did jesus lie to us?

Remember Paul?  Remember when he traveled to Jerusalem to see Peter and co? How long had he been serving God without them even knowing Paul? 14 years!  14 years of mission without contact with a local church, a HQ, etc. One moment having Christians killed, the next WHAM serving God amongst a mob who no one else had time for.  A mob who knew nothing of how to be a traditional Jew.  Totally uncircumcised!

Next thing Peter toddles up to see Paul in his stomping ground.  Peter hangs out with the Galatian locals and lives as if he is one of them.  Uncircumcised.

Next a few Jewish fellas come to see him.  And as quick as a flash Peter, out of fear of being criticised, pretends he is a good Jew too.  He stops eating with the locals and starts acting in ways that won't offend his Jewish visitors.

To put it plainly, Paul is a bit more than pissed!  He goes up to Peter and basically calls him a hypocrite to his face in front of EVERYONE.  The locals and visiting Jews too.  No hiding.  Peter, the man known for his faith received a public dressing down.

Why?  Because as Paul noted: Peter by behaving like this had stopped following the gospel message.  Because of his faith he was able to discard his Jewish Levitical traditions and live in the freedom of Christ.  But now he was suddenly doing them again.  Worse, he was advocating the locals to do likewise - follow the Jewish Levitical traditions.  Even Barnabas, Paul's loyal companion had been convinced back.

So here is what Paul explained: Just because you feel guilty that you don't follow the Levitical way once you get right with God by having faith in Christ does not mean Jesus led you to sin!  Not at all!  What makes you a sinner is trying to rebuild this old Levitical way (or follow it when it is presented to you).  Doing this makes you claim that God is a liar.  It makes you a sinner because no matter how hard you try to keep it, it can only condemn you.  Isn't this why we stopped trying to meet its requirements in the first place and follow Jesus?

Seriously dude... Remember your old self has been crucified with Christ and so it is no longer you who lives but Christ in you.  So please live by trusting in the Son of God, who loved you enough to sacrificed his life for you.  Remember, God's grace is NOT meaningless because there would be zero need for Christ is by keeping the law we could be right with God.

***

So my question is where in my life do I still pursue these old Levitical ways?  Or in other words?  What am I doing that says "I don't need Christ" "Doing this or that will make God like me?"

Am I making tithes and offerings?  Am I advocating a special priesthood (pastor-hood, apostle-hood)?  Are we repeating the same rituals (maybe with an electric guitar) in how we meet and how we do things? etc etc like rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic. How much of what I do is based on the church culture I was born into ... 

Protestants who in addition to mixing in ideas of human kingship retained much from the Catholic church who was birthed from the Holy Roman Church who took much of what they did directly from the Old Testament traditions of the Law.

And if I am not doing these things from a old covenant stance, and God has done away with them because they only existed because Jesus had not come yet... are they not empty shells?  What point is there for them at all?

And if I think that these ways are comfortable or familiar or traditional or make sense ... am I trying to fill these empty shells with the life of the new covenant, ie Jesus?  But didn't he say this wouldn't work?  Like trying to put new wine in an old wineskin, new cloth to mend an old coat...

***

Bugger

Read More

empathy or prosperity gospel?

How do poor people see themselves?
When poor people are thought we tend to see them in terms of how they lack material things (e.g. food, money, clean water, housing).  However, when a person who is poor is asked how they see themselves most will admit that yes they do lack these things, but more important is their feelings of shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, hopelessness, depression, social isolation, voicelessness, etc.

Solutions?
How poverty is defined will therefore affect how it is solved.  The mistakes most people make when trying to overcome poverty is that ...

• we treat the symptoms instead of the underlying illnesses, and
• we wrongly diagnose the underlying illnesses and therefore prescribe the wrong medicine.

The solution is to develop relationships with people because ...

• People are not always fully aware of what is affecting their life
• People are not always fully honest about their life
• Any effort to resolve poverty is multifaceted in design and execution because we are designed to relate with God, ourself, others, and creation

And therefore we need to ...

• Discover how God is already working among people, their organisations, institutions, and culture, while also
• Seeing people as part of the new world Christ is restoring and sustaining

So who are the poor?
Everyone!  We are all poor because when it comes to spiritual intimacy, poverty of being, poverty of community, and a poverty of stewardship, we all lack something.
As such, because not everyone will experience material poverty, it makes it possible to believe that I am better than others just because I have more material stuff. In addition, this belief often comes with a second thought: that because I achieved this wealth through my own efforts I have the right to decide what is best for low income people.  The consequences of this is:

• People who are not materially wealthy, healthy and powerful have not enough or no faith in God and/or are not obeying him
• People experiencing poverty are viewed as inferior
• People are reduced to objects that fill my needs to accomplish

In terms of the church, these are the philosophies of the prosperity gospel.  Where people who are materially wealthy etc are viewed as having been rewarded for their faith and obedience in God.  Therefore, the solution according to the prosperity gospel preached to materially poor people is that all their finances, their jobs, and how much they possess will increase if they only had more or real faith and obedience.  The poor may even be told that they are sick and unemployed because of their lack in faith and obedience.

Unfortunately this philosophy fails when we place it into the context that if it is true then it must apply to every people and culture.  So can the prosperity gospel work in war torn nations or nations that experience governmental corruption?  How would it sound to a woman who has just been raped or a father whose children died in a house fire?

No it cannot!

Jesus himself reminds us that "the poor will always be with us" and that to follow him is to expect suffering and persecution.  He also repeatedly urges us to understand that seeking after the riches of this world leads to death, and that God sees and treats us all equally no matter how much we have or do not have

Conclusions

• Understand we are all poor in the sense of broken relationships
• Be open to ongoing repentance: "Jesus can fix us both"
• Reject the prosperity gospel that claims “spiritual maturity leads to financial well-being”
• Realise material poverty can be due to external circumstances (e.g. racism, job availability) and not due to spiritual immaturity

Read More

luke 15

What is the gospel of the kingdom from Luke 15?


church leadership

• Man's Kingdom: The designated leader is unable, even unwilling to leave the flock in any other hands for fear of loss.

• God's Kingdom: The designated leader is released by a well nurtured and equipped flock to go and find the lost.

disciplinary action

• Man's Kingdom: When people stray and allegedly function disloyally to community or leadership, they are disciplined and exiled to some degree.  They might be allowed to return after a process of proving loyalty again, but even so never really trusted again.

• God's Kingdom: When people stray and allegedly function disloyally to community or leadership, they are loved; sought after and welcomed back before needing to hear ANY reason.

eternal inheritance

• Man's Kingdom: Inheritance is apportioned to the deserving (human measure & standard) usually by merit or pecking order. (i.e. each person gets a slice of a pie, its size determined by external reasons)

• God's Kingdom: Inheritance is always shared to the nth degree with ALL, ALWAYS; whatever the circumstances (unconditional).  (i.e. every person gets the whole pie, while simultaneously sharing all of it with everyone else)

Read More

pay your church leader's wage?

Please read 1Timothy 5

This passage is sometimes used to justify a call for people to financially support the leaders of local churches and parishes.  But is this an accurate assessment of the passage?

It should first be noted that of the various English bible translations, only a few mention "financial support".  Of these, the inclusion sometimes appears within brackets indicating uncertainty as to whether or not it should really be there.

For the most part, the translation typically reads: "Consider the elders who rule/lead you.   Honour them, especially if they work hard to peach and teach."

Can we say with confidence that God asks people to financially support their leaders?  Maybe, bu  because is verse is unclear, it is not safe to assume we do.  Let us continue.

The next question is who these elders are.  Are they elders in character regardless of age, such as appear in Titus or Timothy? Or are they elders as in older members of a community?

Please read again versus 5:1 and 5:17 and also use the concordance (left sidebar).  What is the Greek word being translated as elder in each verse? Are they the same or different words?  What is their respective contexts?

• 5:1 ... indicates elder as in age
• 5:17... unclear
• However, the focus is similar in both verses.  What is this focus?  Even the wording seems almost identical.
• What does this similarity suggest about who 1Timothy 5 is speaking of?

Could an analogy be being made between how we treat older people (5:1) and our church leaders (5:17)?  Maybe, but to do this requires using everything before 5:17, and treating it as a metaphor. This includes what is spoken of about widows because what is shared about them flows out of 5:1.   In short, everything prior to 5:17 is about elder in age.  Also there  is no transition (eg like, therefore, parable intro, etc) to suggest 5:17 starts a new topic.

So for the moment imagine an analogy is being made.  How would this read?  But before you do, consider what does it mean to "honour them"?  Again use the concordance to look up the word "honour".  What is the Greek word?  Now use the concordance to look at 5:3.  Find where this Greek word also appears.  Why in this sentence does it not translate "honour" but instead "take care of"?  Why is it specifically used for widows?

What happens if we insert the translation, because we treat what is written as an anology, of elder as church elder as in function regardless of age, as occurs in the church life today?  It would read something like:  "Care for your local church elders.  However, if they have the ability to support themself, let them.  If they cannot, but have kids or grandkids, let their own family support them so it may not be a burden on the broader church.  Failing these, please take care of them yourself."

Okay, they may not be widows, nor older members of the community, but care for church leaders anyway.  How?  In the same way as the frail, the vulnerable, the isolated, the family-less, the ones who have little option but the support of others.  Care for them because they have one of a wide variety of roles among God's kingdom.

Does this sound like an analogy of leadership?  Does this sound like a gospel founded leader?  Why would a list be given for what it means to be a true widow, someone really in need, and then say to someone who takes up a leadership role, be like that, this is how God want his leaders to be?

In other words, does 1Timothy 5 speak of leaders of local churches as we understand them today? Does either the text or God's heart allow it?  Does the language or context speak of people older in age with certain needs or leaders whatever their age?  Yes, we may choose to cared for/support our church leaders because they lead, but does this passage either  raise the issue, let alone require it?

Does the pastor, priest, leaders of your church or parish fit this need?  Does choosing to go into full time ministry qualify that person for being support according to is passage?  Could doing other work, a job, detract from running the logistics of the local church?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But regardless, does worrying about the consequences of ministry involvement create the meaning of this passage or simply your interpretation of it?

Read More

my pastor for a horse

If history had developed a different set of tasks for the pastor of our local churches, would the people who seek to be today's pastors be doing those things instead of what they are now doing?

Why do we do the things we do?

Why do we do them the way we do?

Do tasks and jobs, activities, create the role (pastor or otherwise), or does the role determine what we need to do and how we do them?  That is, "I am X because I do Y", a matter of utilitarianism (function), or "I do Y because I am X" a matter of character (heart)?

action

With these options in mind, examine your church.  Why are people, including your pastor, priest, elders, deacons, etc, doing what they are doing?  Is it because it is an outcome of the heart God has instilled into the role?  [To discover this answer you may need to revisit the bible and seek God for his intentions.]  Or is it because there are certain activities that need to be done? (and yes there may be a mix of both).

Indeed, ask these same questions of yourself in terms of being for instance a parent, a brother or sister, a child, a work colleague, a friend, a citizen of your city or nation, etc.

related posts

• ezekiel 34 ... identifying a shepherd

Read More

covering and accountability

Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow for that certainly wouldn't benefit you (Hebrews 13:17).

warning

The following comments are not intended for anyone who lead or instruct people with a focus of wellbeing and growth for their students.  Instead they are for people whose interest is more about being followed (Jude 1).

introduction

When it comes to requiring people to do what the leaders of churches ask of them, Hebrews 13:17 (top of page) is the number one bible quote. The way it is then usually applied is:

• Obey your spiritual leaders, do what they say, because
• They are accountable to God for watching over your soul
• Do this so their work is joyous and
• If they don't feel you are doing as asked, it proves your spiritually immaturity

a moment

Is it possible for a church leader (e.g. pastor, priest, elder) to say something you don't understand?  Is it possible for them to teach something that contradicts what is in the bible? Is it possible for them to ask you to do something that goes against your conscience?

If yes, so should you agree with them anyway, hide your disagreement from others, or ask for clarity and maybe argue the alternative? What is going to help bring understanding: ignoring the disagreement, obeying something you disagree with, or asking questions and discerning intentions behind the request.

a question

Now pretend you have sought clarity from the leader, asked God, read the bible, spoken with others, etc to work out why the disagreement exists and if it is worthwhile to hold your stance.

Then pretend the leaders tells you that your actions and views proove you are immature or rebellious because God has entrusted them to look after you, and as such, ignoring their advice is therefore ignoring God.

Yes, their heart may be in the right place, motivated by the idea that one day they will stand before God and share how they looked after you.  And in a sense this is true (Mt 18:1-10). But it is true for all (leader or otherwise) who choose to point someone else in a direction to follow.

But, how does asking you to do as they say, because they hold a particular role, fit into the broader context of the bible?  Especially considering:

• God's Spirit is continually reminding and teaching us of everything Jesus taught (Jn 14)
• We are asked to personally embrace God’s word (Jn 15:1-17)
• We are encourage to seek God's counsel ourselves (Mt 21:22; Lk 11:1-13)
• What if God speaks to us directly? (John 14; Mt 1:20, 2:12; Acts 2:17)
• Are there any other mediators between you and God than Jesus? (1Tim 2:1-7)

Do we ignore these things just because one or more people desire us to listen to them? Furthermore, and ultimately, regardless of the role God gives us:

• We are all equal and need to treat each other with love and humility (ref)

in other words

Surely humble leaders hope those they nurture will embrace what is shared.  Not because it came from their mouth, but because their heart dwells in God's life.  Also, they would  see their own failings inluding a capactity to misunderstand what God shares or bias it with their own expectations.

Being a leader or instructor of God's ways does not rely upon saying "I am a leader of ..."  Nor does it rely upon people agreeing with you, following your wisdom, or even seeking to be in your presence.  Being a leader simply means encouraging people to seek God and copy him.  Maybe you will get to instruct how to do this.  Maybe not.

**

What does this have to do with covering and accountability?  Basically, no matter how fine they sound, it is difficult to read anything in scripture to support the way local churches define and apply them.

covering

Covering, in the church, is when a person watches over the well being of another by taking spiritual guidance for the one they are caring for. It tends to operate in a hierarchy of people watching over the ones 'beneath' until the most senior church member is reached, and then God (see figure).  In the case of a local church, this person is the head pastor or priest.  In some denominations, this continues through to leaders from the parent church. A familiar example is the pope of the Catholic church.

Does the bible support any of this?

• Are we asked to care for one another as community or due to spiritual seniority? (Mt 22:37-40; Jn 15:9-17)
• Should pastors or any other role be elevated above or to the exclusion of another? (Eph 4; 1Co 13)
• Should people who instruct others be questioned about what they say? Why? (1Co 12:10; 1Jn 4:1-6)

Yes, we need to listen and consider, but because it is God gifting, not because we owe them something.  Indeed, any gift requires giving without expectation of a return to the person, but to God himself.  Thus the notion of covering seems to be a result of adapting scripture to suit circumstances we created for ourselves.

accountability

Accountability is the system where you are watched and held responsible for your actions by someone else.  Therefore, if Christ is our one and only mediator, there cannot be anyone else who can fulfill the role.  Assuch, is it possible for church leaders to perform a 'covering' role without inserting themselves as a mediators.

When you hear someone advise you to work within the system that exists, please query them.  Ask why they are prepared to live in a way God doesn't want just because that's all there is available right now.

• Should you be accountable?  Yes, but to God alone.  Indeed let your yes be yes and your no be no.
• Should you submit to people in a role of authority?  Yes, but not due to their title but because they are family.  Likewise submit to everyone.
• Should we vulnerable to one another?  Yes, but not because of someone's gift, role, experience, etc, but because our freedom was purchased, equally, by the sacrifice Jesus made (Eph 1:3-14)?  What are some examples of how we could be vulnerable to others?  (e.g. Eph 4:32; Gal 6:1-3; Jam 5:16)

Read More

following jesus is easy

Accepting to follow Jesus means choosing to change how you live, unless you are one of the lucky perfect few.

How does God ask us to live? To worship him with everything you are, and to love other people as you would hope others would treat you (Matthew 7:12). And, fortunately an example of being loved by someone else has/is already given. God.

Choosing to live is to love as God loves us (John 15:1-17). Indeed, anything you say or do, if it lacks love is nothing (1 Corinthians 13).

What does it look like to love as God loves us?

How would church activity need to change in order to start and finish in love?

God has given the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip his people to do what he asks them to do. Until, the church is unified in faith and knowledge of Christ in such a way that we are mature, that is measure up to the full and complete standard of Christ (Ephesians 4).

Is the church mature today?

Are people who say they are 'christian' pursuing teachings that sound like the gospel, but not? Which ones do you do this?

How are these teachings different, no matter how obvious or subtle?

Are people who say they are 'christian' speaking and living God’s truth with love?

What are some examples of how they should be speaking and behaving?

Are people who say they are 'christian' doing what God asks them to do or are they doing what people ask of them? What about you?

Read More

who is the head of the church?

Does authority exist even if we choose to ignore or not recognise it?

If so, does Christ's authority exist if we as believers or as the church collectively ignore or not recognise it, let alone disobey it

If yes, then would it be wise to discover and then stop doing everything that usurps his authority? Usurp? Yes, anything we do to take that does not belong to us.

What areas does the church currently do this?

How are you personally behaving to support this behaviour?

Read More

identifying a shepherd

ezekiel 34

To prevent people scattering, to keep them from falling prey to wild animals, God asks his shepherds to…

• Feed his people
• Take care of the weak
• Tend the sick and injured
• Look for those who have wandered away and are lost
• Guide people with gentleness and love

To ignore this is to become God’s enemy, he will hold you responsible for what happens to people.  He will…

• Take away your right to feed people
• Destroy those who are fat and powerful by feeding feed you justice!
• Stop you from feeding yourself

And, rather than relying on the shepherds, he will take it upon himself to …

• Search and find his people
• Rescue his flock from both the wilderness and failed shepherds
• Return them back home to the ‘promised land’ from among the nations
• Tend his people and give them a place to rest in peace
• Bandage the injured and strengthen the weak

overview

In short, when God’s shepherds don't do their appointed tasks, God promised to personally do what he had asked of them.  This was fulfilled by Jesus being sent to do what Israel should have done, but didn't.  Unfortunately today, this failure continues.  The ‘church’ being the new ‘Israel’ is not shepherding God’s people.

Who are God’s people?  Anyone.  Whether we acknowledge him as Lord or remain estranged.

.

Because the same expectations and consequences of being a shepherd (e.g. discipling) exist today as they always have,  God asks us:

[table id=1 /]

Are the pastor and leaders of your church personally doing these things themselves?  Are you (Revelations 1:4-6)?

Is it enough to speak about it, preach a sunday message/sermon, pray about it, delegate to others?  Or do we need to be involved in the day to day lives of people?

How does God consider those who don't do as he has asked?  He will consider them his enemy and will remove their authority, give them justice, and humble them in every aspect of their lives.  Yes, pastors, priests, elders, deacons, anyone he has asked to be his shepherds.  Does this also mean you (Revelations 1:4-6)?

conclusion

God wants to prevent people from scattering, to bring them home, and keep them from falling prey to anything that may destroy them.  He sends shepherds to help.  Are you helping?

Read More

church growth - paint by numbers

The following is a response to a spoken message by Tony Rainbow of Victory Church (Adelaide, Australia) to the people of Fusion City Church (Palmerston, Canberra - Australia)

audio link

introduction

Tony began by stating how there were about 120 believers gathered in one place after Christ's ascension (Acts 1:13-15). It was to these people Peter stood and spoke.

Please note this is the only scripture Tony uses during his entire message.

However, rather than putting this into the context of Jesus having asked them to stay in the city until they received the gift of the Spirit, Tony spoke of the significance of the number 120 in relation to human group dynamics:

• Ignores the broader church by prioritising the local
• Had it all together relationally
• Were all at everything which was connected with Jesus' training
• Relationships were like a family
• The leadership style was casual and collaborative
• Communication was informal and face to face
• There was an ease in how they gathered
• Everyone knew each other by name

But are these statements interpreted upon the bible itself or assumptions about small group dynamics?   For instance, where in the bible is proof that this or any other group knew the names of all their companions?  Indeed, was the group fluid, did people come and go?  Did anyone ever disagree on matters about God?

Instead, Tony suggests that these group characteristics, while being "the most awesome thing that could ever happen." But the problem comes when we "set this as the goal, we set a ceiling to the growth of the church, because that style of church only works with a certain number of people."

But why?  This assumption occurs when it is presumed people intended to continue gathering in groups of this size.  Why?  Because, the argument being made is to correlate church growth today with a particular gathering 2000+ years ago.

Where in this gathering is the evidence to suggest anyone intended to continue gathering in this way? What about other gathered people in the bible? Where during Jesus' life did he ever model this?

Why do people today find it necessary to justify church growth in terms of the number of people gathered?

bad logic

Arguments that try to build upon faulty assumptions tend to have personal agendas or opinions behind them. Why? Because the conclusion was considered before the evidence was sought.  Consequently, proof tends to be biased to justify seeing what we want to see.  Worse is when the bible is quoted in order to not only support the argument but actually pose it as God's idea in the first place.  The logic is: because scripture is "Holy Spirit inspired", "God's word", etc, then an argument no matter how flawed, given enough quotes, must be true.

This has occurred here with Tony.

Rarely do we allow God's word to speak for itself.

terra nullus

A further assumption being made by Tony is churches today are local in nature.  That is, a church is defined by the people who gather for services in a particular location. Yes, local churches today often have attendances of 80-150 people. However, what we forgot or ignore is local churches do not start, let alone grow, in a state of terra nullus. We falsely assume the territory our local church occupies or entered (planted) was not previously inhabited.

Was your church the first in the area you live?

And, if it was indeed a pioneer: was God there beforehand, or did God only start working in the lives of people when your church was established?

Sometimes it is a challenge to remember that your local church is but one of many, even within a few street blocks. And regionally, one among many many more.  No local church is an island unto itself.  As such, the church to which you belong is not 30, 80, or 120, but could actually be populated by many thousands.

misdirection

Tony: "Who wants the church ... to grow?  Most people want the church to grow but get stuck at a certain number.”

Tony: Churches get stuck at 150 or less because this is “about the most number of people a person can connect with.  Thus people naturally feel displaced once their group reaches 50-150 people.”

This argument continues to push the idea that church growth is about the number of people who attend a service or the number of people who choose to be members a local church.

How does God consider growth?  Is it about numbers or about invisible things like character?

If there are 100 people in a room singing hymns and listening to a message from the pulpit, how many claim to know God?  How many does God know?  Indeed, does God know anyone who is not in attendance?  Does he know them if they never attend a local church anywhere?  Is that enough?

Furthermore, if the church is indeed more than the local, how do comments like the one Tony raises, redirect how we view the importance of God dwelling among his people?

Finally, I put it to you feeling uncomfortable (displaced) is natural whenever we interact with another person.  The size of the group is irrelevant.  What matters is how you treat each person as they come.  Group size never dictates your relationship.

For a moment revisit Tony's conclusions about group dynamics in a personal way:

• Are all the relationships you have with people in your church fully healthy?
• Do you attend everything your church offers?  Do you need to?
• Do people in your church treat you like family?
• Is the leadership style of your church casual?  Does it seek guidance of other members?
• Do you communicate with people informally and face-to-face?
• Is interacting with people in your church effortless?
• Do you know everyone in your local church by name?

What does it mean if your church has less than 150 people and the answer to any of these questions 'no'? At the very least it means that group size does not determine our behaviour and attitudes.

What does help shape our behaviour and attitudes?

size culture preference

Tony: "Size in numbers is connected with a size culture needing to be broken,”

Tony: “The main problem to growth is size culture preference,”

Tony: “Bigger change is needed (when) shifting from one size to another within the same denomination (than it is to shift between) denominations of the same size.”

When read in isolation, each of these statements is accurate.  We need to become free to be God’s people no matter how big or small the group of people gathered is.  Unfortunately, this is not the context Tony is suggesting, as shown below.

What was Jesus’ focus?  Did he come for the whole world or was it dependent upon the number of people gathered, the church size?

Why did Jesus so often avoid crowds?

 be big or be small

The following is a list of differences between small and larger churches.  The argument posed was churches with large numbers of people (more than 150) need to do things differntly to smaller ones.  Hence, to grow, a church must change the way it does things.  In short, population size affects activity.  An additional conseuqence of this idea is that smaller congregations are inherently different.  But given churches, no matter their size have people in them, is this accurate?

1.  smaller churches are less complex than larger gatherings because as the group size increases…

• The less we will have in common with one another.

But, how does this match with what is written in Ephesians 4?

• Not everything can happen in one Sunday service anymore (e.g. prayer is shifted to prayer meetings, exploring the word to a bible school, discipleship into home groups).

But how could everything occur during a single church service anyway, regardless of its size? What about evangelism, or family, or helping neighbours, etc?  In other words, how does delegating what daily life to set times and facilitators help?  How could you for instance pray, understand God’s word, or disciple others at home, work, school, wherever you are during your week?

2.  smaller churches need less production effort than larger churches

• The more people involved, the more planning, lead time, etc is required to enable services and other activities to occur.  Events can no longer simply be thrown together as they are were with smaller gatherings.

To what extent are these events really necessary?  Are buildings, electronic audio devices, instruments, putting out chairs, etc essential to what God needs to do?  How do similar activities occur in parts of the world where money is non-existent?  Did Jesus live this way?  For Jesus, which came first, his mission or his method?

• Smaller churches don't value the importance of quality of their activities as much as larger churches.  For example, because they embrace people, they permit anyone to sing and play an instrument regardless of their ability. 

Good.  The day we prefer how good a song sounds over the willingness of people to worship God and embrace one another, will be a sad day indeed.  To worry whether visitors are “put-off” based upon singing ability says more about how people view us, than our desire to be in God's presence.  To believe singing ability affects whether people have a “poor” or good impression of the pastor's message, or will “attract people or not” is naive at best (1 Corinthians 2).

3.  the ministry roles of smaller churches are not as specialised as those of larger churches

• Small church ministries generalise what they do whereas larger churches specialise. 

Again, this is not a matter of scale.  God gives his gift for the entire church.  Hospitality, prophesy, teaching, etc are not dependent upon how many people are gathered but who needs to be equipped so they may do what God asks of them.  Why?  Because there are other people who either don’t know him or still need help to grow personally and as a community.

• Only one person who can bring leadership and direction to this church. Thus it is an indictment (strong wrongdoing) for this person to do tasks that others could do. 

Christ and Christ alone is the one and only leader and director of the church.  Placing a person as the sole hearer and interpreter of God's word is dangerous, arrogant, and controlling.  It encourages a false separation among God's people which may cause some to shirk their responsibility to speak with and listen to God directly, and others to not discern or question what they are told to believe and do.

4.  small groups of people do not experience changes to the same degree as bigger groups

• Because not everyone will agree on the course of action to be taken, power to decide
  needs to move away from the congregation (all people) to a leadership team (a few).  This will enable decisions to be made more quickly.
  

Yes, absolutely, there will be times when, maybe every time, when disagreement will occur.  But to justify this as the reason for concentrating this priveledge in the hands of a few has the potential to ignore insight.  At the very least sharing our differences, in a manner that is respectful of others, helps to bring us closer together.  If nothing else, it evidences the contempt and lack of trust some church leaders and pastors have for people.

To simply claim possession of the decision making for yourself is again dangerous, arrogant, and controlling.  Why? People are being asked to rely on Man rather than seek God, together.  The outcome, people are shaped in the image of the decision makers and not God.

So the next time you are invited to seek God about a decision, discern whether your consultation is genuinely being sought: are opposing views listened to and acted upon?  How is the decision to be made proposed: does it sound like they just want agreement on  something they have already decided on? Is there a personal agenda hidden among words that try to convince you that what is being presented is really God's vision?

• When people leave because of the changes, this proves the church is growing.

Why?  What if you are wrong and they were right?  Was consultation ever permitted?  Maybe people are leaving for totally unrelated reasons.  Are people who stay encouraged to speak with those who leave to find out why?

• There needs to be greater emphasis on vision and strength... churches need to do fewer things so they can do them well.  Likewise a church shouldn't try to do everything in the community, but try to do some things really well.  Both of these will depend upon the existing skill set and gift set.

While there is some truth in this, it ignores that regardless of the church size, there may never be every skill and gift available for what God is desiring to do.  It is not enough to limit what can be done based upon the resources available.  Doing this reveals a belief that we can do things in isolation and in our own strength.  Let us start by seeking God about what he is doing and how we need to grow and be equipped to accomplish it.  If this includes  cooperating with people outside our group, so be it.

conclusion

• What does God consider important when it comes to growth?
• Are we lending ourselves to a culture of self, preference, and prejudice?
• Should what we do be a by-product of the size of our church group or should what we do be a product of who we are in Christ?

Read More

real love = attending church

The following is a response to a spoken message by Tony Rainbow of Victory Church (Adelaide, Australia) to the people of Fusion City Church (Canberra – Australia)

audio link

 

Topic being shared: Staying the Course

For the most part this message shared was positive.  However, part way through Tony stated:

"a person's church attendance reflects their real relationship with God.  If they are not attending they are reflecting a lack of genuine love for Him." Tony Rainbow, Victory Church, Australia - 27 Nov 2011

Given the information of the rest of the sermon, the context for this is attendance of Sunday church services.

In other words, Tony was suggesting that people who do not regularly attend a church service lack a genuine love for God.  Alternatively, people only really love God if they attend church services, preferably every week.

(This kind of comment is in the same category as those that suggest "Your love for God is measured by the amount of money you give to the church.")

Shortly after Tony stated

"If you hang around (spend time with) people who hate the church or speak against it, then we are going to become like them."  Tony Rainbow, Victory Church, Australia - 27 Nov 2011

Unfortunately the implications of this are:

• No one should speak against anything a church does, even if it does or says something counter to what appears in the Bible
• Decision makers and leaders of churches view themselves as infallible
• Anyone who raises a question of how and why things are done is seen as a hater of the church and indeed the people involved in it

And even if it is possible to ignore these comments, what are the implications for our relationship with God?  Ask yourself:

• Who did God send his son, Jesus, to hang around?  Did he become like them?
• Did he speak against religious attitudes and behaviours or people?
• Who did Jesus send his disciples amongst?
• People who pursue a life that copies Jesus will be hated and persecuted because the world first hated him (John 15:18-27).  Why does Gods warn us about this?  Does it mean we are to run away or persevere?  What does each choice here say about how we view God and Jesus?
• The Bible teaches us that we are not perfect and we make mistakes.  Is this is a reason to limit our relationships to those who agree with us and behave like us (Mt 5:43-48)?
• Consider evangelism.  Who is the audience?  How can discipleship occur if we are not to spend time people who disagree with us?

Read More

building funds

background context

The 'head pastor' of a local church in Canberra, Australia, announced in December 2010 that a recognised prophet said God was "forcing Fusion through some doors".  He then explained this as evidence of the "coming to pass" of a building opportunity in Crace (purchase land and build a church building/centre).

discernment

Note: There is often a gap between revelation, interpretation, and application.  As such, there are a few ways to understand the above dynamics:

• the prophecy is true and accurately understood by the hearer
• the prophecy is true but interpreted through the desires of the hearer
• the prophecy is true but 'tailored' in such a way as to be accepted by the hearer
• the prophecy is false

As a third party, someone who did not hear the words directly from God, nor the one sharing, we must discern what is going on.  It is not enough to take things at face value.  We can personally talk with God, and he with us.  Also, both the 'prophet' and hearer, in this case a 'pastor' are both human.  They are capable of misunderstanding or biasing.

In this case, did the pastor have earlier desires to build a church building?  It may not have been publicly announced and even denied.

What if the opportunity doesn't succeed?

Does this make the prophecy inaccurate?  Or was it the interpretation?

• How will the 'prophet' respond?  Seek clarity and discuss how things have been received by themselves and those they spoke with, or will they pass responsibility off onto other?
• How will the hearer respond?  Will they admit their error and seek clarity, or will they justify their position?
• What is your responsibility?

what happened next

In this situation, the land was not offered and thus a building could not be built (Nov 2011).  The 'prophet' has been silent, Matt stated that God still desires this local church to have a building, and the congregation clapped and cheered in agreement.

more discernment

Was the prophecy false?  The answer to this is unclear, but it adds possibility it was simply misinterpreted.  God wanting this local church to "go through doors" may mean go places it had not before, but it does not need to imply buildings and property or even the social and emotional associated changes that go with them.  Did anyone ask God what he meant?  Did they do this before the person in charge (the pastor) finalised the interpretation?

Assuming there will be people who will continue to justify their position, what should you as someone who chooses to discern do?  Do you confront and ask questions, or do you keep silent, for whatever reason?

personal responsibilities

• Seek God's views on the matter, seek peace and an attitude of restoration.
• Speak where possible directly with the people who made or shared the prophetic statements.  Voice the concerns.
• If they listen great.
• If they do not listen, they are now responsible for what happens next.  Yes, it is up to you whether you act in support of the project (e.g. give money). But you cannot force anyone to change.

Should you voice your concerns with others?  Maybe, but if you do, please do it with respect for all concerned.  Remember we all can hear God inaccurately and then, out of love for him, act upon it.

resolutions

How can peace occur among those who disagree?  Does peace mean finding a compromise?  Does peace mean doing what you are asked because the person who asks you is your pastor, boss, parent, etc?  Does peace mean discovering the points of agreement and building upon them?

Read More

pastors and elders

Is church authority is limited to this one role?

spot the difference?  Are elders and pastors the same thing?

In other words, if someone is qualified to be an elder (as justified by scripture) does this make them a pastor?

If so, then anyone can and must be a pastor once they have the correct attributes. And while I do not dispute that pastors need to have these attributes, I do hesitate after reading Ephesians. This letter suggests God gave certain gifts, pastors being one, to equip his people so they could then do his work. Thus a pastor is not a way of living, it is a function. Pastors may help us gain what we need to do the work God asks of us, but does this make successful students new pastors? Surely, these attributes are true of all the gifts mentioned in Ephesians as well as any mature person.

Conversely the argument is made that if you are operating as a pastor, then you are an elder. Now while we should hope pastors are mature people, is this necessarily reality? Are there false pastors? Is it possible some people simply behave a certain way to gain approval or position? Look at what Jesus said to the Pharisees (Matthew 23). What about people who choose to start a church? Their intentions may be good, but does getting people to gather and conduct a service, with all its activities, give the right to call yourself a pastor?

scripture workshop
Look up the word poimen (pastor) in the bible. How often does it appear? Is the english translation pastor or something else? Do these references connect poimen with elders, congregations, local churches? If yes, how? If no, what are they speaking of?
When you do this just use the text you read and its surrounding context. Don't add personal understanding or the ways churches operate today.
connected link

Read More