|
phosadaud -> RE: Where did the Acts 2 Church go? (3/29/2008 5:44:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: groovymovieman
quote:
The facts are that most of those 13 million are folks like my brother who claim the name of Christ but when it comes down to it, don't really give a rip. They just don't have "time" to follow Jesus.
I won't deny that some people who leave "church" really have no desire to pursue Christ at all. But actually according to the Barna group and other researches 33% of those who have left are committed Christians who were the most deeply involved. Many served as pastors and leaders. They didn't abandon Christ, they just had real problems with today's religious system.
Which is not Scriptural. Jesus had serious problems with the "religious" system of His day, but He still went to the temple. There were serious problems with the early church and Paul didn't tell folks to leave - and neither did he.
quote:
quote:
And there is no scriptural basis for leaving the body of believers because you think they are "bad" and you are so much better. Not only does that stink the highest heaven of spiritual pride, but it is contrary to the NT church and how they addressed some of the really awful things happening in the early church.
I'm going to ignore the assumption that my stance is based in pride and go to the main issue. What is the church anyway? Is the church a building? A formal meeting? My Bible teaches that the body of Christ are those who are set apart unto Him. They are called out of the world into a relationship with Jesus. So church is something we are, not a place we go. The only way one can leave church is by leaving Jesus. And all who have a passion for Christ will have a passion for fellowship with other believers. But having a heart for fellowship and having a heart for religious activities are not the same thing. Using attendance or membership in a Christian organization as the measuring stick of one's passion for Christ is no different than using membership in the Lions Club as the measuring stick as to whether a person cares about their community.
No, the Body is not a building and a church can operate anywhere. However, it can meet in a building and gather in a building. I had a dear friend in college who grew up in Romania and their church met secretly in people's homes.
Hebrews 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
We are commanded to fellowship together. We are designed by God to operate as a BODY not as a lone ranger Christian doing whatever we want to, when we want to do it. That's not "church". And if you really believe the early church was the only model, you wouldn't be calling that church either.
quote:
quote:
I'm having a really hard time understanding what this "religious machinery" is that the ENTIRE church body today is so messed up with. Are there examples of churches that are religious but not relational? Absolutely, I grew up in one. What I don't see is the fact that a certain church has a building, pays a pastor to shepherd the flock and meets corporately on a Sunday morning means they are hindering people's walks with Christ. In a good church, these things work together to build up not slap down. Please explain why you think the entire church body today is so bad. I for one am the believer I am today because of the body of believers I fellowship with and serve not in spite of. And some of the folks who have most influenced by relationship with Jesus and helped me grow in my faith had a "title" in front of their name.
What you described, the organization of attending regularly scheduled Sunday Morning meetings with a paid pastor in charge and Sunday School programs and so forth is the religious machinery that I speak of. That picture of church is not given in the NT. But it doesn't mean everybody who belongs to one is in sin or something. It just means that that is far inferior to the Biblical definition of church. So I think calling that "Church" and saying that all Christians are obligated to belong to that is unscriptural. If it's working for you, more power to you! Really. But the question in the original OP is "Where did the church is Acts go?" And my answer is, it's been smothered by all the man-made add-ons that we have come to accept as being the very definition of church. That structure is very confining and restricting for most Christians. For example, if you read 1Corinthians 14 you see Christians gathering in such away that everybody was participating and prophesying. Where is that today? It has been replaced by a system in which an elite few function and call the shots and the rest are supposed to sit and "be fed."
From what I described happening in my church, you think that a few pastors are calling the shots and everyone else in my church is sitting around being fed? What church did you go to? That's not at all what happens in my church or many of the churches in my area. I think the problem you have is not with the "church" but rather that you have a very limited exposure to churches and are judging all churches based on that limited exposure. I'm just not seeing what you are saying - and I've been to many, many churches. Our church would simply not function if it operated as you seem to think all churches today do. If you feel "smothered" in my church, it's not the church that's the problem. [;)]
quote:
See, church is far more organic than this confining 501c3 organization that we call "church." Church is what we are, where we go, the way we think. Church happens when I sit down with another brother for lunch, call a sister on the phone or have a family over for dinner. Church is what I am when I share Jesus with a coworker or when I'm asking Father how one earth I should fix my broken sprinklers? It's not an event or a gathering, it is who we are. But we have placed boundaries around it. When you see the Biblical picture of church the very question "What church do you go to?" makes your skin crawl. Church is not where you go, it's who you are! It's knowing Jesus and expressed in the loving relationships you have with others, especially with those who know Him.
There are two definitions of church in the English language: and one is a building. That doesn't mean that when it's used that way, people think that's all Christianity is - a building. Now you're being silly. And I guess you must cringe whenever you read the Epistles and Paul greets the church at Corinth or that meets in so-and-so's home. [;)]
And the second definition is the body of believers. The greek term is Ekklesia and is defined here.
It is not who you are - it's the Body that you are a part of. I am not Church but I am a part of the Church (and I'm not talking about a building). Re-read your Bible. Your definition is not Scriptural.
quote:
quote:
Let's look at those Scriptures. What specifically was Jesus talking about? The Pharisees and such. Why? Not because they had titles or held leadership roles, but because they were not following God - they were following man's rules and man's laws and loading the people down with those laws. They had no love.
You are correct - a title doesn't mean a hill of beans, but Jesus wasn't saying "Thou shalt never have a title", Jesus was saying that we shouldn't follow folks because of a title. The Apostles had titles. They had authority. Jesus gave that to them. But contrary to the authority at the time - Jesus said their authority was not about people following them (the title) but rather about them being a servant to those around them to show them God's love and act as God's servant. Again, read the entire chapter not just a couple verses taken out of context.
I think you’re stretching Jesus' words there to defend modern day leadership. If Jesus was speaking exclusively about the Pharisees, then why did He say not to be like the rulers of the gentiles as well? (Matthew 20:25-26.) He even said not to exercise authority over others. You can't deny that the modern day view of church leadership is all about exercising authority over others. I agree that leaders are defined by being servants. But let's be honest, I know a servant when I see one. A servant is the lowest person in the room. They take orders, they don't give them. What I see in most cases (there are exceptions) is a leader calls himself a servant, but it's pretty clear that he is the one being served. I mean, let's get real here. The people are building his ministry, they are supporting his agenda and they are being placed where he tells them to be placed and doing what he okays. And to top it off people go directly against the words of Christ and call him "Pastor So-and-so." I wonder if they like those greetings in the market place and the chief seats as well? Do you see my point? It's a very painful and hard reality to face. But if the saints are going to soar with God, correct "Jesus-style" leadership has to be restored to the church.
Where are you getting your ideas? A servant leader is not the same thing as a servant. Are you honestly trying to assert that Jesus and the Apostles had zero authority and never guided and directed? What Bible are you reading? A servant leader guides and directs to serve the Body. He's not doing it out of selfish ambition. The early church had leadership:
1 Timothy 3
1 Timothy 5:17-22
Titus 1:5-9
Acts 6:1-7
Acts 15:1-35 (Council at Jerusalem)
And they weren't just scrubbing people's feet:
Acts 5 (Ananias & Sapphira)
I could go on and on.
quote:
quote:
I'm trying to figure out out exactly what hierarchy you seem to think the early church had? Again, read the NT. The apostles had authority over the churches. Each church had leaders that held authority over the brothers there.
Again, look at the words of Jesus. Did they actually have authority OVER the church? Or were they serving the church? I don't see them telling the people what to do and when to do it. I see them taking care of needs. Don't confuse authority in God's Kingdom with taking authority over people’s lives. Serving God's people is a very risky thing. You must remember that you are serving fellow kings and priests. If you become their king or priest than you have usurped Christ as head and usurped their position in Him. Sadly, pastor is often just the protestant word for priest.
Again, read what I wrote above. They absolutely had authority. That doesn't mean that Christ isn't our ultimate authority. However, even the early church wasn't a free for all - there were leaders who were authorities over the church - and Christ instituted it. When I was a child, I was to submit to my parents - that doesn't mean they became my god, because when push comes to shove, if they ever wanted me to do something that was contrary to God, I would obey God 1st. That doesn't negate their authority. The same is true of the church - my pastor is not always right. He's a human being. I would never submit to something he said that was contrary to God's Word or contrary to God's commands. There is an enormous difference between submission and blind obedience. That's why Paul commended the Bereans.
quote:
Are you aware that Paul never stuck around the churches he wrote to? He would get them grounded in Christ then move on. And contrary to modern teaching, he left no pastors in charge. If so, then name the one in charge of any of the churches Paul wrote to. Sure there were elders. But what is an elder? It's simply an older or more mature believer. This wasn't a position of lordship, but rather it was about being an example to the church of what a good Christian lives like. When Paul told Timothy to “appoint elders” he was simply saying “point out those who are more mature and are good examples of what a follower of Christ looks like.” Peter touches on this in his letters as well.
Paul didn't "hang" around because his position was an Apostle bringing the good news to more than one place. And again, read what I posted above. Elders did have authority. As did the Overseers.
In the passages above that discuss "elders", the greek term is: Presbuteros which means: among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
Philippians 1:1 - Overseer or 'bishop' - the greek word here is Episkopos which is defined as: an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent
quote:
quote:
Again, you are missing something. Families do have heirarchies - in fact they are commanded to have heirarchies. It's not a democracy. Scripture (NT and OT) commands that children obey their parents and honor them. Wives are to submit as unto the Lord to their husbands.
So what you're telling me is that leaders are our parents? I read in my Bible that we have one Father and there is One Head. We are to obey our parents...but who are our parents? My Bible teaches that God is our Father and Jesus is the first born of many brothers. That is who we obey. A body with more than one head is deformed. But the modern day picture of leadership is that of a body with a head (being Christ) and then a bunch of heads underneath that one. That's a mutant! That's not a healthy body or family. Jesus said we are all brethren. If leaders are our parents that would no longer make us all brethren would it? In fact, that would even place them above Jesus who is the first born brother and head. Kind of creepy!
You're smarter than that. [;)]
|
|
|
|