctive behaviour and doctrine. We have no real evidence as to either.

Hippolytus is problably just quoting his teacher, Irenaeus.

To combine a couple of issues, how can the word of His grace come forth in an environment where a heavy handed leadership is ruling the people? What advice would you give to those that are caught in a one church pastor system- but yet desire to hear the word of His grace in that church? In your experience can you tell of any examples where the one pastor system was [u]not[/u] a hindrance to hearing from God?

I agree with you that we have no definitive biblical data to know what or who the Nicolatans were.:-) I am not being dogmatic, but just wanted to show there were alternative thoughts on this and the often accepted view of the clergy / laity may not be neccesarily correct.

As a point of interest, Irenaues was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John. I know that does not mean that we accept his opinion as fact, but it makes you wonder if this was passed down to him via Polycarp, via John?

The 'So' at the start of v15 could be read as a link with what was said in v14. so = thus = 'in the same way'.. etc...

Polycarp and Irenaues are quoted as being Bishops (of Smyrna and of Lyons), but I don't know if this is something that has been put on them by historians or if they were called this at the time. maybe you have some light on this.

Heydave on 2009/1/12 11:43:52
Polycarp and Irenaues are quoted as being Bishops (of Smyrna and of Lyons), but I don't know if this is something that has been put on them by historians or if they were called this at the time. maybe you have some light on this.

Have you read any of Ignatious' letters? This is a man known to and respected by Polycarp and yet, reading between the lines, their letters show very different ways of looking at 'authority' in the church.

I have more confidence in Polycarp, Irenaues and Clement of Rome than I have in Ignatious. To my reading Ignatious has a clear agenda. The interesting thing is that Polycarp recommended Ignatious' letters and copied them for others. I wonder what we can learn from this. Does this show the respect that elders had in one place for those in another? Does this show the variety of patterns of authority even at the turn of the 1st century?

The 'So' at the start of v15 could be read as a link with what was said in v14. so = thus = 'in the same way'.. etc...

The church in Ephesus [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3404&t=KJV]hated[/url] the behaviour of this group. The church in Pergamos actually had members who 'held this teaching'. This is not just the behaviour but a studied commitment to this as a teaching.

...and we think we have problems in some of our local assemblies?

Heydave wrote:
...it probably refers to the group that followed the teachings of one Nicolas

Yes, I've heard that theory. But I don't know Greek grammar well enough to be able to conclude that a follower of Nicolas would be called a Nicolaitan. Is that a correct Greek grammatical construct?

It kind of seems not, to my very uneducated surmisal. It seems followers of Nicolas would be called Nicolases, or Nicolians, or some such thing. Where did the "laitan" part come in?

I've heard of the etymology Philologos says likely came from the early brethren.

I guess there's no reference to this in the early fathers along the same etymological line?

AD

RobertW wrote:
To combine a couple of issues, how can the word of His grace come forth in an environment where a heavy handed leadership is ruling the people? What advice would you give to those that are caught in a one church pastor system- but yet desire to hear the word of His grace in that church? In your experience can you tell of any examples where the one pastor system was [u]not[/u] a hindrance to hearing from God?

Hi Robert. Your question reminds me of what you said a couple of days ago about our need for Wisdom in this hour. We so deeply need that "illumination" in the Candlestick.

Meanwhile, I recall reading a book called Titanic Warning by Casey Sabella a few years ago.
(You may remember when Titanic was discovered on the ocean floor not too many years ago, and produced a lot of renewed interest...)

Anyway, Sabella likens what he calls PCC's (pastor centred churches) to the Titanic. Very big. Very confident. Considered unsinkable.

And among iceflows.

Titanic had been warned of impending peril. The warnings were ignored.

But even when their own lookout spotted the massive iceberg looming right in front of them, how do you turn something that big? They tried at the last minute... but it was too late.

And this pastor-centred hierarcy kind of church system that the world more or less identifies as Christianity in our day... it is SO big.

So what advice would I give to someone caught in a "one church pastor system?"

Find a life jacket, and put it on.

I know, that wasn't your full question. "...And desire to hear the word of His grace in that church?"

"In that church." ...I understand the predicament. Where else do you go these days?

But maybe this can be done by getting into a "life-boat" with a few others who are desiring the same. Many PCC's have home cell groups that function vitally. And while this isn't ultimately the answer, it may be the thing that saves us in the impending disaster.

And when "mother ship" goes down, the life boats are still afloat. And we discover that God recognizes the little life boats as being true church in the first place. They don't need to be tied into a PCC to be valid. "For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst..."

So, by getting together with a few, and earnestly seeking to give room to the Spirit of the Lord to have His way, instead of just going through a canned Bible study program the church has prescribed for all the Wednesday evening cell groups... But waiting on Him, looking to Him, making room for Him and the word of His grace... giving room for one another to make mistakes, and grow in grace...

But there can be no substitute for earnestly seeking to draw close to God and develop that inner faculty of hearing, so we are hearing from God for ourselves.

So that, like the five wise virgins. They developed their own personal supply of Oil "in their vessels with their lamps."

Someone once told me that in Spanish, the 23rd psalm says something like, "Jehovah is my Pastor..." That must become a reality for all of us. Pastors included.

What are your own thoughts on this?

AD

If you remove all historical references or speculation, and view the word , as spoken by the Lord Jesus in Heaven, through John....you have "Lords over my people", or "Kings over my people"...."rulers over my people."

What are your own thoughts on this?

Well, I'm not convinced that the true hindrance to the word of His grace is [i]just[/i] the pastors (one church pastor system). I think the greatest hindrance is the liturgy of going through a program from one step to the next with no real time of waiting on the Lord with an expectation that He will speak to the people. It is an unspoken rule that things are going to happen a certain way.

So if we were without pastors I don't think the problem would be fixed. I think education has to come first. We need to be educated as to what genuine church life is. Once we get going in that regard I can see how the one church pastor system will in time fade away. There is a severe shortage of pastors in our times and in 10 years the problem will be much worse. So I see things headed towards an 'elders' base local church out of necessity. I think pastor/teachers are in such short supply that they may also be necessity become itinerate

RobertW wrote:

So if we were without pastors I don't think the problem would be fixed. I think education has to come first. We need to be educated as to what genuine church life is."

Once again we come to the problem of what comes into the mind when the word pastor is heard.

The word "pastor" has been hijacked in our day (like many other words in the English language) to mean something entirely alien to it original definition.

Pastor now means (as has been mentioned ealier on this thread) "man in charge," or CEO, or something like that. There's the "senior pastor," then various pastors of a lesser sort... music pastor, visitation pastor, pastor of community... I even heard "pastor of administration" being used. Then under them the elders, then under them the deacons...

And the underlying thought in it all is a hierarchy kind of thing.

So we are not advocating church "without pastors" (and neither are you, I know). It's what "pastor" has come to mean that is the hindrance, and must go.

Further to that, you are certainly right, that a routine is in place, and this as well hinders the liberty of the Spirit. There is a long established mindset as to what a "church service" is, and most church goers can tell you before hand the shape things are going to take in "the service" on Sunday.

You say education has to come first. "We need to be educated as to what genuine church life is."

I think you are right. But then, as whenever in history the sheep of God's pasture were let in on what was rightly their own heritage in Jesus Christ, expect to see a revolution.

...Just one more thought. I think it's important to make clear that-- and I can't speak for others, but I can certainly make my own feelings clear, and have been wanting to-- I know many godly pastors who love the Lord Jesus with all their heart. They are serving him to the best of their ability in a system that is all they know. It's all they know!

And so to say "we need to be educated as to what true church life is," this means all of us. The pastors too. The pastors included. They too, need to be educated as to what true church is. But the schools train them up this other way, perpetuting the system. (But that's another topic.)

So, in all this talk about pastors, perish the thought that anybody (I speak for myself at least) is maligning pastors in a blanket kind of way. Isn't this thread (at least one intention of it) just an effort to discover what the original definition was, and seek the courage and grace to return to that? May God grant true pastors (there are many of them) the grace and the courage to seek Him earnestly as to what He really wants them to be doing.

AD

May God grant true pastors (there are many of them) the grace and the courage to seek Him earnestly as to what He really wants them to be doing.

Amen. How, other than prayer can we get this process going? Having recently been in the UK and a renewed zeal to see the word of the Lord manifest in our gatherings, I'm concerned that with time the pressing sense of seeing things change may diminish. I felt like God spoke to us in Greenock and I need to realize how that is to play out in my own experience. I have the matter on my heart and before the Lord, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety also. I just think things need to get going. :-?