The american church model (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

Gloryandgrace -> The american church model (8/14/2008 9:19:45 PM)

I say the american church model is collecting dust, its apart of antiquity and its going by the way of the dodo.

Professional staffed, professional pulpits, educational standards, laity entertainment, evangelism at a low ebb, say anything do anything, comedy, star-struck....these are all what the american church is and does. Its in the smallest to the largest congregations.

the mega church that rarely reproduces, the professional leadership and the impassible gulf between the congregation and the leadership, the 'who cares' attitude on evangelism the openly lukewarm determination to not be bothered because we are rich and have need of nothing.

If you havent noticed the spewing is going on all around us.

Inert, ineffective, fruitless, empty, doubting, fearful, hiding, unknowledgable, uncompassionate masses that attend every sunday have been bred to do nothing more than sit as cattle breeding more cattle so that they may be slaughtered, sheered so that the religious machinery can continue running. We are not worth anything except as we can give our money to someone else to use for their own agendas.

sound negative? Sound bad? Sound like a poor representation of Jesus Church in america?

I ask you, what makes a church known to be 'alive'? What makes a congregation fruitful?
what does the bible say about the early followers and how they lived?

Is humility a means to an end? Does accountability to one another mean we have to confess we are nothing like what we profess?

Salvations in america? What is going on? Are we afraid of the Obamas? the Mccains, the Osama's? Is the constitution our promise of victory in this nation is it another document?

I believe God will spew out of his mouth church after church, their candlesticks will be removed and they will have a name lives but they themselves are dead.

The model is old and in order for new wine to be poured in, we need a new wineskin..

What say you??

John



Gloryandgrace -> RE: The american church model (8/14/2008 9:36:58 PM)

I propose a new model

No paid staff
No building
No professional leadership
Mulitiple leaders from within the congregation
Meeting in homes or simple places
Teaching the believers a zeal for radical change of life
praying and believing for God to increase them in size so that they may reproduce
themselves in another location
Tax exemption unnecessary
Evangelism and godly living is foremost
Application expected and lived out by the senior saints so the newbies can follow
They believe and follow the scriptures, making decisions based upon scripture and prayer.

They can call themselves the 'body of Christ' Their leaders can call themselves pastors and evangelists no matter what education or what group they fellowship at.

They may truly be recognized as a vibrant, living example of Jesus Christ....and yet never have to darken the door of a 'church building' or be recognized by any denomination or approved by any 'great leader' .

As long as we tie up our money in buildings and lands we will be inert, as long as the leaders seperate into professional and laity there will be stagnancy in the congregation, as long as evangelism is rated the bottom of things to do for a believer, every work that leadership has promoted will have little effect and helping the lost or portraying Christ to the world.

Reading the bible and doing nothing are the status quo of the american church model.
Being entertained daily and caring nothing for the lost has written an invisible "Icabod'
over that group or congregation and they will never shake it no matter how much they
pretend to call themselves evangelistic.

John



Ezra -> RE: The american church model (8/14/2008 9:43:30 PM)

John:

I am in full agreement with everything you have stated above. Thanks for saying what needs to be said. We may disagree is some other areas, but I could not agree with you more in this regard.



jayvance -> RE: The american church model (8/14/2008 10:37:42 PM)

I too am in agreement with the overall thrust and most of the details of what you have written. I haven't reached that place in my journey yet but I believe that's where I'm headed.

Jay



timf -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 8:00:06 AM)

The american church model

You have identified quite a number of problems with the traditional church model. I suggest that it is not necessarily the "American" model. This is the same model that killed Christianity in Europe. The collection of self-perpetuating systems, methods, procedures goes back even further than the Roman Catholic church.

The elevation of important people, the inclusion of Hellenistic philosophies and rhetoric, the establishment of catechetical schools all predate the primacy of the Church of Rome.

We can find in Galatians (one of the earliest letters to a church) a condemnation for having turned from Jesus to the flesh. We see a clear example of how easy it is to take in the "leaven of the Pharisees".

The desire to meet in small Christian groups in homes and strip away traditional church practices can limit the albatross-like burden of managing real estate, and providing maintenance for buildings and facilities. It can remove government tax entanglements and denominational franchise disputes. However, the removal of some negative "baggage" does not in and of itself accomplish something positive.

Christians who draw nearer their Lord grow to trust Him and are able to share the peace this brings with others who seek to know the real Jesus. Real Christian fellowship can grow in the intimacy of real personal relationships.

Those still mired in their fleshly systems of control will condemn in anger those who seek to find a closer walk with the Lord. They will shout about the danger of error all the while they defend erroneous systems that cripple Christians and their families from really knowing Jesus by substituting events, programs, and scripted activities for anything involving the Holy Spirit.

The Christian who seeks to leave the traditional church environment and hungers for real fellowship and a closer walk with the Lord is not in as much danger of being led astray as some might think. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and a closer walk with God brings proximity to this source of protection.

It is the Lord who leads us in life. We can trust His leading. If we take Him at His word, He gives wisdom and understanding, all we have to do is ask. While leaving some of the negative church practices that have accumulated over the centuries can be a good start, the real close walk with the Lord comes from a humble heart that surrenders to His will and cries out for Him.

We don't need to find the right church "system", we need Jesus. Any church (big or small) that is not helping you grow into the image of Christ is a failure.

http://christianpioneer.com/index.htm



jayvance -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 10:54:36 AM)

quote:

We don't need to find the right church "system", we need Jesus. Any church (big or small) that is not helping you grow into the image of Christ is a failure.


This is the crux of the matter. I'm not convinced there's only one "right" church model; I'm thankful God can use all kinds of man-made systems to help us to learn and mature--even if it's by allowing us to experience the consequences of the shortcomings of man-made systems. I think it's important to find a balance. The fact that God can use man-made systems to accomplish His will isn't justification for us shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Oh well, God can use anything, so who cares if our systems are truly pleasing to God." On the other hand, we also have to resist the temptation, once we've "seen the light" and have moved away from man-made systems that are un-Biblical, to judge others who haven't yet come to a place where they're ready to make a move for themselves.

Jay



doinkdom -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 11:20:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace

I propose a new model

No paid staff
No building
No professional leadership
Mulitiple leaders from within the congregation
Meeting in homes or simple places
Teaching the believers a zeal for radical change of life
praying and believing for God to increase them in size so that they may reproduce
themselves in another location
Tax exemption unnecessary
Evangelism and godly living is foremost
Application expected and lived out by the senior saints so the newbies can follow
They believe and follow the scriptures, making decisions based upon scripture and prayer.


This is pretty much what our church plant is about.

However...we are cautious when it comes to comparisons to other churches and the attitude of being "better" because we walk this out in our group, which is why we shy away from "house church" lingo.

I've also witnessed churches with structure in place flourish and be an integral part of the community they serve. Members involved and growing, being discipled and discipling others, etc.

I really do think it goes back to the heart of the leadership, regardless of where that leadership exists.



solarflare -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 11:36:53 AM)

quote:

No paid staff
No building
No professional leadership
Mulitiple leaders from within the congregation
Meeting in homes or simple places
Teaching the believers a zeal for radical change of life
praying and believing for God to increase them in size so that they may reproduce
themselves in another location
Tax exemption unnecessary
Evangelism and godly living is foremost
Application expected and lived out by the senior saints so the newbies can follow
They believe and follow the scriptures, making decisions based upon scripture and prayer.

They can call themselves the 'body of Christ' Their leaders can call themselves pastors and evangelists no matter what education or what group they fellowship at.

They may truly be recognized as a vibrant, living example of Jesus Christ....and yet never have to darken the door of a 'church building' or be recognized by any denomination or approved by any 'great leader' .



Sounds good and I have attended such and yet saw even that go south. Things go south when people have an agenda...and in the case of the 'Body of Believers" I attended, one family - who had not started the fellowship - gradually took over and kind of 'pushed' out those who did not agree with them. I was very sorry to see what had happened - I had already moved away, but when I was back in the area, I visited and there was no one there I recognized except for the family who took things over and another couple who had quite a bit of money and gave liberally..........

Prior to the 'shift change', I had enjoyed attending and being a part of this body more than any church I had ever attended. I do like the model you presented and believe it can and does work, but as can be seen from my example, no one person or group of people should ever be allowed to 'have it their way' because then you end up with the same thing as any other 'church'.............I have not said this before in these threads, and I am sure some people think I am very opinionated, but the church as we knew it, is D E A D. It has a form....but no power. It holds up the Bible, but does not adhere to it. I could go on.

I am not American, and I have found a significant cultural difference between where I grew up and the US. My husband is American but spent his formative years elsewhere as his parents were missionairies.
I have had quite an education since starting to read and post on these threads and I have found that things I take for granted...that I know are sound Biblical doctrine...many people question and just blow it off like it was not even in the Bible. And then we have those who want to throw the Bible out, although they deny it, and just be 'led' by the Holy Spirit.

Can't stand 'megachurches' ... attended one in our area for awhile and it was all about 'feeling good.' I ususally feel good when my relationship with the Lord is good...not other people. In fact, I am much nicer to others when I am closest to my Lord. [:D]

quote:

I really do think it goes back to the heart of the leadership, regardless of where that leadership exists.



That is definetely a big part of it.

Thanks



TrustingGod -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 6:26:42 PM)

Paul stated that we are to pay our preachers - hence making them "professionals" 1 Timothy 5:17-19



jayvance -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 6:56:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TrustingGod

Paul stated that we are to pay our preachers - hence making them "professionals" 1 Timothy 5:17-19


Don't want to hijack this thread, but...

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'"

What he actually said was that "elders" (not "the pastor") should be counted worthy of double "honor"--a word, by the way, which more often in the New Testament does NOT refer to money. What exactly does "double honor" mean? What does REGULAR honor mean, for that matter? Is this referring to a regular salary, or a love offering from time to time, or what?

Also interesting to look at what Paul told another group of elders, in Ephesus, in Acts 20:33-35:

"I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

Pretty clear that Paul is telling those elders that not only should they NOT look to the church to the support them, they should in fact work like Paul did in order to provide for their own needs as well as the needs of others. Pretty foreign to our way of thinking, eh?!

Bottom line, the NT just doesn't support our modern-day practice of a paid clergy class, and that's just from the financial angle. When you start looking at how the professional clergy has usurped the ministry that should be practiced by ALL believers (usually with the consent of the congregation, don't think I'm putting all the blame on the clergy), and how the clergy exercises headship and control over churches which Jesus alone has authority to exercise, the rabbit hole gets REALLY deep!

Jay



GroupW -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 7:32:49 PM)

Hey - 30 posts before I found one of yours that I disagreed with. That's pretty good! (96.67% agreement rate, technically speaking.)

I do think there's a role for a professional clergy, one that's indeed biblical. For a couple of reasons.

1) 1 Timothy 5 doesn't seem to preclude being compensated for one's service to the church (the range of meanings for the greek word in question includes "compensation"), it just casts the term in the context of the office of elder. It wouldn't seem to much of a stretch to classify a "pastor" as serving within the category of "elder" not unlike the early catholic idea of primus inter pares for the bishop in Rome.

2) Acts 20 doesn't really rule it out either. In that passage Paul is telling the people what his choice was with respect to the issue. Paul chose not to be burden his church plants at the outset. Note however that in other passages, a few churches that he planted did indeed support his work, most likely monetarily (cf Phillipians 4). As a church planter, there are practical considerations at work. Initially, the resources of the body would not have been sufficient to maintain much of a paid elder/pastor function. In his farewell to the church, Paul's message seems to be one of "this is what I have done for you, go and do so for each other". The point he appears to be trying to make has little to do with whether or not there should be a paid clergy, but rather that the church should take care of those in need. His example in that shouldn't necessarily be extrapolated to the issue of a paid clergy.

3) Times change. There is no admonishment in scriptures to keep the ecclesiastical structures constant. The further in time from the days of Paul's writings, the greater the risk of information being lost. Through archaeology, additional textual evidence, linguistic research etc we continue to improve our knowledge of what may have been going through Paul's mind as he was writing his letters. Few people have the time or energy to be able to devote themselves sufficiently to the task of continually educating themselves and researching their teaching while simultaneously holding down full time jobs. A few here on this forum are able to do so (RC for example) and I commend them. They are however the exception.

To me, item #3 is the most critical. The amount of education to adequately teach the scriptures increases with each passing decade. A working knowledge of the ancient languages, history, theology, philosophy etc is extremely helpful to the church. It's also extremely demanding, and practically a full time job. Why shouldn't it be one?

I agree with you though that congregations have tried to delegate their responsibilities to others via having a paid pastor. Nothing I've written above should be construed as having approved of that. I think that's shameful. It's not a problem of the clergy however - just us.

Looking forward to reading more of your posts.
BT



jayvance -> RE: The american church model (8/15/2008 8:21:22 PM)

I should clarify that I'm not saying that NT ABSOLUTELY precludes any specially gifted minister or recognized church leader from receiving compensation from the church in any form whatsoever. Clearly Paul taught that he had a RIGHT to be supported by the churches HE PLANTED, whether or not he chose to exercise that right. I certainly agree that not everything in the NT is prescriptive, that is, a hard and fast instruction that we MUST do things THIS way and ONLY this way. And as I've said previously, I don't think there is any ONE "right" way to do church.

Even so, there's a big difference between saying the Scriptures don't PRECLUDE something and saying the Scriptures STRONGLY SUPPORT something. We can agree that the Bible doesn't specifically preclude someone from receiving some form of compensation for their service to the Christian community, and that's all well and good. But there's a LOT of space between that viewpoint and the end of the spectrum where we're at today, with a profesional clergy class and a passive laity, which you and I both agree isn't healthy for the body of Christ. So it seems to me that the direction we ought to be headed is in the OPPOSITE direction of the one the institutional church has been on since the third century or so--in other words, moving AWAY from a professional clergy class which clearly has weakened the ability of the body of Christ to think and act for themselves. And IMHO, one of the ways to begin that process is to honestly acknowledge that our modern-day church practices are largely the result of man-made tradition and NOT the solid support of the Bible. We can parse words and phrases all day long, but what we really need to do is ask ourselves if the professional clergy class we have today has HELPED or HINDERED the fulfillment of what Jesus intended His body to look like, with EVERYONE in the body ACTIVELY involved in ministry. Ironically, we professional ministers spend so much time and energy trying to figure out how to "get more people involved" when all along it's the entire un-Biblical clergy/laity distinction that is hindering the body at large from "getting more involved." Truth be told, most pastors only want people to get involved to a certain extent, within certain limits and boundaries, all of which, or course, are determined by the pastor!

Jay



GroupW -> RE: The american church model (8/17/2008 5:36:23 AM)

I think I understand. A slight difference in perspective between us perhaps, but not a difference in any fundamental value.

Ideally, I think I'd like to see both an active professional clergy and an equally active laity, each doing what each does best. When either one tries to take on too much responsibility above and beyond their giftedness or infringes on the proper role of the other or minimizes the value of it, we get into trouble.

It's been my experience (with one notable and recent exception that still frosts my begonias) is that most pastors are crying out for more participation. They just don't know how to go about getting it. It's also one reason that I'm deeply skeptical of the mega church model. I just don't think that model really fosters the goals of community, true corporate worship, or substantial involvement in the local secular community. Not always the case, obviously. There are some mega churches that manage it, but I do think their size does tend to get in the way.

I probably have a personal concept of the "clergy/laity distinction" that makes me unwilling to call it unbiblical. I'd also say that my concept is probably not what you have in mind when you use those same words. That would be an interesting discussion at some point.


As always, a good response. Thanks.



Gloryandgrace -> RE: The american church model (8/17/2008 7:42:08 PM)

Sorry it took so long to respond, its been a busy week and end...

Its not that there cannot be professionally-educated-trained-experienced leadership, its the problem that the congregation expects in many respects that the pro's do the job of shepherding and leading the flocks. I totally disagree.

Its not a problem that the church has a building its the problem of every small congregation gets strapped with a building and its costs, maintenance its staffing, its other issues.

Its not a problem that a church grows large, its a problem when one leader alone is designated with the task knowing and shepherding so many..its impossible. Theres no accountability, no overseeing their growth their accomplishments and no one-on-one mentoring that will take them from babes to young men to mature beleivers.

Its not a problem that we all want to sing and play and instrument, its a problem when that level of expertise is so high that all the potential worship that could come forth from those instruments in a harmonious singing and praising that is not pro-level is left out and extinguished because of 'professionalism'.

Its not a problem that people dont know how to evangelise or how to teach or how to lead others into spiritual maturity, its a problem when the congregation is lead to a place where its perfectly acceptable to think they are obedient when leaving out the great commission, or their obedient by tossing their tenth into the coffer when their neighbors and their missionaries lack what they need.

Its unhealthy when churches do not reproduce themselves.

Its unhealthy when believers do not reproduce themselves.

its unhealthy when believers are doctrinally pure and practically dead.

its unhealthy when leaders do not expect to raise up other leaders, mentor them, challenge them and put them out of the nest so that they may continue the work of the ministry in another location.

Its unhealthy when leaders do not train their flocks to expect God to judge them for what they do with the great commission and with all the knowledge and help available to them. To whom much is given much is required.

Its unhealthy when money is used to fill 80% of building, staff, youth etc and the other 10% is used to fund special programs and maybe only maybe that last 10% ever sees the hands of an evangelist or pastor outside of their congregation, that is used to propogate the gospel.

We have mentoring in our church and its only for those who want to become leaders or help in some way....usually after they have long since crashed and burned as a believer with scandals, apathy, lukewarmness, divorce, heresies etc.

We have evangelism and its those once a year trips that some one goes and and really sees how other believers in third world countries live. But in the end its more of a bragging stock ministry than a source of training for future leaders. Its end is inert when it dies from 'one-timer' ministry.

Im sure your church is far better, you wouldnt have a dead end like we have had.

Dont get me wrong in the slightest, I dont care 1 Iota for making some complaint about american churches and another thread on beating up on them. That in itself is inert.

What I am getting at is.......there are some of you that need to get out of the nest, you need to make the sacrifice and need to go forward in your life with Jesus Christ. Stop waiting for the title, the man-confirmation, the bill board in the sky and get to praying how you can win the lost and train new believers...

some of you are so capable, so wise so excellent in your knowledge it would be a shame to leave it hidden under a bushel or buried in the ground awaiting the return of our master.
Your love for Jesus is open and real, your desire to declare him is genuine and true, therefore stop following the 'american church model' and go out and pray, pray pray, God will tell you as he has me how to get started.

who cares if we are right about the mega-chruch model flopping? Who care if we are right about weak doctrine and seeker sensitive come-ones that produce false converts?
Seriously If you are not being a seeker of God and a seeker of doing his will in obedience to the great commission what weight is your opinion on the failures of other men?

I for one seek to be used of God in the flow of His Spirit to enter into the harvest and reap in that harvest. Talking about another mans dull sythe without swinging your own hardly pleases Jesus who has given us the great commission.


John



Gloryandgrace -> RE: The american church model (8/17/2008 7:47:24 PM)

quote:

Ironically, we professional ministers spend so much time and energy trying to figure out how to "get more people involved" when all along it's the entire un-Biblical clergy/laity distinction that is hindering the body at large from "getting more involved." Truth be told, most pastors only want people to get involved to a certain extent, within certain limits and boundaries, all of which, or course, are determined by the pastor!


I hope this is utterly false and a complete lie!

God help us if this is true, what will judgment day be like for such men?

John



jayvance -> RE: The american church model (8/18/2008 7:03:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace

quote:

Ironically, we professional ministers spend so much time and energy trying to figure out how to "get more people involved" when all along it's the entire un-Biblical clergy/laity distinction that is hindering the body at large from "getting more involved." Truth be told, most pastors only want people to get involved to a certain extent, within certain limits and boundaries, all of which, or course, are determined by the pastor!


I hope this is utterly false and a complete lie!

God help us if this is true, what will judgment day be like for such men?

John


I wish it WERE false, believe me! I've been in the ministry for over 30 years in a variety of denominational and non-denominational expressions and this has been my experience and observation across the board. The entire clergy/laity paradigm is based on the assumption that people are basically sheep and will always need someone to tell them where to go and where not to go, what to do and what not to do, what to eat and drink or not, etc. The professional clergy are indoctrinated with the idea that they are supposed to be "in charge" and that it's their responsiblity to "control" the churches they lead. But don't get me wrong, this concept wouldn't have lasted this long if people in congregations weren't willing participants. It's not a one-sided problem by any means.

Jay



timf -> RE: The american church model (8/18/2008 8:31:35 AM)

It's not a one-sided problem by any means.

Jay, you are exactly right. Because it is two sided, it is less likely to ever be corrected. Fixing blame or assigning responsibility serves the purpose of identifying who needs to participate in the solution to a problem. Because the flesh so strongly responds to appeals of "fast, cheap, easy", the path to Pharisetical religion is attractive to many (clergy and laity). Denominational franchises arise the sole purpose of which is to maintain brand identity and provide a system of control and ease that appeals to both clergy and laity.

For people who are raised in such systems, a slowly dawning understanding that the Bible calls us to a different life, maybe a more difficult one, where we are to live everyday in a process of becoming more like Jesus can occur. Often the first steps taken to find the "real" Christian life are to explore special classes or retreats within the denomination. For those who cannot be satisfied with a searching within a denomination, they can be led to consider searching for another denomination to find the path that will lead them closer to their Lord.

Because the way to Jesus is narrow and few are on that path, the way to a closer life with the Lord is often found outside of "churches" in the organizational or denominational sense. Christians are to love one another and minister one to another. Often churches do not allow this because their primary function is to keep things under control and easy and comfortable for the members.

Our family attended a smaller church (less than 100) once. We noticed an older woman that would occasionally be seated by herself. My wife struck up a conversation and as we got to know her learned that she had some financial difficulties. We were able to minister directly to her because of the relationship we built. What is sad is the her "best friend" did not know her well enough to know she had difficulties. The "church" did not know about her condition. The organizational response is to blame her for "failing" to present herself to the church for "help". To me this small example shows the inherent problem with the organizational systems approach to church.

The "two sided" responsibility for blame in organizational churches pretty much assures that it will not be corrected or resolved. However, individuals can act as individuals and seek out those other individuals on the fringes to whom they can minister or search out those whose lives clearly demonstrate the light and love of Jesus so that they can learn more about how to be like Jesus.

Christians who are drawn to a closer relationship with the Lord may have to recognize the inherent limitations of "churches". Ultimately Christianity is about relationship. Ours with Jesus and ours with each other. Organizations, systems, and collectives can only do so much. We have to surrender ourselves to the Lord and His leading. We have to act as individuals and build relationships with other individuals.

Being willing to sit in a church pew is not the ultimate act of Christian accomplishment. Attending every event and working on every committee is not the ultimate act of Christian accomplishment. It is showing the love of Jesus to another Christian that is the ultimate act of Christian accomplishment.



jayvance -> RE: The american church model (8/18/2008 9:40:18 AM)

quote:

Being willing to sit in a church pew is not the ultimate act of Christian accomplishment. Attending every event and working on every committee is not the ultimate act of Christian accomplishment. It is showing the love of Jesus to another Christian that is the ultimate act of Christian accomplishment.


Well said. I would say, "showing the love of Jesus to others," as we are called to show love to non-believers as well as to other Christians. Learning this has been a long and winding road for me.

Jay



timf -> RE: The american church model (8/18/2008 12:18:56 PM)

as we are called to show love to non-believers as well as to other Christians

We are told to love out neighbor as ourselves.
We are told as far as it is possible to live at peace with all men.

However, I think the Bible paints a picture of love in Christian fellowship that is not a result of withholding love from the world, but a reflection of reciprocal love that is only possible with other hearts also filled with Jesus.

John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

αλληλοις reciprocal pronoun - dative plural masculine
allelon al-lay'-lone: one another -- each other, mutual, one another, (the other), (them-, your-)selves, (selves)

Since I was talking specifically about Christians in relationship with each other, I was referring to this type of "one another" love. I do not think we should be too quick to diminish the distinctive love Christians are to show each other or claim it the same as a general rule to "love everyone". Jesus felt that it was to be distinctive.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI